Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 15

message: I'm afraid I have to revive the proposal to rename this article the "Israel-Hezbollah" conflict. The Lebanese armed forces are not substantially involved in this conflict, and Israel holds relatively little animosity toward the Lebanese government or people. Yes, there are battles taking place in Lebanon, but geography does not dictate that the name of a conflict should be made less accurate. Novel compound 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel-Hezbollah

message: ===Earlier discussions===
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Reported Events/Supposed Events
**Summary: Effects on Oil Price, First Shots.
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive14#Reported Events/Supposed Events
**Israel Massing troops
===Previous prisoner exchanges===
Modified statement about Israel providing maps to mines in southern Lebanon. Previously said that Israel provided such maps but reference states only that Hezbollah requested such maps (as part of the prisoner exchange) and gives no indication as to whether the request was honored (the possibility that they were not is very conceivable). --srostami 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reported Events/Supposed Events

message: Modified statement about Israel providing maps to mines in southern Lebanon. Previously said that Israel provided such maps but reference states only that Hezbollah requested such maps (as part of the prisoner exchange) and gives no indication as to whether the request was honored (the possibility that they were not is very conceivable). --srostami 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous prisoner exchanges

message: I removed the figures for Israelis treated for shock from the infobox as this seemed like an asymmetric statistic to have in the table; there wasn't a figure for Lebanese or Hezbollah participants in this category. I'm not aware of other conflicts where this statistic is included. If people feel this is an important statistic perhaps it could be put back in when we have comparative figures for the other two 'groups'. --mgaved 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, i think it was being used as a camparison to show the affect on Israeli's. Basically saying just because Hezbollah fails to kill, doesnt mean they dont cause other problems. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed previously in Talk, but essentially the reason for inclusion was that there is no indication that the Lebanese figures don't include it, as "shock" (similar to Post-traumatic stress disorder) is generally a treateable condition. It is only noted because the Israeli numbers do distinguish between types of injury. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My preference is the "shock" figure is removed as it doesn't appear anywhere else in the article (e.g. in the Casualties section at the bottom, or the separate article on Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. If "shock" (indicated in the neswpaper source) is a lower category than "lightly injured" I think we should either decided not to include it, or wrap it up into casualties generally -add the "shock" casualties to the general categories as there are no other divisions noted. I can't find any other conflict in Wikipedia that includes "shock" as a casualty figure. In the Talk article on Casualties (Talk:Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict ) this discussion has gone into greater depth and the decision there seems to be not to include shock because 1. This figure apparently comes from a single source which some of the authors in this article question and 2. "Shock" is not clearly (medically) defined in the source; you seem to suggest that you feel it is separate from post traumatic stress disorder. As I've said my preference would be to leave it out as a. it's novel for a casualties figure in a conflict article to have it and b. we don't have it for the other groups so it gives an asymmetric table. However if you feel it's important then I'd say my second preference would then be to roll it into the other casualty figures for 'injured': change the Israeli figure from "418 injured, 875 treated for shock" to "1293 injured". Cheers, --mgaved 09:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "treated for shock"

message: First off, I find any information released by Hezbollah about casualties on their side to be highly suspect, since they're not what one would call reliable sources. On a recent day they claimed to have killed 35 Israeli soldiers during one village incursion and obviously that was blatently false. I would strongly suggest presenting the IDF estimates before the Hezbollah estimates. After three weeks of bombings and incursions, much more than 40 Hezbollah fighters are dead. They're releasing low numbers for their own fighters in the interest of psychological warfare, just as the civilian casualties in places like Qana are inflated. 
Yo Moron, Hizbullah said they had conflicted 35 casualties and not dead on the terror IDF in Bint Jbeil. This was correct because in that battle 8 IDf soldiers were killed and 24 IDF soldiers were wounded. So 8+24= 32 casualties, wich was very accurate.
So stop this Israeli bullshit.'''
: The only one full of bullshit is you, oh unsigned one. Wikipedia can do without your ignorance. I realize you're probably a Hezbollah supporter, but this site is supposed to be unbiased. IDF's estimates are a lot more on the mark, than Hezbollah's usually outrageously exaggerated claims.--65.96.202.142 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah casualties and Lebanese casualties: 

message: ===Earlier discussions===
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about whether it is a war
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about whether it is a war
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about whether it is a war
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discussion about whether it is a war
**Air strike on Qana
**Civilian attacks
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about whether it is a war

message: *Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about whether it is a war
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about whether it is a war
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about whether it is a war
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discussion about whether it is a war
**Air strike on Qana
**Civilian attacks
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussions

message: ===Earlier discussions===
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the captured soldiers
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the captured soldiers (most notable the discussion whether to call the two soldiers "captured" or "kidnapped". Almost general consensus that "captured" is a better term. Reasons: (1) more widely used in the media coverage of the event, (2) is considered a more neutral term (i.e. less POV)) - See also Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about POV for a similar discussion. Note that there is also a discussion about whether to use "captured" or "abducted". See above.
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about the captured soldiers
**Hezbollah and Israeli viewpoints DIFFER
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive8#Discussion about the captured soldiers
**Captured soldiers weren't on Israel territory?
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Cross Border Raids
**Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Captured?
**Captured vs abducted vs ???
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Which side of border original Hezbollah raid happened on?
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the captured soldiers

message: *Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the captured soldiers
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the captured soldiers (most notable the discussion whether to call the two soldiers "captured" or "kidnapped". Almost general consensus that "captured" is a better term. Reasons: (1) more widely used in the media coverage of the event, (2) is considered a more neutral term (i.e. less POV)) - See also Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about POV for a similar discussion. Note that there is also a discussion about whether to use "captured" or "abducted". See above.
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about the captured soldiers
**Hezbollah and Israeli viewpoints DIFFER
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive8#Discussion about the captured soldiers
**Captured soldiers weren't on Israel territory?
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Cross Border Raids
**Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Captured?
**Captured vs abducted vs ???
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Which side of border original Hezbollah raid happened on?
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
**Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussions

message: ===Earlier discussions===
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about weapon types
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about weapon types
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about weapon types
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about weapon types
**Terminology between rocket and missile
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about weapon types
**Claims of incendiary bomb use on civilians by Israeli forces
**US bombs
**Equiment and forces
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about weapon types
**Chemical weapons
**WTF?!
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about weapon types
**IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about weapon types

message: *Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about weapon types
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about weapon types
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about weapon types
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about weapon types
**Terminology between rocket and missile
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about weapon types
**Claims of incendiary bomb use on civilians by Israeli forces
**US bombs
**Equiment and forces
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about weapon types
**Chemical weapons
**WTF?!
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about weapon types
**IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussions

message: According to an Associated Press article, Hezbollah's anti-tank missiles are capable of damaging the Merkava tanks. Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah had six uninterrupted years to fortify its positions with anti-personnel mines, fortified bunkers able to withstand bunker busters, and weapon caches.
Cutting a pasting into here, because it can be recovered, but it's in the wrong section atm. --Iorek85 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah military capability

message: ===Earlier discussions===
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Maps
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Maps
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6#Maps
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Maps
** Requests / Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict / list of locations hit?
** Requests of a map of Israeli incursions. We have a map of targets hit by Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya/Hezbollah and it would be nice to see a map of incursions made by the IDF. --Klepas 11:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: *Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Maps
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Maps
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6#Maps
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Maps
** Requests / Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict / list of locations hit?
** Requests of a map of Israeli incursions. We have a map of targets hit by Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya/Hezbollah and it would be nice to see a map of incursions made by the IDF. --Klepas 11:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussions

message: ===Casualties table===
Why do you move the statistics at the begining of the article? I think we shouldn't move this part. Because this is very important.--Accessible 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so important than clicking link or just scrolling will not be a problem. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do. This table is in this article. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Casualties are one of the most important and changable pieces of information about this conflict. The have been in the opening template since the start of this conflict and should stay there until concensus says otherwise, this is not a unilateral decision on an issue this big.Hypnosadist 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may notice there was a consensus. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured that we didn't need two tables - before, it was summary of a few paragraphs of detail, wheras now, the information is as easily found in the new table. Still, I don't mind terribly either way, though make sure the references don't double up. --Iorek85 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems i was wrong there was a concensus TO NOT TOUCH THE CASUALTY SECTION which you decided to go against. I will continue to revert vandalism that goes against this concensus.Hypnosadist 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what on earth are talking about? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can someone familiar with wikitable formatting align the casualties' nationality & flag to the left? Thanks, TewfikTalk 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked the person who added the "class wikitable" tag, which broke the original alignment to change it, but they haven't replied. Removing said tag would restore it, but change the background colour back to white. --Iorek85 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

message: Why do you move the statistics at the begining of the article? I think we shouldn't move this part. Because this is very important.--Accessible 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so important than clicking link or just scrolling will not be a problem. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do. This table is in this article. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Casualties are one of the most important and changable pieces of information about this conflict. The have been in the opening template since the start of this conflict and should stay there until concensus says otherwise, this is not a unilateral decision on an issue this big.Hypnosadist 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may notice there was a consensus. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured that we didn't need two tables - before, it was summary of a few paragraphs of detail, wheras now, the information is as easily found in the new table. Still, I don't mind terribly either way, though make sure the references don't double up. --Iorek85 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems i was wrong there was a concensus TO NOT TOUCH THE CASUALTY SECTION which you decided to go against. I will continue to revert vandalism that goes against this concensus.Hypnosadist 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what on earth are talking about? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can someone familiar with wikitable formatting align the casualties' nationality & flag to the left? Thanks, TewfikTalk 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked the person who added the "class wikitable" tag, which broke the original alignment to change it, but they haven't replied. Removing said tag would restore it, but change the background colour back to white. --Iorek85 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties table

message: It's going to be more difficult this time, because we've already subbed out almost all of the sections, but length is getting a problem. 70kb is at least 10kb too much - WP:SIZE argues for no more than 50kb unless the scope of the topic justifies the reading time (which we'll count in this case). We managed to get it under 60kb before, and it'd be nice if we could keep it at about 60kb. Some ideas for shrinking;
* Remove multiple references to one statement. One is enough, especially if the multiple references are in the sub article.
* Make sure the use of the "ref name" in the references is used as much as possible, which will cut down the references. (The only problem with this is when people cut and paste a delete sections, the following references break, so it's hard to keep track)
* Make sure we summarise events - we have a timeline, so we don't need to list events by date. However, listing some of the most recent events would be good.
* Make sure we're not repeating ourselves - we only need to say things once.
--Iorek85 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length (again)

message: I've just had to revert a bunch of changes made to this section. Please, three points;
#We have to keep it balanced.
#We need some, but not too many, pics. The overall impression given by the pictures must be balanced.
#It's a summary. We're trying to keep the article as short as possible.
Thanks. --Iorek85 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks on civilians

message: There were lots of POV terms such as "massive" to describe Israel's military actions. I removed them. I didn't see any such terms used for Hezbollah actions.  I think the adjectives need to be numerical and sourced where there is relative descriptors for both sides. I removed all the ones I saw but htere may be more. --Tbeatty 05:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - since this is an encyclopaedia, the language should be as neutral and free of excessive adjectives as possible. However, sometimes the adjective used is a good descriptor. For example, 'extensive bombing campaign' would be fine, but 'horrific civilian deaths' would not be. --Iorek85 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV terms used for Israel campaign 

message: Who came up with that title? For future reference people will be confused since there has been a previous war between Lebanon and Israel.
Should it not be called the Levantine war?
Levantine? Isn't the adjective form of Lebanon Lebanese? Regardless, this is the reason we tend to use the noun form of words versus the adjective form; it's much less ambiguous and we don't expect people to know the demonyms of hundreds of countries, regions, and cities. --Cyde Weys 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are a tertiary source, so we can only base our articles on secondary sources (mainly news articles, in this case). If Syria get involved and news sources start calling it a different name, then we can change the article title accordingly. ugen64 05:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Israel-Lebanon war? 

message: I have just removed a text from the "Targeting of civilian areas" section, as it manages to misrepresent an article in the Australian Herald Sun, which in itself is unbelievably bias and faulty.
:This is the text I removed: Images smuggled out of Lebanon and published in Herald Sun (Australia) purports to show that Hezbollah fighters dress in civilian clothes, and launch attacks from suburbs in southern Lebanon; an eyewitness from Melbourne in one of the civilian areas that was attacked said "Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived [and launched their rockets from the area], it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated."
:Here's the link to the Herald Sun article: .
:Although the article claims that the pictures show that Hezbollah hides "heavy weapons in the residential areas of southern Lebanon", what you actually see are six pictures, whereof three show fighters posing on and around a small-calibre truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun close to some apartment blocks, one show a bomb crater in a road with a wrecked semi-trailer in the background, and the remaining two show fighters armed with rifles standing on a hilltop overlooking a village where a big fire is raging. Anti-aircraft guns are defensive weapons which are normally positioned near the objective they are supposed to protect, so there's noting sinister about that. The article also states that the pictures were taken "clandestinely" and then "smuggled" out of Lebanon, as "images and footage of Hezbollah activities taken by local newspapers and TV crews are routinely seized by the group’s fighters at road blocks." However, these pictures show Hezbollah fighters posing for the camera, so they were hardly taken "clandestinely" and against their will. Considering that the newspaper in question belongs to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox News, The Sun, News of the World, The New York Post etc.), the inaccuracies are hardly surprising. Thomas Blomberg 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your removal is completely based on original research and completly propelled by your bias of the reporting agency. WP:OR alone should have prevented you from attempting to remove the paragraph in question. We are not investigative reporters. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had actually read WP:OR, you would realize the definition is: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source." A decision to remove certain pictures or text is just that - a decision. ugen64 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing them because I dont like the source, even though its a WP:V source, and basing it all on your conspiracy theory of why its not true is not a legit reason. Also the pictures do not show anyone posing, better yet, them posing doesnt mean the pictures werent smuggled out. It just means the people being photographed arent the ones you have to smuggle pictures by. It specifically states that the border/check point guards take the pictures away from journalists. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello! I never removed the picture, because it wasn't any picture to remove. If you read what I wrote above, I removed a piece of text talking about the pictures. However, I now see that OrangeTree (welcome to Wikipedia) has just inserted one of those pictures. But as the caption was totally wrong, I've changed it. The picture shows a small-calibre anti-aircraft gun on a truck, no rocket launcher. How I know? Well I used to operate an anti-aircraft gun many moons ago. Thomas Blomberg 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article that is being used as a source mentions rocket launchers, so perhaps there is more pictures not shown. So while the caption of said photograph should not state that there is rocket launchers in the picture, a paragraph relating to the picture can mention it when using the Herald as its source. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herald Sun's "smuggled pictures" 

message: The name "The War between the Straits - Bein Hametzarim War" (from Seventeenth of Tammuz till Tisha B'Av) was a kind of bad joke of Amir Peretz. Tisha B'Av is today, and the war doesn't seem to be over tonight.
We should think of removing this unofficial name.
It would be better called "Returning of Sons War - Shivat Banim War". 89.0.243.231 08:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was just a joke, it should be deleted altogether. --Iorek85 08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if he thought that it is not a joke, it sounds like calling the WW2 "A war of 1939"... 89.0.243.231 09:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think this may have been an off the cuff thing, even though the article says it was 'announced' see debate on calling conflict war. Dire Straits war/Re-engagement war is another term I heard. Dont believe any will stick until it takes some shape that IDF are happy to claim. Nasrallah may get to name this one 82.29.227.171 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War between the Straits 

message: If you look at the result of google search you find that war is used much more than conflict. and  --Sa.vakilian 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War or Conflict

message: *Who are the 8,000 Lebanese civilians in prison and why is it npov to name murderers like Samir Kuntar Lebanese citizens as opposed to for why they were imprisoned? 
*How is Hezbollah's raid into Israeli territory a feint? Nasrallah has stated numerous times that its purpose was to kidnape Israeli soldiers and trade them for the Lebanese and Palestinians in prison. 
Guy Montag 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The Israeli Yesha Rabbinical Council released a religious decree that all Lebanese civilians may be killed, because according to Jewish law there is no such thing as an innocent person in times of war. Someone should add that. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html
ArmanJan 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check yourself. --216.75.93.104 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not really an accurate description of what they said. It's also a minority opinion that doesn't reflect the opinion of the army, or of most Israelis. In addition, if the article is going to quote that, then they should certainly also quote the numerolus Hizbollah sources about how they'd like to get rid of all of Israel, etc.
The section as it stands mischaracterises them as being more influential than they are; they are not even part of the government. Additionally, to be NPOV there would then have to be statements from Hezbollah et al which have not been included as tangential. I recommend taking the whole thing out, and if any mention is due, it should be minor and in the Position of Israel sub-article. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Tewfik. Tazmaniacs 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Tewfik. While it might be true that they said it, and there's no obligation to mention similar Hezbollah things as ArmanJan says below, I'm not wholly convinced of its relevence if the council is not particularly influential. Nuite 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, and you are obviously biased. Wikipedia:NPOV does not state any obligational condiction for providing the view of both sides of an occurance, for it to be permitted to be mentioned. In other words, whether you do or do not find Hezbollah's stance on the same issue, it does not delegalize that which the other party already said. ArmanJan 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ArmanJan, this section is very relevant and it certainly is not a POV. The Rabbi counsel has stated this, and it is very widespread news, so it should be mentioned. 203.149.62.66 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tewfik, it is not small news. You keep mentioning all these weird claims on my talk page in order to get the section removed. However the decree of the Rabbis has caused quite a stir in the middle-east. Anyhow, here are some more sources. IsraelNN JPost Saudi-Embassy ArmanJan 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, everything might be small to you, but it is all over newspapers here. There furthermore is no rule not to mention "too small news". ArmanJan 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability of news sources/events is a much bigger factor than you're implying, especially for articles which are already over-long. As you say, it's not a rule, but common sense dictates that less notable events(or "too small news" [sic]) should be cut before more notable ones. Icewolf34 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The article that ArmanJan references -- http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html -- is dated 2006 Jul 30, and it clearly says the YRC's statement was "in response to the IDF attack in Kfar Qanna". mdf 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's possible that ynetnews has simply screwed up. Someone needs to hunt down the original statement. mdf 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Correction, the text was removed by AscendedAnathema after addition by anonymous source. Is the discussion closed already about the Council staying out of the article? Icewolf34 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Take it out until the sources are verified. mdf 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subsection should not be removed. ArmanJan 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yesha Rabbinical Council: all Lebanese may be killed

message: I couldn't find a reference to this, could whoever added it to the article please either reference it if it is true, or remove it if it is not?
:It's all over the news up here, and appears to be true, but on the condition that Israel will do the same (which they will not.) At the same it is also reported that Nasrallah will attack Tel-Aviv if Israel extends their attacks to central Beirut. The Israeli response to this, is to wipe out all of Lebanon which in turn is somewhat worrisome to Syria ... Soo, I think we can conclude that a cease-fire is not imminent. MX44 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hizbollah offered a cease-fire?

message: The alleged use of white phosphorus is not a "detail". In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of style, a summary must be kept in the main article. This certainly justified a specific subsection, since it is neither only "civilian" business, nor "environmental" (I wonder why the depleted uranium was in the last section: isn't it first used for killing people?) Tazmaniacs 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their effect on the environment is that they cover it in microscopic radioactive dust- polluting it for the next 4.3 billion years, I will add it in again as the pollution is a well known result of the weapons. 82.29.227.171 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is currently a short paragraph dealing with the allegations on both sides, including the phosphorus passage. A longer exposition can be found in the sub-article. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short paragraph is in Civilian casualties. Charging the IDF of civilian casualties is not the same as charging it of use of illegal chemical weapons. There was a section dedicated to this in mid-July, and now it's been reduced to a single, not even wikified, word, "phosphorus". This is called euphemization, and is definitely POV-forking. Beside, the article you're sending me towards contain a section dedicated to chemical weapons, made up of only one sentence: "Allegations have been made of use of chemical weapons". Furthermore, I noticed that a source from an Arabic newspaper was there in July and since disappeared; I restored it — isn't it strange that in all this article, the one and only Arabic source is deleted? I'm sorry, but if these allegations are true, then it is very serious matter, and certainly deserves its own section in the main article. To do otherwise is WP:POVFORK. Tazmaniacs 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It was an Arabic source in English. Anyway, although WP:RS prefers English sources, for the sake of Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias, Arabic sources are welcome! Furthermore, if you decide to remove this content from this page, it is your responsibility to put it in the sub-page, not mine to watch over the page be sure it's not removed. Finally, see Wikipedia:Special long pages. Whatever the case, size constraints do not justify removing a section on White phosphorus, which, if the use is proved, is a war crime, according to the UN. This should be noted. Lots of other stuff are lot less important and remain here. Only some kind of censorship might want to remove that from here. I don't understand you, sorry. Tazmaniacs 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was, I did overpass something. I do agree that a summarized paragraph is necessary, but that doesn't impedes a sub-section on the WP and things that were removed. Tazmaniacs 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tbeatty is right, none of the weapons are illegal- the use of DU could be considered illegal in humanitarian law but the other claims are only illegal when used in civilian areas/against civilians. The section I added DU weapons to was about environmental pollution. 82.29.227.171 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphorus & sub-articles 

message: I've seen here a mistake...
*8 in day-1 near Zar'it
*4 sailors on INS Hanit
*1 pilot in helicopters crash
*2 (MAGLAN unit) in Maroun-a-Ras 
*5 (EGOZ unit) in Maroun-a-Ras 
*2 pilots when MRLS rocket hit a helicopter
*2 during the night before the battle of Bint-Jbeil in the area
*8 in the battle of Bint-Jbeil
*1 in the same day but in Maroun-a-Ras 
*3 on tuesday in Ayat-a-Shaab
*1 thursday morning
*3 thursday evening
===total: 40 Flayer 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at line 3 and line 6. Here () are published numbers and names (israeli source in russian) Flayer 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a mistake. Israeli news sites published today about a casualty at early morning in At-Taybe, then about 6 civilian and 2 IDF casualties much later, that became 8 civilians and 3 soldiers. Then a summary was given "12 casualties today - 4 of them soldiers", so news.com.au surely counted the early-morning casualty twice. Flayer 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 IDF casualties up to date (not 41) 

message: I would like to know on what basis are we equating Hezbollah indiscriminatly firing rockets against civilians, to the IDF firing at Hezbollah positions in civilian areas? According to the laws of war, Hezbollah tactics such as not wearing uniforms, blending in with the local population, setting up road blocks to keep the local population inside a battlezone, firing from civilian infrastructure while using civilians inside as human shields, constitute a gross violation of the laws of war. Should we not distinguish between Hezbollah indiscrimate attacks against civilian areas, and IDF offensives solely against Hezbollah who stategically place themselves within civilian areas for protection?
Guy Montag 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage simply speaks of attacks, per se. The damage to Lebanon has been far more severe, so the focus seems proportional.El_C 04:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attacks from both sides on civilian population centers and infrastructure have drawn sharp criticism internationally." Just states the fact, as succinctly as possible, that both sides are attacking civilian population centres, which they are, and that both of them have attracted criticism. I don't think it makes it look like Israel is deliberately attacking civilians. They are, however, deliberately (they aren't accidentally dropping bombs in Lebanon) targetting civilian areas, trying to kill Hezbollah fighters hiding in those areas. (which is what is attracting the criticism.) And as for the 1 para Hezbollah, 4 for Israel, thats because the vast majority of the attacks are in Lebanon. If i recall correctly, it is mentioned that the reason why they are attacking civilian areas is because Hezbollah are using them as human shields. --Iorek85 05:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equating Hezbollah and IDF operations in this article

message: center|thumb|350px|Israeli wounded civilian is being evacuated from the area that got hit by Hizballah rocket in Haifa on 22 July.
Flayer 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we better put it instead of Israeli soldiers mourning photo. Can you do it? I don't have much experience with wikipedia... Flayer 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.. OK! Flayer 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good photograph summarizing a lot of things that are happening to affect Israel. It is also positive showing efforts to help. The IDF mourning photo only shows soldiers affected. 82.29.227.171 11:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be looking for such photos... Flayer 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer this photo. I added a date to the caption. AdamKesher 11:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem. Flayer 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add this photo? 

message: I realise that there are a lot of things to keep track of for the editors of this article. That said, please be more careful with the use of unlicensed images. Images sourced from blogs without authorship or copyright-holder status do not meet Wikipedia:Image use policy. Images taken from news agencies do not meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. They are subject to deletion and should not be placed into articles. Thanks. Jkelly 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image use in this article 

message: Left in the brief description of the history over the years. 82.29.227.171 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got moved back in for some reason.82.29.227.171 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved the POW stuff to its article

message: Sorry to add more stuff to the page, but the qualification of the raid as happening in Israel is continually removed. I added the UN, EU, G8, etc. sources. Perhaps we can find a better way to express this without all the citations. TewfikTalk 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. El_C 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead keeps changing, but I'm still trying. El_C 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayta a Shaab Claim 

message: 3rd August
*Israeli death toll in the conflict stood at 68, with 41 soldiers killed in fighting and 27 civilians in rocket attacks. Leabanese PM Saniora said more than 900 people had been killed and 3,000 wounded, but he did not say whether the new figure, a rise of 380 from 520 confirmed dead also included those missing presumed dead.
4th August
*It was estimated in a Haaretz analysis piece that the total number of rocket launchers that had been destroyed by IDF forces in Lebanon was "ten" and an estimate of Hezbollah killed given by IDF was "380". (it does say ground forces though- does that imply airforce has others? hard to say) 82.29.227.171 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah KIA, other figures

message: Hadera is southernmost point hit by Hezbollah. We better add this. Flayer 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadera instaed of Beit-Shean 

message: If you go to Wikipedia page history statistics you can find out some interesting info on the page history. As of now;
* There have been 9,981 edits, which puts this article in the top 10 most edited pages on wikipedia.
* 1 edit every 3.25 minutes.
* Over 2000 unique editors.
* Tewfik is the top editor, with 640 edits!
--Iorek85 00:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some statistics you might find interesting

message: I think we should agree to take off the number of wounded/injured soldiers and civilians. We're completely unable to present up-to-date numbers. For example, I no longer have an idea how many israeli soldiers and civilians are wounded - I can only track how many died. We may only right "about x hundred / thousand". Flayer 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wounded soldiers and civilians 

message: Hezbollah ground rocket campaign
Hezbollah's sophisticated anti-tank missiles are perhaps the guerrilla group's deadliest weapon in Lebanon fighting, with their ability to pierce "Israel's" most advanced tanks. 
Experts say this is further evidence that "Israel" is facing a well-equipped army in this war, not a ragtag militia. 
Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made MILAN missiles, the army confirmed on Friday 4-8-2006. 
In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks - mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of "Israel's" military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles. 
``They (Hezbollah guerrillas) have some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in the world, said Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior military intelligence officer who retired earlier this summer. 
``This is not a militia, it's an infantry brigade with all the support units, Kuperwasser said. 
"Israel" contends that Hezbollah gets almost all of its weaponry from Syria and by extension Iran, including its anti-tank missiles. 
That's why cutting off the supply chain is essential - and why fighting Hezbollah after it has spent six years building up its arsenal is proving so painful to "Israel", officials claim. 
"Israel's" Merkava tanks boast massive amounts of armor and lumber and resemble fortresses on tracks. They are built for crew survival, according to Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank. 
Hezbollah celebrates when it destroys one. 
``A Israeli armored force tried to advance toward the village of Chihine. The hezboolah confronted it and destroyed two Merkava tanks, the group proclaimed on television Thursday. 
The Israeli army confirmed two attacks on Merkava tanks that day - one that killed three soldiers and the other killing one. The three soldiers who were killed on Friday were also killed by antitank missiles, the army said. 
It would not say whether the missiles disabled the tanks. 
``They (Hezbollah) are as well-equipped as any standing unit in the Syrian or Iranian armies, said Eran Lerman, a retired army colonel and now director of the "Israel"/Middle East office of the American Jewish Committee. ``This is not a rat-pack guerrilla, this is an organized militia. 
Besides the anti-tank missiles, Hezbollah is also known to have a powerful rocket-propelled grenade known as the RPG29. These weapons are also smuggled through Syria, an Israeli security official said, and were previously used by Palestinian militants in Gaza to damage tanks. 
On Friday 4-8-2006, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Hezbollah asked Iran for ``a constant supply of weapons to support its operations against "Israel". 
The report cited Western diplomatic sources as saying that Iranian authorities promised Hezbollah a steady supply of weapons ``for the next stage of the confrontation.
Agreed. It's going. Some referenced mention of the ground rockets can be made, but this is a summary, not a Hezbollah admiration site. --Iorek85 12:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some can be mentioned, but not even as a "campaign" paragraph. Flayer 12:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Love letter material. Some detail on their rockets is needed- what they look like and how theyre operated- that might go some way to dispel the "blending with civilians" myth. 82.29.227.171 13:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: STOP adding this. It is completly unreferenced, full of POV, has loads of adjectives, not important information, e.t.c Flayer 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Hezbollah admiration"? Heh heh, this text actually came over the AP wire on Friday under the headline "Missiles neutralizing Israeli tanks." I knew I recognized it from somewhere. :-P  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I googled the text, didn't do a news search. Damn that biased AP! --Iorek85 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added TV image of Hezbollah forces setting up rocket launchers and link to their rocket campaign. 82.29.227.171 14:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's that? Where did it come from?? [[User:Flayer|Flayer]] 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)