Talk:Battle of Wadi Saluki

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

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.

Israel C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related 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.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Name of the article

Is it accurate to call this a "battle"? A mere 80 terrorists were fighting of Lebanese side, and Israel deployed just 24 tanks. Battle is way to noble name for such a minor event. I would call it a "skirmish".Keverich1 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just "Israeli victory".

After all, the text of the article says that Israel won the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationOverlord (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hizbollah3.tif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hizbollah3.tif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hezbollah flag.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hezbollah flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox/article

In the article, it is clearly stated that the Israeli forces achieved their target. This differs from what is stated in the infobox, where it says that the outcome of the battle was rather a halt of the advancement of Division 162. I don't think what is said in the infobox can be accurate, as it is not clearly said that the division had clear orders to advance further. The advance would have stopped anyway, as the war was coming to an end at this point. I am not able to access the source used by Freepsbane, and am therefore unable to verify this. Could someone take a look at it? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to delete this article

This article should be deleted. It was never very good and is now in a sad state of neglect with dead or never ever existing sources and tagged since 2010. It also has a highly misleading POV slant, portraying a complete failure as success. This of course could be fixed, but I think it is unnecessary, since the same topic is covered in Operation Changing Direction 11. A redirect will suffice. If there is anything worth salvaging it could moved before the page is buried for ever.

Anybody disagreeing?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What POV are you refering to? The word "success" never appears in this article, neither does "failure". While I agree this article is indeed in a miserable state, I don't see any neutrality issues. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. I was referring to this final comment: "Israeli troops managed to fight their way to the top of the hill and storm the Hezbollah positions. After they captured their objective, the Israeli troops withdrew, since Israel approved a UN ceasefire resolution shortly after the battle."

This is simply ridiculous. The objective of this operation was not to occupy the tiny village of Ghandouriya nor "reach" the Litani river but to sweep along the Litani all the way to Tyre and then to mop up remaining Hezballah resistance south of the river. The operation was cut short because of high casualties.

The article also contains unsourced and probably fake claims, like brigade commander Colonel Moti Kidor being wounded in the battle. At least I haven't found that claim anywhere. If someone can supply a credible source I would love to add it to the main article.

There is a substantial crowd here in Wikipedia that wants to describe the Second Lebanon war as an Israeli military success, which would be considered a lunatic fringe in real life. Mainstream Israeli sources - such as Winograd Commission - all describe the war as a huge failure and missed opportunity.

The main thing was however, why have separate articles about Operation Change of Direction as well as one of its main battles? If there would be any piece of info that is worth saving it can be moved to the main article before deletion.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the broader operation, but a single battle. Even though the IDF did not surround Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, they did capture Wadi Saluki despite stiff resistance just hours before the ceasefire went into effect. While you might claim the offensive itself was a failure, stamping the battle of Wadi Saluki as a Hezbollah victory is simply counterfactual. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Infantry Nahal forces assigned to conquer the wadi crossings failed in doing so, leading to the tank column being ambushed and completely mauled, compelling IDF to revise its battle plans completely, abandoning the original target, it cannot be described as an Israeli success military victory. Hezballah resistance halted the IDF advance.

Anyway if you believe that this battle indeed was an Israeli victory - and you have sources to support this ridiculous claim - you are welcome to revise the Change of Direction 11 article. My impression however is that you don't know very much about the 2006 war. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one who have drawn conclusions here. I haven't described this as an Israeli victory nor a defeat, but simply pointed out that claiming Hezbollah won this battle - even though the IDF captured Wadi Saluki - is at best dubious. Please refrain from making such claims, and please refrain from attacking me personally. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]