Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 10

message: Hello all. A deficiency in this article which just jumps out at me is the lack of detailing of the Hezbollah rocket campaign on equal footing as the Israeli bombing campaign. The result is that the Israeli campaign is mentioned once as the response and then again in relation to civilian casualties, while the Hezbollah rockets are only mentioned in the civilians section. Someone who does not read the civilians section will not be aware of this aspect of the hostilities, which is a central part of every mainstream news report, and is listed as one of Israel's conditions for ceasing hostilities. Surely this should be corrected. I'm waiting eagerly for feedback, and am beginning to put something together. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah rocket campaign 

message: Any suggestions for the best way to discuss the quotes that criticise both Hezbollah and Israel? I've quoted them below:
Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights, expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory." She suggested that the actions of Israel and Hezbollah may constitute war crimes.  Arbour called for Israel to obey a "principle of proportionality" and said, "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians … Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."
One day after the call for a ceasefire by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on 20 July 2006, a U.N.-run observation post located near Zarit, Israel near the Lebanese border was hit by direct fire during fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militia. The Israeli army claimed Hezbollah rockets hit the U.N. post; however, a U.N. officer claimed that the post "was hit by an Israeli artillery shell."
Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of both sides 

message: Does anyone know how much there is to this :  "Israel set war plan more than a year ago
Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength"--Paraphelion 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-planning for the war 

message: What happened? This article was heading towards some sort of understandable structure a few days ago, but when I came in today it seems over the course of 4 days the article has come unglued. Its unpleasant to look at and lacks any semblance of a flow. The picture warring has continued to where people keep putting up a map as an image rather than anything good, like artillery or katyusha firing. Did something happen over these 4 days where an image of artillery firing became unacceptable? If not, why does it continually get removed? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit wars have really burned a lot of time/energy particularly the main picture. Remember i said a few days ago we should have the map as otherwise someone would be pissed enough with the picture (whatever it is!!!) to edit war over it. This is the most emotionally charged (in the outside world) conflict at the moment if not in the history of the world. Most people have strong views on this whole situation, most countries in the world are affected (oil price being one example) by these events. I just dont think you understand how important this is to some people, and that this very page is one of the battlefields of this conflict. Yes artillery firing is unacceptable to enough people that it should be respected and a map shows more usful information. I really do not understand the value of or the need for a COOL picture of something, especially as this causes so much trouble for SO little gain.Hypnosadist 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but we do not let people with agendas other than making the best article determine what we can and cannot show. People are emotionally charged, and they will be that way about the casualty numbers, about what the casus belli is, about the title. If the only objection to something is that it doesnt portray the war in the fashion they want it to be, we can ignore them. If they edit without base, we revert them, just like we would rvert the person who put the goatse-esque image up. An image of artillery being fired is the best image we have at this time that is free or qualifies for fair use. As time progresses we will get better and better images. THe map is no "safe alternative" that everyone likes, people have objected to it and it was already determined, when you first brought it up, that it is not the best thing to have up there. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 1)Npov is an important principle that applies to pictures as much the words, bet you did not like the little red horse picture, that was your pov(if you didn't several people did, and that was thier pov). Someone else wants a dead lebanise kid pic to show the REALITY of the war, others want rocket crators in Haifa, its all pov. 2)What does one picture (of anything) achieve that is worth the wikistress that this is causing? Its a complete waste of time and energy hence why i have never edited the pic or done a revert.3) I'm bringing the map up a second time as after 100's of pointless changes of picture the conflict is still ongoing, it will continue, because this issue is so charged.4)Many more people seem to support the map over any given picture(as apposed to the total number of people who want thier picture).Hypnosadist 13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis? A picture of a red toy in the rubble does indeed outline the true nature of the war, and is not POV. Artillery being fired is not POV. Katyusha being fired is not POV. I would take any of these images over a map that shows nothing more than the "Location: Lebanon and northern Israel" does. Maps are only used in the infobox when outlining major troops movements and strategy, neither of which are happening now. I have frequently removed images if they were not free/fair use, even if they were infact better. You should not worry about accomodating people who edit with incorrect basis. We should always use the best image. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hell in a Hand Basket 

message: Does anyone have anything about the strength of the participants here? Seems funny if there are casualties, but no strength to start off with in the first place. A previous similar post on this subject was deleted as "irrelevant" by an anon. --Terrancommander 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thank you for the effort. But I raised this question because the infobox doesn't show anything about it yet. :D --Terrancommander 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about strength of participants 

message: There are quite a few blank references (they are given names but go nowhere). Are they O.K to delete? --Iorek85 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blank references

message: Well, the preamble should say the most important stuff with as few words as possible. Now the preamble contains this: 
: "On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise, named for a "promise" by its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for the remaining three Lebanese held by Israel, mainly Samir Kuntar. Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward, later renamed Operation Change of Direction."
Maybe all these names could be moved to other sections of the article, as they doesn't really contain any information regarding what is happening? --Battra 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of operations in the preamble?

message: As the article seems to get larger and larger, I suggest that it is splitted into different articles. At least Casualties section can be removed without breaking the integrity of the article. Internatinal reaction has already own article, now it has way too much text on this side; same goes to the Military operations section.--JyriL talk 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many things have to be cut down. I want to do that eventually, unless someone opposes. --Doom777 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting up the article

message: I have created stub article on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The reason is that while I support the deletion of the "Role of Iran and Syria..."  article, the debate there did raise a good point, which is that there is a need to discuss the roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors this conflict, and that such discussion could be too big for this main page, so a relevant, NPOV page seems to be needed. Remember: the page must remain NPOV and balanced, and is now a stub, so it will take some time for a good page to emerge. 
Besides the already mentioned support of Hezbollah by Syria and Iran, I think we should discuss US support to Israel and the Israeli political parties, and to US and Israeli support of political parties and militias in Lebanon. Additionally, we would have, of course, to discuss Israeli support of the Lebanese Forces and the Phalange, and its funding and operational leadership of an assasination squad responsible for a number of high visibility assassinations of Lebanese unsympathetic to Israeli views. Etc, etc, etc.--Cerejota 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: claims, claims, claims, is claimed to.... (add this words to your second paragraph, and it'll be NPOVM. Butterfly 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict"

message: The paragraph has gone to hell, its full of POV, and unnecesary details that should go to other sections. For example, I suggest moving the details of the Lebanese prisioners in Israel to the "Background" section, and rewirting for POV. Again people, I think we are missing the point, NPOV and balance are important, but so is article quality, please when you edit have this in mind: there are almost 5 subpages, and 10 sections and subsections, pleas eput your contributions where they go. Intro should be short, have no major details, and only mention things that are really relevant to the WHOLE article, not to part of it, like motives etc.--Cerejota 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: Hizbula has been hiting israeli towns and cities along the border for a long time (once evety few month an israeli was killed by rockets). The new longer range and the kidnaping of the 2 soldiesr are just the last straw that brought Israel to fight back. Zeq 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. This should go in the background - the fighting at the end of May. Just find a good citation for it. M. Butterfly 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from this article  

message: many things are out of place in this section. First, the following piece:
:"On 25 July 2006 a UN peacekeeping force was hit by Israel rocket fire, prompting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to charge, "I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli defence forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two UN military observers, with two more feared dead."[83] Daniel Ayalon, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., responded, "This kind of rhetoric is deplorable — For anyone to jump into conclusions I think this is not a good way to conduct international diplomacy. … This is shocking that anyone, especially of that stature, somebody who has been in Israel, someone who knows our morals, who knows the conduct of the military … For him to level this accusation that it was deliberate, this is just outrageous and shocking, and I hope that he will apologize for that."[84] UNIFIL added that they believe Israeli forces continued to fire at close range even during the rescue operation.[85]"
Belongs in the "attacks on UN forces" section, and should be embedded there.
Second, both the "Claims of phosphorus incendiary bomb use by Israeli forces" and the "Attacks on ambulances by Israeli forces" should be embedded in the "by Israel" section (either as subsections, or even in the text itself, as they are not very long and at least one of them repeats info that was already on top). 
Third, The "Opinions on civilian attacks" should be the last section of this section, after the UN attacks.
Fourth, I believe that the AFP report (now that it's confirmed) should not be in the same paragraph as the Israeli position, as it is somewhat contradictory; maybe move it somewhere else. 
I would have made the changes myself, but as the topic is controversial, I will wait for commemnts on this talk page before making any changes. M. Butterfly 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well one, you violated the WP:B policy by being afraid to modify it. ;) Second, it shouuld not be merged, because both Israel and Hezbollah attacked ambulances and UN members --Doom777 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts on the civilian section 

message: If you don't know I am a reporter for CNN. I am planning to travel to Tel-Aviv and then go north on Monday. I will be taking Delta Air Lines 152, for about 11 hours. I will depart at 10:45pm and get there around 530pm. I will give updates as they happen! WikieZach| talk 22:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont get yourself killed there.Cameron Nedland 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I will take pictures and will be careful. Thanks for caring. WikieZach| talk 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure no problem.Cameron Nedland 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Change of flight plans. Could leave tonight. WikieZach| talk 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am GOING THERE! 

message: This is a sock puppet of banned editor:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.1.182.215
Zeq 05:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by banned editor 

message: In the sidebox it says that tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced and then links to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200301_2.html as the source.  Where on that page does it mention Israelis being displaced?  This bit is the only part where it talks about displaced people: 
Many were fleeing Aitaroun, Bint Jbeil and other cities following Israel's urgent evacuation orders to the 300,000 people who live south of the Litani, which runs roughly 25 miles north of the Israeli border.
Maybe the mention of displaced Israelis should be removed until a real source can be found and not just a make-believe one?--216.26.201.10 06:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too and forgot to bring it up.  I'm glad someone did.  IMO the statistic should be removed until it can be cited.  Similarly, if someone were to claim that 6 million Lebanese had been displaced, I would want a stat for that too. FightCancer 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Edison 04:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops never mind I see the new reference.--Paraphelion 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This happens with CNN.com on a daily basis.  Last week I used a source that was then changed, however searching for exact terms using their own search engine would bring the article up, even though the article no longer contained those words.  Isn't there some kind of journalistic integrity thing about this, like they should say the article was modified or corrected?  The NY Times does have an ombudsman, but I doubt CNN does.--Paraphelion 05:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced? 

message: Iran, Syria and Yemen have given support to Lebanon and Hezbollah.[185]. In 186 Iran is mentioned but only by an US official. Iran has supported Hezbollah in the past and quite certainly does so here but I'd like to see a reference that confirms Irans support for Hezbollah. Secondly, 185 mentions Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Algerian, Sudan and Morocco as supporters (or rather that their cause was justified) of Hezbollah's current actions. -G3, 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly you want to see? Iran saying "yes, we are supporting hezbollah"? -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185 

message: May we just report every user that vandalises the page and just get them banned immediately? Otherwise this shit will never end. The user Tasc just reverted an article on which we have reached a consensus. ArmanJan 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. you haven't reach a consensus. you had a talk in some obscure location with another user. And now you're calling it a consensus. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither did dozens of editors. this is neither discussion nor consensus. And stop adding commercial and broken references!!!!!!!! -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no where near breaking WP:3RR. However tasc has been banned for edit wars before. ArmanJan 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just ban the vandals already!

message: Please note that I've placed the article The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict on WP:AFD, for the reasons stated on the deletion page. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork for deletion 

message: To quote Juan Cole as an 'opinion' this issue is misleading and ridiculous. He is known for his support for Arab causes. It is like quoting someone from a Jewish lobby as an opinion without mentioning his background!!! that entire page is out of place should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.139.87 (talk • contribs) .
:If that he is "known for his support of Arab causes" is a reason for his non-appearance in the article, shall we delete all references and comments from anyone at the IDF, who are of course notorious world-wide for their almost staunch support of Israel?  Or can we just accept the fact that the article has properly wikilinked Juan Cole, giving anyone ignorant of the guy the opportunity to investigate not only the cited source, but also the bonifides of the individual as well?  Additionally, the reference appears to be quoted correctly and even relevantly.  mdf 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its true that he is a staunch supporter of "arab causes" then he should be introduced as such. Introducing him as simply a professor when he has obviously had some one sided commentary and views is leaving out valuable information. Its almost like stating "Ehud Olmert, a lawyer, stated Hezbollahs actions are unjust." Where there is pertinent information, it should be included. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions on civilian attacks??

message: The introduction is kaput, the orignal strucute of the article (Background, Begining, Response) kaput. Subpages caput.
And it isnt only the expected POV wars, but also quality issue, spelling issues all kinds, structure issues, etc. I guess this is a call for editors to remember that we are trying to make an NPOV encyclopedia here, not some kind of news item. For that try WikiNews--Cerejota 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one concerned with article quality?

message: Hellznrg accused me of "stealth vandalism" for reverting to its more or less original, consensus form the intro paragraph of the article. I stated the reasons for the edit both here in talk and in the comments of the edit. I ask user Hellznrg  to retract and apologize for his uncivil behaivior, and to pleas ein the future read and discuss in the talk pages before doing such a major, and controversial, edit.--Cerejota 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and I ask you to resolve this in private talk, rather than clutter up this page even more. Doom777 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism 

message: Can someone salvage this passage, if indeed the site is reliable.
This is backed up by French website, voltairenet.org, which stated on July 18, 2006 that "Here facts: Hezbollah requires since long years the release of prisoners held by Israel, such as Samir el Kantar, imprisoned since 1978, Nassim Nisr and Yahia Skaff which is imprisoned since 1982. In many occasion, it let know that the weather would not fail to be captive in its turn Israeli soldiers - if Ci-that-Ci had been suddenly introduced in Lebanon, and to use them like monnaire of exchange. In a deliberated way, Tsahal sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aïta Al Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, making two prisoners. Israel A then pretends to be attacked and attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah, which prepared to face an Israeli aggression that each one knew imminent since the Syrian withdrawal, drew from the intermediate-range missiles on Israel.", whilst the rest of the media stated the lies of the Israel. Israel has used this to justifed the bombing of Lebanon, which has resulted in the death of nearly 400 innocent civilians.
:My god, this is one the silliest things I've ever read. Made me crack up in the middle of my workplace. Where do you people get this stuff? Actually, I'm having A tough time understanding what the guy who wrote this really wants.... Tweekerd 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvage French 

message: After seeing this article go back and forth within the matter of seconds over these past two weeks I am now of the opinion Wikipedia should not document "controversial" current events. Rather, these should be re-visited with the clearness and CALMNESS of hindsight. Fair dinkum - have a look at the list of references - its almost as long as the article - each one put there by someone trying to push their side of the story - rather than to show academic research of the topic. Its all a bit like school kids bickering in the playground: I'm right....no I'm right etc. For a start lets take it off the Wikipedia Main Page, then Jimbo or the "wiki community" needs to think about whether a policy should be made about documentation of such contoversial current events. In this case we will never get consensus, just someone reverting more than someone else. 203.15.73.3 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider that instead of posting here you might have researched the issue with numerous citations to back up your claim the and presented it to Jimbo or somewhere else on wikipedia where they discuss this stuff.--Paraphelion 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well done Paraphelion - great contribution!! Just have a look at the top of this Talk page and there are calls for peer review etc etc. The article has turned into a blog, rather than something of encyclopedic value. The point was about writing the article with the benefit of HINDSIGHT, once everyone has calmed down, or as we say: had a bex and a good lie down!! Love to know why the original heading was changed - must have been too close to the truth hey?Jokeofanarticle 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreaciate the compliment, thanks.  Your point is being well made as it is well referenced doesn't resemble anything anyone might find on a blod.--Paraphelion 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: where did I complain about it not being perfect? And if you read what I said, I suggested we WAIT and write the article later on with some historical significance.Jokeofanarticle 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Iorek85.  The article is in bad shape, but is nonetheless a useful resource and much better than no article at all. Sanguinalis 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article has become a joke. Israeli members (and anonymous users) have been deleting whole sections, references, changing casualties without reason, changing references to israeli news articles, etc, etc, etc. I gave up on this article, I will do nothing serious until this thing has calmed down. Right now it is useless to edit anything, it will be removed in a matter of seconds. ArmanJan 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, every time I open this article it looks more like Anti-Israeli propoganda than the previous time, and less and less like an ecnyclopedic article. Apparently, the anti-Israeli bloc on the net is a strong one, and obviously is very resolved on abusing the widespread popularity of Wikipedia in order to (as usual) make Israel look like a terrible monster who cares about nothing more than destroying the poor Lebanese. regardless of my Israeli POV, this article indeed looks like a joke. No one who actually knows anything will believe this. I have given up on this several days ago already, when it became apparent that there are some wars you can't win, and some users who are really too persistent in their destrcutive and vandalistic efforts (and obviously have too much spare time on their hands). The only thing I update regularly is the casualty reports according to Magen David Adom, who are the Israeli Red Cross. It consoles me a bit that no one has bothered to delete those as well....oh, and ArmanJan - let me just say - Hahahahaha - you and your "friends" are one of the main reasons the article looks like this. Shame for Wikipedia. Tweekerd 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just stumbled on this article and have only just read it for the first time a couple of minutes ago.  Let me give you all my very first thought:  It's a bloody miracle that this article has survived in even a half-decent state - so congratulations to all that have made an honest attempt at NPOV editing.   But I knew it was going to be too good to be true.  It's lines like this one:  "Attacks on civilians in Lebanon and Israel on the part of all combatants has been a major component in the conflict."  that really gives the game away - a dishonest attempt at fair mindedness and impartiality, when in truth, it reminds me of a certain conflict in the Balkans in the 90s when one side was getting absolutely massacred and the other side was claiming that there were atrocities on both sides.   One side is armed with popguns, and the other with the complete arsenal of a modern military state, and it shows.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have an opinion similar to 203.15.73.3.  I don't believe there is any way to write an article on a "current event" without doing what amounts to original research according to Official Wikipedia Holy Script.  Note the careful phrasing "amounts to" -- while it is possible in principle, according to a literal reading of the sacred policies, the practical effect in the end is "original research" when N sources are brought together in one place, and N is "sufficiently large" (as the mathematicians say).  Compare the current article to recent CRS report on the business.  Utterly, totally, 100% "original research" by WP standards, but nevertheless, far, far, more encyclopedic, informative, and even balanced.  mdf 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's such a horrendously biased blog to you, why not offer a solution? Hell, be the solution. Otherwise, hunker in your bunker with all your citations until this blows over. Take a glance at Hitler and Hells Angels for articles long out of immediate events and still rife with controversy, and there's a good idea of how long you'll have to wait. Seems far better to slog on through for the glory of NPOV! Huzzah, Wikipedia, huzzah! Ranieldule 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not read what I wrote?  If bias is the only problem, then the solution is obvious and trivial to implement.  mdf 13:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG

message: I just want to add
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm to the end of the links section as it is a novel interpretation of the conflict and a good series of articles. The only rule about adding links is that they cannot be commercial, they cannot be one's own website, and the amount of links that support one side of an argument cannot outweigh the more mainstream view. None of these rules will be broken. 81.129.153.28 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This link would not be acceptable, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" see wp:el for the full requirments. I originaly removes links to hirhome.com as it appears to be be an editorial, and makes some leaps of logic when making conclusions, nor is it an accredited media source. hirhome.com simply appears to be the personal opinion blog of Francisco Gil-White, presented as if it were a 'research institute', and thus fails the 'no blogs' rule as well. --Barberio 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should avoid using blogs in the links section. I already removed 3 before if you know of other please inform me so I can remove those as well. While I am not taking a side on this particular "source" I would like to point out that footnotes do not make a source reliable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I support adding this link, but explaining it is a viewpoint. M. Butterfly 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also support adding the link. perhaps we should split the external links into multiple sections - have a list of pro-israeli links, another for pro-hezbollah ones. putting the hirhome series on the current conflict under the pro-israeli banner would let people know in advance that it explains a viewpoint. also, in response to user zerofaults: hirhome is not a blog. if anybody is confused about what a blog is, go to wiki's own article on blog and note that blogs are characterized by 1) reverse chronological order of entries 2) trackback features and 3) user comments. hirhome has none of these features. Cmart 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah HIR isn't a blog at all - it's a collection of pieces on current events and history in a scholarly style with references. If we separate the links as Cmart says then everyone will know very well exactly what kind of link they are going to, so I think we should just add it and divide the links into pro-Israel and pro-Hezbollah. Ryan4Talk 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Links

message: I don't see anything about the 2 kidnapped soldiers in the info box.....Where did it go??? I'm adding them as it seems it was removed by vandals Tweekerd 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: captured, not kidnapped.--Cerejota 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the kidnapped soldiers? 

message: ...Ayta al-Sha`b incident created. Beginning of conflict paragraph shortened.--TheFEARgod 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article will be deleted, becaues having an article for the beginning of a conflict, whose name alone supports one of the sides, is the most NPOV we saw in this debate. You have one hour to make modifications enough for me not to delete it, and merge it back with Beginning of Conflict Doom777 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to avoid bossing people around, its a violation of WP:OWN. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just brining my intentions to everyone's attention and giving people opportunity to challenge them. If you think I am wrong in doing this, tell me why, and we'll continue discussion about it.Doom777 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving someone 1 hour to make a change when they may not even still be on or around their computer is the problem. As I said, bossing people around is the why. Since you do not own the article, you hardly have a right to give people a deadline to edit it by. I am not saying what you want to edit is wrong or right, just that you may want to avoid telling people what to do and by when. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what do you propose I should have said? --Doom777 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I cant teach you how not to be rude. How about not demanding something be done in an hour? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: HEY! My intetion was only to make this page less crowded!!!--TheFEARgod 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: Can we include that in the article? There was recently a broken news story about how Lebanon's PM praised Hezbollah for what they did and how Lebanon owes them a debt of gratitude.
(I am paraphrasing, but I think this should be included in the article. After all, it seems that anything negative about Israel is included, I'm surprised nobody posted that Ehud Olmert picks his nose and flicks it into international territory.)
Yossiea 14:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the president of Lebanon, the pm is mostly against. Lebanon politics reserve seats (even presidential and pm positions) to certain religions and ideologies. --200.88.223.98 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah

message: The article's "By Hezbollah" section has this paragraph.  Would someone mind explaining where this source talks about Hezbollah allegedly hiding equipment near UNFIL or hospitals in the hopes....?
Hezbollah frequently fires missiles and hides equipment and troops near UNFIL positions and civilian sites, including Mosques, hospitals, and private homes in the hope that Isreal forces would either not retaliate or would give Hezbollah a propaganda tool when return fire hits these human shields.http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20060726.aspx
How can this website possibly know the hopes of Hezbollah?  These claims are pure speculation.  Just because the article says something doesn't mean it's true.  It includes no quotations from the UN or Hezbollah.  Rather than stating these claims as fact we should designate a source and let readers decide for themselves.  After all, would it be fair to say that Israel hides equipment and troops near UNFIL positions and hospitals without sourcing the claim?
:That's fine. TewfikTalk 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By Hezbollah

message: What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?
What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities -- every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians -- and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?
 
To hear the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world -- governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats -- has completely lost its moral bearings.
The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.
Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the Blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest air campaign and land invasion in history, which flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.
The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.
In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London Blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.
But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.
On Wednesday CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?
Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.
Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.
Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs).
1. Please try to respect us and sign your edits. Its so easy there is a button for it. And I have seen you do it before, althought you also have this tendency not to sign.
2. We all surely know that wikipedia is not a soapbox. So please, in the interest of continuing to edit a great encyclopedia, refrain in the future from this type of flame war fodder.
3. People, please ignore and disregard this, and lets stick to trying to come up with a manageable encyclopedic entry. Do not bite the flame bait. Do not express your utter repulsion or complete support. Open a blog, go to Zeq's user talk page or something, but keep it away from here.
4. Zeq: please do not disrupt the flow of conversation and debate here again with irrelevant POV. You have turned other pages into circuses, and in some cases have been banned for a year from editing there. So I seriously question your judgement, and other users, should be aware of this.
5. AFter a while I am speedly archiving this, unless there is opposition from well known editors, regardless of POV. And well known means no meatpuppets or sockpuppets please.--Cerejota 06:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe?