Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 40

message: Israel obliterated southern Leb but couldn't stop the rocket attacks(much to their chagrin)so who won. What's the general conseses internationaly and within Leb and Israel?
:I think the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict was a perfect demonstration of the saying "in war there are no victors, only victims." Big brother is always watching 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in war "winning" is determined by whether the side acheives their objective in going into the war. Hezbollah's goal was more or less to humiliate Israel on a worldwide stage, which they did. Israel's goal seemed to be to bomb the heck out of Southern Lebanon and make it uninhabitable for years, which they also did. Of course Bush made some ridiculous comment about Hezbollah not being able to win because they were terrorists or something like that, but that might not be the best reference. Erik the Red 2 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I'm sorry, it's just that because Israel killed over 700 Lebanese civilians while barely damaging Hezbollah, destroying the Lebanese infrastructure, again while doing no harm to Hezbollah, and making souther n Lebanon uninhabitable while doing no harm to Hezbollah, it looks like Hezbollah was just a small subpoint in what the war was really about. Oh wait that's right, it was part of a war against Hezbollah because Isreal needed to destroy Hezbollah's sheild made up of thousands of innocent civilians, the Lebanese economy, and their entire way of life. Erik the Red 2 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We've had a lot of discussion on this matter. See here for some of the reasoning. Iorek85 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won the war? 

message: "cluster munitions are not currently covered by any specific international legal instrument."  From wikipedia's article on cluster bombs.
Yet on this article they are under "use of illegal weapons" 
I really hope someone corrects this mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may reorganize this a bit when I get a chance. Essentially, the anon editor appears to be correct. I don't think they are explicitly illegal, but they are sometimes considered illegal or prohibited under various laws (they are often viewed as prohibited by the Geneva Conventions dealing with indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks). The cluster bombs probably belong in a section titled "Use of disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks", but before I move them or change the title I'm trying to do a bit more research to determine if the same applies to white phosphorus. — George Saliba [talk] 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, I've changed the wording to refer to "prohibited" rather than "illegal" weapons for now, while I try to read up on this topic further. — George Saliba [talk] 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of cluster bombs in towns and other inhabited areas is prohibited by the agreeement underwhich Israel bought them from the US. The use of cluster bombs might be covered under the Ottawa Landmine Protocol, but I don't think Israel is a signatory. 70.51.11.38 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to wiki CLUSTER BOMBS ARE NOT ILLEGAL 

message: Other editors apparently disagreed with my revert of a series of anon edits to the 2006 Lebanon War, which I'd like to discuss:
#The first edit was to add the word civilian before villages in "The conflict began after Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages..." I disagree with this change because the term "civilian village" is redundant. There is no such thing as a military village, and we never refer to Lebanese villages in the article as "civilian" villages. Purely POV.
#The second was to change "Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel..." by inserting "the civilian areas of" before northern Israel. It is OR to say that they were either (a) only targetting civilian areas, or (b) only hitting civilians areas – the two things this change implies. The original wording was more neutrally vague.
#The third change was to add the sentence "After the war Lebanon has received millions in aid for rebuilding it's infrastructure, and Israel has received nothing for it's thousands of rocket attacks in civilian areas." This is a completely unsourced edit. If you can find sources to support the statement, I will support its inclusion, but not only is this unsourced, it's also wrong, so I doubt you'll find many sources to support it...
#The fourth is again to use the term "civilian village," which is redundant, and to remove "military outposts". This removal contradicts with the source cited.
#The fifth is to state as fact the Israeli assertion that the international airport was being used to smuggle weapons into the country. This is entirely POV.
#The sixth is again redundant - unguided rockets are inherently indiscriminate, and towns are inherently civilian.
#The seventh is factually inaccurate. It states that a UNDP report is accusing Hezbollah of using human shields. I know of no such report by the UNDP. Furthermore, any mention of such reports does not belong in this section, but in the "Use of human shields" section later in the article.
#The eighth is again stating as fact the Israeli position that Hezbollah used roads and bridges to smuggle weapons. The entire addition was unsourced, and tends to ramble into other categories. This section deals with civilian objects, while the addition also talks about human shields and civilian casualties, which have their own sections.
#The ninth is an unsourced edit about Israeli civilian casualties being lower because they are required to build bomb shelters, then an entirely POV OR statement about Lebanese civilians not expecting attacks from Israel.
#The tenth is the same as the third, an unsourced addition of OR.
I'm reverting these changes yet again. If people feel that certain of these changes belong, I'm entirely open to discussing them. — George Saliba [talk] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are aware that these additions were all just made to the article by an anonymous editor in the last 12 hours I assume. Also, the burden falls on their inclusion rather than their removal, especially given that not a single source was provided for any of them, and in many cases statements were changed to quote sources inaccurately. Furthermore, I have absolutely nothing against the term civilian, but I do have issues with degrading the quality of the English used in the article by using redundant phrases like "civilian villages," when there is no such thing as a "military village," especially when they are laced with POV bias, such as only describing Israeli villages as "civilian" villages. — George Saliba [talk] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am new to this discussion.  I see several valid references were removed with the POV during reverts of anon editors.  This is not appropriate.  Rewriting the statements to conform to NPOV, and keeping the references, is the correct way to edit this article.  Abe Froman 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What was removed? TewfikTalk 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing futher, I believe that one of the references may have been appropriate, and may be useful to include in the article (though not where it was added). However, I still stand by removing what was added, as the manner in which it was added was completely inaccurate (mis-citing the reference), in the wrong section of the article, and still laced with POV and OR, violating all three core Wikipedia principles. — George Saliba [talk] 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I looked at this in more detail, and the sentence that was added matches an existing sentence from the appropriate section almost word-for-word. No need to move it, since it already exists where it belongs. — George Saliba [talk] 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I support your handling of the anon edits, Saliba. Italiavivi 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent anonymous edits. 

message: The infobox indicates that the PFLP and LCP participated in the war, while there's no reference to this in the article. The PFLP-GC, on the other hand, did participate in the war, so I assume PFLP-GC was substituted with PFLP by mistake. If I'm correct and there's no objections, I'll drop the LCP and replace the PFLP with PFLP-GC.--Doron 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the patience to search the page history now, but there was originally a source for the LCP participation, though I don't recall if it was PFLP or PFLP-GC. I think we also discussed it on Talk at some point, so you could also check the archives here. Maybe Iorek85 remembers? TewfikTalk 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PFLP-GC is correct (article here). — George Saliba [talk] 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a source for the LCP. It indicates that they fought "alongside [Hezbollah] in the frontlines in the south", and lost 12 fighters (according to their Secretary General). — George Saliba [talk] 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This topic recently came up over at the Hezbollah article talk page, where consensus was formed around the term "capture" as being preferrable to the other two. I'd just like to paraphrase my reasoning here regarding why I favor the term "capture":
The word kidnap has a connotation of "child-stealing" literally, while abduct is often used when referring to the kidnapping of women (per Black's Law Dictionary), or alien abduction. Hezbollah is a large organization, and kidnap is more commonly used when the kidnapping party is an individual or small group (versus a government or political organization). They crossed an international border to do take the soldiers, in an open assault that included diversionary rocket attacks – that is to say, it was an apparent military maneuver. Most importantly, those who were taken were soldiers, not civilians. They would likely have been armed, and at some point they had to have been surrounded, or thrown down their weapons, or been caught offguard, which definitely sounds more like being captured than kidnapped to me.
The discussion there revolved more around which was more appropriate between capture and kidnap, though abduct was also mentioned. I know it's been discussed here before as well, with little resolution, but just thought I'd kick off the discussion with the last discussion on the subject I'm aware of. — George Saliba [talk] 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point out that I was not acting 'out of nowhere', but was reacting to the change of all kidnap and abducts to capture in the last few days. As far as the consensus on Hezbollah, I think it might be a bit premature to declare as there doesn't  appear to be the most diverse mix of opinions, and as one of the editors said, "Yea your edits stay because AIPAC is away" (which illustrates this from two angles). That said, if another discussion is in order, then so be it, but my rationale is similar to the one you laid out in a previous discussion here (which I finally located in the archive =D), though you are of course entitled to change your mind. I'm including it below. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the one thing that changed my mind from my original favoring of "abducted" was reading the kidnap article here on Wikipedia, which explicitly outlines the difference between kidnapping and abducting, and mentions that, legally speaking, abducting often refers to women. I wasn't aware of this distinction before reading that, which is what changed my mind. I also think that "took hostage" may be a neutral, accurate alternative too, though using two words will lengthen the article, and may become redundant quickly. — George Saliba [talk] 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware of the legal differentiation until now either. However, I'm not convinced that such a legal definition should be as much a deciding factor as the conversational use of the word, which I think is clear from both of our perceptions, is somewhat different. I wouldn't object to the "hostage" term either (with the caveat of awkwardness you mentioned). If Hezbollah indeed employs kidnap, then that would be very decisive in my view. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Do we have any original sources from Hezbollah that use the term kidnap (as opposed to English translations by other organizations)? Also, do any native Arabic speakers know if there is a difference between "capture" and "kidnap" in Arabic? Out of curiosity, why do people object to the term capture? — George Saliba [talk] 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the Arabic root for capture (A S R) is differentiated from kidnap (Kh T F) in a similar manner as in English (or in the Hebrew cognates, for that matter). A cursory search of al Manar brought me this current article which clearly uses the kidnap language in reference to the soldiers (خطف الجنديين). My objection is out of a desire to distinguish between being taken 'incidental' to some military action and being taken as the goal of the action, with perhaps the further nuance (this is more speculative) of being taken as the goal when not even engaged. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm probably just really tired, but can you clarify that last part for me? Are you saying that the term "capture" implies "incidental", or that the term "kidnap" implies "incidental"? — George Saliba [talk] 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was saying capture implies "incidental", as opposed to being the aim (kidnap). Since Hezbollah use kidnap, I see no problem with abduct, and I would even be inclined to support kidnap. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, interesting. What if we put something like "the goal of the cross border incursion was to capture Israeli soldiers, in order to exchange them for Lebanese prisoners held in Israel," or something similar. I think such a statement in the introduction or appropriate section would eliminate any confusion over whether it was incidental or not. My biggest concern with kidnap and abduct is the connotation they might imply. These two words could be interpretted as comparing the captured soldiers to children or women. Additionally, they may imply that the soldiers surrendered, or just gave up, rather than fighting back (which I don't think is the case). On the other hand, they might also imply that Hezbollah snuck into their homes at night and dragged them away, when it seemed like a pretty frontal militant assault that surrounded the soldiers. I prefer "capture" simply because it cannot imply these things, so if we remove the "incidental" aspect of it you mention, which I didn't really think of, I think it would be preferrable. Just my opinion though. — George Saliba [talk] 07:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'With the intent to capture' or something like that works for me. It was a military operation, not a midnight abduction, or a civilian kidnap, but it wasn't incidental to a battle. Can the change be defended with citations, though? Iorek85 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for sources using the term capture, there are a lot. There are also a lot stating that Hezbollah wanted to (or still wants to) exchange the soldiers for prisoners. If you're looking for sources that state that their original intention was to capture the soldiers, that is a bit harder to find, but they definitely exist. For instance, this is from a BBC article:"Hezbollah said it captured the two Israeli soldiers... The group says it has captured the soldiers to secure the release of detainees held in Israeli prisons. 'Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine,' the Hezbollah statement said."I haven't found the original Hezbollah statement, though I'm not sure if it's necessary. — George Saliba [talk] 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't mind saying 'intent to capture', using capture across the board seems less than ideal for me, even while noting your concerns. As I mentioned above, abduct seems to convey a relatively neutral connotation, and Hezbollah's embrace of kidnap only strengthens my feeling that we move in that direction. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One interesting thing, albeit minor perhaps, is that it sounds like the official Hezbollah statements used capture (at least the one I quoted above), while the usage of kidnapped was a quote attributed to Nasrallah, not Hezbollah per se. Are there any "official" statements by Hezbollah that use kidnap? I wonder if they have a website that would host their press releases. — George Saliba [talk] 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that al-Manar fits that bill, though a statement from Hassan Nasrallah should work equally well. I'd also be curious to see the original statement that the BBC worked with there. TewfikTalk 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article tewfik pointed to on Manar website is an article reporting something from Maarif Israeli newspaper. In the introduction of the article that the Manar reporter writes they use the word أسر which means capture in a military term, later on in the article while quoting and IDf army general by the name of Hareel, he uses the word  خطف,which means kidnap, we can not use Manar's reporting of Israeli newspaper as a supporting article for the use of the word Kidnap.  Hezbollah repeatedly uses the  term capture when refering to the operation it carried out in July 2006. I also refer you to the following article from the BBC regarding the use of the word capture when reporting the Gaza incident of Shalit http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_wells/2006/06/cpl_shalit_kidnapped_or_captur.html I think the word kidnap is quiet misleading and must be changed to capture. I also refer you to the press conference of Sayed Nasrallah after the capture of the soldiers, 2 minutes and 40 seconds into the video Nasrallah clearly says that Hezbollah declared that they were able to capture( أسر ) IDF personnel, here is the link: http://www.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=307 based on this the word kidnapped and abducted should be changed to captured. Abufijli 12:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with "hostage-taking", I just don't think it could practically function for more than a few locations in the entry. I'll try to dig deeper in al Manar for some older stuff, but it does seem that they consistently [and currently] use kidnap. TewfikTalk 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about going back to the mix of different terms? I didn't have a problem with that, since the media itself mixed terms. — George Saliba [talk] 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would accept that in the case of some severe edit-warring or such (as in the past), however I think that Hezbollah's usage removes  the major problems with kidnap/abduct, and constitutes a strong case for their usage. Why do you feel uncomfortable with them? TewfikTalk 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, their posibly implied connotations. Even if Hezbollah or Al-Manar use them, I would still prefer to avoid words that have negative connotations when similar words without the same implications exist, and are used equally often (or more often in this case). I think the possible negative connotations come in two flavors – one against those who were taken (as in, comparing them to women or children), and the other against those who did the taking (comparing them to child-stealers). That's it, really. Given that all the terms are used quite often, why use words that can be interpretted the wrong way, rather than use a more neutral word that means the same thing? — George Saliba [talk] 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding was that similar connotation problems could exist about capture, principally the implication that something other than "hostage-taking" took place. At least in terms of abduct, I'm not sure that the negative connotations exist, and kidnap has lost its specific relation to children (Child abduction), and fits quite well (any illegal capture or detention of a person or people against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.), even mentioning the context of warfare. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we just disagree qualitatively. To me capture only has one possible meaning – to take by force, usually in a way that benefits the person doing the taking. Kidnap and abduct can (and still are, in some case) have different meanings, which are almost implied by when capture isn't used. For instance, you would never say that "a child was captured," you would say kidnapped, and you would never say that "a woman was captured and raped," you would say she was kidnapped or abducted. Likewise, I've never heard of a soldier being kidnapped or abducted unless it was the type of "taken at night while sleeping" scenario. I'm trying to think of examples of things that could be captured "incidentally", per your point earlier, and I've just never heard captured used in that way, or the two words used together. However, I'm an American English speaker, so other dialects may be different. Don't get me wrong – I think all three have definitions that can fit – I just find the term capture to be the most neutral based on my dialect (again, it's entirely possible British English differs). Do you have any examples where the term capture can imply incidentally? I've been trying to come up with examples, but I'm at a loss. — George Saliba [talk] 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, sorry if I was unclear, but I meant "incidental [to combat]", as opposed to "hostage-taking" (which I won't burden you with again being as I mentioned it in my last post) since we were discussing connotation. I agree that children and women are not usually captured, though I would argue that only has to do with their association [or lack-thereof] with an engagement of combat. My point being that the absence of capture in civil society doesn't demand the absence of kidnap, or the less loaded abduct, just because the context is military. It just seems natural to me that if both sides (Hezbollah & Israel) agree on the nature of the act, that we reflect that... I think I have a better feel on the cause of your unease, but I'm not sure that my unease is any closer to being mollified than yours :-) Let me know, TewfikTalk 06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me "capture" is neutral. "Kidnap" and "abduct" definitely imply illegitimacy of some form. "Capture" does not imply legitimacy or illegitimacy, and merely names the action. Joeldl 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capture vs. Kidnap vs. Abduct 

message: Please, the 800 is perfectly fine in the body of the article, but is misleading in the info box. Nowhere does the LA times estimate the death toll at 800; it clearly states 'at least 800 were killed', not that they estimate 800 were killed. Putting it in the info box gives this impression. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that impression at all. The infobox suggests that estimates range from 800 to 1,191, and indeed they do. That reasoning does not ring well. I also added an Encarta article that says that estimates start from 850, not too far off. --Shamir1 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is wrong. They are stating that the possibility is as low as 800, which means 800 is a possible number, meaning LOWER than 1,035. Please stop. The AP estimates it to be at least 850. I brought in an Encarta encyclopedia source that also gives that range. Please stop. --Shamir1 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't this article explicitly state that "the Lebanese and AP counts of Lebanon's war dead range from 1,035 to 1,191," and that "adding the additional 180 deaths now conceded by Hezbollah raises the AP tally to 1,035"? — George Saliba [talk] 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of articles I've seen show estimates in line with George's Associated Press citation. Majoreditor 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We still need a real source to support this figure. This is Encarta saying that someone else gave this figure – not Encarta claimed this figure themself. In other articles, such as the one on Lebanon, Encarta uses a very different wording when discussing the death toll, stating "by the time the fighting ended more than 1,200 Lebanese and about 160 Israelis had been killed." From the attributability FAQ: "Traditionally published encyclopedias are reliable sources if published by a reliable publisher, but bear in mind that they may be out-of-date or insufficiently comprehensive. More focused and in-depth sources are preferable." Until we can find a "more focused and in-depth source," and given that different Encarta articles contradict each other on it, I suggest we not use this figure – at least not in the infobox, as I don't believe it warrants inclusion in a summary of the conflict. — George Saliba [talk] 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, George. It certainly is odd encarta is so inconsistent. I agree with putting it in the body of the article (all of the claims, ie. that encarta has reported the toll to be between 850 and 1,200, but then mentions the toll as over 1,200 in this article).Iorek85 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved these figures to the body of the article, due to the inconsistency. If we can find an actual source of the estimate, we should consider using it. It's a bit odd citing figures from another Encyclopedia, as they may constitute tertiary sources (and I'm quite sure it does in this case), but I doubt other editors will agree to not include it until we can find the actual source. — George Saliba [talk] 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Newsflash, This is an encyclopedia. --Shamir1 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and per Wikipedia policy, we should be very careful when citing other Encyclopedias, as they can be "out-of-date or insufficiently comprehensive," and may constitute tertiary sources. — George Saliba [talk] 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Explain to me how Encarta is out-of-date with this new war? Also, explain why you insist on removing 800 from the list? It says at least 800--meaning 800 AND anything above is possible. That is what it means. Get serious, there is no point in making up Wiki rules that do not exist. --Shamir1 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, Encarta says "850 to 1,200" in one article, and "more than 1,200" is another article. Also, the war is now almost a year old, and estimates have variety widely during that period. As for the 800 figure itself, it was not an estimate. Let me illustrate. I have a paper bag. I'm going to tell you that there are at least six apples in it. Did I estimate how many apples were in my bag? No, I told you that there were at least six – this is a limitation on the range, stating that there are not less than 6 apples in my bag. This is not an estimate. An estimate is defined as "an approximate calculation of quantity or degree or worth," not a limitation on the range of such values. Now, what if I tell you that I think there are about 12 apples in my bag? Did I give you an estimate? Yes, in this case the number 12 is an estimate. Does that make it any clearer? — George Saliba [talk] 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dig deeper I shall. ;) From your UNHCR source: "more than 700,000 Lebanese were displaced inside their country and some 180,000 were sheltered in Syria." The current article says displaced, not internally displaced. The UN source that was cited in the article before stated: "An estimated 200,000 Lebanese have returned to their home areas... leaving the estimated number of internally displaced persons in Lebanon currently at just over 700,000," and cited the HRC, which has since updated their figure to 974,184. Additionally, the BBC's "facts and figures" site, which the BBC article you found links to (immediately after stating its figure), lists the displaced at 915,762, citing the Lebanese government (which, again, favors the updated HRC figure). — George Saliba [talk] 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite possible. I'd guess they either misread/misinterpretted, or there was some confusion between the 700,000 internally displaced and the 900,000 total displaced (well, 880,000 between Lebanon and Syria according to UNHCR, plus whatever else from other countries), or the UNHCR could have changed their figures. Most likely it was just a confusion between internally displaced and all displaced people, but who knows. — George Saliba [talk] 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 800 in the infobox

message: I ran a search to find the missing article, and found that the 700,000 was sourced to UNHCR. While the further BBC chart only uses the government number (900,000), it seems that UNHCR still uses the 700,000 number, and as a total, not as the 'after 200,000 returned'. I'm not 100% sure, so you may want to dig deeper, but it seems that the number had basis. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dig deeper I shall. ;) From your UNHCR source: "more than 700,000 Lebanese were displaced inside their country and some 180,000 were sheltered in Syria." The current article says displaced, not internally displaced. The UN source that was cited in the article before stated: "An estimated 200,000 Lebanese have returned to their home areas... leaving the estimated number of internally displaced persons in Lebanon currently at just over 700,000," and cited the HRC, which has since updated their figure to 974,184. Additionally, the BBC's "facts and figures" site, which the BBC article you found links to (immediately after stating its figure), lists the displaced at 915,762, citing the Lebanese government (which, again, favors the updated HRC figure). — George Saliba [talk] 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite possible. I'd guess they either misread/misinterpretted, or there was some confusion between the 700,000 internally displaced and the 900,000 total displaced (well, 880,000 between Lebanon and Syria according to UNHCR, plus whatever else from other countries), or the UNHCR could have changed their figures. Most likely it was just a confusion between internally displaced and all displaced people, but who knows. — George Saliba [talk] 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Displaced number

message: It's getting rather long, 122kb at last count, and roughly 8,600 words. Any ideas for shortening it? The post conflict events section seems to be a little long. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SIZE it needs to be split into smaller articles. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I summarized the Allegations of war crimes section, and moved much of its content to a new article. — George Saliba [talk] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the last thing that we need now is yet another subarticle. It seems as if much of the information is already included in Targeting of civilian areas, and whatever isn't could easily be. Thoughts? TewfikTalk 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking, but if you check the Targeting of civilian areas talk page, you'll notice I already suggested a merge when I created the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War article. :) That was my intention all along, I just figured it would be cleaner to create the new article and then merge the existing, more specific one in. If nobody disagrees with the merge proposal, I'll probably begin the merge myself, though I'm not very familiar with merging articles, so if anyone is experienced with them, feel free to have at it. Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps, I had started the discussion, but apparently I forgot to add the template to the top of the page itself. Added it now. — George Saliba [talk] 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems a bit indirect for my taste, but whatever works ;-) TewfikTalk 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: I see we're back to "injury" speculation in the infobox again, despite a strong consensus on using "wounded" figures from several of this page's editors. Italiavivi 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I m dude2002 didn't like this version, so I changed it back to the older version to test if there was consensus to change it back. It was changed to the breakdown version fairly quickly by Kendrick7, and now it's back to the wounded version. — George Saliba [talk] 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Tewfik. Sorry, George, but yours (while quite possibly right) is the hardest to support against POV accusations. I say we just go with the split, using the information we have, POV complaints be damned, since they are irrational. If they want to make the Lebanese casualties look equal, they can find the breakdown themselves. Iorek85 06:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about it, I don't really have a particular favorite. To be quite honest, I was more defending the compromise version I had suggested, as it had seemed to pick up pretty smooth consensus initially. My primary concern was more avoiding a revert war than defending the change itself – not that it wass my personal favorite. Right or wrong, that was probably my primary motivation. I think the breakdown in the body of the article is sufficient to give more information on any of these alternative versions, so I'm cool with whichever of these options people agree to not revert war over. :) — George Saliba [talk] 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the 'wounded' consensus wording? 

message: Looks pretty good to me, but some issues that should be looked at. In the interim, I'll put the article on hold.
# The lead is skimming up to be longer than it should be and I suspect it can be trimmed a bit. See WP:LEAD. 
# You should deal with citations needed in "Intentional attacks on civilians" and "Israeli civilians". Your article otherwise appears quite well cited.
# There are some citation problems that you should address, though:
## Reference #5 is a broken link. Consider adding more retrieval dates so that broken links are more acceptable.
*** I'll try to locate this original.TewfikTalk 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Cheers. Lol @ 'quite well cited' - there's 255 references - how many would be 'very well cited?' :). I'd like to address the image problem, though. We did have a neutral image of three separate (IIRC) pictures, a mix of free and fair use. Then Angr deleted it (he seems to be one of those people who goes around deleting fair use images) citing that it was replaceable, without taking into account the neutrality of the image. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the previous image.  We'll either need to make a new one, or if someone has the old one, we can re-upload it. I agree with the post ceasefire sentiments, too. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Iorek85 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll make a new image from commons pictures. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Google News link
Hopefully, these brand new articles will give us some up to date information, and maybe help solve the problems regarding the naming, death tolls, injuries and the capture/kidnap/abduct debate. When I've finished my university essay, I'll take a more detailed look.
For example, the first article by the guardian calls it "war in Lebanon" (no caps), uses the word "capture" in relation to the hezbollah action, and says "more than 1,000 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed." Hooray for fresh sources!
In addition, where should the main topic of the articles go? Reviews of the conflict seems the obvious place, but Israeli response and post conflict events warrant a chance. Iorek85 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally, new news regarding the war