Talk:International incidents during the 2006 Lebanon War

Lebanon Low‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

On Merge propossal

The information here is almost entirely duplicated on United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Lets merge it there. Tewfik^Talk 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... what about renaming this article to 25 July 2006 Israeli attack on UN observer post in Lebanon, and focus only on this incident? I don't think the content (which is expanding, pending IDF investigation) will fit well into UNIFIL. --Vsion 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the artcle. Otherwise, we will end up with hundred of daughter pages. --user:mnw2000 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should definitely be merged per Tewfik and user:mnw2000

Merge but please ensure the details remain. This is a significant moment for the force in S.Lebanon, and the details here are not present(esp reactions) in the main page. Ryanuk 12:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather neutral but if this article is merged details like precision guided bomb and 10 promises to stop attacks in that particular area should remain intact. -G3, 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This article will expand further as detail is moved to this page from the parent article, as other attacks possibly take place, and as the investigation/reaction to the attacks-investigation unfolds. Detail on this short period of UNIFIL in Lebanon will likely disproportionately dominate an article covering a much longer UN deployment in Lebanon. 82.29.227.171 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This is a POV fork. Either this page gets renamed "Attacks on United Nations Personnel in Lebanon (1979-2006)" as a subpage of UNIFIL page, or gets put in UNIFIL, or gets titled 25 July 2006 Israeli attack on UN observer post in Lebanon as an incident page (which has been done before in wikipedia). As to the size of the UNIFIL article thats irrelevant as it is a small article, and in any case, we should have more details on the history of attacks on the UNIFIL before the current conflict. --Cerejota 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favour the renaming to "Attacks on United Nations Personnel in Lebanon (1979-2006)" and oppose the merge. More than 4 UN died, and there are also UN wounded from other incidents. Merge means it would disproportionately dominate an article covering a much longer UN deployment in Lebanon. Links to it should still exist on the conflict pages, casualty pages, etc. 82.29.227.171 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maj Kruedener's email

Maj Kruedener's email, written July 18, is available in full here --Vsion 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to write a section on this, and there is also a small paragraph in parent. I think its important to first quote what Kruedener said, then give opinions after. I also included his widows comment as they appear to give indication of previous attacks in that vicinity. On the talk for parent article [1] there was some discussion. 82.29.227.171 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be quite a biased section - the title "18 July email" gives no real indication to the reader of the content; the email by the victim doesn't seem to be appropriately placed in "responses" as it happened before the incident; the "responses" in the section of the email include one interpretation of the email and then comments by the victims wife and a human rights group which do not relate to the email in the slightest. Additionally, the content of the email seems to be quite significant - ie there is not much room for scope of interpretation (by the Col. or whomever) of the last part clearly indicating that Hezbollah was fighting in close vicinity to the UN structure.... This should be put in an earlier section... Ely 12:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The relevant section which was seized on by MacKenzie and media is referenced. It was MacKenzie who made a fuss over one particular section- reason why email isnt quoted at length. The email was seized on after the event which is why it appears in responses. The subsection therefore concentrates on the media event that was "MacKenzie's interpretation of that email". Thats why I originally put it in its own sub-section apart from statements of fact regarding the airstrike event. It was all opinion and fuss.

The widow is quoted because like MacKenzie who gave his opinion, she has an opinion, and alludes to a pattern of attacks in the vicinity of the base which her husband had described in other communications. Note also that down this page there are details for a Finn, Colonel Rolf Kullberg, who also has an opinion on what took place. Everyone has an opinion but wikipedia needs facts im afraid. What makes the MacKenzie media fuss even worth remarking on in passing is the justification some felt it lent their political views on the actions of the IDF that day. MacKenzies opinion became their mantra.

The author of the email wasnt even talking about the airstrike events in question, just a general pattern of IDF repeatedly targeting the post in what he described as a tactical way. This is no big secret- take a look at some of the UNO press releases. Was the airstrike which destroyed the post on that day tactical or nontactical? That isnt a question the author, MacKenzie, the widow, human rights groups, or wikipedia editors can answer. It is being investigated.

Do agree the 2 last sentences are POV and unconnected to the fuss that was made of the email. A section about the investigation is needed instead. 82.29.227.171 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in 'Other Incidents' subsection

Some of the casualties & incidents are mentioned twice in some cases. The accounts that have been added to the article appear to regurgitate context that appeared in the UN press releases. 82.29.227.171 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the intentionality of 25 July attacks in Finnish media

http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=13270&group=General

Colonel Rolf Kullberg, a Finnish officer commanding Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), part of the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO), told commercial broadcaster Nelonen on Thursday that he did not believe that the Israeli air strike on a UN observation post on Tuesday had been a mistake. - G3, 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

However the Finnish authorities have responded with considerable scepticism to official Israeli reports claiming a map mistake as a reason, calling the explanation controversial and superfluous. -84.169.82.248 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN Attack on the 28th

Here is another one: [2], CNN was quoted as saying that they had died, though I can't find a source for this.--Rayc 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added UNO image of the destroyed Khiam base

I think the image that was there previously was sort of misleading- didnt indicate that the picture was taken prior to its destruction by the IDF. 82.29.227.171 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures should be changed or clarified. To the normal viewer both pictures look to be the same thing, one a before, and the other and after. When in fact, upon closer inspection, these two pictures show either different locations or different views of the building. Either way it is misleading. Fineric 05:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

This article defitnlyey needs to be renamed to something shorter. any ideas? --Zonerocks 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Islamofascists started the war, I have chenged the title to mention "Hezbollah" first. Cerebral Warrior 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on UN personnell...

IMHO as an IP in the Englisch language WP, the Article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict should be moved/modified/enhanced.

1st) The name is wrong, since the main article is named 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The name is too long, no living man ever will enter this name to get this article.

2nd) The article makes a mosquito an elephant. No misunderstandigs here, please, I don't question the relevancy of this article. I question the sense of the subject of the article, since in this conflict 7 died and 12 were injured, but in the 28 years of the existence of UNIFIL before, about 250 UN soldiers have died and a lot more than 12 were injured. Therefore I pledge to modify this article to include events happened after the installment of this UN mission in 1978 and change the name into UNIFIL casualities. Focus on the entire history of this mission, but not only on Ten Days in July. (Sorry, couldn't resist, Mr. Woodward!)

3rd) Of course, WP is about encyclopedia, not counting apples. Therefore, the information that Maj. Lang from Austria is survived by an 11-years-old boy and his mother is really a tragedy (WTF, they send soldiers there who are an only parent of a young child?), but the 249+ casualities before also had family members. What I want to express is, for instance, that this article tells through 3 pages about the Khiyam incidence, but the other three deads and the 12 wounded are handled within half a page. Of course, the incident earned widespread media echo, but a statement of Ehud Olmert, who phoned Kofi Annan and expressed his deep regret over the death pf the four UN observers including the rest of this paragraph is simply not important at all and should be discarded. (Since hundreds of years leaders excuse for having done bad things while they didn't give a shit about what happened at all!)

Please undertake the measures needed and appropriate for the article. User de:Benutzer:Matthiasb in the German WP. (here only an IP) --213.155.224.232 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of UN patrol base

File:OpKham.jpg

The UN patrol base Khiam prior to the IDF air strike. Courtesy of Finnish Defence Forces

Aftermath of IDF airstrike on UN patrol base Khiam, Lebanon, 2006. Courtesy of UNO

So there are two images in the article that are labelled as the UN observatory post hit by Israeli airstrikes, however the images do not appear to agree. The two images are shown here. The question becomes: (a) are these the same building, shot from different angles, or (b) are these different buildings altogether? The image at left is identified on its page as "The UN observation post that was destroyed in the Israeli air strike in Lebanon" while the image at right is more clearly labelled as "the destroyed United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) patrol base in El-Khiam". First, were any other UN bases destroyed by Israel, other than the one in El-Khiam? Second, the image at left came from the Finnish military originally, but is written in Finnish, so I can't read it. Can anyone who does verify what the image is labelled on that site? Is it possibly shot from a different angle, such as this image?

It's worth noting that both the Finnish military and the UN identify their images as coming from the same village in Lebanon. My best guess is that the UN image was taken at a different angle, as the compound seems to have had a number of walls that we don't have close up pictures of.[3] — George^[talk] 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. It looks to me that they are two different buildings. The one on the right looks like a much larger building. Fineric 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also having trouble seeing them as the same - perhaps we can get a letter of to them? Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, "get a letter of to them?" Fineric 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's suggesting we write the UN or the Finnish army, which isn't a bad idea (though I don't speak Finnish, and I doubt either will reply based on my previous attempts to contact other groups). I'm not sure if they're the same building myself, but how do we decide which one is labelled correctly, and which one isn't? For instance, the one on the left has a sign in front of it that clearly has the word "Khiam", while the one on the right is clearly a bombed out UN compound, is labelled as being Khiam on the UN site, and what other UN compound was bombed besides the one in Khiam? Is it possible that the picture on the right is the bottom or middle layer of the building shown on the left, if the top layer or two had been completely blown away (thinking of the picture at left like a three-layer cake)? — George^[talk] 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded that image on the left. It is the bombed building, though the angle is from the other side. Indeed the image of the ruined building looks weird, like another building, but the Finnish Army site says it is the post destroyed in the bombing here. Should we use another image? There are few other images of the post aswell. I uploaded another one, that is taken below the rigde, see the thumb on right side. --Pudeo ⺮ 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I support replacing the current Finnish army's picture with this one. Actually, this very well may be the same angle as the UN photo. If the building in the Finnish photo were repainted with the UN label on the lowest level, it would closely match the UN photo. Note the tree on the right side, and the little ledge at the bottom of the Finnish photo (which could be the ledge above the open spaces in the UN photo, if the dirt underneath was blown out by the explosion). Note that they also both have what looks like a cement building or doorway or something in the lower right hand corner of the pictures, though taken from slightly different angles. — George^[talk] 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the other image. --Pudeo ⺮ 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on International incidents during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on International incidents during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International incidents during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International incidents during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821200207/http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/450/28/PDF/N0645028.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/450/28/PDF/N0645028.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title is extremely vague

Something like "attacks on international forces during..." would be more appropriate. Or even "attacks on UN personnel during...". The flyover section doesn't reasonably warrant such a vague title, especially since they didn't happen during the war, and are routine by now (and before). FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

augustine bielonwu august 2006 casualty

he is one of many innocent un observers killed by israeli's (american in reality) "precision" laser guided bombs, this man is forgotten:

news.un.org/en/story/2006/08/190532-un-mourns-lebanon-force-staff-member-killed-during-israel-hizbollah-conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.228.61 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unrwa staff member abdil saghir

was killed by israeli bombing on largest palestinian camp; it is pure war crime

did un and/or israel pay his wife and 3 children? worse of all, this killing happened just an hour before ceasefire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.230.245 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNTSO bombing probably deserves its own article, 18 years in retrospect

The case has developed somewhat since 2006, and currently the article seems quite clumped up. Would suggest a new article just on that incident, and give a short summary of it in this article.

Besides, the title is ambiguous anyways. I don't particularly understand the rationale behind the original naming. Skerbs (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]