The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Lebanon War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have difficulty classifying this conflict as a war, because "war" traditionally refers to a conflict that exists between two or more nation-states. Israel has declared no military objectives against Lebanon, and Lebanon has declared no military objectives against Israel. Additionally, the official Lebanese military is not engaged as a principal combatant at this point. The primary antagonists are Israel and Hezbollah, and because Hezbollah is an organisation, not a nation-state, the term "war" does not accurately describe this conflict. "Conflict" is a more appropriate term because it can be used to describe a state of conflict between a nation-state (Israel) and other non-state actors (Hezbollah) --220.233.33.14202:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Requested move II: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon
Mainstream media call it a war
The latest poll gave a majority for renaming to war
Oppose look here this is a war beacuse first of all the head of Hezbollah said 'we will have open war' so that solves it. A conflice is when people dispute of different subjucts for example for land or the berlin wall.
Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
Oppose - the naming (both the use of 'war' and the combatants) should be in line with the media and/or invlolved parties' consensus term. If we feel that consensus has arrived for one or both changes, then each should be decided on separately. TewfikTalk05:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - The "Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon" is not an accurate name, because direct attacks are being made against Israeli targets within Israel's borders. It is misleading to suggest that the conflict is occurring only in Lebanon. --220.233.33.14202:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per anon above. Pleanty of people are being wounded and dying in Israel too. -- Avi02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, the mass media refers it as a conflict, not a war, calling it a war is inappopriate and this event happens on both Israel and Lebanon. --Terence Ong(Chat | Contribs)12:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. : Although I don't really care about the terms "war" vs "conflict". What I do care about is that the current name suggests that the government of Lebanon is fighting with Israel, and they are not, only Hezbollah is. StuRat02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Support for now as it best reflects current situation, but don't set in stone. Rename again if necessary when status changes. --Vsion05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, 'cause it sounds like the best name. As Vsion states: "Rename again if necessary when status changes". --imi212:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support - Hezbollah specifically named since they are the only militarily active side besides for Israel, and "in Lebanon" because that country is the principal target of Israeli offensive depite it not being militarily involved. - Xuancris15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Satisfies the defintion of a war (OED): "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states …" Hezbollah is a "state-within-a-state", ergo it qualifies. AdamKesher16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion about Casualties
Infobox fatalties
Says 1 american dead (Bostonian), is he also counted in the Israeli dead? Also still has the number of UN dead incorrect. I make it 4 killed by IDF + 1 civilian staff killed by IDF. There were reports of 6 though. 82.29.227.17123:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
hezbollah and amal are lebanon citizens,right?
and they are also support lebanon against israeli invasion
so why should hezbollah and amal casualties be separated from lebanese casualties?
—–The answer to this question is that members of Hezbollah and AMAL, while they may be citizens of Lebanon, cannot be classified as civilians because they are combatants and do not deserve the same classification or protection as non-combatant citizens.
Members of Hezbollah and AMAL are also terrorists and target innocent, non-combatant citizens of Israel. However, the IDF targets only combatant targets, that is, Hezbollah strongholds, which have been conveniently and cowardly located within civilian areas in an attempt by Hezbollah to secure some measure of immunity from attack. --Iceberg00721:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Iceberg007
Only if you have evidence of israei war crimes that are happening, than it would be NPOV, but by itsefl it is the POV of Israel.Enlil Ninlil16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Um no thats not even close to what NPOV is. If a WP:V source is stating war crimes occured then its perfectly legit to be added. Its like saying we cant add the beach shelling cause Hizbollah didnt shell an Israeli beach. If you have sources however stating Israel committed war crimes that fits with WP:V then feel free to add it. --zero faults|sockpuppets|16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You should ask Human Rights Watch about this, not me. What we have here is an evidence of Hizbullah war crimes that are happening, according to Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, not me. Flayer16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here you go: "The Israeli military seems to consider anyone left in the area a combatant who is fair game for attack," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Such consistent failure to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime." (source 1, source 2) Enjoy! —Banzai!(talk) @ 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Why add either at all? It's all documented in Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and several similar articles. Here's another for you to chew on, dated yesterday: ""In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians," HRW said in a statement accompanying a report released on Thursday. "The failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hizbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes." (source 1, source 2) —Banzai!(talk) @ 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Although a Human Rights Watch report released on August 3 said:
""Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Lebanon between July 12 and July 27, 2006, as well as the July 30 attack in Qana.. cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians... Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack."
Yes good to see the evidence, I wasnt stating that war crimes didnt occur or Human Rights Watch, just that the Jerusalem post didn't include all the facts only ones that condemed Hezbollah. Enlil Ninlil06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Problem with the concept of "targetting civilians" is that almost ALL Hizb'allah members are civilians, as they belong to no nations military. They wear no uniforms, belong to no nation, and are not signatories to the Gevena convention.
Technically, any combatant in civilian clothing can, under the Geneva conventions be shot as a spy...but thats a different story.
12.158.14.6610:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Proteus
To solve the disaster
We can either request protection for the page, or request arbitration. The article is so POV! Can you discuss about what is the better method, protection or arbitration? Eshcorp18:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, sure, it is normal to have such edit wars, and I've seen nastiest! Believe me! But I think that such an important and large event as this one should be protected at all times from these unbelievable POV edits. Also, I know my suggestions aren't the only ones, but that's what I could have thought of, if anyone thinks of anything better, then why not discuss it here? Eshcorp20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The page is not POV at all. Thanks to the tireless work of a few dedicated editors, and the welcomed efforts of more casual editors, the page is pretty damn neutral. It's especially apparent when you have headers like "This page is so anti Israeli!" and right underneath it "this article is pro Israeli!" both sides are claiming it's POV one way 'and the other. Yes, people keep adding POV crap, but it gets removed pretty quickly. The revert wars are not between anons and established editors, its established editors duking it out, so protection won't help. That, and a lot of good edits have been made by anon I.Ps. We need to keep wikipedia as open as possible. Until the page is coming under heavy fire, it shouldn't be protected. --Iorek8522:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit wars and revert wars are what make it POV, it might be neutral if no one started editing it like crazy everytime someone said something objective. Eshcorp10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hizballah military capability
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: is everywhere! It should be a small paragraph anyway. Most of it sould be in Hizballah. Otherwise it is inappropriate! Flayer19:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The editor's previous wording on both his and my talk pages seems to indicate that he was consciously trying to avoid detection for a copyvio which in of itself indicates he knew it was against policy. We may want to think of writing up a AN/I report.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Escalation
The plant has not been hit to date. Haifa is home to many strategically valuable facilities such as shipyards and oil refineries, and their targeting by Hezbollah is seen as an escalation.
I find this to be a bizarre passage, and can only be taken to be true from a very specific point of view. It needs to be deleted or severely altered.
By the 17th Israel had already destroyed the following:
Israeli navy gunships bombarded an electric power station on the coast at Jiyeh, about 25km south of Beirut.
Attack on Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport. Two runways damaged.
Attacked the al-Manar television station. A broadcast tower was destroyed and three people were injured, but the station continued its broadcasts.
Airstrikes and artillery shelling of hundreds of targets in Lebanon.
Strikes the Beirut airport, where helicopter gunships damaged runways and destroyed fuel tanks.
Warships bombard Beirut's lighthouse and four ports.
Air force fired a missile at a van in southern Lebanon, killing 20 people, among them 15 children.
Raids on north, east and south Lebanon killed 15 people and wounded 37.
Lebanon's main commercial ports of Beirut and Tripoli were attacked, as well as ports in the Christian towns of Jounieh and Amsheet.
One Lebanese soldier was killed when an army radar station was hit in Batroun north of Beirut.
Warplanes flattened Hezbollah's nine-story headquarters and destroyed the office of a Hamas leader, Mohammed Nazzal. Nazzal survived the attack.
45 people killed and more than 100 wounded in various air strikes in southern Lebanon around the border town of Aitaroun. Among the dead were seven Canadians, with six other Canadians critically wounded.[11]
Air attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs, continued through the day and evening.
As this shows the conflict had already been escalated by Israel. Israel had already attacked and destroyed Lebanese ports, international airport as well as a powerplant, which is at least the equivalent of what is being claimed about the Hezbollah escalation.
"Dana Olmert takes part in left-wing demonstration outside army chief's house; protesters call Halutz 'murderer,' declare 'intifada shall prevail.' Meanwhile, human rights groups send letter to PM, defense minister, calling on them to stop war crimes in territories." [2]
Why is the external links section so freaking huge? It needs to be pared down, a lot. Just that section is a significant amount of the article. Jtrainor12:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, though losing them isn't an option. Almost all of them are valuable. I've asked above if anyone knows how to put it into two columns and shrink the text - that'd help, while retaining the links. --Iorek8512:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is covered in the main article I created, and it really has nothing to do with this conflict now. It may have been the initial excuse but it quickly became irrelevant as an objective- the objective morphed into halting the rockets. That isnt to say it will be raised again but its about as relevant to whats taking place as Hezbollah wanting Shebba Farms. 82.29.227.17115:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Prisoner of War stuff is quoted as one of the reasons there can't be an agreement on cease-fire. BTW: To some it is not a matter of halting rockets, but rather a matter of halting the IDF :) MX4413:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Paring
There are several passages which in the past were removed for space considerations, but which keep getting reinserted and/or repeat claims made elsewhere in the article and/or seem to belong in subarticles. Should these passages remain or not? Examples include:
Syrian reaction to SC resolution
Hasbara/Megaphone
Arbour's second quote "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable"
Halutz's 10 storey-building quote and destruction of 10 buildings
By using the leaflet you are making the IDF's case that the leaflets work. ICRC/HRW speak for the victims of IDF who got leafleted and attacked. Its balance to the propaganda. 82.29.227.17117:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Page Deletion
Why has the page been deleted? Is it by accident? It just looks awkward having a broken link on the Main Page, and has me wondering if Wikipedia's administrators have a non-neutral point of view, or if they are legitimately trying to maintain one by acting neutral and removing itself from this conflict.
Despite Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a NPOV, it seems there is definitely a pro-Israel slant and a lot of the time this comes straight down from the higher-ups on Wikipedia. Volksgeist18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Head of the British army, General Sir Mike Jackson, has said civilian deaths in the conflict were regrettable but Israel was justified in taking action in the first place.
"It would be monstrous for any country not to take action when attacked in the way Israel has been," he said.
"One can debate the way in which this is done, but when you have an enemy who had made a deliberate tactic in concealing themselves among the civilian population it leads to a very ugly scene."
He told the BBC: "I can understand why the Israelis have set out to at least degrade the capability of their opponents, because they have been suffering civilian casualties in northern Israel from missiles fired from the other side of the border.
"I know Israel has been criticised for the weight of its attack. But I don’t think anybody could expect a sovereign nation to take incoming missiles – which were killing and injuring their population – without taking some form of action." Zeq18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Important source to justify the killing of civilinas? I am not sure what's the point! Please sign your comments. -- Szvest18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course i know that it is his POV but my question is about your point. Do you want it included? -- Szvest18:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not a question of whether one justifies or deplores Israel’s conduct. The article fails to make it clear that while Israel expresses regret for accidentally causing civilian casualties- Hizbullah sees it as its goal and happily boasts the killing of Israeli civilians. To mention the killing of Israelis and Lebanese civilians by both Hizbullah and Israel as equivalent phenomenons is misleading.
I restored claims by Human Rights Watch that had been removed with insufficient explenation and justification as to why they where removed. If someone feels they don't belong in this article then please explain why in this talk page first. --Cab8820:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
A lot of stuff seems to just get moved with no discussion. Take some time and backtrack through the edits to the section, find the culprit and leave a message on their talkpage to stop doing it. They might take the hint if enough people do it. 82.29.227.17123:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
National Post as source?
this was the same paper that front page printed full spread a fake story about Iran requiring jews, infidels to wear badges. accompanying the story was a photos of WWII era german jews and op eds asking 'is Iran the next nazi germany'. the story was unsourced... there was 0 evidence and they printed it front page. they are not a credible source on anything involving israel arab/muslim conflicts.
Agreed, here is there apology for that jews wear badges story [5], interesting that they claim the Simon Wiesenthal Center confirmed it to them first. 82.29.227.17100:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Battlebox.
1)Try to put an icon of Amal and FLOP below hezbolla icon in the combatant box. How anti-IDF force can suatain causalties in combat without beeing a combatant.
2)someone take out the NUMBER of treatened for shock from the battlebox and list them as wounded only. The battlebox is itself messy, we must do it more simple to understand.
3)try to make the article less crowded at the end. there are many links out of date and out of context at the end of the article.
Please listen and try to solve my 2 first petitions. The article really need it.
Miguel
Adding Amal and FLOP will make the box even more complicated, not less. Hezbollah is the primary combatant. Are Amal and FLOP fighting separately, or just helping Hezbollah? As for 2) agreed, but no consensus can be reached. Apparently the problem is that the Lebanese figures don't mention if they include shock or not, so just deleting it could make the Lebanese wounded seem more than there are, but adding it as wounded in Israel may make Israel seem to have more wounded than they do. As for 3) You mean the external links? Most of them are useful, but I'm yet to find a way to list them in two columns, which would really shrink them down. --Iorek8501:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As for 2) The Lebanese figures do not include any "treatments for schock." Arguing such a thing would be to say that "the IDF is mostly shooting in the air, but they always gets a direct hit in the heart when they aim for civilians", which they don't. Reasonable casualty figures should show a 3 to 1 ratio between wounded and dead. That is to say that if you were close enough to get yourself killed but survived, there is still a good chance you got seriously injured. The Haifa figures with a much higher ratio between wounded and dead than expected from historical statistics is pretty well explained by the picture of "the car in Haifa." The hailstorms of metalscrap from the rockets may cause complicated injuries, but the impact speed is too low to penetrate in a deadly manner. MX4404:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore: Quoting 1300+ as Israeli casualties is a clear win for Hezbolla. The sillyness of that excaggeration is pretty desperate. MX4406:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Attack on Tel Aviv -- Escalation?
Israeli officials have been bracing for possible rocket attacks on Tel Aviv, which would mark a major escalation in the conflict.
I claim this to be a misleading phrase.
Firstly, Israel has already attacked and destroyed major structures in Lebanon's largest city. Also, Hezbollah has announced that it would only launch such an attack if Israel were to make further attacks on Lebanon's capital. Both of those facts demonstrate that an attack cannot be construed as an 'escalation.'
I assume the author is trying to express that 'Israel' would interpert an attack on Tel Aviv to be an escalation. However, this is not pertanent here and as such I delete the mention of escalation. If the author wishes to qualify either the attacks on Haifa, or the attacks on Tel Aviv I suggest some phrase with the term 'retaliation.'
Why was it removed? This is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general and many figures of this conflict are in that template. It needs to be brought back up.190.40.23.10702:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The EU has warned Israel about disproportionate attacks against Lebanon.[1] Spokespersons from the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Conference and an assortment of human rights organizations have condemned Israel for its ‘disproportionate’ response to Hezbollah’s attacks, although unprovoked by Israel.[2] Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon stated "We received yesterday (26 July) at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," and "everyone understands that a victory for Hezbollah is a victory for world terror"[3]. The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, responded to the criticism by saying "to those countries who claim we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: you're damn right we are!", asserting that Israel couldn't leave the job half-finished.[4]
This keeps getting inserted, despite the "disproportionate" part already being in the "Int'l Reactions." I imagine the inserters want to include the Israeli response in context? First of all, is there room? If there is, how should we deal with this. Separating it doesn't seem like the best idea for clarity. TewfikTalk05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
We just need it in one section, so you choose which you think is most relevant. I'd go with the civilian section. --Iorek8507:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What to do with WHO?
However, the World Health Organization has concluded that "under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium."[6]
Is this passage an appropriate companion to the HRW depleted uranium environmental critique? And while we're on the subject, is there a way to register the depleted uranium complaint without repeating it in two sections, or is that the best we can hope for? Waiting eagerly for your replies, TewfikTalk05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh this old debate. This a great scientific debate, and my personal learned view is that DU is a health risk because it is a heavy metal, not because it is uranium or radioactive. Inhale a minute amount and you will have supercharged lead poisoning. In any case depleted uranium is a bit skewed in terms of NPOV, but gives a general overview of the debate, so we should link to it.
I love it how HRW are the heroes when they lambast Hezbollah but are the villains when they lambast Israel. :D--Cerejota07:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's good to go with the environmental critique. I'd take the DU comments out of the attacks on civilians, and leave it in the environmental. As you say, it can't go in both. --Iorek8507:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Osama and Mustafa Muamar
It seems appropriate, I think, to at least mention the abduction of Osama and Mustafa Muamar in the section "Beginning of the conflict" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muamar_family_detention_incident for further info.) PJ 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But it happened over two weeks before the Hezbollah capture. We can't include every event in the timeline of Israel-Arab conflict as the start of this one. --Iorek8507:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I concede. It does assume that there is a link between the Lebanon capture and the Palestine capture. Thanks. PJ 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Allegations of using civilians as Human Shields
I think this part is more related to targeting civilian areas than Hezbollah action. So I Move to that part--Sa.vakilian 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be written beside " Advance warnings of attacks by Israel ". Because these two issues are related to each other.--Sa.vakilian19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I can see why some would want it with hezbollah actions, but the section is hezbollah actions not tactics. --Iorek8507:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is the opinion of an editorial writer put side-by-side next to that of a UN official? I think the Human Rights Watch editorial viewpoint has no place in this section. --anony
Claimed Amal and PFLP-GC casualties
In the infobox we list casualties from both Amal and PFLP-GC. However, the only reference to Amal casualties is one single CNN article more than a week ago, citing an Amal official, and the PFLP-GC casualty claim has no reference at all. As Amal's military arm was absorbed by the Lebanese army as part of the Taif agreement, it's very possible that the Amal official that CNN talked to was referring to members of the Lebanese army who were former Amala militia, in which case we're probably listing those eight both in the Hezbollah column and the Lebanon column. I have searched the internet extensively, but have not been able to find any other sources than that CNN article which supports the notion that Amal's military arm has been activated again. Unless someone can find any impartial source supporting that notion, I suggest we remove the Amal claim. As for the claim of one dead PFLP-GC person, there is no doubt that there are still some Palestinian armed groups in Lebanon (the UNIFIL bi-annual reports mention them), but we lack a reference. And if no reference can be found, we should remove that claim as well. Thomas Blomberg14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection not working?
This page has been semi-protected for 20 hours now, but some unregistered users still seem to be able to do edits. Can someone knowledgeable in how the protection works explain this? Thomas Blomberg14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Unregistered users are IP addresses. If you're looking at user names that are red links, that just means that the users in question haven't put anything on their user pages yet. TomTheHand14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that at this time the page is semi-edit protected and fully moveprotected. -- Avi17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Pages that are semi-protected cannot be edited by unregistered users or from accounts less than 4 days old. -- Szvest17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Comrade please mind you language.The international law allows everyone to defend his/her homeland not what it has occupied by force.If the hezbollah is defending it's land this should not be the reason to give them title of terrorist.if you want to equlibrate it then israel is the worst terrorist but it is not used against it because press is not biased or prejudice against anyone.So be calm and remain cool.The firing of rockets is the only way that Lebanese people can protest against this kind of extreme use of force.Yousaf465
I strongly agree with you, in this case, Israel's actions look more like terrorism then anything else, killing people and destroying civilian installations pretending to defeng their home, but some people in Israel just fail to see it through heavy Israeli propaganda. I just hope someday they will see how much grief they have caused.ComradeWolf13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Most sections are dedicated to Israel this and Israel that and some politician blaming Israel... where is the correct treatment of Hezbollah? Where are the quotations from other politicians who do not support Hezbollah? Where are the data on indiscriminate bombardment of residential areas in Israel with shrapnel charges? Where are the quotations about Syrian and Iranian involvement? Why is the only quote condemning Hezabollah of civilian atrocities stuck in the little section on Israeli victims, while three quotes condemning Israel proudly sit in the section introduction?
The current trend is such: Israel action gets a headline, Hezbollah action gets a bynote in a small section of the article. This is incredible, unacceptable bias in favor of the terrorists. Understandable given the bias in world press and vandalism by terrorist supporters, but where are the editors?
And where the heck is the NPOV tag? This is bias if I ever saw one!
What would you expect after more then 350 civilian casualties? Justifying itself "we kill hundreds of civilians because all we just want is to return our two soldiers" and using US support as political back up Israel set ordinary people against itself.IMHO--ComradeWolf19:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Two soldiers? That's all you are aware of? And indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Israel by Hezboillah is somehow made acceptable by the bigger count of civilian casualties in Lebanon? Every claim by Hezbollah or Lebanon receives scrupulous treatment here, confirmed or not; yet there are only two phrases about Hezbollah's very tangible rocket shower. Look at the tactics, not at numbers! A million people is forced to live in bomb shelters for two weeks; there are dozens killed and hundreds wounded; from 80 to 120 80-km range rockets alone are launched daily for two weeks at cities, penetrating 30-40 km into Israeli territory, each carrying 40 kg of explosives and a charge of 0.5-cm shrapnel - and this does not even count numerous mortar shells and 20-km range "Grad" that are pounding the area closer to the border. (And don't give me the nonsense about "reliable sources" as excuse to bias the article; I have observed with disgust as source references and whole sections keep being removed again and again. Sorry, but a rocket that bursts near my house convinces me better than any media in its reality.) Lebanon government does nothing; for all practical purposes Lebanon is governed by Hezbollah - at least it has enough power there to declare war on a neighboring state without asking the Prime Minister first. Lebanon has been unable to carry out the UN resolution about disarmament of Hezbollah; Israel is now forced to carry it out at great cost, alone, after the situation had been made unbearable, while the international community calmly watches from afar.
At the very least it should be made clear that Hezbollah is targeting civilian areas at random, while Israel's damage to civilians is done by attacks on Hezbollah military targets. Think of it. 400 civilians killed by 4000 air strikes? Does this look like deliberate targeting to you? The civilian casualties in Lebanon are mainly caused by, guess what, Hezbollah's tactic of hiding their personnel and munitions in populated areas. When Hezbollah stores munitions in someone's house, there are bound to be civilian victims even given Israel's advance warnings to civilians to leave the area. There were reports of Hezbollah preventing evacuation as well. Arguably, if you agree to convert your house into someone's munitions depot, then it's your responsibility and you should not be surprised if you are hit!
This article fails to demonstrate the essential difference between the tactics of the sides: that Syrian proxy Hezbollah is still freely operating in Lebanon despite formal withdrawal of Syrian rule; that Hezbollah is using Lebanese population as human shield and Lebanese territory to launch daily indiscriminate attacks at the neighboring sovereign state Israel; and that Israel's force is trying to eradicate Hezbollah's threat to its country because no amount of UN resolutions was able to achieve that, and it had come to open war. Yet this article keeps giving preferential treatment to a terrorist organization, on the pretext that Israel has killed more civilians? Don't you have enough sense to notice that Hezbollah is the force that keeps Lebanese casualties up, by hiding among the civilians and launching rockets from there? You are fulfilling Hezbollah's stategy, doing precisely what they want - to cause an outrage about "Israeli killings" and divert attention from its own unsavory actions. They are no doubt happy that Lebanese civilians are killed; they know how to manipulate the West by putting civilians under fire, this tactic had worked in the past and is working now. See through it, finally!
i agree. this entry has a heavy anti-israel bias: for example, the continuing characterisation of hizb-allah as a peace-loving and innocent organisation. (and there are inaccuracies -- hizb-allah agreed to trade the israeli soldiers for not just 2 infamous hizb-allah prisoners, but many 100s, as well). someone needs to monitor this page better. or perhaps people should not be writing as things happen so much, since it's hard to see the bigger picture.
This is getting worse and worse! There are two new sections: "Aim of Hezbollah" (summary: Hezbollah just wants to get its "prisoners" back, but now was forced to broaden its strategy) and "Aim of Israel" (summary: several nasty quotes about throwing Lebanon back 20 years and such). Do I detect more of anti-Israel agenda here?
FYI, the declared goals of Israel operations are: 1) return of the two kidnapped soldiers; 2) stop to the bombardment of North Israel; 3) disarmament of Hezbollah; 4) dislocation of Lebanese army in the Southern Lebanon in place of Hezbollah. These should be in the article; they are the same as the UN official stance on the matter; references for both Israeli and UN declarations should not be hard to find. Someone with a responsibility please add it.
When Israel military explicitly states its intentions to turn Lebanon back 20 years, do you think we should omit those quotes from this article? I don't. If Kim Jong Il were to make such a claim, then kill 10 times as many S Koreans as he suffered losses, would we hide his hypothetical quote too? FightCancer18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
When Israel explicitly states also what its goals are, you should not omit that either, yet you did. Selectively presenting only those quotes from one side that seem to support your cause is unacceptable.
well then we should also include hezbollas explicitly stated intention of the "complete and utter destruction of israel and the jews" Shakespeare Monkey03:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Since Israel is no longer present in Lebanon, Hezbollah now talks about the elimination of Israel itself calling all of Israel "occupied territory" that has to be "liberated" for Islam."
"In 1991, the Hezbollah was responsible for 52 attacks, as compared to 19 attacks the organization carried out in 1990. In 1992, the Hezbollah launched 63 attacks and in 1993, 158 attacks, when during the course of 'Operation Accountability' they fired hundreds of Katyusha rockets into the Security Zone and Israeli territory. In 1994 a total of 187 attacks against Israeli troops and positions by Hezbollah were recorded. There were 119 instances of artillery fire, 31 detonations of explosive charges and two frontal assaults on IDF positions. In 1995 a total of 344 attacks against Israeli troops and positions by were recorded. There were 270 instances of artillery fire, 64 detonations of explosive charges and 2 frontal assaults on IDF positions.
Hezbollah did not confine the slaughter to Israel and Lebanon. The bloodshed included multiple bombings in Argentina of Israeli and Jewish community facilities, one in Buenos Aires, March 1992 that killed 29 and another in July 1994 that killed 96. [At the time this last event was one of the worst terrorist attacks ever in the Western hemisphere.] Hezbollah is also credited with blowing up a Panamanian airplane in flight." (from palestinefacts.org).. hezbolla are truly evil bastards from several levels below hell itself
I agree that there's an anti-Israeli bias. Besides the things mentioned above, at first there was a single image showing the results of Hizballah's attacks on Israel, now even that is gone. The article needs a major overhaul, but how can that be done with the rapid pace of edits? Can an editor suggest how to deal with that? ehudshapira18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
i think user 'Comrade' is just making fuss... do you really comapre the mere katyusha rockets with the laser guided bombs pounding every where in Lebanon?... Israel have never let the neighbours in peace, just see the thousands of innocent prisoners in the Israeli jails with out any charge, there are not brought up in any court room, and what hezbollah did is to push Israel to set free those innocents. This situation could be dealt with peace, but as now revealed in the media, this war plan was an already made by Israel and it was just waiting for an 'execuse' to begin it.--203.82.63.308:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [Infinite]
Your "mere" Katuysha rockets are pounding every where in Northern Israel, wreck buildings and kill people, too. The difference is that if a laser-guided bomb is launched at a building that intelligence has marked as belonging to Hezbollah, hosting munitions, etc. - it is guaranteed to hit precisely that building. An unguided Katyusha (let's call them that, though a 100-kg shrapnel payload with 80 km range is no Katyusha) strikes at random, destroying civilian targets without discretion. A simple matter of attitude: Israel cares to minimize civilian damage, Hezbollah seeks to maximize them. And as for "innocent" prisoners - among the prisoners Hezbollah explicitly stated it wants released is a murderer of a family, who shot the adults and smashed the baby's head against the floor. Make your own research before you call him innocent. And check up on the international law, too - since when is it legal to penetrate another state's border and kidnap citizens for any reason?
The damage caused by Hezbollah rockets is incomparable to that caused by Israeli airstrikes and so called "laser-guided bomb". maybe this kind of bombs is precise, but you fail to tell a Hezbollah HQ from an apartment block, and don't tell me that every building in Lebanon is filled with Hezbollah men. And "[Hezbollah knows] how to manipulate the West by putting civilians under fire, this tactic had worked in the past and is working now" assures me that Israeli never learn. Israeli want to defeat Hezbollah whatever it costs, in this case whatever it costs for others. And what exactly do you mean saying "Israel cares to minimize civilian damage"? do you really believe in what you said? All that Israel cares about is to MAXIMIZE the possible damage and blame Hezbollah, but still tries to avoid to be exposed.How can you heavy bomb a populated city, raze homes, and still believe that this is the right thing to do? And I'm damn sure Israel, even after war is over, will never help Lebanon to recover. Because all that Israel wants is to be the only power in the region, to have a gun at everybody's head in adjacent countries and make these countries poor and insufficient. Only in this case Israeli will feel a little bit comfortable.You tell, maybe not particularly you, then sign yourself, that people are being warned about airstrikes. By what means? Via television? Firstly, you destroyed the TV stations, second - in most parts there is no electricity. weak excuse for your crimes. And by the way, even if they are warned, they still got no chance, because Israeli forces shoot at everything that moves on the roads, so people are likely to be killed by Israeli as they try to flee for their lives.ComradeWolf14:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Lebanon has been given peace. Unconditionally. Six years ago Israel bent to the international and internal pressure, turned her back, and withdrew from Lebanon for good. What did Hezbollah do? Use those six years to build up large military strength on the border and go on violating it, on the pretext of "innocent" prisoners and a small chunk of occupied *Syrian* - not Lebanese! - land which they claim is proof that Israel "did not" withdraw. Lebanon had (relative) peace, left to its own problems with civil war and Syrian presence; Israel never had peace from Hezbollah. Yes, civilian victim count is higher on Lebanese side - because every killed Lebanese civilian is a score for Hezbollah, something to wail about on every news agency, to manipulate the public opinion with. They put munitions in homes, pay civilians to keep rockets in their houses, build bunkers under schools and set strongholds in hospitals, prevent refugees from leaving the strike areas, - and then make sure to blame the evil Israel on civilian casualties! The whole country of Lebanon is taken hostage by a Syrian/Iranian terrorist army, and all you see is Israel dismantling Lebanon for some inscrutable reason? Well here's that reason: Lebanon is used by a rogue state to wage war against its neighbor, is caught under fire, but did it do anything to prevent that war? No? Then don't blame Israel. Israel only fights for survival. It's life and death. What part of that you cannot understand?
And, by the way, the section on civilian damage is again scrupulously citing every Israeli attack and even unverified accusations, while Hezbollah gets one generic passage in it. ONE passage about actions of an indiscriminate criminal organization, while a country protecting itself against it gets under scrutiny in a dozen. Can we have some fair treatment, please?
Deleted part of Negotions for ceasefire
In my opinion the bottom part was unsalvagebly biased, I could not figure out a way to reword it so it wasn't biased so I deleted it all
Gudeldar16:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Beginning of conflict" is pro-Israeli
It only sites what israel claims, isreali sources and other sources which repeat what the IDF/isreal claims. Lebanon has clearly from the beginning said their territory was violated, that Israeli soldiers came to the town Aaitaa al-Chaab, that they then arrested two israeli soldiers, and etc, etc. There are many previous news articles of Israeli forces having violated Lebanons sovreignty before. For example Israel has been doing sonic booms every week over Lebanon (flying low). Someone needs to fix it. Right now it only states israeli claims, its needs to be made NPOV ArmanJan22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
ArmanJan, do you care for Wikipedia to be a NPOV project? I think that even you can not deny you are heavily biased on the Arab Israeli situation. You know, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Why not admit it and let other people continue this particular thread? There is no need to defend it if you really intend good. Although I believe I am truly neutral (allowing to admit Israeli mistakes, which is something you won't do about the side you took), I am willing to let it go too. How about that? Dberliner
ArmanJan is right that the "beginning of the conflict" is disputed. It is therefore POV to state any given moment as the "beginning". SilversmithHewwo00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
AceMyth has divided the "Targeting of Civilian Areas" into two sections, one for attacks by Hizbollah, another for attacks for Israel. Give the guy/gal a barnstar.
This is EXACTLY the type of editing we need to get the article NPOV. It recognizes the facts, and recognizes that both sides are engaged in the activity, and allows a balanced and equal space to facts regarding both.
Now, if only we could get the actual text to be NPOV for more than one second, we would get somewhere...--Cerejota13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that is being a bit harsh, there have been all sorts of quality edits made by people. The problem is that they quickly get changed by others and before long any signs of the edit have disspeared. ~Rangeley (talk)14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we should award a barnstar to someone editing an article that gets edited that fast cause then, a lot of people wouldn't be recognized for their work while some would. --Deenoe14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Already gave barnstar, and I understand. But this was such a minor, nonchalant edit, from someone who has barely touched the page, but is, cha-cha, an Israeli reservist, and is a great example of NPOV editing, that I think we can celebrate it and point at it and say "damn, I want to do an edit like THAT". Sheer freaking genius.
Yeah, you ask me, and the small set of good editors here from all POVs deserve a barnstar for having to fight off the vandals and those who try to sneak the POV underhandlely, not to mention having to get across our hard heads.
I guess I just want to amplify and point and emphasize that regardless of your POV, you CAN do NPOV edits. If a guy on the frontlines can come up with such a great NPOV edit, then we armchair encyclopedist surely can do it, too.--Cerejota14:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I also happen to support the Israeli side in this conflict (which I haven't always have), but this does not alter the fact that I compeletely support that this article be NPOV as much as possible, which it very much isn't right now, and is heavily tilted with blatant lies about forbidden weapons by the Israelies, and attempts to make the Hezbollah look like a Mother Theresa organisation (just look at the image the vandals have put, shouldn't there be a corresponding image?). Their rigourous attempts to manipulate pages all around Wikipedia just shows part of that zealotry! --Dberliner14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comments show that you completely don't understand WP:NPOV, nor do you understand WP:RS, and much less WP:V.
First: The forbidden weapons. That might be blatant lies, but they meet WP:V and WP:RS as indeed the Lebanese leadership has said this, and it has been widely reported. The section also meets WP:NPOV because it qualifies the statements as denied by Israel (pending citation, which if Israel has indeed denied, should appear soon) and un-comfirmed, according to WP:V and WP:RS sources. WP:V states unequivocally verifiability over truth, so as long as a statement can be verified, and is relevant to the article (as surely a declaration by the Lebanese goverment is) and comes from a WP:RS source, it can be included.
Second: Hezbollah is not descirbed as a Mother Theresa organization, but in an NPOV way. You might not like it, after all they are your enemy, but that is the whole point. The fact that you are so upset with how it is described probably says that it is indeed NPOV.
Lastly, the pro-Israeli POV editors have been equally zealous, and many previous incidents of vandalism, 3RR violations, and other forms of bad behaivior have been traced to israeli users and israeli IPs. As fact, what propelled this page into SPROTECTED status was such an attack fron two Israeli IPs. Of course, a lot of edits have also come from the other side of the POV, and those are bad too. Between anti-wikipedians on either side, NPOV manages to emerge only to be pushed down by people like you, who simply dont get it.--Cerejota15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Your verbal attack at me and a view at your personal page record proves my point. you are far from being neutral or able to contribute to this subject in a cool manner. I have no problem with the Hezbollah being portrayed in a NPOV, this is what I stated about my morality and motives which are not tainted and want Wikipedia to truly be a place of contribution, I just clearly believe this and many other articles are just not that. It is in violation of all templates described. The battle ensues in two different arenas, as far as images go, this article tilts heavily towards the anti-israeli side (Even the Arabic version of this page is less tilted as far as images go). As far as IPs from Israel, may I remind you that 20% of israel citizens are Arabs themselves? many of them quitely oppose the regime while enjoying many of its benefits, so I assume some of them participate in those attacks. When you see a Pakistani or Lebanese IP you can be self assured no Israeli had been responsible for that edit as they would have been torn to shreds by now, if indeed in that location. I may be emotional here a bit, but you are not rooted with the facts (and I do mean FACTS, not propaganda). I'll be happy to explain them to you and others in a non-venomous manner --Dberliner16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you are pushing your POV. Again I refer you to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I explained, point by point, why your objections are invalid, and did so without any personal attack. I apologized is you felt attacked by my last comment, but it is a downer to see your post after such a great edit. Lastly, be bold and edit if you feel something is wrong or violates any standard or policy.--Cerejota03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Not wanting to rain on anyone's parade, let me just say that this division has been suggested by me several times on this talk page (it's up there, at the end of thelong discussion about this section); the only reason I didn't do it myself is for fear of it getting reverted because I'm 'new' M. Butterfly15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem, and I must have missed that edit in the continous vandalism of the talk page, but credit goes to the editor who is bold and edits. Not editing for fear of being reverted goes against all that wikipedia stands and wants. So go ahead and edit. Just be prepared to be reverted!--Cerejota15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
More on this section - let's work for an NPOV and better article
First of all, I don't really care about the credit. I'm just happy it finally happened. Now for more ideas on improving this thing. I am posting this on the talk page, as I am new and so cannot edit the semi-protected article itself.
I think the "by Hezbullah" part of this section can benefit from re-organiztion. right now the first paragraph is a quote by Nassrallah, claiming that he ddidn't attack civilian targets. that is obviously illogical - the section should start with what is now the second and third paragraphs - a concise description of civilian targets hit in Israel. This should include links like this one [7], which verify that a post office has been hit in Haifa, and maybe a discussion of the evacuation forced in Israel. Then, the next paragraph should include Nassreallah's comments (without the first statement, "After widespread attacks on Lebanon by Israeli forces", which is somewhat POV.
In addition, I believe that my former edit, detailing claims by mayor of Haifa as to Hezbullah rockets containing special bullets designed to kill more civilians, should be re-added, as it is exactly on par with the claims by Emile Lahoud of phosphorous bombs. Just to remind everyone, I'm talking about this passage:
Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav told VOA that among the rockets that have hit Haifa are some clearly designed to cause massive civilian casualties. "The specialty of these rockets is that they contain thousands of metal bullets which are going to be spread around when the rocket hits the ground," he said. "In this respect, it has the same effect as the belt of a suicide bomber." [8]
It's a shame that you don't get to actually edit the artihttp://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV&action=edit§ion=6cle yourself just because you happen to be new. Anyway I'm going to be preoccupied for the next week and a half or so, so sadly I'm not going to be able to help with implementing your ideas, but I'll go ahead and add your paragraph w/ Yahav's quote back in for now. and it seems that some elaboration on the tiny metal ball bearings has been added anyway, which I think is satisfactory even though not in the context of Yahav's quote specifically. --AceMyth21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Just chiming in that "both sides think it's biased towards the other side" doesn't really make it NPOV. In fact the opposite is true. When both sides think it's biased against them, that probably means that the article is a mixture of both POVs, as opposed to NPOV. When events are truely described neutrally, both sides will think the description favors them.
Here's an example: if you say "Israel won't exchange Arab terrorist prisoners for soldiers captured by the Hezbollah liberation movement", both sides will think it as biased against them - they will read the part that supports their POV as neutral and see the other part as an extremist POV, making the whole article POV in their eyes. If you use the neutral language, "Israel won't exchange Arab prisoners held on remand for soldiers captured by the Hezbollah militia", both sides will think that what is described is favourable to them, just as they do in real life. Zocky | picture popups19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Zocky: if they had a barnstar for Talk pages contributions, you would get it from me. That is simply brilliant, succint explanation of NPOV, that matches the generally acceptable interpretation and even the letter of WP:NPOV. I have said it before and will say it again: NPOV is NOT ONLY about covering both sides equally, thats is balance, but mainly also about HOW we present the issue.
It is about using "captured" instead of "kidnapped" (even if a source says "kidnapped").
Its about not quoting sources directly if they are not NPOV themselves.
It is about living with an artistic representation of Nasrallah, because that way we can get a picture of Amir Peretzin here while having NPOV presnetation of the leaders of both sides.
It is mainly about language and presentation, with very little about content (which is ruled by other policies) except "Undue weight" and "Bias", plain and simple.--Cerejota18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous
To the people who are editing this article: Please stop your edit war. This article is already semi-protected. If necessary I will make the case to an admin for full protection. The picture in the article has been changed countless times to suit the POV of diffrent sides in the debate.
If you guys can't play by the rules, please leave. There are others here who are trying to make it a place for useful information, other then crap POV pushing. Davidpdx12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the more the article is reverted, the more it encourages others to engage in an edit war. Whether your right or wrong (and I'm not saying who is and who isn't) it is getting really annoying.
Several people are in violation of the 3RR rule and I'm thinking of reporting everyone for a nice 24 hour ban. Davidpdx13:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for full page protection due to the prolonged edit war. This article has been reverted in excess of 20 times in the past two hours. Davidpdx13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow.. That sucks, but at least edit war is over. Especially the main picture who was like a slide show so much it was edited... --Deenoe13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Now it sucks but necessary, people are reverting toomuch instead of raising stuff in talk page, and the POV is way out of control. I try to do legit edits, explain them in the edit sumamry, and most of them are maintainance and NPOV fixes, I am way beyond my delete phase, which was a result of the sub-articles.--Cerejota13:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This was inevitable, I could tell from the start that the nature of this conflict would make for one hell of a hard time getting a good article. Its really disorganized at the moment, and really you cant hope to fix anything because people with agendas will continue to edit it to portray the war as something they want to see, rather than reality. The only hope is that when the conflict starts to cool down, so too will this wiki-conflict. ~Rangeley (talk)13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's far from over, in the past five minutes this page has been reverted at least five times. Yes, it's a conflict going on, but people don't need to plaster the page until it's so littered with POV it's worthless.
Several people need to take a chill pill and stop editing if they can't control themselves. The behavior of those involved are childish and immature.
I think that is an NPOV solution to this problem. However, someone keeps changing it to images of bombed out Beirut. --PiMaster314:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a NPOV solution, but it has been rejected TWICE. Therefore, I think we are going to have to do a composite picture. --Deenoe 14:01
The easy solution is to just put up quality image. I have come accrossed this, [9], which qualifies for fair use and looks pretty good. Still havent found any katyusha firing yet, but this is better than the previous artillery image. ~Rangeley (talk)14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that as well, but it is not free and does not qualify for fair use. Here is another one [10]. Its not really hard to see, its just kind of silhouetty. ~Rangeley (talk)14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if someone can find a Hezbollah agression picture, or a Israeli's destruction picture, I'll be able to do a NPOV composite picture. --Deenoe14:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
We dont need a composite image, they are rarely high quality, though I could be surprised. But if it isnt high quality, I will not support using it just for the sake of it. The 3 artillery images are NPOV, the soldier running away is NPOV (though not free) and pictures of destruction are NPOV on their own. ~Rangeley (talk)14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I did a composite picture yesterday and the quality was great, it's just that it pictured an Israeli tank and a Beirut neighbourhood, so it wasn't NPOV. --Deenoe14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that is NPOV. I dont get why people all of a sudden think that images that only show one side of a conflict are POV. Dont even think about issues of POV, unless the photo has been edited to misrepresent a side, it is going to be NPOV. The only consideration should be "Is this the best picture we have?" In my oppinion, the best photo we have is the first dusty-evening photo of artillery being fired, I love the effect the dust has on the light, and sillhouettes tend to be good. So for quality, its good. For pertinence, it displays the artillery Israel is firing, which has been probably the most fired and used weapon thus far. Very pertinent. ~Rangeley (talk)14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, people have sh*tted on the picture because of that. So if someone can get me a pictures of both sides, it will be my pleasure of doing it. But the current picture is good, unless someone thinks it's non NPOV. --Deenoe15:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
POV isnt an issue, the question is whether or not it is the best image in quality and pertinence. Do you think its the best out of what we have? ~Rangeley (talk)15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I just think the map is just better cause it's NPOV, it's good quality and it demonstratres the basics of the conflict. --Deenoe15:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The map shows a rough idea of where things were happening on July 14th. It doesnt show anything that the Location section in the infobox doesnt already. The map belongs in the article itself, not the infobox. ~Rangeley (talk)16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
For me to agree with the map, get rid of "Israeli blockade" and "highway struck". You can't just show what Israel has done without showing what Hezbollah has done. Be FAIR and HONEST! --68.1.182.21517:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Deenoe, the Israeli blockade is a military action. You can't just single out Israel! You have to mention all the other targets that Hezbollah have fired at. Also, how have thousands of people been able to leave Lebanon if Israel had a "FULL" blockade? Clearly, Israel is only preventing Hezbollah from receiving weapon shipments and containing the terrorists. --68.1.182.21502:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Israeli blockade has not only stopped Hezbollah from receiving weapon shipments but it also caused a lot of trouble for countries trying to evacuate their citizens from Lebanon. I think that's why we should keep the blockade. Besides, Hezbollah mainly hit Haifa if I'm correct. If we show every place Hezbollah has fired on, we would have a pack of icons nears Haifa, wish would be confusing. And then if we put all the hits from Hezbollah, we also have to put all the hits from IDF. See my point? --Deenoe03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Haifa's share in Hezbollah's attacks hasn't been nearly large enough to constitute use of the word "most". The attacks are spread across all northern Israel. --AceMyth04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think 68.1.182.215 (which by the way is doing heavy POV editing, that is neither "FAIR" nor "HONEST" as he shouted we should be) has a point. "Israeli Blockade" describes a combat action, rather than an area of conflict, as the map is meant to show. So maybe we could extend the "Area of Conflict" to the sea? Maybe with something like "Maritime conflict"? or somesuch?
--Cerejota04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As to how maps can get ridiculous, this is why I disagree with the map that shows Hezbollah's attack. There is no such maps of Israeli attacks, and in any case I still insist it must go only in military operations rather than the main article. This affects the balance of the article.
Nevertheless that is a minor point compared to the major point of making things be about what they are. The present map is about the area of conflict, and should remain as such. If we want to make other maps about military operations, then go ahead and do them. --Cerejota04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How exactly can you protect this article, if it's current events, and must be changed continuously. --Doom77716:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Support to Israel v. Support to Hezbollah
So you have this real disconnect between an overemphasis on the supply by Iran and Syria of Hezbollah's weapons and no discussion of the fact that all of the Israeli arsenal is from the United States, and that that is in contravention to U.S. law. to the Arms Export Control Act, which says that U.S.-origin weapons are only to be used for self-defense and for internal security.[12]
It is a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia to repeatedly mention the support Hezbollah gets from Syria and Iran without mentioning the "massive military, economic and diplomatic support from the global superpower"[13] to Israel. This bias is routine for corporate media and we needn't adopt such tendencies here.
This article repeatedly discusses the support Hezbollah receives.
It quotes Condoleezza Rice claiming that Hezbollah gets support "from Syria and Iran".
It mentions the "Syrian influences over Lebanese society".
It cites "Iran, Syria and Yemen have given support to Lebanon and Hezbollah."
It quotes "Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev" who "claims the Hezbollah unit that captured the two soldiers is trying to transfer them to Iran."
It discusses the "Fajr-3 and a Ra'ad 1 liquid-fuel missiles, developed by Iran."
Please join me in restoring balance and neutrality to this article. Allow for the discussion of support to both sides or neither side. To balance the repeated references to Hezbollah's support, I recommend a brief subsection in the "Historical Background" section. It could include a quote such as the one above, or an impeccable quote from the US Congressional Research Service. Below is a proposal that was repeatedly deleted in its entirety yesterday by users Tewfik and Strothra.
BEGIN PROPOSAL
Historical support for Israel
US politicians are repeatedly citing the support Hizbollah allegedly "gets from Syria and Iran"[5][6]. So it is particularly relevant to consider both sides including the "massive military, economic and diplomatic support from the global superpower"[14] to Israel. According to the US Congressional Research Service:
Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. aid and is the largest recipient of cumulative U.S. assistance since World War II. From 1949 through 1965, U.S. aid to Israel averaged about $63 million per year, over 95% of which was economic development assistance and food aid. A modest military loan program began in 1959. From 1966 through 1970, average aid per year increased to about $102 million, but military loans increased to about 47% of the total. From 1971 to the present, U.S. aid to Israel has averaged over $2 billion per year, two-thirds of which has been military assistance. [7]
More recently, according to the CATO Institute:
For fiscal year 2003, the United States provided $2.1 billion in military grants, $600 million in economic grants, and $60 million in refugee assistance to Israel. And as part of the Iraq war budget supplement, another $1 billion in military grants and $9 billion in loan guarantees to Israel were approved.96 [8]
The trend continues. Although it has not been publicly announced, "[t]he Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hizbollah targets in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Saturday July 22, 2006." [9].
Politically, the US has vetoed literally dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to exercise restraint,[10] such as this list from Donald Neff of 39 "Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council"[15] According to Democracy Now!, as of July 14th, 2006:
The US has already vetoed a council resolution demanding Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the last nine vetoes have been cast by the United States. Seven of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. [11]
The Israeli magazine Haaretz reports, "The UN Security Council on [July 15, 2006] again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said."[16] "The U.S. was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, [council diplomats] said."[17]
OK, it's been several hours since I posted this complaint about POV. If no one can explain to me why we should repeatedly mention support to Hezbollah but not support to Israel, then I'm going to add a small subsection. Just like it's not up to the Chinese government to decide which websites the Chinese can Google, just like it's not up to Afghani clerics to decide which religion they must worship, it's not up to us Wiki editors to decide which sources to quote. "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:" --Wikipedia policy for Weasel Words I'll take freedom of information over censorship any day. FightCancer00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Isarig, you just deleted this entire section. Would you mind explaining why this section is "POV" and "irrelevant to the topic" when Hezbollah's support is mentioned no less than 5 times in this article? I re-added the POV tag. FightCancer01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that I didn't think much of either of the "Support for Hezbollah" or "Support for Israel" sections in the context of this article. First, these sequence of facts don't relate immediately to the article. Second, there's the real problem with equating a militia/political party with a sovereign state. Finally, the biggest problem with these sections is that they do not condense the motivations and possible strategies of the different geopolitical powers behind this conflict to give any real insight. The U.S. backs Israel in this conflict: why? Syria and Hezbollah support each other: how strong is the link between Shi'a fundamentalists and an Alawite dictatorship? My feedback is to attempt to explain these insights in an NPOV and cited way, and neither section accomplishes this. An ideal section would be unified, interconnected, and be titled something like "Explanations for Support of the Warring Parties." AdamKesher03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Just one minor note, not 'all' (as the original poster states) of Israel's equiptment comes from the US. The tanks, for example, are Israeli made. Minor point, but it had to be made. --Narson01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is too much
Excuse me, but how can you support leaving that thing in the article? If you press the link, you go to Khaleej times, an Arab newspaper. Arab newspapers can be good source on what is happening on the Arab side, but how can they be a source for something that was supposedly broadcast in Israeli radio, but not reported by anyone else (no Israeli or outside sources?) Especially when this is such a controversial and harsh staterment, and when it is not qualified in any way ("An arab newspaper claims" or so)?
But obviously, this comment will remain unanswered, as are all my comments in the talk page so far. So much for discussion. M. Butterfly16:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The newspaper Khaleej Times reported that Israeli Army radio said that Israeli forces are under orders to bomb 10 residential buildings in south Beirut for every Hezbollah rocket fired at Haifa.
What you see here is the softened version, after I added the first six words. It is still very much my opinion that a rather extraordinary claim about thiongs heard on Israeli radio cannot stand on one Arab newspaper and should not be in the article, but since it got reverted, I tried to at least qualify it. M. Butterfly17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Quote on "10 residential buildings in south Beirut for every Hezbollah rocket"
I am copying here the discussion on this issue from AdamKesher's talk page, in order that more Wikipedians get to voice theit thoughts on this.
Excuse me, but how can you support leaving that thing in the article? If you press the link, you go to Khaleej times, an Arab newspaper. Arab newspapers can be good source on what is happening on the Arab side, but how can they be a source for something that was supposedly broadcast in Israeli radio, but not reported by anyone else (no Israeli or outside sources?) Especially when this is such a controversial and harsh staterment, and when it is not qualified in any way ("An arab newspaper claims" or so)?
But obviously, this comment will remain unanswered, as are all my comments in the talk page so far. So much for discussion. M. Butterfly16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As I explicitly stated in my comment, it's the reporting of a press release from Agence France-Presse (AFP), "the oldest news agency in the world." The fact that the link provided happends to be from a United Arab Emirates newspaper is irrelevant. The reason you cited in your edit that "there is no way an Arab paper is a goud source for info on Israeli army radio!" is, quite frankly, flagrantly racist, which led to my conclusion that your deletion was vandalism, in spite of the fact that I would very much like assume good faith. And do please show where there are unanswered comments, and I will tend to them. AdamKesher16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Then why not link directly to AFP? Or to any other large paper quoting it? Doesn't the fact that there is no source for this in more serious papers amount to a problem here? Also, not linking to the real source could mean that there was some misunderstanding (intended or unintended) of the original report, nut that can't be verified.
Second, I will explain my comment. A lone Arab source cannot be a good source for things that are happening inside Israel, because it's not there! the same way that Haaretz can't be a source for what Hizbullah plans, or for the number of Lebanese casualties. In fact, I have been told that Israeli sources cannot even back up any "neutral" claims, and are only good as sources on the Israeli position. Thus, there is no racism in my position, only realism. This is especially important in this case, where the report talks of something rather extrodinary, that has been supposedly broadcast on Israeli radio - do you suppose something like this could be reported in Israeli radio, and not picked up by Israeli sources, CNN, etc.? Especially when this is supposed to be 'official Israeli policy' and when all reports on stated Israeli policy are so different from it (see same page)? be logical.
Third, this is a rather extreme claim, so support from one source, in the form of heresay (we heard that Israeli radio said that...) is, in my opinion, not enough to justify its inclusion.
Last but not least, I do not want to fight, and I am definitely not seeking vandalism. I have raised the issue on the talk page and would like to hear what everyone has to say about it (maybe we should move all of this there). The least that can be done is qualifying the statement by saying who said it, and adding that it has not been verified by other sources; However, I still hold that it shouldn't be there at all. What do you think? M. Butterfly17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with M. Butterfly here - this sounds like a case of wartime propaganda, not anything that is actually backed up by facts. --Cyde↔Weys17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1. How is it "consistent with facts on the ground" when 2000 rockets have already hit Israel? have 20000 buildings in Beirut been demolished? 2. how is it consistent with "historic responses to attacks on Israeli citizens"? 3. Do you have a link to the original press release? as long as you don't I have a feeling this is not really what Agence France-Presse said, but rather a re-working of the article by Arab sites and papers. 4. As you can see, I am not alone in my thoughts on this.M. Butterfly18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
M. Butterfly, please read what is written. 1. The direct quote is “Army chief of staff Dan Halutz has given the order to the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa.” On Haifa. Not total. How many Hezbollah rockets have hit Haifa? Do this math. I believe the numbers are in the low tens (please confirm), and there have been "block after block" of residential buildings in south Beirut levelled (low hundreds of buildings), so these armchair calculations appear, to me, to be consistent. But I am open to hearing a counter. 3. No, I don't have subscription to any of the news services. For what reasons should we doubt a press release from Agence France-Presse in this particular instance? AdamKesher18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For what reason should we doubt any news service--including Khaleej Times or Nahamet? I see nothing wrong with this quote as long as the entire first 2 sentences are quoted including "army radio said Monday", "a senior air force officer told the station", and a citation. State where the information is coming from. Then let readers be the judge--not you and me.
To address your questions M. Butterfly: 1. IMO it is very consistent with the facts. Consider this ratio: "Over the past nine days, 10 times as many Lebanese have died as Israelis."[18] 2. Again, it's very fitting.
Israel, in the first few days of the Intifada, was using U.S. helicopters – they don’t make them – U.S. helicopters to attack civilian complexes, apartment houses and so on, killing and wounding dozens of people. And the U.S. did respond to that. Clinton responded by sending the biggest shipment of military helicopters in a decade to Israel. The press responded, too, by not publishing it, I should add, refusing to publish it, because it was repeatedly brought to their attention. Well, while the ratio was 20 to 1, which is pretty much what it has been for a long time, there was no concern here. [19]
Israel has a long history of disproportionate casualties. According to this source, the ratio of Israeli deaths to Palestinian deaths has exceeded 5:1 for many years.[20] 3. I would prefer another link too, but is it up to us to decide what sources we will and will not accept? 4. Touché
Actually, it *is* up to us to decide which sources to accept. I see no sign on AFP's own site or on Yahoo's archive of AFP stories that this "10 buildings" story was ever issued from AFP. My conclusion is therefore that one or another Arab news agency (many of which are anti-Israeli state mouthpieces) concocted it, attributed it to AFP for reasons of credibility, and it was dutifully re-reported by other agencies. This is a third-hand report through multiple media services (IAR to AFP to Khaleej) and it ought to go until somebody can provide a link to the AFP story on a reputable news service. (edit: I'm not going to bother actually snipping the offending sentence until I get some sort of response here; that would only create a revert war) Khaighle22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It *is* up to us to decide which sources to accept? Like it's up to China to decide which websites the people can read? Like it was up to the Soviet Union to decide which religious books its citizens could read? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me. No, it's not up to us editors to decide which sources to accept. It's up to the readers to decide for themselves. Please see WP:AWW. "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:". I choose freedom of information over censorship any day. FightCancer23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe that people who read this article will sort through the 186, and raising, different sources to check if every one of them is reliable? That's just completely ridiculous. It is obvious the statement is propaganda, as it isn't on the AFP site. Leaving that sentence there, knowing it is false, is in complete contradiction of what writing an article in any encyclopedia is about. ( note: I have also lost all trust I had in wikipedia due to this discussion and the ridiculous conclusion you came to. I always thought your goal was to write articles as truthful as possible, not to write all the mumbo-jumbo you could find on the net and vomit it on the page and let the reader figure it out. ) At least change the wording around so it isn't deceptive. The source cited at the bottom of the article is AFP, which is clearly not the original source, as stated before.
More news agencies have reported this AFP press report: News24 in South Africa and Aljazeera. This report was originally scorned and deleted because it appeared in an Arab newspaper—should we also doubt it because it now appears in one from predominately black South Africa? I'll add these citations and let the readers decide. AdamKesher10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's up to us to decide. We're the editors; who else is there? It's not an AFP press report. The story never appeared on the AFP site. At best it's an Aljazeera story, at worst Khaleej or somebody before them made it up. If we're going to regurgitate Arab propaganda we should at least label it as such. The footnote still says AFP, while the link still goes to Khaleej. And the actual sentence still reads far too much like the threat is an established fact. Which it's not. It's perfectly acceptable to report that this assertion has been made. What's not acceptable is to falsely attribute the assertion to a more reliable source in order to reach for credibility that it doesn't deserve. I'm not saying the story's false. I'm saying we don't actually know that it's true, and the sentence in the article reads like we know just that. (Edit: I further note that Aljazeera, the Arab news agency, attributes the story to AFP, while News24, from the less-but-still-somewhat hostile South Africa, does not) Khaighle16:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You need a subscription to access the AFP press service. Are you saying that you have a subsciption to AFP press releases on their website, that you checked these, and that this story is not there? If so, this would be serious, new information. Please verify this. I've seen this story linked in four newspapers:
I'm sure there are more. Every single one of these links credits Agence France-Presse as the source. On what basis do you say that this is an Aljazeera story or "regurgitate[d] Arab propaganda"? On what basis do you doubt this particular press release from Agence France-Presse? On what basis do you dispute the asserted facts in the articles? AdamKesher17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well. I *was* basing my argument on the fact that neither Yahoo's nor AFP's own last-few-articles archives displayed this report when I went to look, which would have been well within the appropriate time frame (Khaleej having retransmitted it on July 24). However, determined to prove just how biased and wrong you are, I went through theAFP search engine, and the article is in fact there. The full text isn't viewable for free, but a modest payment informs me that it is, as far as the relevant facts are concerned, entirely in accord with the sources you quote. Believe me when I say I'm greatly annoyed that the story appears to have been buried by the Western press. Of course, while we've been arguing about this like civilized people some barbarian has duffed up our pet sentence while mucking about with photo embedding. I'll fix it. Khaighle17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for going above and beyond, Khaighle. BTW, the last edit appeared to have a mistake, so I tried my hand fixing it. All of the edit conflicts I've seen in this article appear to be the great desire by some to consign certain uncomfortable facts to the Memory hole. AdamKesher18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What I was going to point out, however, was that the story doesn't actually say "residential" anywhere. "Multi-storey" and "residential" are not the same thing. It may be implicit that all multi-storey buildings in Dahaya are residential apartment complexes, and then again it may not. Using "residential" is more inflammatory than necessary, and I've updated accordingly, and knocked off all but one of the reference notes; Aljazeera's version is enough if nobody's disputing the reference. (edit: Whoops. Footnote should still mention AFP) Khaighle18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Dahaya neighborhood of south Beirut, the (previous) location of Hezbollah headquarters, consist[ed] nearly entirely of multi-story residential buildings, with shops on the ground floors, and some medical and other offices on some second floors. But essentially entirely residential. You can see it for yourself on Google map—it's the neighborhood south/south-east of downtown Beirut (the peninsula) and north-east of the airport. Zoom in to get a close look. Those tall residential buildings are what's been completely flattened, apparently long after Hezbollah had gone elsewhere. Nevertheless, I agree with your change to the wording used in the report. AdamKesher21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sequence of Hezbollah/Israel/Lebanon in Military and Civilan Sections
I'm putting this here because I've argued that in the miltary section, the sequence should be Hezhollah, then Israel, but in the Civilian section this should be reversed. Trying to avoid revert war -- please add your opinions here.
Since Hezbollah attacked first, it is logical that it should be mentioned first. Then since Israel responded, Israel should be mentioned second. --128.148.154.11917:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with this logic for the military section. However, for the civilian section, Israel attacked civilian areas first, then Hezbollah responded with its own attack on civilians. It is true that they've been launching rockets at Israelis for a long time, but in the context of this conflict, that's the chronology for civilans. Also, the number of civilian casualties inflicted by Israel has been much, much higher, and is therefore a much more important part of the story, especially the non-Hezbollah Lebanese, which make their first appearance in this article only in the "By Israel" section. Delaying this important factor has the effect of "burying the lead." Finally, in the neutral reporting of any conflict, it's best logically to mix the sequence of AB and BA. Therefore, I would argue that the sequence in the Civilan section should be Israel-then-Hezbollah, which does follow the Hezbollah-then-Israel sequence in the military section. AdamKesher17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Reaching consensus on "Beginning of conflict" section
Okay, this is what I have come up with in my persuit of most NPOV I can think of:
According to Israel, at 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006,[12] the Lebanese group Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on northern Israel, mainly on the village of Shelomi, resulting in five civilian casualties.[13] Israel furthermore says that a large ground contingent of Hezbollah militants then attacked two Israeli armored IDFHumvees on a routine patrol of the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the Israeli village of Zar’it with anti-tank rockets.
Map showing where the conflict started according to Lebanon
According to Lebanon, Israeli soldiers had infiltrated the Lebanese town Ayta al-Sha`b and had been arrested therein.[14] Lebanon also says that Israeli aicraft, which were already active over Lebanese airspace, bombed the roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut, initiating the conflict.[15]
During the event that took place, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, and killed eight.[16] The IDF confirmed the capture of the two Israeli soldiers and identified them as Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both reservists who were on their last day of operational duty.[17]
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that, "A force of tanks and armored personnel carriers was immediately sent into Lebanon in hot pursuit. It was during this pursuit, at about 11:00 A.M. … a Merkava tank drove over a powerful bomb, containing an estimated 200 to 300 kilograms of explosives, about 70 meters north of the border fence. The tank was almost completely destroyed, and all four crew members were killed instantly. Over the next several hours, IDF soldiers waged a fierce fight against Hezbollah gunmen … During the course of this battle, at about 3:00 P.M., another soldier was killed and two were lightly wounded."[18]
Hezbollah released a statement saying 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,'[15] Later on Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah declared that “No military operation will return them… The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade of prisoners.”[19]
PS: I removed the Haaretz quote, because first of they are no authority, and second of all that is a direct copy of an authors work (plagiarism). ArmanJan19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Still POV. For Israel it says 'claims', however for Lebanon police it is 'says'. "Says" is a lot stronger than "claims" and "claims" usually means its wrong. Also, mentioning the tank would be nice. --Doom77719:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, its changed to implement both your wishes. No more claims (changed into says), added "according to". Can we agree on this? ArmanJan19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is minor: The grammar in According to Lebanon section was not changed. I changed it the way it should be, adding a comma, and splitting a sentence here (you'll have to change it on the article, as I am a new user):
According to Lebanon, Israeli soldiers had infiltrated the Lebanese town Ayta al-Sha`b and had been arrested therein,[14] Lebanon also says that Israeli aicraft, which were already active over Lebanese airspace, bombed the roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut, initiating the conflict.[15]Doom777 19:59, 24 July 2006
It should probably be noted that the Israeli version of events is the one being reported by an overwhelming majority of major news sources, but only if this can be done in a NPOV fashion. Infinitenoodles20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Im trying to create an article which everyone can agree on, not one that will be changed every five seconds (again). What is the relevance of adding that other than moving toward POV again (articles accepting Israel's side of the story as truth)? ArmanJan20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I just thought it might be worthy of note. The difference in sources supporting each story is rather drastic, which leads me to believe it might be important. If you think it can't added in without a NPOV conflict, I'm not going to push it. Infinitenoodles21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I believe that for every source that you'll bring to support one side, another person could bring another source to support the other side. If such a text is added, someone is going to add {{Fact}} behind it, etc... the edits will go on and on. ArmanJan21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest making the Haaretz quote a blockquote as one would for any high school, college, or serious paper. Conforming to MLA and ALA not only facilitates readability, it increases credibility IMHO. FightCancer21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In this section blockquotation doesnt look nice because it is inbetween two pictures. If the text is brought below there is no real finalisation. The hezbollah quote is good because its sortof the end of the beginning if you know what I mean. ArmanJan21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Right now the quote is not in between two pictures, and it frequently is not depending on edits to the intro. FightCancer23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you have a lower monitor resolution (800x600?), or your browser text size is set to something larger. My screen is in 1152x864, and browser has normal text size, it falls well between the pictures. Even if I go back to 1024x768, al though further down, the text still goes around the picture. (both in Firefox and IE). ArmanJan00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal to me. I would just prefer that Wiki writers adhere to standards as much as possible. FYI, I'm IE6 SP2, 1024x768, "Medium"-sized text--and the Haaretz quote is still not between the pics. (According to several counters I've used for eBay that collect info on browsers, 1024x768 is by far the most common resolution.) FightCancer00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as we have reached a consensus on the section I will add it to the main article. FightCancer, feel free to add the blockquotation in the article, but it really does look ugly on my PC (even in 1024x768). ArmanJan12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Mitigating comments on confirmed Israeli attacks on ambulances and hospitals
There have been edits adding what I characterize as mitigating POV comments to the sentence on confirmed Israeli attacks on ambulances and hospitals. I'd like to avoid a revert war -- please comments here. This was my initial message to User talk:Denis Diderot on this edit (edit), which has just been reverted by User talk:Shrikehere. I'm arguing to just state the confirmed facts in a sequence and leave the responding comments for later, where they already reside. AdamKesher21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You say that this edit is more informative, yet I would argue that it is POV because it appears to be an attempt to mitigate confirmed reports of Israel targeting ambulances and hospitals. Your quoting of Dr. Mohamad Jawad Khalifeh is highly selective. And the Israeli Ministry of Health quote merely restates the Israeli position that they try to avoid civilian casualties, a position which is well represented elsewhere in the article, as well as begging the question of how the Israeli Ministry of Health knows what the Israeli military's tactics are. We can't have such a quote from an Israeli official following the report of every civilian target. I would argue that these edits are POV and are not in fact more informative, as argued originally. Would you please comment on this? AdamKesher20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is from the Gupta's detailed follow-up to the previous statements about hearing "confirmed reports". Thus it's more informative. It's clear from the questions that Gupta doesn't have any first-hand knowledge. The quote isn't highly selective. I picked the most significant part to keep it short. The reply from the Israeli representative should be included since it was in the original source and it's relevant. We try to report what the sources say without any distortion. That's what Wikipedia is about. --Denis Diderot21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that this does not address the content of my criticisms. Furthermore, this is a strange response, given that you deleted the text "CNN's Dr.Sanjay Gupta reported from Beirut, "We're hearing stories—confirmed stories now about ambulances actually being attacked. Hospitals actually being bombed, so much so, that they can no longer function".[20][21]" In fact, your edit is less informative, and obfuscates the main point of confirmed reports of ambulances and hospitals being targeted by Israeli forces. Even if you simply added the text that replaced this cited information, doing so would is a POV mitigation of this fact. I'd rather not run around and around with you on this, like here—I would, however, like to hear any substantive response to my comments. Please send my regards to Shrike. AdamKesher22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, Denis Diderot is censoring information that lends credibility to the statement such as Gupta's title and professional credentials. The article describes him as "Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent" and his rank should be listed in full, along with his statements. Whether his statement is opinion or fact is irrelevant. If his statement is fact, then it deserves to be listed. If his statement is opinion, then it deserves to be listed. Please see Weasel Words. "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:" FightCancer23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote from the Lebanese minister of health clearly carries more weight than a medical correspondent reporting live about things "we're hearing" from unspecified sources (no matter what titles he may have). It's obviously better to use the detailed examination with specified sources than the brief comments in the previous broadcast. In both cases the information comes via CNN and "Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent"--Denis Diderot07:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You've sidestepped or ignored the question of why you deleted the original report "CNN's Dr.Sanjay Gupta reported from Beirut, "We're hearing stories—confirmed stories now about ambulances actually being attacked. Hospitals actually being bombed, so much so, that they can no longer function".[22][23]" You've been hectoring people about Wikipedia rules: it is CNN's reporter that counts as the reliable source under these rules. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that your reason behind your edits to this page are different from the ones stated. AdamKesher10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I have to be more pedagogical.
Question: Why did you remove the quote by Sanjay Gupta?
Answer: My original version (DD1) included Gupta's quote, which I made longer than in the previous version. DD1 also included the quotes from Khalifeh and Israeli (interviewed by Gupta).
After that, someone deleted the quotes from Khalifeh and Israeli from DD1 and kept the one from Gupta. I looked at that and agreed that the passage had been unecessarily long and redundant. I therfore kept the quotes from Khalifeh and Israli, since they came from a more informative and detailed account. The new version (DD2) contained a sourced statement from the Lebanese Minister of Health as opposed to the vague "heard reports" from unidentified sources. CNN was the reference in both DD1 and DD2. Gupta was the reporter in both DD1 and DD2.
Perhaps your pedagogic example was unnecesary, I think people understand your point. Its just that they have presented reasons to disagree with your logic. I for one remain unconvinced: it is custom in current event articles, including this one, to use claims from media sources as a source for facts, no matter what questions are raised about its veracity. One then has the responsibility to disclaim the source, but simply deleting seems dangerously close to simply wanting the facts not to emerge.
To give one relevant example from here, YNet claims 1300 injured in a headline, but if you read the article, it becomes clear the true figure is 1293 (under 1300, however close) and that it includes 875 people treated for shock (which has never been customarily included in any figures on conflict casualties, and constitute the first time I have personally seen it listed in the history of conclict!). Nevertheless, the source is there, and it actually had the updated figures to that date. So did I just deleted it? No! I simply read the sourced, rewrote it to NPOV standars, separated the two figures, AND gave a rationale in the talk page. Easy.
Lastly, in general, and it is a custom in Wikipedia, we must try to use an encyclopedic voice, this means we must try to keep quotes from sources at a minimum, unless they are relevant quotes from specific relevant actors. Sanjay Gupta is not a relevant (to this conflict) actor but a reporter (and one known mostly in the USA to boot), so quoting him seems to me as unnecesary. Perhaps we can write "CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta spoke about "confirmed reports" of attacks on ambulances and medical infrastructure" and then a source.
This is gripe I have not only about this section, but the whole article in general, people trying so hard either to push thier POV or trying to keep NPOV, that they forget we are all here to write an encyclopedia, not a blog with POV rules.--Cerejota18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Need new article?
During the discussion to delete the monstrous POV aberration called "The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict", I did realize that the encyclopedic quality of the article might better served is we create a new, different page called "Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". This is because while I support deleting the other article for a bunch of reasons, a main one is that it is limited to Syria and Iran, whereas there are reports and factual information on the involvement, direct or indirect, of a number of State and non-State of conflicts, not just Syria and Iran, and the sole mention of Syria and Iran is a major NPOV violation. Its as we spoke only about Israeli bombing of civilians, or only about the role of the IDF. Ludicrous, prima-facie bias!
The lead currently makes no mention of what the Hezbollah operation, which is widely cited as the casus belli, actually consists of, while continuing to mention Israel's retaliation. I am inserting a minor description to make it NPOV. TewfikTalk00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you change. I just dont agree on dweling on the "why" the name in the intro, and if we do, we must then also dwell on why Israel named their operations that.
(I don't think there is any need at this point to mention the possibility of the capture of the soldiers being in Lebanon,at this point, because there is not enough sources to put as being anything other than rumor. If say, Nasrallah or the Prime Minister of Lebanon do a press conference saying it was on their side of the border, thats another deal altogether. I do think it must be briefly mentioned in the article tho.)--Cerejota01:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
balance or truth
Last paragraph of the introduction
"Concerns have been raised regarding the targeting of civilian areas by both sides of the conflict."
This sentence equates Hezbollah's purposely targeting civilians and Israel accidentally killing civilians because Hezbollah hide among civilians. Even if you believe that Israel wants to kill civilians there is still no comparison between Hezbollah which admits to wanting to kill civilians and Israel who says that they don't want to kill civilians. This sentence put conspiracy theories on the same footing as statements made by Hezbollah! Jon51319:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Israel admits hitting civilian areas and Israel admits targeting alleged Hezbollah buildings/weapons/people which are (according to Israel) located/hidden in civilian areas. Israel does not admit targeting civilian areas. Target means the "goal" that one wants to achieve/destroy. Israel never said it wants to achieve as many dead civilians/destroy as much civilian infrastructure as possible. Sijo Ripa19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, transport infrastructure is an exception. They have specifically said all road and highways, the airport, and seaports are targets. They justify it by saying that this is to limit Hezbollah's ability to move artillery and the captured soldiers, yet the fact is they declared transport infrastructure open season.--Cerejota20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Even under civilian areas. Like parking lots - which are targeted to be blown clear through to the crunchy, Hezbollah nougat center. Ranieldule19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As to the actual heading, well, WP:V puts its stress in verifiability not truth and WP:NPOV requires balanced presentation. So if your question is "balance or truth?" the unqualified wikipedia answer is: *balance*. DOn't like it? Discuss it int the talk pages of WP:V, or leave wikipedia. But for better or worse thats the law of the land.--Cerejota20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless as to the outcome of this discussion, we should be clear that verifiability trumps "truth" (verifiablity is truth as far as WP is concerned). Balance should not trump verifiability; WP:NPOV specifically grants different levels of representation to claims based on their acceptance. TewfikTalk03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this assertion "Balance should not trump verifiability": balance, lack of bias, and NPOV trumph everything.
WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars of wikipedia (WP:5P for the benefit of wikiesquires), while verifiability (aka WP:V) is not. In the very shallow, two tier, hierchachy of policy here, WP:V can be disregarded (and in fact, a large number of non-controversial articles do so), while WP:NPOV cannot. This is, for example, why disclaimers and caveats don't have to be sourced: the need to balance statements representing a given POV with a counter-argument trumps WP:V.
Your reading of undue weight I find rather thin: it is clear it means outlandish, unproven (or counter-proven) claims, and not controversial claims, even minority controversial claims, and further more, undue weight still means you must mention things, not that they dont belong altogether.
In this case, for example, it is widely belived, hell I believe, that Hezbollah got their prisioners by going into Israel and getting em, and that they launched a diversionary rocket attack. Yet there are verifiable claims to the contrary. And we must mention them and give them their due weight, without giving it undue weight. Its a hard balance, but thats why we are all editors...
It's entirely verifiable that, whether one thinks it right, wrong, otherwise, Israel targets civiian areas - not for the purpose (they have stated) of killing Lebanese civilians, but all things Hezbollah. If your house is on top of Hezbollah, or next to it, that red circle gets drawn around you, too. So targeting of civilian areas works for both sides, even those who's express purpose is to not kill any civilians. Ranieldule20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What I was trying to explain is that neither party is reported by that sentence to be "targetting civilians." Targetting civilian areas yes, but there is a vast difference between the two. --zero faults|sockpuppets|20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you fix this problem by changing the word "targeting"? It is the intro, after all, so the body can add context. How about "Concerns have been raised regarding civilian causualties caused by both sides' actions?" (for bonus credit, someone could fix "Concerns have been raised") TheronJ17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The following is a paragraph from the introduction:
The attacks against civilian populations in the course of the conflict are controversial, and Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland - famous for calling the United States 'stingy' on Tsunami relief - has referred to the Israeli strikes as "a violation of humanitarian law," though he also accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" among civilians.
Is it really relevant to mention "famous for calling the United States 'stingy' on Tsunami relief"? I think it may have been strategically placed to advance a certain point of view or cater to certain interests. --Epsilonsa21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1.-
I have added the following line to try to mention hizbollah's point of view, after all, how can their aim be what israeli's say, while hizbollah officials' words aren't included.
Hizbollah has stated that their main aim is exchange of prisoners. Hizbollah has indeed tried over the years to request their prisoners back and threaten the kidnapping of soldiers for an exchange of prisoners.[citation needed]
2.-
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes, "Hezbollah's goals are simple, perhaps even attainable. Continuing the rocket fire, preventing Lebanon from becoming a step in the American vision for a new Middle East, and preventing its own disarmament. The group has no intention of renouncing its weapons in any cease-fire. "[22]
I MEAN COME ON, "hizbollah's evil plans to make lebanon a worse place because its democratic now and they don't like it".. I mean wow! Hizbollah's existence HUGELY DEPENDS on lebanon being a democratic country, if it wasn't, hizbollah wouldn't be allowed to exist.
Hizbollah is being treated as a terrorist group just because 2 countries in the world view it as it is, please remember that lebanon itself doesn't view hizbollah as being a terrorist group, and so does the europian union.
What needs to be included in my own point of view so that it would be an NPOV article:
1- Hizbollah's goals emphasized, instead of taking 30% of the section, they should take 60%
2- Hizbollah officials have stated other goals, such as this being: "israel's last war", such things should be included.
Eshcorp15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Template figures: shock
The main template lists "875 treated for shock" for Israel. To be fair, it should list the number treated for shock in the other two columns. But to be realistic, this is a POV measurment, since Hezbollah and Lebanon are probably lacking access to treatment facilities. I say it should be removed altogether from the tally. --0g23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, even if it was I who put it. The reason being that the headline in the source claimed 1,300 injured, whereas closer reading admited 875 were for shock. I included the shock figure to explain the discrepancy between the headline and the actual figure for injury.
There is in this broken mother of a talk page a post by me explaining the rationale in more depth.
But in general I am all for its removal, but must also note that the tally is at least a couple of days old. We getting lazy with the figures...--Cerejota06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Way too much Israeli Proganda
Israeli reports can not be trusted as has been demonstrated by thier claims and high censorship levels.
Do you not know that Israel claims Hezbollah did it and that the UN Secretary-General is racist? By the way the Israeli foreign ministry has asked for volunteers to serf the net and launch a cmpaign to protect Israel. Here is the link.
So get on your tinfoil hats, and follow those links for some NPOV jew bash.. uhmm Zionst.. sorry.. legitimate neutral EEZRAEEELI information..
Hi ive looked at the sources and the times one is VERY interesting! (Angryarab is what it says it is people). I've added the information to the World Union of Jewish Students page about the software they are using. It way well be worth a single line somewhere in this article, But where?Hypnosadist23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the times article is indeed very interesting, especially since there is a possibility that Wikipedia might be/have been targeted, and the software is there at [23] (regrettably it is Windows only, so I can't get it to see what it says to the user.) --Battra23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Israel has freedom of press. No other Arab regime has that! Hezbollah and every other Arab country only show what they want you to see! Arab citizens are only seeing certain parts of the conflict. Moreover, remember the picture of Palestinians cheering after 9/11? Well haven't you noticed that it has disappeared! What happened was that Palestinian terrorists threatened to kill the man who filmed that. So, CNN stopped showing it and the man was released. Israel on the other hand has freedom of press. --68.1.182.21502:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That "cheering video" was revealed to be staged. And there is censorship in Israel. Both from the military and obviouly self censorship. There have been many complaints about reporters being either shot by IDF or denied access to the occupied areas. // Liftarn
NPOV?
Please don't pretend that a wiki dominated by yanks can ever discuss the slaughter of muslims and other dark-skinned foreigners in a neutral fashion. You are doing a disservice not only to the world, but to the Wikipedia project in general (there are other wikis where the monolingual yanks cannot dominate the POV). To the yanks reading this, the lebanese are not untermensch even though I don't blame you for believing this. Bugmenot4202:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
As I am "dark-skinned", I don't see how this is relevant. Wikipedia is about NPOV. Period. It includes among its explanations on NPOV a critcism on geographical and ethnic bias, which I think this article (and subarticles) in general lack. After all, dark-skinned druze, sephardim and ethiopians are dying and killing for Israel too. Now since I live in the USA, my worldview might be a bit skewered, so if you care to point us towards the specifics, perhaps we can re-word and make geographically and ethnically neutral the text. And of course, be bold and edit yourself...--Cerejota02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, you don't live in the USA, you live in Puerto Rico. You're a wannabe yank with no rights. There is nothing sadder than wannabe yanks who dedicate their lives to propagandize for the empire, dark-skinned or not. USA (NATO) will get their bases in the south of lebanon, strategic control of the middle-east will be achieved and you won't even benefit directly, saddo wannabe yank. Fight for your independence, be proud of your separation from your imperial masters, then we can talk. Bugmenot4203:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearly it is you who is biased, Bugmenot42. Also, if any editor (or whoever has the power to do such things) sees this, Bugmenot42 should be removed. He's a new user, and probably one from www.bugmenot.com (a public library of user accounts for sites with free registration). ehudshapira01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
![[9]](http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/0/54790.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/1/54791.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files///5//42315.jpg){kind=link}
