Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion about the captured soldiers

POW/kidnapped/captive/hostage?

What should be the correct term for the captured soldiers? I don't think POW is correct, as Hizbulla does not adhere to the Geneva conventions with regards to taking prisoners of war, nor are they an army, nor was the capture during a war. So would the right wording be captured? kidnapped? taken hostage?--darkskyz 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A very well phrased question. We should ideally go with what the most significant usage is from external commentators. My hunch is that captive is the most likely. MLA 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Captive" or "captured" is probably best. POW is definitely not correct. (However, if the Lebanese army becomes involved, Israelis they capture would be POWs.) —Cuiviénen 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur on "captured". But POW status appears to follow from who the captured person is, not who did the capturing. And the guys captured here (like the fellow in Gaza) are covered by Article 4, so why shouldn't they be considered "protected" by GCIII? mdf 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually POW status is not who was captured, it is the group that did the capturing. This is because only parties that are signatories to the Geneva Convention are obligated to follow it. So for example, if Party 1 is a signatory to the Geneva convention and Party 2 is not, then if Party 2 captures a Party 1 combatant, then it is not obligated under the treaty to treat the combatant as a POW. This is exactly what happened in WWII when the Germans put British and US soldiers in POW camps and were (relatively) well treated, while Russian soldiers were basically put into concentration camps since the UK/US/Germany were part of the Geneva convention and Russia was not.

Eh? German treatment of Russian soldiers in WWII was a flat-out violation of the 1929 Geneva Convention [1] (see section 82). Article 4 of the GC III (1949) has nothing to say about who did the capturing (neither does the 1929 form). Article 2 says that signatories are bound only as far as non-signatories behave. I think it's fairly obvious that (a) a signatory will continue to insist, no matter what, on GCIII treatment of their soldiers held by the enemy, and, given this is "war" we are talking about, (b) should a mis-behaving non-signatory lose a war charges will be laid anyways. And to that extent, non-signatories are "obligated" "to treat the combatant as a POW". mdf 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We should probably go by what external commentators are saying, or use something neutral like "captive" or "captured". I don't think we're in a position to act as authoritative interpreters of the Geneva Conventions. --Delirium 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

yet kidnapped remains. I have seen several outside media sources use this word, but I don;t think that means it is NPOV. I am changing "kidnapped" to "captured."--Smallwhitelight 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed all instances of "kidnap" to "capture." If I accidentally broke links to news articles that use the "kidnap" wordin,g I will fix them in a short while. I considered leaving the POV language in the "reactions" section, but changed them pending review of the specific countries' wordings. If a country's official statement uses POV language, I think our inclusion should reflect that POV language in their reaction entry.--Smallwhitelight 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the need for NPOV and all, but using a weasel word like "captured" when you're talking about kidnapping is just pathetic and disgusting. Just because the MSM is too afraid to use the correct term doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be. When terrorists kidnap citizens of another country, why shouldn't you use the term "kidnap" ? I don't get it.

217.132.240.27 has been replacing every instance of 'captured' with 'kidnapped', against NPOV and against the clear consensus here. I'm going to begin reverting these changes. Damburger 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the use of captured not kidnapped as well.Hypnosadist 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, unsigned, anon user, if you think "capture" is "disgusting" and "cowardly," you are obviously the expert on NPOV and have no political agenda in your editing. Your inflammatory, unsupported, and anonymous charge does very little to sway the concensus opinion on NPOV language: "Kidnap" insinuates a criminal charge, a charge that is not considered acurate by all people involved in this conflict--not this discussion, but the actual shooting and blowing things up conflict. While you may not consider "captive" to be acurate or show sufficient bravado, it is a neutral term that is fully descriptive in all of its parts of speech and without any emotional or legal charge built into it. If you or other users feel that this is an anti-semetic view, then feel free to report me and those wh oagree with me; I am prepared to defend my self and my decision about the wording in this article. I don;t see any further benefit to this discussion; if you'd like to argue with someone, may I suggest the Yahoo! news boards or perhaps some other discussion forum .--Smallwhitelight 18:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kidnap: To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (dictionary.com)

"Capture" is an intentionally vague term used by the media. You can capture anything: a flag, a hill, your breath... but you can only "kidnap" people. And since this is done outside of war by an illegitimate Lebanese militia, it's not a case of "capturing" PoWs. --Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Smalllwhitelight - according to you then there is no such thing as kidnapping and anybody anywhere is subject to "capture". However those of us in the civilized world can ascertain the distinction. Capture implies a combatant within an existing conflict or in a disputed area. At the time of the kidnappings there was no state of conflict, as this was the event which triggered it. And unless you want to go out on a limb, where it took place is also not disputed territory. Should every border patrol in the world be subject to "capture" by your definition, every country would be in a state of war. And I think you should leave your personal insecurities out of this discussion too. --Craven Maven 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the circumstances, these were soldiers seized by militants. A military action, which met with a military response, not with criminal proceedings. "Captured" seems to be an appropriate choice, especially as it is widely used in sources. Zocky | picture popups 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

At this moment, the article again calls it a kidnapping, despite the above discussion that capture is the neutral term to describe what happened. There were suggestions that "capture" makes it sound somehow heroic. I said above:

The dictionary definition of "to capture" which applies here is: "To seize or take possession of by force, surprise, or stratagem; to overcome and hold; to secure by effort".

Another thing I found is from Legal dictionary. It's about ships, but it makes clear that a capture does not have to be legal to be a capture: "Capture is deemed lawful, when made by a declared enemy, lawfully commissioned and according to the laws of war; and unlawful, when it is against the rules established by the law of nations."

That should hopefully clear up any concerns. Zocky | picture popups 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we now know that the word "capture" does not have a heroic conotation when used in this sense (it may be different for capturing hearts and minds, but that's not what we're talking about), and that captures can be both lawful and unlawful, I think this matter should be settled. I'll go change the wording in the article, and would expect anyone who disagrees to bring strong arguments to the talk page before reverting back. Zocky | picture popups 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Again people are changing capture to kidnap and taking hostages, even though we have discussed this above, and it seems clear that "capture" is neutral while "kidnap" isn't. Everybody seems to be calling it a capture now, including the US president at today's news conference. Further changes of this kind should be reverted on sight, otherwise this will just go on and on. Zocky | picture popups 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

With the US President's intellectual weight weighing in for the use of the word "capture", I am willing to cede the point to all his intellectual peers and congratulate them on their precience. --Craven Maven 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did Hizbollah cross the border?

Does anybody know where the kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers initially took place? Jakro64 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

POV resolution

OK. So what's not resolved? Can we maintain a list so we don't keepthat ugly and redundant POV tag up forever? --Elliskev 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey this extremely bias

There is no citation to support that other countries or "leaders" blame Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. Israel is the only country to make this claim.

"The international reaction to the crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel. At the same time, many leaders have stated that Hezbollah initiated the crisis and Lebanon shares responsibility for letting Hezbollah operate within her jurisdiction. Many nations have also expressed concern of a possible escalation of the conflict. [76]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.112.57 (talk • contribs).

Agreed. The citation given does not support the claim. I have removed it. --Elliskev 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the citations? Clicking the little numbers does nothing. Where can I find the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??

---

From International reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis:

The Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller said that the Lebanese government has to take responsibility to prevent further terror attacks from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Bill Frist said that the Lebanese government should uphold its responsibility under a U.N. resolution to make sure its territory isn’t being used for Hezbollah or other groups.
--JWSchmidt 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese government was supposed to disband the Hezbollah militia. They didn't, instead, they let them run amok in their country. So what are people to think? That the government should not be responsibile for organization they sheltered despite attempts by those other world "leaders" to stop them? Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Most people know that the Lebanese Government was not and is not equipped to deal with Hezbollah. Any attempt to disarm them would have created civil war. Moreover, Hezbollah has a better funded and better equipped military than Lebanon. Many people in Lebanon see the Hezbollah militia as the only armed forces that can defend them from Israeli incursions.

POV description

Do we really need this gory description:

"one of whom was shown on Lebanese and Arab television to have been decapitated, while all that neighbours could find of their baby's body was its head and torso"

in an encyclopedia article? Equally gory statements can be made to describe deaths on the other side, but they have no place in an encyc. article.89.138.118.113 07:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. 71.123.235.70 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but there should be some statement that refers to civilian infrastructure and civilians fleeing that are being targeted by Israeli airstrikes and artillery. Israel is not just going after Hezbollah but punishing the entire population of Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions.

Kudos

Wow, I gotta say, I really think kudos are in order for you guys. To have such a complete, accurate, and balanced article on such a controversial and constantly-changing topic in so short a time... I gotta say I'm impressed. I know there are probably eight hundred big and little debates debates going on over numbers, wording, and probably everything else in this article, but overall it looks amazing. A nice slice of pie for all who've helped out! --Gpollock 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Violation of international law

Please do not revert the sentence about violation of international law. This is not my personal POV it is a fact. I have a law degree with a specialisation in international law and I believe I am qualified to make such a statement. I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with other similarly qualified individuals. Israel does not have any special rights that allow it to freely violate the Geneva Convention without those violations being noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs).

Yeah, I have a law degree with a specialization in international law, too, from one of the best law schools in the world, plus I work in the field, and I'd say any discussions of violations of international law at this point are pretentious. As a matter of practice, the only international law that matters in war is customary international law, so discussions of treaties are silly, since, in practice, countries can withdraw from them at will. (And if you don't believe me, go ask the International Court of Justice following its decision in U.S. v. Nicaragua.) Epstein's Mother 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So then you know that waging aggressive war and committing war crimes is a clear violation of jus cogens. AntonioBu 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jus cogens is the fuzziest and least helpful aspect of international law. It has too much of the "pornography definition" to it (i.e., "I know it when I see it.")Epstein's Mother 04:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not permit original research. Only published information can be used as a source for our articles, and your personal conclusions based on your professional experience are not published information. --Delirium 06:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And BTW if you wish to follow this policy then please go through the article and remove all the uncited sections. They are numerous. Perhaps you could also remove the large chunks of uncited research appearing in articles you have written too. AntonioBu 07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that comment, and while I understand that Israel did break the geneva conventions, I really don't see an encyclopedia making the -argument- that Israel broke the geneva conventions. It is an argument until a widely recognized court convicts Israel of breaking them. Again, this is wikipedia and people are reading these articles to get NPOV facts. Yes, you might think this is a fact, and hell it probably is a fact, but its place is an analysis of the conflict, not an encyclopedia article. I don't want to start an edit war so I won't delete it again, but please respond here asap so that we could come to a conclusion :) --Jadelith 06:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Following this logic, that means that technically Hitler didn't commit any war crimes because he wasn't convicted by an internationally recognised court. If someone is murdered that doesn't mean to say that they is no murderer if the person is not brought to trial. The law stands - there is an international law against the invasion of other countries, and the Geneva Convention also has regulations about the proportionality of attacks, eg, use of weaponsin civilan areas, use of force aginst the size of the enemy. The essence of this particular Geneva rule is you are not allowed to use a hammer to crack a nut. Israel, whether we are supporters of the country or not, is breaking this law and this convention. ariddles

Delirium, I did not make that judgment based on professional experience but on the continued opinions of a wide range of international bodies based on the typical operating procedure of the IDF. The amount of uncited, unresearched writing on wikipedia puts paid to your argument. My comment was not unresearched. So no, sorry to you actually. It is an important issue that must be addressed. And Jadelith, it is not an argument that until a court 'convicts' Israel there is no breach as there is no international judicial body currently capable of prosecuting Israel as a state party due to the continued interference in such processes by the US. Breaches of international law can and do occur without direct judicial sanction for this very good reason. International law is not a law of courts and juries to the same extent individual state law is. I believe thats where your confusion may have arisen. To further extend my analogy, if you stab someone, you breach the criminal code of your nation. You may never be convicted but you still committed a breach. This case is a clear breach. AntonioBu 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, its true that a US backed israel may never be convicted of anything, and yes it is unfair. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it cannot allow the analyses of individual persons. While I understand that the unnecessary bombings of civilian buildings are a clear cut case of a breach, us (you, me, delirium, and everyone else here) as individuals are not officially recognized bodies of such jurisprudence: what we have to say cannot be recognized as facts. If I stabbed someone, and even if everyone in the world just knew I did it, they can't punish me if they cannot prove that I did it. and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot add a comment like that until either: a) another government official or b) UN accused Israelis as breaching the conventions. We can only report stuff, and your personal opinions are only analysis. --Jadelith 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unfair. You have perhaps missed my point. A breach of international law can occur without there being a judicial conviction. That is a part the very nature of international law. I have added a third citation, please note in the sixth paragraph the quote by Kofi Annan.

ahhh.. a breach of international law CAN occur without there being a judicial conviction. but, we need a recognizable outside source saying that these breachings occured, because otherwise we would be saying that as an individual. it might look very simple and clear-cut to you but it is an analysis. an encyclopedia can only write events that happened and quote the analyses of important officials (government officials, UN, etc).

if you really want to add anything, add it to "international response" page under "UN". you can say something like "and the un officials criticised the Israeli attacks, saying that "blahlbahblah"". what you are doing to this article is vandalism. (and no I'm not deleting your ideas, someone else is. I try not to delete anything as it is a possible vandalism) --Jadelith 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If laws preclude these actions then do we need to say that an international body has come out and condemned Israeli action? If the law stands and is broken, and it is broken. If someone is murdered, the law is contravened whether someone says so or not. It would be "vandalism" if we ignored international law. If you want to balance the argument then sure, say that Hezbollah violated international law too. Doesn't mean to say that Israel didn't break law too, or in a worse way..

My edit is cited. The article is full of totally uncited sections as is this entire project. You have no right to accuse me of vandalism. You're splitting hairs.

Read the international response. It is already criticising Israel as violating international law and the calls will only grow as the Israeli incursion continues. So this commentary will end up in this article. Thank you. AntonioBu 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AntonioBu, what you cite is the text of Geneva Convention, not the verifiable source saying that Israel has violated it. Once you have a verifiable source saying that "Israel violated Geneva convention by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure", and once that source is different from AntonioBu's private opinion, you are welcome to come back and insert a reference to that opinion either here or in the Reaction page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

What you cited does not justify your writing. Your cited the geneva convention itself, and UN officials condemning Israel for the offensive. The project is not full of totally uncited sections. Wherever we see them, we ask them to be cited. International response is indeed criticising Israel, but it is already written there. Someone who wants to read about this conflict will be able to read the international response by clicking on the aforesaid link. Someone who wants to read the assault on Lebanon should be able to read a nonbiased description of the attacks by israel on lebanese civilians/infrastructure etc. The reader does not need the analysis of the encyclopedia author. Even if we end up using international response in the article, it would belong in an "Aftermath" section.--Jadelith 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I have said is biased. It is the truth. I cited the convention because I mentioned it in the sentence. That is standard academic procedure. I see at least two 'citation needed' tags plus other non-referenced comments. Just what is your agenda here? AntonioBu 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please no original research. Also please refrain from speculating on other editor's motives, see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You should also be aware of the three revert rule, violation of which may result in an edit block. Weregerbil 11:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia is not a place for academic procedures or academic research. The other places needing citation are undisputable; your private opinion that 'Israel has violated Geneva convention' is not. Besides, the fact that other material is not 100% conforming is not a green light for someone to go on and add more non-conforming material. We are trying to raise the bar here, not to put it down. (By the way, the Israelis have the explanation for their actions against civilian infrastructure; they claim that these are either used by Hizbullah to smuggle or transfer weapons, and besides they are isolating the country to prevent transfer of kidnapped soldiers to Iran; as such, they are not targeting civil infrastructure but the military one, and its not their fault that the infrastructure serves both purposes. Should I add citations to the article?) Anyway, from Israeli POV they are NOT violating Geneva Convention. --87.69.70.61 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? And the Israelis must have a justifiable point of view. The last point of view to be believed in this situation is of the combatants, who have vested interest in claiming legitimacy for their actions and that means both Israeli and Hezbollah. My god, an encyclopaedia is not a place for academic procedures?! I cited my contribution and the material I mentioned. An encyclopaedia demands academic procedure by its very nature. I keep saying it is not my personal POV it is fact and Israel's POV in this is hardly relevant. If they are the violating party do you think they would say they are committing those violations. I apologise for questioning someone's agenda but don't threaten me with being blocked. Thats not exactly civil behaviou either. AntonioBu 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are an international law expert, the proper way to add the assumption that Israel violates international law would be to publish an academic work stating such in a respected, peer reviewed law journal, then add that claim citing that work, not simply say "here is the jeneva convention, what they are doing is clearly in breach of it." I am not in international law expert, and by reading the geneva convention I cannot say without doubt that Israel is in breach of it, neither can I say that about the other side. This is original reaserch, not common knowledge, and does not belong here. --darkskyz 12:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a fact until somebody else who is verifiable and reliable decides it is a fact; one's personal opinion is neither verifiable nor reliable. Israel might say one thing and Hezbullah some other; until now, it was you who decided that the targets were civialian (and not, for instance, serving dual - civilian and military - purpose) and it was you who decided that the targeting was deliberate (and not, for instance, made by mistake or by misunderstanding or such). The decisions of this type is exactly what is called original research. As such, it will be omitted from this article, as Wikipedia policy demands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.69.70.61 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 July 2006.

Wikipedia is not a place for academic original research. Regarding the WP:3RR rule: please do not take that as a "threat", I was merely making sure you know the policy and the consequences of violating it. I think it is more fair to make sure you know about it rather than have any possible block come as a surprise. I now see you know the policy and still continue to revert; this way you are violating it by conscious choice rather than as an honest mistake. Weregerbil 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added this information back into the article using the "apparent contravention" formulation, since that appears to be an acceptable NPOV formulation, judging from its use in relation to resolution 1559 in a less contested area of the article Jacob 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly the same case. Resolution 1559 calls for the dismenteling of all armed militias in the area. I doubt anyone says that the Hebollah isn't "an armed militia in the area." JC is concerned with the ntentional attack on civilians, which is hardly clear at the moment. --darkskyz 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source which states that there was an "apparent" violation of resolution 1559? If so, please cite it or rephrase/remove the line from the article. Jacob 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From the resolution: "3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;" Does anyone claim that Hezbollah isn't a militia? --darkskyz 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case, finding a source to cite for the claim should be fairly easy. If there is no source, however, then the "apparent violation" of resolution 1559 does start looking very like original research Jacob 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We're back on the same route. Who is the source of the information that what Israel does is 'apparent' violation of Geneva convention? Unless there is a source for that claim (or apparent claim, or whatever) it is original research and is discouraged. You can say Jacob considers Israeli actions to be an apparent violation of Fourth Geneva Convention, and it would be reliable and verifiable, however this kind of POV apparently does not belong here. If you think that relation to resolution 1559 is in a need of citations or otherwise can be strenghtened, please do provide a source for it, thus improving the quality of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.69.70.61 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

Fair enough - The source was actually the Amnesty link provided, but I've clarified the text to make that explicit. Jacob 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jacob. Now it is based and verifiable fact. The problem is - Amnesty press release that you linked to relates to Israeli attacks on Gaza strip and has nothing to do with the current article, or with this Israel-Lebanon crisis at all. Could you please either fix the link to the relevant press release, or drop the relation to Geneva convention altogether. Thanks. 87.69.70.61 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that I'd pasted the wrong link, but ... Oh, the joys of edit conflicts.

Anyway, I also just noticed that Amnesty's reaction is already covered on International reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, so I've re-removed it from this article as it would be pointless duplication having it in both places Jacob 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A UN official has stated that Israel's actions are in breach of international law. Please see the final paragraph of the link I have now added. There is now no reason to remove the assertion that Israel is in breach of international law and any attempt to do so is nothing more than vandalism. AntonioBu 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is also being blamed with breaking international law, both by this official and the Amnesty International response (in international responses). And still, this belongs in the int'l response sections and not as part of the factual article. Or you may as well note that Hebollah's firing hundreds of rockets aimed at civilian population centers is a far clearer breach of int'l law. I personally don't care anymore - I'm tired of arguing with a someone who thinks just because he has a law degree he knows beter then anyone else. I hope other editors will continue this until a concensus is reaced and article changed accordingly rather then in a forceful act by one editor reverting his (POV) claims. Good night. --darkskyz 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then add a section about Hezbollah's violations, I won't complain. Violations of international law are a fact but obviously you can't grasp that. I understand that as an Israeli this personally effects you and your loved ones but try and remove yourself from the scene for a minute and understand that these incursions, yes by both sides, have violated international law and that is a FACT. I have now clearly cited my edit, it is not my POV it is now a fact. AntonioBu 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

This is the discussion about reported events/supposed events and source searches.

Ehud Olmert's 3 Conditions

Can we get a source for this one? Yossiea 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Syria ready to go to war?

[2]

Probably needs a better source. This seems to suggest that Syria may go to war, and if that happens then the shit will really hit the fan. I'll look around for additional sources.

Found one - Reuters. [3]

Not good. I'll try to edit it into the article. Mysticflame 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war

When does this become a war?

The Christian Science Monitor is quoting several people as stating that this is now a war, not just a "border skirmish." [4]. Under what criterion does this conflict become an official war? --MZMcBride 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Official declaration of war by at least one side would be enough. On the other hand, war doesn't have to be declared. For example, America's Congress last declared war in 1942, but many conflicts since then are commonly called wars, so the issue might still be up. In this case, current discussion of possible "escalation" probably does mean war, but only when the "escalation" starts ocurring. Yes, I find it quite confusing as well.--Planetary 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest people to regester in the army or any branch of the military.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.131 (talk • contribs).

• Yahoo News, 7-14-2006
• Christian Science Monitor article, 7-14-2006

The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the above linked CSM article: "With Israel's declaration of war not just on Hizbullah but on the entire Lebanese government..." ~~Flora "Call it what it is, a War"

[5][6] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one. Hello32020 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Ynet, Olmert declared war

Robin Hood 1212 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Source? I have scanned Ynet, and the closest I find is opinion articles, not hard news.

--Cerejota 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I have searched Ynet and I haven't find nothing. Probably mr. "Robin Hood 1212" has misread the op article... dott.Piergiorgio 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah has declared war. But I don't think they have national authority. --Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

So the chief of Hezbollah calls it open war. That's fine and dandy, but does he have the authority to declare war? And what about Israel? How are they responding? Are they calling it war or another rescue operation? --Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

I think that if A: Israel does declare war, and since both sides say it's a war, we should change to article so, or B: Someone else declares war and joins the fray. Just my thoughts.--Planetary 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Should now be called 2006 Israel-Lebanon war

[7][8] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one.

Let's wait what mainstream media does. If it turns out that the only ones calling this "The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War" are one guy and Wikipedia — well, aren't we going to look pretty silly then. Weregerbil 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be called war. [9]

Considering the lebanese governemnt's army (if you could call it that) has pretty much been beaten to a pulp, leaving hezbollah to be the primary military force in the area, and the fact that nasrallah pretty much declared war, Id say nows a good time to call it a war. -Zer0fighta 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah isn't a government official in Lebanon is he? Does he have the authority in Lebanon to declare war?

We all know that posturing is a very important and useful tool in this region. Both Nasrallah and Olmert talking about "open war" is just that - posturing. When/if this becomes a war, we definately won't even need to be discussing it here -- it will be obvious to everybody.--WilliamThweatt 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, This should now be called a war, but let's wait and see. If nothing else, I'll see what they call it on the 6:30 news. Back in 10 minutes --Crucible Guardian 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you call this a war? Israel versus Hezbollah? Hezbollah is not a country. The country of Lebanon never declared war on Israel, yet Israel is attacking targets that can hardly be considered "Hezbollah Targets". The main road from Lebanon to Damascus cant be a hezbollah target. Bombing the Rafik Hariri Airport cant be a against Hezbollah. Israel will just keep bombing and bullying LEBANON for something a separate entity within Lebanon did. Capturing two soldiers did not cause this conflict. Israel's apartheid caused this conflict. --Erpals 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 1942 was the last us declaration of war, this is obviously not a war (..);) military agressions against neighbouring economys are acts of war. Have always been incite for wars. would lebanon war against the intrusion of their air space, territory, and the lives of their civilians , it at least to me seems they have a viable excuse to deploy weaponry on lebanese territory.

That they don't is both pragmatic and peacefull. btw... i think despite of the obvious and historic analogys, the security counsel would negatively judge any arab(lebanese) militant response, and so would western opinion. (the guys making wikipedia, amongst others) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

I think it is completely wrong to call this an Israeli Lebanon War. Ehud Olmert said he was at war with Hezbollah. He holds Lebanon accountable but has not declared war on Lebanon. Further Lebanon is not fighting with Israel. It takes two for a war. This is a "war on terrorism" if anything.

But who are the terrorists now? Those who capture soldiers? Or those who bomb civilians, destroy airports, roads, energy supplies, ...?

I think it should be called something different than a "crisis", since both Israel and the Hezbollah have declared war. This war (or conflict, whatever) isn't so much about the country of Lebanon, but of Hezbollah who controls it. dposse 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflict sounds appropriate (imagine two countries in Europe launching this level of violence on each other... the naming wouldn't be crisis I'm sure.) Tell me to get back to work! 05:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now a war, IMO

With the Hezbollah attack on an Israeli ship, I think the title should now read "2006 Israeli-Lebanonese War", or something like that. Beckstcw 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Beckstcw

i agree, especially now since both parties, Israel and Hezbollah are calling it a war.--70.39.205.84 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But that would make it the "2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War", wouldn't it ? The government of Lebanon is not sending troops, as far as I know. StuRat 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'United States war in Afghanistan' is not called 'US-Taliban' war. Hezbollah takes part in Lebanese government and Lebanon claims its forces are a legitimate Lebanese force, refusing to abide UNSCR 1559.--Lior 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban controlled the Afghan government completely (excluding Northern Alliance areas), while Hezbollah is only a minor party in the Lebanese government. There's a big difference there. StuRat 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban was never the recognized government of Afghanistan, they were seen as rebels. The recognized government was that of the Northern Alliance, an ally of the USA, yet it is still the Afghan War. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is the most significant armed force in Lebanon, using its grounds to attack Israeli towns. Had it been a minor political party, this entire bloodshed could have been prevented. You may personally object the Israeli actions, but it still doesn't change the nation's name from Lebanon to Hezbollah.--Lior 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The US was at war with the official government of Afganistan, which was controlled by the Taliban. The 400,000 members of Hezbollah do no represent the official government of Lebanon and its remaining 3.1 million people.

The Taliban was never the recognized government of Afghanistan, they were seen as rebels. The officially recognized government was that of the Northern Alliance, which was an ally of the USA - despite this, it was the Afghan war. Wars are named for where they are fought, not necessarilly who is being fought. For instance, the Battle of Normandy was not even fought against people who lived in Normandy, it was fought against Germans. Yet it was named for where it was fought. So too would this. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, using yours and Lior's line of reasoning, it should be called the The Israeli war in Lebanon.

If you want to call it the Israeli-Hezbollah War fine but I think it is completely wrong and pretty biased to call it an Isreali Lebanese War.

Its taking place in Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Much like the Iraq War is so named due to it being in Iraq, although the government of Iraq is infact on the coalitions side at this point. I am not sure that this can classify as a "Crisis" considering the scale for which it has reached. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But the US was at one point at war with the official government of Iraq (under Saddam). This is not the case here. StuRat 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference being that US declared war on the official Iraqi Government. This has not been the case in this conflict. Israel is not officially at war with Lebanon but with Hezbollah.

Nope, there was no declaration of war against Iraq by the USA. And as Lior pointed out, the war in Afghanistan was not even against the officially recognized government, it was against the Taliban - a group seen merely as rebels. The government recognized by the USA was the Northern Alliance, a side that has always worked with the USA during the war. Yet it is still the Afghanistan War, not the Taliban War. There is no POV issue by naming it the Israeli-Lebanon War, or 2006 Lebanon War, or anything of that sort. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban did control the government of most of Afghanistan, regardless of what was officially recognized, which really doesn't much matter, and either do official declarations of war. StuRat 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, using your logic then, it should be called The Israeli war in Lebanon

Ah, but the problem there is that it is not solely in Lebanon, whereas the US war in Afghanistan is (I have issues with that name too by the way, it wasnt just the US that invaded.) That is why I beleive it should be the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, as it is taking place in both nations. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Youre killing me :) ... I have a problem with Lebanon being named because the country and government are not fighting this war. A minority terrorist group is fighting this war and to include Lebanon as a combatant and include them in the name is misleading, unless you are referring strictly to the war taking place in Lebanon. It may not be a POV issue but it is still misleading.

Everything can be taken the wrong way, such as the above stated Battle of Normandy. Someone might think that it was against people who lived in Normandy, though it was infact fought against Germans. Thats why the old phrase comes in, dont judge a book by its cover. If you read the article itself you will find out what the battle was about - likewise, any confusion over what the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war is can be cleared up by reading the article. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a wager of 1 brownie point that if this turns into a full-scale war, it will be called the Lebanon war or some such thing, but let's leave the article where it is until sources come up with a permanent name for it. Zocky | picture popups 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? This has far exceeded a "crisis," compare it to the Cuban Missile Crisis where nothing happened. Not only has something happened, hundreds are dead, and hundreds of missiles, rockets, and explosives are going off. You have to lower your threshold for what is a war, something doesnt need to be on the scale of WW2 to be called one. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean that we can't decide what this war is called. We have to wait until politicians, media, etc. decide what to call it and then move the article to that name. Until that happens, this name is as good as any. Zocky | picture popups 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there could be something about why everyone is so reluctant to call it a war. I have seen numerous sources using and citing phrases such as "amount to war" or "amount to war crimes"; it seems there is no real distinction between what is going on and a war - other than an actual declaration of war?--Paraphelion 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The title is definitely biased. This is an agression agaist a sovereign country. The title of the article should reflect that.--tequendamia 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alles klar, but which country? --Lior 08:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

we already have a name: 1982 Lebanon War, why not use it?--TheFEARgod 10:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are so many Wikipedia editors so eager to call this a war? The very first day Israel started its operation a group of people created a page called 2006 Arab-Israeli War which speculated that the operations in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as Israel's fly-by into Syria, were all part of a new major war in the Middle East. Not until I put the page up for deletion, and after a lot of debate, did they eventually agree to change the title to 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict. I now see the same editors screaming that we must right now change the title of this article "2006 Lebanon War". Why this urgency? Please hold on. War normally means massive amounts of people and material thrown into a conflict, and in all previously Israeli conflicts which today are called wars rather than operations, Israel has at least done a general mobilisation and put a 100,000 people or more into uniform. So far they have only called in some reservists; a routine measure they have done whenever they have launched any kind of operation in the past. The situation is serious, but so far it's not very different from numerous operations into Lebanon that Israel has done in the past, like Operation Litani. There has until now been only one "proper" war between Israel and Lebanon during the past 58 years, the one in 1982, when Israel moved in with some 80,000 soldiers and at least 10,000 people died. Let's hope that will be the only war between these two countries instead of eagerly anticipating another one. Time will tell, but until it's official, let's keep the current title. Thomas Blomberg 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, your accusations are false. Noone said it was a full scale war between all Arab nations and Israel. The article was not made due to speculation it would get bigger, it was made because of fighting in Lebanon and Gaza. When the person thought of what to possibly name this, he came up with 2006 Arab-Israeli war. If you had an issue with the name, you should have brought it up in discussion and not deletion - even though it was renamed people dont understand and have continued to vote to delete it. Bringing something up for deletion is a last resort, and your doing so at such an early stage has severely set back its progress, as all discussion on it is about its deletion. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What we're discussing here, is why people are so eager to call it war. And, as a matter of fact, I first tried discussing the matter on the 2006 Arab-Israeli Wartalk page but didn't get anywhere. My main reason for suggesting a deletion, however, was not the name issue, but that I found the article to be a speculative attempt to turn separate operations into being one and the same conflict. Thomas Blomberg 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with ~Rangeley (talk). This is clearly a conflict between the country of Israel and the Hezbollah. Since both sides have declared war, this is now a war between these two, and i agree with the person who created this discussion. dposse 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is (just) a war, in the sense that the Lebanese Government (however tenuous that might be) didn't exactly give Israel permission for the attacks. If any othe rnation (Syria, Iran, Egypt, US, UK, etc) gets involved then it is definatley a war. Cryomaniac 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be updatded to show at least 35 civilians in Lebanon killed. The article on Wikipedia is actually biased toward Israel which is similar to the mainstream media. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060715/wl_nm/mideast_dc_358;_ylt=AlNNEi8KvDyXzXdzBjN_NfsUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVPUCUl

I see no reason to call it a war until either side calls it a war or maybe a mainstream source calls it a war. However it might be interesting, if sources exist, to include something about why the world at large is reluctant to call it away, despite Israel, Hezbollah and many other organization saying things like "[the conflict] amounts to war". I haven't seen any talk of that yet, but I haven't had a chance to look.--Paraphelion 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

but both sides have called it a war. It's in the introduction! dposse 17:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

DEBKAfile (www.debka.com) is calling it a war (see http://www.debka.com/pictures/Lebanon.jpg), for what it's worth UOSSReiska 07:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it a "conflict"?

That sounds like a good compromise to me. It's bigger than a crisis, but it isn't officially a war. It's an armed conflict involving Israel and Lebanon. 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, then, seems reasonable to me. It's clearly an armed conflict, and it clearly involves Israel and Lebanon. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this not called a "war"?-DePiep 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed above, but basically we can't call it a war until it widely referred as such. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is discussed above. But I do not agree about widely referred as a criterium. Occuying, shooting, civil deaths: that's war to me. Some global opinion (or US/Washington opinion) is too little to wait for~, and cannot be discussed with. To me: it's a war. -DePiep 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: we cannot engage in original research and must back all claims with reliable sources. Until such time that "war" becomes widely accepted as a description of this specific event, we cannot call it that. Happy editing, Tewfik^Talk 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

Does anyone know which Israeli Navy vessel was hit?

Does anyone know the name and/or class of the vessel? Sijo Ripa 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I discovered it was a missile boat. [10] Israel has three types (Saar 4 class missile boats, Saar 4.5 class missile boats, and Saar 5 class missile boats). Now I wonder which class it was. Sijo Ripa 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz in hebrew is reporing it is a Saar 5 class missile boat. [11] --darkskyz 00:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the news into the article regarding the missile hit on a civilian merchant ship, according to Israeli sources. [[12]] Any further information regarding this..... ? Ryanuk 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't which type the boat is, but Ynet has its name [13] (look at the bold gray heading) - heb: אח"י חנית. Should be INS Hanit or Khanit. According to the article INS Dakar (heb:אח"י דקר), the אח"י should be translated in this ship to INS too. Máfiàg 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's INS Hanit. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Casus beli infobox

I changed the casus beli in the infobox to a less awkward one, does "Border attack by Hezbollah's military wing killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers, in attempt to release Palestinian POWs held by Israe" seem NPOV enough to everyone? --darkskyz 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It does, however someone added a "followed by an Israeli retaliation", which is NOT a Casus Beli (I think :) ) Shahar

Hezbollah Motive

I think it is worth noting in the article that Hebzbollah's motive is actually complete distruction of Israel. [14] As it is read, it makes it seem like Hezbollah's entire purpose is to regain a 20 sq km parcel of land from Israel. Masterhomer 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation needed

I think the article needs more explanation of the right of a country (in this case Israel) responding militarily in a general fashion against another government's (Lebanon's) assets after an attack by a specific non-governmental organization within the other country. It is an unfamiliar concept in international relations to many people, I think.

I know the U.S. action against Afghanistan in 2001 is somewhat analogous, but in that case the U.S. seemed to be trying to overthrow Afghanistan's government, whereas in this case it is more a matter of reprisal (or is it? this is where explanation is needed).

The lack of an explanation of this concept may affect the NPOV of the article, since if people do not understand what principles are involved they may think that Israel is acting irrationally or unjustifiably rather than by established principles of international/military practice. It might clear up some of the arguments I'm seeing in the Talk page. --Cam 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of raids against 'a specific non-governmental organization within the other country' is actually all but uncommon, ethiopia-somalia and sudan-uganda (i think) have loads of these incidents. It's a side effect of the (also israelian) ethnic cleansing policys, when you push a certain people(ethnics) into another territory they will naturally agitate from there ( compare the dutch queen in brittain (ww2)). any resistance movement supported by the west is called a "shadow government" in this context actually;)

Now about established principles: It's an established principle that governments and military authorities understand the results of their cause of actions, and actually its common sense these institutions are there to anticipate them. So regarded israel will have anticipated hezbollah reactions. Quitte possibly to a wider extend then any member of hezbollah herself. Thus reasoned israel has no excuse at all. therefore established principle is: the status quo decides what history will tell us. onix80.57.243.72 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"The fighting began at around 8 AM on July 12, 2006"

Clarification: Is this local time? -Litefantastic 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. corrected accordingly. --darkskyz 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Though as this is a continuation of Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, is it really fair to claim that "It all began when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers"? Israel is just using that to justify further actions in Southern Lebanon just as they did in 1982 and 1967. I think to start out the article in such a fashion displays a bias towards Israel in the opening paragraph! 209.101.103.133 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Flora.

Well, you might as well say it all began in 1948 when israel was founded or when the first jewish settlers came to israel some 130 years ago. However, the current hostilities started with the Hezbollah attack. --darkskyz 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Main Source

The Hezbollah and the other arab terrorism organizations have been hostile towards Israel for years. Two israeli soldiers were kidnapped in the Gaza Strip (among the two Gilad Shalit) and two in Lebanon. Throughout the last decade Israel has suffered many terrorist attacks, and it is time to take action and to make the terrorism units such as the Hezbollah and the Hamas to disarm. Israel, as a country, has a total right to defend itself in a matter of attacks, and may I mention that it was Lebanon who had started this combat. Israel's requests (a disarming of the Lebanese terrorism unit Hezbollah and the return of the two kidnapped soldiers) seem very relevant, and show that Israel wants to stop the terrorism. But, the core of the terrorism is not laying in Lebanon. Actually, Iran is the one responsible (and is very well know for it) for supporting terrorism. Almost all the weapons that Hezbollah and other terrorists own are continuously coming from Iran. And still, western "peace supporting" contries such as France and so, believe that the UN chairmen should keep talking and talking (instead of DOING, and to finish the terrorism organizations off), and thus blaming Israel for Lebanon's situation, we've all been in this scene before... I believe that the US should take action if they really want to put an end to terrorism (in which the UN has proved itself for doing nothing and only incouraging terrorism with their rediculous meetings) by attacking its main source, Iran.

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Split the article?

This article is getting quite large, so perhaps it would be a good idea to split it into a list of the Israeli attacks, and a list of the Hezbollah attacks? Damburger 11:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for the moment. The article has many pictures, references and templates which make it quite large. The article text however is not too large for the moment. Sijo Ripa 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not split things such as this up. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah/Iran mess in Background section

Can't we just get rid of all of it? It's relevant at Hezbollah, but not so much here. --Elliskev 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• And what makes The Sabra and Shatila Massacre so incredibly relevant to this current action? Or any more so than Damour, or any of the other tit for tat massacres that have taken place in the country, or did take place during the war? That is some very selective inclusion there.

Article Structure

This article needs an overhaul in it's structure. People are adding comments in a hurry leading statements to be repeated FOUR different times in random places leading NO sense of structure or timeline.

This article really needs to be locked for unregistered users and new users as it is quite a heated topic and could easily get out of control.--Ddahlberg 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this articled unlocked? Yesterday it was locked, and now today it is unlocked. --Kranar drogin 00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikidates

A minor point in all this, but could we put double square brackets around dates in order for them to show up correctly for readers? This is a non-US topic, so it is inappropriate for dates to be listed in US format (eg. "July 14th" rather than "14 July") Putting dates into correct wikidate format such as 14 July 2006 ensure that they show up in a reader's preferred format. --Jumbo 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the crisis, not the actors

While introductory comments might be in order, we must keep in mind this page is about the crisis, not about the actors in the crisis. Hizbollah, Lebanon, and Israel all have very long and informative pages, and these pages are linked form here. So all this talk about describing any actor, beyonf introductory purposes, diminishes the qualy of this entry.

This is not a POV issue, but one of quality of the entry. --Cerejota 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the status of the article

Can a semi-protection be put on the article

For example one user just changed captured to kidnap in like 5 seconds. While that one is arguable there are a lot of other vandalism in the article that is not. Times Square lebanon thing for example. 74.137.230.39 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is absolutely necessary, I guess we should. But it should only be temporary and be as short as possible. Lets get concensus though. Hello32020 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Although if its only small things that can be quickly reverted or changed then I don't agree Hello32020 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go for semi-protection. I had to do a massive revert because of people vandalising links. Damburger 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree with semi-protection (sad my accounts only 2-3 days old) Hello32020 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just take a look at edits history, I just came here and all I've been doing is reverting. 74.137.230.39 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope older users take my suggestions on the talk page. Is there a tag that says "This article may need semi-protection...visit talk page" Hello32020 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've listed it for semi-protection, in the future you can request protection by either directly approaching an admin or posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, <fontstyle="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik^Talk 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've approached two admins but neither seem to be logged in right now. 74.137.230.39 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I found one instance of vandalism in the last 30 minutes. Am I missing something? -Ganeshk (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have slowed up a bit. Articles generally will fluctuate but this suprises me. When I was on, I saw numerous different vandals. On one other note, is it really wise to take off the NPOV template. While little things have been heavily discussed, I doubt many have had a chance to step back, and make a decision on whether or not it is neutral. I don't know but it wouldn't be a bad precautionary template to use. That's just my opinion of course. 74.137.230.39 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now linked from the front page, so it is unlikely that semi-protection will stick. I also find it ironic that an anonymous user is asking for semi-protection ... you do know that would you prevent you from editing too, right? My recommendation is to register an account immediately. --Cyde↔Weys 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I realize that it will prevent me from editing too. I don't have much to add to this article at this point, for the people that do constant vandalism makes it difficult to expand, and clear up. 74.137.230.39 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Page has recently been semi-protected Hello32020 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the historical section there needs to be some explanation of the fact that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah, nor had the ability to disarm them. When reading the article it appears bias without that mention. I am not a strong writer, so if some one could take a crack at it, I think it would be a valuable contribution towards balance.

Note 7

Is the text (and "citation needed" tag) before the citation in footnote 7 a bug or not? --zenohockey 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

yes it was a bug a result of someone not removing the fact tag after sourcing.--Cerejota 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I have fixed it.--Cerejota 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I haven't used revert before, someone says 6 million Israel civillians dead, don't know if they removed source, someone revert. Hello32020 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps

New Map

File:2006-Lebanon-Israel-crisis strikes-and-rockets.PNG

The map currently being used, Image:2006 Israel Hezbullah Conflict Map.png, currently has no source information and can be deleted. As it was posted by a new user, it is extremely likely that it was merely taken off a news site of some sort. I've created a crude map in MS Paint until a more professional, licenced version is acquired (Image:2006-Lebanon-Israel-crisis strikes-and-rockets.PNG). Please leave feedback as to whether it is appropriate and should replace the current map. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Put it up if we get some more supporters. Hello32020 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it too.--TheFEARgod 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have photoshop and can give it a go. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you also include a sampling of the Katyusha strikes? Many have penetrated significantly farther than the red "conflict" band, specifically at Safed where 2 people have been killed. Otherwise, it looks great. (check this Jerusalem Post map out for more info - I have others that I can supply) Tewfik^Talk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Better? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Map looks good. Good work, Rangeley. Sijo Ripa 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now it is slightly confusing. Could you clarify that those are areas subject to rocket attacks (in an NPOV manner - maybe specify what "conflict" means for each side of the border), and perhaps make note of Safed? Another minor point, the UN refers to the Int'l border as the "blue line" - if you don't mind.. ;-) Also, you can include it as soon as you like and tweak it with continuous uploads. Thanks Tewfik^Talk 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the map doesnt need to show everything. It shows the general area of where things are going on for reference, while the respective sections describe what exactly is going on. And what would I do about the border, exactly? Just make it blue? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if it works out visually; I wouldn't want to disrupt the image. I suppose you're correct vis-a-vis above, though I still think showing Safed would be significant. And by the way, how exactly did you get the basic map - did you get the background from somewhere or draw it yourself, or some combination? Tewfik^Talk 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I drew the map using some other maps as references for borders and city locations. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a new, more professional map. User:STREETasmyCanvas 4:00 pm, 14 July 2006 (EST)

File:2006 israeli-lebanon confli.png

Map of conflict as of July 14, 2006.

Sorry, just saw this. In any event, you should see if there is consensus from among others on talk to add it. I'll include it above. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. all maps are biased. none of them connotates beirut but teh talk is about the 60 miles zone. One clear thing on *all* these maps is it poses teh conflict as if taking place in palestine territory,for the *most* part, where its obviously not. you bunch of zionists:)onix80.57.243.72 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a more 'Encyclopedic' map of the conflict region(in SVG), based off of the CIA's maps, and those published above. I'll leave it up to someone more involved to put it up it will do the job.

Pictures

Main Picture (Infobox picture)

Aerial strike

I put up the original picture, of the black and white aerial strike. It is better than nothing, but I still really dislike it. I am having trouble finding adequately sized photos that qualify for fair use, so if anyone can find a better picture show it here so we can try and find the best. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible to resize pictures. A bit too small or way too large pictures are as a consequence no problem. What sometimes bothers me is the current trend to put "clean" pictures of wars in articles, such as the video game like air strike picture. That gives the impression that human casualties are only a secondary event (they are almost invisible), which is IMHO not the case. Sijo Ripa 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think our best bet for a free photo will be either a photo from a Wikipedian over there (doesn't seem very likely) or something from an Israeli soldier (are they in PD as with US soldiers)? As for fair use, any rationale will likely be somewhat thin as every image of the conflict has great commercial value right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, AP/Reuters images are no-no's, however images from the IDF site will be able to be used. They are just a bit slow to upload them though. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed two pictures, one being AP and one being Reuters. It's a pity we can't use them, but we have to stay clear of copyright-violations. Thomas Blomberg 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-POV picture

Somehow the IDF picture of the three soldiers with binoculars keeps being placed as the main picture for this article. Why? I'd argue it is POV picture from Israel's side, especially since it is an Irsael government photo by fair use. Why not go with the more neutral map of the middle east conflict area which provides more info and is more NPOV. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion. It's a general problem on Wikipedia: Pictures most of the time come from the most military powerful/wealthy conflict actor (USA and allies, USSR, Israel,...). This actor is shown in a bloodless decent picture. This is a form of systemic bias, simply due to the fact that pictures of these actors are more widely and freely available. A map could do the job, but is often used elsewhere in the article and as a consequence doesn't add anything new/interesting. Sijo Ripa 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the map in the Attacks on Lebanon is better than the photo of ONE sides forces.Hypnosadist 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the only violation of NPOV is the constant removal of this image. Its completely illogical, I find the Israeli blockade highly notable and also find it to be anything but constructive to continually remove it. It is not in violation of NPOV to show an image of one side, it tends to be what happens. I think the most pertinent image would be of either Hezbollah Katyusha rockets or Israeli artillery being fired as this is where the war is at now. Unfortunately for us, no free images, or images qualifying for fair use are available depicting this. An image of the blockade, while not the top thing I would go for, is certainly pertinent and notable. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a split photo (one picture that consists of two photo's - one of each side) could do the job? (A map would be a duplication as it would be used elsewhere). Please don't start an edit war however. Assume good faith and respect the three-revert-rule. Sijo Ripa 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but again, we do not have many photos to choose from at this stage. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the image is trying to avoid POV taken too far, IMO. Since when did pictures of Israeli naval officers mean we were supporting them? How on earth is it POV? Until we get a better picture, (and by better, I mean by conveying the character of the conflict), why can't that stay?--Iorek85 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I still support a good map but let me explain the POV some people see in the Israeli naval officers photo. They see it as three Israeli's looking cool killing lebaneese people. Thats why they do not like it, this is not a important piece of the article but will take up a lot of time/energy because of the emotions involved. Support the campain for the NPOV conflict map!Keep frosty people!Hypnosadist 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

...Yea, no. Its an oppinion that they look cool. The picture itself does not imply a point of view, it is not saying these are the good guys, any more than a picture of Hitler in front of the Eiffel tower in the Battle of France is saying he was the good guy. It is simply a picture of Israeli soldiers in the naval blockade. Perhaps someone finds Hezbollah attire simply dashing - it would be unreasonable to call a picture of them firing Katyusha rockets a violation of NPOV, it would be humorous infact. The image of soldiers is completely within the rules, and above that it is the best photo yet for the task at this time. The map is better put in relevant sections, not at the top. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ascribing your own personal opinion to neutral pictures does not make them POV. Unless the caption reads, "The brave soldiers of the glorious Israel reluctantly but galliantly destroying the Islamic scourge of Terrorism" then the picture is perfectly fine. If you think they look cool, thats up to you. They're not even killing anyone in the picture.--Iorek85 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think the picture of Hitler you refer to indicates Hitler's love for the Eiffel tower, in the picture in question, it is clear that Israeli Naval Officers are very fond of binoculars, which is POV on the side of binoculars and the binocular lobby.--Paraphelion 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article is about an Israel-Lebanon crisis, it should have an illustration which is relevant to a conflict with both sides. Tautalogical arguments like "It is not in violation of NPOV to show an image of one side, it tends to be what happens," are bizarre. Wikipedia should aim to be deliver quality better than what tends to happen. Regardless of the POV-ness debate, that is simply not a good picture - it doesn't convey any information other than when you have a naval blockade, you need men looking through binoculars. :) -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I happen to find it an interesting picture, moreso than a black and white explosion. Obviously it isnt the best thing out there, just look at the yahoo images slideshow. However those are press images, and as you know cant be used. It isnt bizzare to state an image doesnt have to show both sides. While field battles tended to be painted and captured both sides charging at each other, we just dont have that type of stuff anymore. Look at the Yom Kippur War article, Egyptian soldiers crossing the Suez. The 6 Day War, Israeli soldiers reach the Western Wall. I dont think either of these images violate NPOV, they depict events that happened, and notable events at that. This image is relevant to both sides of the conflict, the blockade isnt of Cyrprus or something, its of Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think it is hard to capture in a single image an strict NPOV. Not impossible mind you, but hard.

Good examples have been given of other articles about conflict in which only one side is portrayed. So this is not a tautological nor a weasel words prima facie, but simply a difference between the spoken word and the picture.

For me what is wrong with the picture is that it is a sanitized, propaganda picture, of one side. I actually prefer the explosion photo over that. The 3 binocular photo doesn't convey conflict, war, mayhem, or is particulary newsworthy even. Its just three heroically looking guys looking via binoculars at space. It is so *yawn* boring and bland it says nothing. For all I care it could have been taken years ago. Only a public relations officer of the IDF can find it newsworthy!!!

So I think we must find a better picture, even if all we can find is IDF soldiers in combat operations. Please, an exciting, newsworthy, real (not setup) picture that says something about conflict an war... In that sense, I don't understand why someone removed the map, which was actually quite good as an image, and ultra NPOV. As such, I am putting the map up, hopefully it will become permanent, or something better than 3 guys posing with binoculars far from any real combat or action pops up. I care more, when it comes to this one picture about its POV than it being a picture of actual combat or war, rather than a boring posed propaganda photo. --Cerejota 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have sent you a personal message, but I will say it here too.

Your objections are without base. The image is not in violation of NPOV, or any rule. Take a gander at Battle of France. The picture isnt of combat, far from it. The picture doesnt contain both sides. The picture is staged. But its NPOV, its an event, it happened. Take a gander at Battle of Berlin. The picture isnt of combat, far from it. The picture doesnt contain both sides. The picture is staged. But its NPOV, its an event, it happened.

These two things, Hitler in Paris, Soviet flag in Berlin, are still the best picture available in my oppinion. It is not at all a violation of NPOV to show them, and it is not one to show the Israeli soldiers on a ship, that is a silly claim. A claim with more base is that its not the best picture for the job, I entirely agree. There are amazing pictures out there of dust flying from artillery being shot, the dust blocks the sun and creates a really cool look. I think that has been the iconic image, for me, of this (and Operation Summer Rains for that matter.) Its been a common scene, and is how most combat is played out. Another great image would be of Hezbollah firing Katyusha rockets. But the problem is that we do not have any images of these that are free, or fair use. So far we have 2 images to choose from, a low quality black and white explosion, or the blockade. The blockade is by far the better image. Its not the best out there, but its the best we have. The map should not go at the top, it is better suited in the context of the conflict section, much like other wars or combats in which images are available. Maps in the infobox are a last resort, something we luckilly do not need to resort to. I am still looking for better images, I was the one who found the explosion to begin with, along with the one who originally replaced it. If you can find a free image of artillery fire or katyusha fire of sufficient size, that would be simply grand. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rangley, others have said and I agree: you have displayed a lack of good faith and have an attitude. For example, you seem to have misread me.

In my original message I argued not about NPOV, which is next to impossible to achieve in a picture (unless we do a composite which is ugly), but for newsworthyness. My message is there for all to read. What I didn't like about the 3 binocular picture is that it is a propaganda picture with no news value at all, besides being bland and boring. Its three guys with binos, nothing special. Now the current picture with the IDF artillery piece its a better one, but I hope we can find something more human, or that conveys the human aspect of warfare better. That is my sole arguement, and you are setting a strawman by arguing against something I havent argued for.--Cerejota 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference is that almost no one has a personal interest in the depiction of World War II, while due to the global public polarization around the Arab-Israeli conflicts many have such an interest. I think that 60 years after the last Arab-Israeli conflict would be ended, no such debate about a main picture of this page would exist. Therefore a comparison with WWII is not entirely appropriate. Because I don't have a personal interest in the conflict, I don't object the 3-binocular nor the map picture. I do still think that a split photo is the best and should be the long term goal (=once more pictures become freely available). Sijo Ripa 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While smart people can disagree, the map remains much more informative and useful than the government photo. Given the complexity of this issue (borders, sea blockade, multiple countries) I wonder why is there a desire to put in what amounts to a "mood" photo, rather than one that informs. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because a map is only used in the infobox as a last resort, never as a first one. I am not saying remove the map, on the contrary. I have placed it back into the context of the conflict section, a place where its information is more pertinent. The main photo's job is to provide an image of what is going on, the section right below that tells you where its happening. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A map is only used as a last resort? Is this policy or guideline documented somewhere? -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the precedent set by other articles, and a good one at that. And we have already clarified the only objections to the image are that of personal interests, not one's of NPOV. When a better photo arises, we will use it. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions that have not been made - it has not been "clarified" in that manner. Also, I think it's rather inappropriate to revert from the map to the photo by labelling it as "revert vandalism." [15]. That's two reverts on your part, and not for vandalism. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider it vandalism to remove an image in the name of NPOV when there is no violation of NPOV. This has been clarified. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a good faith edit, with nothing to indicate it was anything other than that. It was also an edit made by User:Cerejota as well, and not reverted by many other editors until you made your edit. So your describing it as vandalism is overreaching and dishonest. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your classification of me is not one of assuming good faith. I am being honest, as undoubtedly you are, I have no doubt that you and Cerejota did what you did with the best intentions. But many things done in the name of good intentions have indeed been vandalistic - this is something I have learned since becoming active here. Assuming good faith is to assume most people are trying to do good, not that they are actually doing good. Through this discussion it has indeed been clarified that the image is not in violation of NPOV. The basis on which the image was removed by you was that more discussion was necessary, obviously implying you agreed with Cerejota's latest response which said it was a violation of POV. It has been proven that this claim is ludacrous. Your removal of the image, while done with good intentions, is detrimental to the article. The basis on which it was removed is false. It was vandalism. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but could we all just describe this as a misunderstanding? So far all of the concerned parties have acted in good faith...Tewfik^Talk 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the picture of the 3 men is so controversial, but I agree that it shouldn't be used. Not because its POV, but because its a crappy picture. Its 3 soldiers on a boat. It could have been taken anywhere, at any time. Pictures of other war articles have some relevence. The people or places involved, or the weapons used or the men and materiel gathered to fight. 3 men standing around is meaningless.

I would suggest something having to do more with the conflict. When this conflict is discussed, certain images enter ones mind more than others. One of these images should be used. An Israeli tank, or a Hezbollah rocket. A convoy of troops or militants. Or (my personal opinion) something relating to bombardments. Both sides have been lobbing explosives into populated areas of is enemy. So far anyway, this is how the war is being fought. I think a picture of a rocket in mid air, a crater in a street, or something of that nature would be most appropriate for the time being. Harley peters 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, those would be optimal. But there are no images of such things that are free, or qualify for fair use at this time. If we had better pictures, wed use them. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good news, an image of artillery being fired has finally been uploaded. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Rangeley! Sijo Ripa 20:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we don't see the faces because they are obscured by VLBs (Very Large Binoculars). One should not assume they are all Israeli Naval Officers - one might be, and the other might be Hizbollah, and the third could be a UN watchdog. They might not be aware of each other because of how engrossed they are with their binoculars, which by the way, if the three of them are there together, they are probably looking at some hot girl rather than something involved with the conflict. Alternatively, should the 3 binocularites in the picture be proven to be Israeli Naval personnel, it would be a simple exercise in photoshop to replace one of them with a Hezbollah fighter and the third with.. perhaps a UN-type watchdog person, or perhaps in celebration of the recent World Cup, that violent MVP from France. Is there a policy about photoshopping images to make them NPOV?--Paraphelion 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

World War III??

Tensions between India and Pakistan are growing. There might even be a war! North Korea in the far east seems to be a threat that Japan and South Korea would want to take care. Let's not forget about the situation with Persia (Iran) and the United States. There is still an insurgency problem in Iraq. Oh and I almost forgot, THERE IS ALREADY WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON! Terrorist groups like Hezballah seem to make things even worse.

Are we headed toward WW3? Zachorious 04:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this relevant?

--Cerejota 06:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

a third faction enters crisis

Cows of unknown origin and allegiance have invaded Lebanon, impeding Israeli mobile artillery units in doing so. [16]--Paraphelion 08:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL ! I candidate this for the Wikipedia:BJAODN !!! dott.Piergiorgio 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

....no matter how completely out of the blue that is, I can't help but laugh at it. :P Peptuck 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty depressing article so was kind of happy to see something about something other than death when looking through articles... but now that I think of it, there is potential that this is relevant. It might not be random cows walking around, but Israel could be using them to set off possible mines in the area, especially since 4 Israeli soldiers died from a mine, and right now 4 is 40% of soldier deaths. Also seems kind of odd they are walking in an orderly fashion ahead (though a good deal in the background) of the artillery unit, but I am no expert on cows or how they walk.--Paraphelion 08:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

4 Israeli soldiers died from a mine - that's one efficient mine! - ironcito 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's referenced in the article in the infobox next to the tank casualty if you are interested.--Paraphelion 08:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lenaneese held w/o trial in Syria

There are hundreds of Lebaneese held by Syria. Hezbulla never chalnged that, called for their release or kidnapped any syrian soldiers (who until recently were occuying Lebanon) or Syrian intelegence people (still in Lebanon).

• You know, it is never a good idea to randomly create a new topic attempting to make a point, when you cite no sources and do not even sign your comment. The great kawa 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should add about the End Times

Lots of Christians have been saying that when the whole world is at war, the end times will come, or something like that. But a little bit before the End, Jesus will appear and Rapture everyone. I don't quite remember what its about, but I think it should be added by someone with good knowledge of this subject. - supmyman7 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Rapture is relevant to this article, as this is currently a Middle East conflict, not unlike the ones that have taken place for the last 50 years or so. I think it's a little extreme to mention anything apocalyptic at this time. Erik 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just what we need in this article, more unfounded hysteria and subsquent edit-warring. Sheesh. Emax0 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For every important event, some groups claim the end of times, an apocalyptic end. Without meaning any disrespect, I will move this to Archive2. I'm doing all I can to keep this page structured, readable and under 200kb (which is already too much I think). Sijo Ripa 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)