Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 11

message: One of the most notable features of this conflict so far has been the speed with which complex geopolitical theories to explain the situation have appeared in the mass media. Nobody can prove that Iran and Syria are or are not involved in the conflict at this stage, and wikipedia should certainly not attempt to "determine the truth" of those claims. What is undeniable however is that a multitude of US commentators and politicians have been promoting the idea that Iran and Syria are the true villains of the piece. That point is not currently being made in the article, and I think it's a serious oversight.  JEREMY 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing an important point

message: Now that the U.N. troops on the group are being targeted, they are part of this conflict.  Since they are supposed to stay neutral, I think the only option is to add a fourth combatant column in the info box.  Thanks. Logicaldisaster 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea. The infobox is already too wide.--JyriL talk 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  UN forces can get shot at and blown up more so but unless they are taking potshots at Israeli planes/troops, they are not combatants. List the UN casualties as you would any other people not directly involved - by country. At least until it is cited/proved that Israel is targeting UN folks on the ground in Lebanon. Ranieldule 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Combatant

message: It has become increasingly clear, as the conflict moves on, that the UN presence in Lebanon is engaging in military actions at a level similar to Lebanon itself, and that they are developing casualties, that latest four dead, but a number of wounded, some seriously. 
Someone put these casualties under "Lebanon", but I think this is wrong because they are not Lebanese, they are UN, regardless of their nationality of origin. 
I am removing these casualties form lebanon in the infobox, and are opening debate and opening a straw poll on including them as combatants in the encyclopedic entry. This means putting them in the infobox, and giving them a category of combatants in all sections, and having to include them for NPOV etc etc. This is not a light decision but one we must make to further article quality.
If you oppose, please suggest an alternative to dealing with the UN involvement in combat. I dont feel the article is approaching this in a correct, structured way, that hightens article quality.--Cerejota 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations combatant?

message: Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~), and put two "**", under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment.  Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Follow my example in structure (althought, of course, NPOV requires I dont ask you to follow my lead in vote :P)--Cerejota 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the UN considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization?--Paraphelion 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great question, the whole world uses the words terrorist organization yet no-one has a clear definition, least of all the United Nations, either in the general Assembly or the Sec.Con. But what is of importance in determining the UN stand is resolutions passed and statements from the Secretary General/Spokesperson. In the latter it is clear that the UN has passed resolutions calling for the disarming of the armed wing militia of Hezbollah, the lack of political will on the part of the Sec Con. is probably what has landed the region in the current situation IMHO as since 2000 the UN Sec Con could have taken action to proceed with the "integration/civilianisation" (read de-militarization) of partizan militias left over from the previous Israeli occupation.
*:To be a bit more useful: Mediators are generally not to be confused with combatants in a war. While it can be argued how effective or even evenhanded the U.N. is in this situation, it doesn't change the basic fact that their role is one of a nominally neutral third party. The fact that they've become combat victims also doesn't change their role to one of combatant either. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on United Nations as combatant

message: Okey I think the straw poll is clear that this is not wanted, but perhaps a fourth box on "UN and other non-combatants" or whatever name might be in order? I mean, is not like any one convinced me of my main contention, that including Lebanon as a combatant but not the UN is incongrous, but the proposal does solve the other issue, a more critical one to article quality, which is where to place non-combatant casualties that are neither civilian, nor lebanese.--Cerejota 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I was thinking that too, since their probably will be more non-combatant deaths.  It may sound POV, but we could change the Lebanon box to Non-combantances box and put the Lebanon flag and the UN flag next to each number of casulties--Rayc 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really a shame this whole article can't be revised on those terms - as in, changing the name to Israel-Hezbollah conflict, listing Lebanese, UN and (as they become involved) other non-combatant, not strictly civilian casualties. I'm beginning to see that if the UN gets the noncombatant status it's time for a dramatic, radical reappraisal of Lebanon's. Ranieldule 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: straw poll compromise?

message: If warship is a casualty, the why wodn't you wright there every single israely tank and Hezbollah's rocket launcher?
:Got it. El_C 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tewfik, where we draw the line? Artillery batteries? Katyusha launchsites? Also, could you link for me the wikiconventions bit? Thanks. El_C 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I'll try to catch up on it soon. El_C 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warship is not a casualty! 

message: Al-Jazira reported from Israeli military officials and from Hizbullah that several Israeli tanks were destroyed in the last ground operations made by Israeli ground forces. I don't know the exact number though, but it should be checked and included. Sherif9282
Dear Friends,
It should be noted that Olmert apologized for UN observers’ death but also criticized Annan for his statement that Israel deliberately attacks UN posts. Also, Danny Gillerman, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, said he was shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement by the secretary general insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted the UN post at Khiam and surprised at these premature and erroneous assertions.
Link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3281510,00.html
in finnish:
Vinyl Driver 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from the casualties section 

message: Would discussion of Hezbollah's motivation for the original attack be appropriate in the body of the article? There has been widespread speculation that Iran orchestrated the Hezbollah action to divert international (G8 and UN) attention or effect international action concerning its nuclear programme.  Fishhead64 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivations

message: I changed the "Beginning of conflict" article into two sections, "According to Lebanon" and "According to Israel" that should solve our disputes (for all the reasonable people), and stop the constant changing. ArmanJan 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the edit summaries.  Is this picture POV because that is where the soldiers were only according to Hezbollah?  If so, that is not clear.--Paraphelion 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is where Lebanon says the Israeli soldiers were when two of them got arrested and another eight were killed. ArmanJan 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't kid yourself, there will be disputes about this until the year 2060. The reason I split up the article is because the edits of it are going so fast you cant get a grip on it. This way you clearly can distinguish which side said what, and if someone changes something (at the rate we are going now) you can see what was changed easilly. This page is small compared to many other war articles. Expect it to get way larger in time. ArmanJan 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The war is not even over yet, and its already gigantic. And you cannot split an article in two just because there is a lot of editing being done; an article must always have a presentable appearance--Doom777 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: However the effect and aim was to marginalize one view, labeling the views as "some Arab and Iranian" when they are based on quotes from Hezbollah cited from an Indian source.  Equally absurd would be labeling Israeli PM's statements as view of "some Israelis".--Paraphelion 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I don't like your change, is ArmanJan will say its POV for Israel, and revert back to his dual, data-redundant version.--Doom777 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely unprecedented to show two views regarding the start of a two week old conflict that is part of a wider conflict that has not been resolved for 1,000 years?  Don't worry, you'll get your one view when the victor writes the history books.--Paraphelion 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two sections in Wikipedia for a 2 week conflict is unprecedented. I am strongly pushing my version as NPOV and non-data-redundant. And if you are going to go back in history, then Israel was fighting Filistians back during King David times. --Doom777 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am all for NPOV too. My version included both Hizballah version that Israelis were already inside Lebanon, and Israeli version. However that is the only difference between the two versions, and you have a lot of useless redundancy in everything else. I don;t see why you need to make two entirely different sections, if they are mostly just copies of each other.--Doom777 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that in your version that includes Hezbollah's view, you did not attribute that view to Hezbollah, but rather to "some Arab and Iranian sources" - --Paraphelion 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I was refactoring ArmanJan version, and his version said that that the soldiers were captured on Lebanon soil, was from Some Arab and Iranian sources. If you can prove it was from Hizbollah instead, feel free to modify it.--Doom777 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it how?  The source says Hezbollah said this.  When I read other sources about what Israel, UN, or the US says, there's practically never any actual proof that they said it.--Paraphelion 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you think that that's justifiable enough to edit it: by all means, edit it.--Doom777 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already changed it once or twice.  That is why I am discussing it here.  If no one else agrees, fine.--Paraphelion 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArmanJan doesn't agree. (S)He insists on having two almost same versions. Nonetheless, he is cluttering up the article. I think that mine, or ign's versions are best.--Doom777 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But factually, they only disagree on where the soldiers were kidnapped. Replace militants with some NPOV word, but both locations for the kidnapping/arrest, and it will work fine. You just keep cluttering up the page.--Doom777 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of conflict

message: Section editing is messed up. There are some reference errors that keep slipping in, and are hard to fix. Can't spot any now, but it was a pain to locate. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that footnote #8 is messed up, it should be about evacuation of Isreali cities, but is instead about the Lebaneese evacuation, can anyone find a proper source for this? FireCrack 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical issues 

message: The article should be locked. There is too much debate over so many small things. We don't want to get into a World war of edit battles! I urge the admins overlooking this to please lock it! Thank you. WikieZach| talk 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate is good, shows other viewpoints and comments. But, if it is vandalism, then it isn't. So far, I've not come across any blatant vandalism here though. --Terrancommander 04:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some vandalism today and there is a pending request for this page to be semi-protected. Whether or not that will happen, I'm not sure. I certainly did put a note in favor of semi-protection. Davidpdx 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The war of words rages just as the war on the ground does.  Not surprised here.  ObsidianOrder 05:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image is not POV. You dont need a split image to be neutral, look at Six Day War or Yom Kippur War. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: At least they dont pose to be wikipedia administrators like certain other individuals (rolleyes). ArmanJan 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Locking the article would abolish everything Wiki stands for, IMO. FightCancer 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you don't Dberliner, but before you continue calling me anymore names and what not, take a good look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ArmanJan 17:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked? 

message: I think that semi-protection should be restored due to vandalism. I already added my request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29.
Hello32020 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection: Restore