Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 16

message: ===Result & Discussion of the 'War' Poll Results===
Results:
* 9 Users opposed the renaming
* 17 Users supported the renaming
Discussion:
* Still, this topic is controversial and therefore before changing anything this should be discussed here.
* Please feel free to come up with ideas for a new lemma inculding war --Attraho 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. If it does get renamed War should be war in accordance with naming conventions. BlueValour 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the name of the article

message: Results:
* 9 Users opposed the renaming
* 17 Users supported the renaming
Discussion:
* Still, this topic is controversial and therefore before changing anything this should be discussed here.
* Please feel free to come up with ideas for a new lemma inculding war --Attraho 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. If it does get renamed War should be war in accordance with naming conventions. BlueValour 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result & Discussion of the 'War' Poll Results

message: *Mainstream media call it a war
*The latest poll gave a majority for renaming to war
*Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon is NPOV
*The voting on this issue is open for 48 h (01:48, 8 August 2006) --Attraho 01:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. If it does get renamed War should be war in accordance with naming conventions. BlueValour 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move II: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon

message: ===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. 82.29.227.171 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readding as it appeared to have gone missing during the edits to the talk page. 82.29.227.171 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. --Iorek85 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about Casualties

message: 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. 82.29.227.171 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readding as it appeared to have gone missing during the edits to the talk page. 82.29.227.171 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. --Iorek85 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox fatalties

message: 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.  --Iceberg007 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about hezbollah casualties 

message: 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? Eshcorp 18:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Eshcorp 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Eshcorp 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To solve the disaster 

message: :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! Flayer 19:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it once again. I really do not see too much value in keeping it on this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Flayer 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs in the rocket campaign section Hezbollah rocket campaign in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Dump it in there 82.29.227.171 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hizballah military capability 

message: 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.
(Sources: Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict)
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.
Azymuthca 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escalation 

message: Would appear to have a home in Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 00:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian and Syrian Support

message: "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."  
Any wonder he cant sleep at night? :D 82.29.227.171 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What section?

message: 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. Jtrainor 12:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Iorek85 12:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 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. 82.29.227.171 15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 :) MX44 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of POW stuff

message: 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
*HRW passage on advance warning (next to ICRC)
Please advise, TewfikTalk 17:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur w/ Tewfik as per my bilateral discussion w/ them. I must add that we should remove all pics unsourced and/or copyrighted. Otherwise, the page will be protected. -- Szvest 17:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. 82.29.227.171 17:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paring 

message: 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. Volksgeist 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rofl.What a great a conspiracy theory, Volksgeist! --Iorek85 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Deletion 

message: Why was it deleted?  --musicpvm 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it's back now, weird.  --musicpvm 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See [ the deletion log] for why this page was deleted. – ABCDe✉ 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake by Musical Linguist. No worries. -- Szvest 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, where is the article? 

message: Please look at  .There isn't anything before  which is written at 16:56 6 August!!!--Sa.vakilian 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very odd. My edits (if I made any) have disappeared Stephen B Streater 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the process of restoration.  It will take a while.  Jkelly 18:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Stephen B Streater 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the history

message: 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. --Cab88 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 82.29.227.171 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Watch claims 

message: 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 , interesting that they claim the Simon Wiesenthal Center confirmed it to them first. 82.29.227.171 00:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Post as source? 

message: 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. --Iorek85 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. MX44 04:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore: Quoting 1300+ as Israeli casualties is a clear win for Hezbolla. The sillyness of that excaggeration is pretty desperate. MX44 06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlebox. 

message: 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.' 
Azymuthca 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on Tel Aviv -- Escalation?  

message: 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.190.40.23.107 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab-Israeli Conflict Template

message: The EU has warned Israel about disproportionate attacks against Lebanon. 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. 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". 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.New York Jews rally in support of Israel - Jerusalem Post, July 18, 2006. 
: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. TewfikTalk 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need it in one section, so you choose which you think is most relevant. I'd go with the civilian section. --Iorek85 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure what to do with this 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Iorek85 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Osama and Mustafa Muamar 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. I can see why some would want it with hezbollah actions, but the section is hezbollah actions not tactics.  --Iorek85 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of using civilians as Human Shields

message: 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 Blomberg 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed Amal and PFLP-GC casualties 

message: 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 Blomberg 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. TomTheHand 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that at this time the page is semi-edit protected and fully moveprotected. -- Avi 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pages that are semi-protected cannot be edited by unregistered users or from accounts less than 4 days old. -- Szvest 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Now I understand. Thomas Blomberg 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection not working? 

message: 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
Gudeldar 16:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted part of Negotions for ceasefire

message: 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 ArmanJan 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArmanJan is right that the "beginning of the conflict" is disputed.  It is therefore POV to state any given moment as the "beginning".  Silversmith  Hewwo 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we should state both claims or none at all. Enlil Ninlil 01:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It now state both versions in one paragraph. I don't tihnk is POV anymore, really.--Doom777 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Beginning of conflict" is pro-Israeli

message: 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.
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" 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".  So it is particularly relevant to consider both sides including the "massive military, economic and diplomatic support from the global superpower" 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. 
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 
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." .
Politically, the US has vetoed literally dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to exercise restraint, 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" 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. 
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."  "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."
END PROPOSAL --FightCancer 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support to Israel v. Support to Hezbollah 

message: 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. --128.148.154.119 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. AdamKesher 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequence of Hezbollah/Israel/Lebanon in Military and Civilan Sections

message: 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!
(Yes! Another battleground in the edit wars!)
I will be bold and create it, we can always delete later if we so feel like it.--Cerejota 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need new article?

message: 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. --Epsilonsa 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following is a paragraph from the introduction:

message: 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.
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. "
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.
Eshcorp 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aim of Hizbollah 

message: 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. Bugmenot42 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot to calibrate the message to the audience, untermensch means sub-human. Bugmenot42 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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...--Cerejota 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Bugmenot42 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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). ehudshapira 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV?