Talk:Battle of Bint Jbeil

message: I have heard that the city has been taken, does this mean the battle has ended? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see now. --TheFEARgod 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taken? 

message: This is a very nice start, with a good degree of detail. I applaud your ability to remain objective and neutral in writing this; it is a very hard thing to do, considering the subject matter. The infobox needs a little work- the casualties do not seem very well organized, and there is a hanging phrase of "Israel claims..." But I am quite aware this is a work in progress, as it is a current event. For an event so well reported and published, I think a lot more could probably be said, which is why I'm giving it only a "Start" rating. Thank you again, though, for your hard work, and for writing this in such a neutral way. LordAmeth 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: I added detail of a media report saying Hezbollah still hold Bint Jbeil in 'aftermath' section.82.29.227.171 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawal

message: I've put the result of the battle as "town held by Hezbollah", which I believe is what the sources say. The word "stalemate" is unacceptably vague and not even appropriate given that Israel has withdrawn. This is not to suggest that Israel has "lost" according to its goals: the casualties are of course listed separately. —Ashley Y 05:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: Why is the article only mentioning the IDF estimation of casualities, Hezbollah announced that 13 IDF soldiers were killed in the battle. According to israeli sources, most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements.The Israeli sources are estimating Hezbolla's losses ranges from 15-200 !! I believe this implies uncertainity, or even more, intentional exaggeration for morale boosting purposes, especially after IDF had to withdraw from the town (why would they do that if they killed 200 out of 200 Hezbolla fighters).
--12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualities

message: hizballa lost most of it's force in the area, and in the end of the battle itself, the town was compleatly under the control of the IDF. the IDF widrew its forces because it's job was done, not because hizballa still controlled the area. this is no "strategic victory", this is a tie.
:Yes, STRATEGIC because they still control the town--TheFEARgod 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly. Firstly, is there any reference that says the "the town was completely under the control of the IDF"? Secondly, "strategic victory" etc. is POV. I'm changing it back to the plain fact of Hezbollah hold. —Ashley Y 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't touched the casualty counts. Israel can also claim this as a "strategic victory", it's entirely POV. The plain fact of the result is that Hezbollah held the town, everything else is interpretation. —Ashley Y 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hizzballa strategic victory?...

message: Unlike the Hezballa, IDF reports are official. When IDF says the were 8 israeli casualties and 22 wounded, it means that.
By the way, there were 2 israeli casualties around Bint Jbeil during the night before the battle of Bint Jbeil - this is official. 
89.0.211.46 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, MSNBC mistaken... 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is POV, but "Hezbollah strategic victory" is also POV. Well, if MSNBC did not mistaken, there shuould be some more sources about 18 casualties... What about IDF official site? Any other site talking  about 18 casualties? 89.0.211.46 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: didn't know 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualities 

message: All sources agree about total 36 casualties:
8 in day-1 near Zar'it
4 sailors on INS Hanit
1 pilot in helicopters crash
2 (MAGLAN unit) in Maroun-a-Ras 
another 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 yesterday in Ayat-a-Shaab
Total: 36 casualties - this is official and up to date!
I can show you reliable sources about every one of this situations, as well as I can show an up-to-date source about total 36 casualties.
89.0.189.135 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is BULLSHIT... I'm gonna put here an IDF source... 89.0.243.231 07:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 vs. 18 casualties 

message: "   IDF forces withdrew from the village of Bint Jbeil today, having completed operations there.  It was in Bint Jbeil that heavy fighting erupted last week between IDF forces and Hezbollah terrorists, resulting in IDF casualties of eight soldiers dead and 22 wounded, some seriously.   "
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55319.EN
You can see here that there were no updates about anymore IDF casualties during the battle of Bint Jbeil:
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=54279.EN
89.0.243.231 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here (http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/02aug2006/shem.html) we can see (in russian) a list of israeli casualties, including IDF casualties, which is up to 2/08/2006. The total number of soldiers is 36 (up to 2/08/2006). I can show you an official source telling about every one of this soldiers (when and where he did killed). According to these sources, there were 28 casulties + X Bint-Jbeil casualties. While the total number is 36 (up to 2/08/2006), it is clear that 8 soldiers killed in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they have priority over IDF official website, which tells both in english and in hebrew that there were 8 soldiers that killed in Bint Jbeil that day, not 18?? Ask any of the israeli Wiki-moderators, ask any israli you find, and he will tell you the exact number od IDF casualties in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats why I give you this () and this (). So you can see that no such update about 18 casualties was given. Flayer 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can agree that 18 soldiers got killed in the area, but the battle of Maroun Ar-Ras was in Maroun Ar-Ras itself. Also, IDF troops withdrew from Maroun Ar-Ras, but not from the area, not from Bint Jbeil, for example. Flayer 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDF official website: IDF Pulls Out of Bint Jbeil (Sunday 30/07/2006) 

message: I don't understand why the focus of a single battle event. This cannot be considered as a battle which is over. The Battle for Bint Jbail is not over. Israel is using a tactic against a guerrila advantage. Israel prefers to conduct search and destroy operations in the villages then withdraw. Why remain inside and be a target against an enemy who knows all the passageways, tunnels and bunkers. All you is inviting yourself to be a target of an anti-tank missile by remaining in one position too long. What Israel is doing is, fighting, killing and wounding some Hezbollah's then withdrawing. If they attempt to reinforce their dwindling numbers inside Bint Jbeil, they get attacked. If they try to withdraw they run the risk of attacks. If they stay put, they are a target for the next search and destroy incursion. So I don't think you cannot categorize this as a victory for Hezbollah, unless of course there is a cease-fire and they still hold the town and are not forced to withdraw or disarm. Until then, I categorize this battle as ongoing. Richardmiami 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory? 

message: "The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times" claims on the casualty list will be mentioned only after the official source, which is IDF website. Like IDF claims about the number of Hezballa casulties are mentioned second. Flayer 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. official Israeli position is 8 killed, 22 wounded.   Flayer 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why Globe is also mentioned. Flayer 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, only few of them are dated later than IDF source, but they will be mentioned only after an official source, which is IDF. Flayer 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times" 

message: By the way, I'm gonna add all the israeli media reports about 8 (not 18) IDF casualties.... Both israeli and international reports will appear. Flayer 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli media 

message: The NYT article, which is being used as a source for the claim that 18 Israeli soldiers were killed actually says "two days of bitter combat that had left 10 soldiers dead". Please stop using it to support that claim. Isarig 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT 

message: CNN is listed as a source for the 18 killed claim, but no CNN article is refernced. I am removing CNN until such cite is produced Isarig 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN 

message: The Guardian article, which is being used as a source for the claim that 18 Israeli soldiers were killed actually says "They eventually dragged eight corpses down a steep hillside under cover of darkness.". Please stop using it to support that claim. Isarig 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to me to check for newer ones - it's up to you, if you want to list them as references. Isarig 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian 

message: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm
This official source is far more updated than news agencies that had claimed 18 casualties. And of course it says: "Eight soldiers from the Golani Brigade were killed in battle in Bint Jbeil: Maj. Ro'i Klein, 31, of Eli; Lt. Amihai Merhavia, 24, of Eli; Lt. Alexander Shwartzman, 24, of Akko; Sgt. Shimon Adega, 21, of Kiryat Gat; St.-Sgt. Edan Cohen, 21, of Jaffa; St.-Sgt. Shimon Dahan, 20, of Ashdod;  Cpl. Ohad Klausner, 20, of Bet Horon; and Cpl. Assaf Namer, 27, of Kiryat Yam. 
"
89.0.229.237 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 vs. 18 casualties (№2) 

message: I have added a NPOV tag.  Nearly all of the sources are from Israeli media sources.  There seems to be disagreement among editors as to certain facts and timelines.  Much of the article is anecdotal stories from the IDF troops as told to Israeli newspapers.  This article should adhere to the guidelines in Wikipedia:NPOV.  Nimur 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE- Drive-by tagging:  I have added my discussion here.  Please see the talk-page before reverting an NPOV tag.  Thank you, Nimur 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  proper procedure is to discuss any charges of non-NPOV edits on Talk, and tag the article only if there is no consensus on how to arrive at NPOV on Talk. I have thus reverted your drive-by tagging. Now that we are discussing your actual points: (1) The references include arab sources such as Al Jezeera and Al bawab, as well as numerous non-israeli and non-Arab sources, such as The Guardian, CNN and Reuters. So the claim that "Nearly all of the sources are from Israeli media sources" is false. (2) There is (or rather, was) some disagreement with regards to some facts, but that is common to most WP articles, and there have only been 2 edits yesterday, and not many more than that the previous 4 days. If you have any specific issues with edits that you claim to  be non-NP0V, let's hear them, but tagging an entire article based on the fact that there is some disagrement over facts is over the top. Isarig 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: ...Israeli claim: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750990.html--TheFEARgod 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah victory.... 

message: User:Freepsbane removed my last 2 edits with the summary "1st link supports claim". Not clear to me which of the first links he is referring to (I removed 2 sets of links), but neither one supports the claims it is used as a refernce for. The first set of links is related to the events of July 24th. The first link in that groups is to the Isreali MoFA site which lists all Israeli casualites. It indeed mentions two soldiers killed on 7/24, one in a tank flip, the other in an anti-tank missile attack - but nowhere does it link these two deaths to Bint Jbeil. The second set of links is related to the results of the battle. The 1st link very clearly and explictly says 'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters'. Isarig 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits - july 24 and result 

message: What was the strategic importance of the battle from the Israeli point of view?
Was it a form of insanity? Can anybody shed light on this riddle? Abu ali 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Israeli forces try to take Bint Jbeil? 

message: Now that I jumped into this edit war, can somebody tell me which side I am on? Seriously, Hezbollah still being there means?? they won?? Anyways, please advise.... --Tom 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference to Hezbollah stronghold

message: Before protecting this page, RyanG admitted in his own edit summary that the msnbc article being used to claim Hezbollah still holds the town is vague. I have now added a current  article, which shows the UN holds the town, and asked that this not be reverted prior to discussing on Talk. RyanG has not addressed my previous Talk comment (from 19 August 2006) to the effect that the "vague" article actually explictly says "'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters', and yet still reverted to the claim that the town was held by Hizbullah, based on that same "vague" article that actually says the opposite. Isarig 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I don't think I'm being disruptive. The fist article, from 19 August, does not state that there are no Hezbollah fighters in Bint Jbeil. This news article, which I actually used to source another statement in the Bint Jbeil article, states that there are no Israeli soldiers in Bint Jbeil, and that the United Nations in fact controls the twon. The September 3 article does not mention whether Hezbollah fighters are still in Bint Jbeil. Neith the August 19 nor the September 3 articles state whether or not there are Hezbollah fighters remaining in Bint Jbeil. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being disruptive, and disingenious. The 8/19 article clearly says 'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters'. It was being used foa a very stong claim - that the town is still in Hezbollah hands  - but that claim is not supported by the article. For you to reintroduce that claim based on that source, after admitting the articel is vague is being disruptive. Isarig 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]]'s disruptive editing

message: The discussion on AN/I and the the article itself states: "Hezbollah's fighters remain as deadly as they are elusive." Clearly, they must be present to be deadly. I am re-adding the source, and if this continues, I will request the page be re-protected. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is far from clear. They can be deadly elswhere, or deadly from afar. To jump from a statement such as '"Hezbollah's fighters remain as deadly as they are elusive."  to the conclusion that Bint Jbeil is still in Hizbolah hands is Original Research, and has no place in WP. No one was claiming the Hezbollah fighters were eradicated to the last man, so clearly those that remain are deadly. But the  article clearly states they are nowhere to be seen in BJ. Extraordinary claims require extarordinary proof - this article, described by as you vague" does not even come close. Please find a better source if you want to add this claim to the article. Isarig 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Isarig's logic is correct for this particular phrase. The Land 08:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig is correct.  The source says nothing about them being present - which is in fact not true. They weren't. This should be deleted immediately. Amoruso 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On my revert

message: I removed the recent edit which reaqd "New Israeli reports revealed that after the IDF failed to capture Bint Jbeil, army leaders requested several soldiers to take pictures showing the Israeli flag on top of a house in the town; several soldiers were killed by Hezbollah fighters while attempting to carry out the order.". This is sourced to IMEMC - which is not a WP:RS, and partisan in nature. The information is dubious for several reasons: (1) the article claimes it is based on "IMEMC & Agencies" - but a google search on relevant items (e.g. the named soldier "Eyal Bloom") yeilds zero hits. (2) The Israeli enquiry commision has not yet issued its report, making the source of this alleged "report" questionable. Isarig 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Isarig, IMEMC is a reliable independent source, why is it not RS?. <restored BintJbeil's edit> Nielswik(talk) 09:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self published. It is explictly partisn and one sided. And as noted above, the recent claim is dubious and appears nowhere else in a mainstream media source. Isarig 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There are 21 differnt sources for this article. Please read more carefully and stop shouting. Isarig 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit by [[User:BintJbeil]] 

message: Attention User:RyanGerbil10 . We don't need a novel in the factbox about who won. And it's obvious the parties here will just refight the battle. Let's just put a simple "contested" or "disputed" for the outcome. Let the reader decide.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can show consensus support for this view, I will be happy to unprotect, but I am unwilling to do so until I see evidence that edit-warring will at least temporarily stop. This article was without protection for almost an entire year - stability is possible on this article. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Outcome

message: The IDF goal was to occupy the City , but they failed twice so it's hezbollah and Amal Victroy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.98.181 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The IDF goal wasn't to occupy the city. Flayer (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results and Goals: 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hizbollah3.tif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hezbollah flag.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I have removed a sentence with a misleading quote from Newsweek:
:As a tentative ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon began, Journalists who visited the town reported that while "Hizbullah's fighters were as elusive last week as they were deadly", on August 14 "there was no sign of Hizbullah fighters".
The original link is dead but it can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060825184507/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14208385/site/newsweek/
Both quotes are technically correct but none of the refers to Bint Jbeil or to the situation as of Aug. 14. They are doctored to create the impression that Hezbollah had withdrawn from the town before the cease-fire, while in fact they did not and not even Israel claims that they did. People have referred to this passage as evidence that they really did withdraw. The first quote refers to the general situation in Southern Lebanon during the war:
:“Hizbullah's fighters were as elusive last week as they were deadly. Thousands of them were dug in around southern Lebanon, and yet encounters with the hundreds of journalists also in the area were rare, and furtive. Like Hussein, as he chose to call himself, who popped out of the rubble in the blasted town of Bint Jbeil, site of what Hizbullah is calling its Great Victory...”
The second quote describes the situation at a very specific but unspecified olive grove FIVE miles from Bint Jbeil:
:“In an olive grove about five miles away [from Bint Jbeil]… [there] was a GMC truck with a rocket-launching platform... There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters...”
The article was dated August 14, but was apparently written about a week earlier (judging from the cited Israeli casualty figures and the cited number of rocket strikes on Israel). The visit to Bint Jbeil probably took place during the Israeli air strike pause July 31 - Aug. 1) when several foreign journalists visited the town. And the Newsweek journalists actually did meet a Hezbollah fighter in Bint Jbeil that day.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading Newsweek quote removed

message: I have recently made some substantial revisions of this article. I will continue to add some more material in coming days.
The article was really very bad before I started working on it. It contained a lot of incorrect information even some deliberate misinformation (see previous item on the discussion page). It was badly sourced, sometimes with no sources or only dead links. It also had a confused, and at times missleading, time line and no clear conclusion of the battle. Large sections were cut-and-paste from Jerusalem Post articles. The article did not attempt to explain what Israel tried to achieve or why it failed. It also had very little info from Lebanese sources. I believe that the main problem was that the article to a large extent was written in real time at the heat of the battle. Now five years later tempers may have cooled and more accurate information available. 
I don’t pretend to have solved all these issues but I think I have made a good start. Any feed-back or further contributions are welcome. I have mainly used mainstream Israeli military correspondents articles and books as sources. But I have also used some Lebanese accounts, especially about Lebanese casualties.
I made a similar revision of Battle of Ayta ash-Shab and took a lot of flak for that. The main problem seems to be persons who cannot accept the fact the IDF may actually have lost a battle. My conclusion is that Israel repeatedly tried to conquer these towns but failed in spite of heavy casualties. In this sense it was a huge Hezbollah victory. But Hezbollah also took heavy losses, especially in Bint Jbeil. Two of the commanders killed in Bint Jbeil were probably the highest ranking Hezbollah leaders killed in the war. I would be surprised if any serious person today would dispute this conclusion. 
I was delighted when I discovered that the Jewish Virtual Library reused a lot of my stuff from Ayta ash-Sha'b and rewrote their account of the Second Lebanon war:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lebanon2.html
One idea I have is to merge this article with Battle of Maroun al-Ras and include accounts on the fighting in Aytaroun. In reality this was really just one battle. The Israeli conquest of Maroun ar-Ras was mainly a stepping stone towards Bint Jbeil. Most of the Israeli fatalities at Maroun ar-Ras was actually caused by missiles fired from Bint Jbeil. The Lebanese fought under a joint command headed by Khalid Bazzi in the area of Bint Jbeil-Aynata-Aytaroun-Maroun ar-Ras (nick-named the "Square of Steadfastness"). Lebanese fighters moved frequently between these towns. 
Any comments?
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: here you go - http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_israel-says-70-hezbollah-fighters-killed-in-three-days_1044440 Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, but these 70-80 killed refer to all of south Lebanon, "mainly in Bint Jbeil and Marun Al-Ras", during the three day period (26-29 aug). I already have that covered by an IDF-quote claiming 40 killed in Bint Jbeil in this period. These real time announcements probably have little information value (from either side - Hezbollah was also claiming to be killing the Israelis by the dozens during this time). In the middle of a chaotic night-time battle you simply have no idea how many of the enemy you have hit, much less killed, - unless you actually defeat them and can count the bodies (I think the IDF "captured" 3-4 bodies in Bint Jbeil, thoughout the war). Even less so when they were killed by shelling from air and artillery. What I would like to have is an official, or semi-official, Israeli estimate for the whole battle, made after the war. Or, even better, a serious study made by academics. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revision

message: A list of fatalities does not contravene WP:NOTMEMORIAL:
"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."
I was the one who introduced the list of fatalities and I have to relationship, however remote, to any of the dead soldiers.
Almost every article in Wikipedia on terrorist attacks in Israel has such a list of fatalities. If you want to gain credibility for your claim please remove all these list first. The real reason why some people want to do away with list of fatalities in articles about the Lebanon war is because they want to manipulate the real number of IDF fatalities.
We saw it recently when Jiujitsuguy first deleted the list of names claiming "excessive detail" and then later lowered the number from 15 to 14. Soon some anonymous contributor will lower it to 8, as was done here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil&diff=479307587&oldid=479018846
As long as we keep a list of names it will be very difficult to manipulate the statistics, as was the case with almost every Wikipedia article about Lebanese battles 6 months ago. If you claim that fewer than 15 soldiers died in the battle of Bint Jbeil you have to tell us who of these 15 soldiers did not die in Bint Jbeil.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Flayer (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of fatalities does not contravene this policy. It is standard in Wikipedia articles. Please explain why the battle of Bint Jbeil is differentJokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:OSE anyhow please explain how its not contravene the policy--Shrike (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of fatalities 

message: 1) I have removed the inaccurate claim, introduced by Jiujitsuguy (talk) that Israel conquered Bint Jbeil and that the outcome of the battle somehow is disputed, since both sides claim victory. IDF never conquered the town and Hezbollah never withdrew from it. Hezbollah indeed claimed victory but Israel certainly did not.
No serious source claims that Israel ever occupied Bint Jbeil during the 2006 war. The Winograd report specifically points out that the town was never occupied (p. 364 and 368) as does the Knesset website: http://www.knesset.gov.il/lexicon/eng/Lebanon_war2_eng.htm
This is also confirmed by Mathews (p. 47). 
There are no indications that IDF forces ever advanced very far into the town. The first incursion was stopped at an olive grove in the outskirts of Aynata, the next door village of Bint Jbeil, while the “Battle of the flag” was stopped at the northern entrance of the town. Indeed the Winograd report concludes (p.375) that "the battle of Bint Jbeil" was no more than a series of clashes on the outskirts of the town. 
Winograd Commission described the battle - in the words of Amos Harel - as a "colossal failure". http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/an-army-run-like-a-jungle-1.238477
Israeli military analyst Reuven Pedatzur called it a "knockout" and "defeat" for Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-day-after-how-we-suffered-a-knockout-1.195274
The former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz testified that it was "the most blatant non-achievement or failure" of the war. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/halutz-idf-s-greatest-failure-was-inability-to-end-war-quickly-stop-katyusha-rockets-1.220346
 
Jiujitsuguy is relying on a single source that cannot be described as a reliable source. Robert Werdine is an American and rather extremely pro-Israeli blogger who describes himself as "self-employed" and a student "pursuing advanced degrees in education and in Middle Eastern Studies". http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/robert-werdine/
Plus a few newspaper reporting that at the time credited the later thoroughly discredited Israeli claim to have "complete control" of the town by July 25.
2) I have also removed the claim of 80 Hezbollah fatalities. This was included for many years in this Wikipedia article but no one has ever been able to provide a source for it, so it was removed. Jiujitsuguy reintroduced it and gave the blogger/student Werdine as the source. He in turn provided no source for this number (although he provided footnotes for other claims in the article) and he most probably took it from the old version of this Wikipedia article. If somebody can provide a more credible source for this number, please feel free to include it again.
Instead I have included an estimate of “dozens” Hezbollah fighters taken from Dr. Ehrlich’s study. This semi-official Israeli study was “privileged to enjoy the cooperation of every potential source of information in Israel” (according to the introduction, p.3). If they couldn’t come up with a more precise estimate I can’t understand how Mr. Werdine ever could. Or anybody else - outside Hezbollah - for that matter.
3) I have restored relevant and sourced material deleted by Jiujitsuguy and in some cased fixed dead links. I have even provided a source for the “joyous audience” formulation. 
The quote from Nasrallah is highly relevant for this article for two reasons. It explains Hezbollah’s determination of getting it’s prisoners back. The anger this statement provoked in Israel was a major reason – according to many observers – why it targeted Bint Jbeil in the first place, thereby walking into Hezbollah’s trap. 
I refuse however to add a source to the claim that Bint Jbeil was a center for the resistance during the occupation, since this statement is not the least controversial. If you somehow disagree we me, here are some sources that you can use. Please feel free to add any or all of them. You can choose between Washington Post, Yediot Achronoth, Daily Mail, CS Monitor and Washington Times. All of them explain – with virtually identical formulation – that Bint Jbeil earned the title Capital of the Resistance “because it was a center for Hezbollah guerrilla action against Israel during the Jewish state's 18-year occupation of the south, which ended in 2000.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3969374,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101356.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320572/Ahmadinejads-controversial-visit-Lebanons-border-Israel.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/14/ahmadinejad-addresses-rally-near-israels-border/?page=all
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1014/Ahmadinejad-taunts-Israel-from-border-with-Lebanon
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinformation 

message: I am reverting recent disruptive edits made by Avaya1 (talk) on this and several other Wikipedia articles. 
Avaya1 made 5 massive changes in 7 minutes to 2006 Lebanon War, then spent 2 minutes making changes on Operation Change of Direction 11, 1 minute on Battle of Bint Jbeil and a further 2 minutes on Battle of Ayta ash-Shab. 
The changes were whole-sale deletions of all the additions made after a particular date, selected for unclear reasons. Some of the changes he deleted had been agreed upon by other editors in talk page discussions. A lot of well-sourced material has been deleted. In the case of Battle of Bint Jbeil meticulously added references has been deleted and replaced with .
None of the changes were explained in summaries or in talkpages. Avaya1 has previously made intermittent contributions to 2006 Lebanon War but has not previously been involved in the editing of the other articles.
Any well-sourced addition to this article is welcome as are deletions if they are clearly explained in the talkpage. I return the page to where it was before Avaya1's deletions.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing 

message: The strength of the IDF is listed in Brigades, and Battalions. I cannot find any reliable sources on the actual strengths of the Israeli Battalions, as the 101st Unit seems to have a strength of only 50 men. Could we add an estimate to the Israeli strength in the battle? Hasan Kheireddine (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of IDF 

message: The initial and end target was not to capture the city.
“Initially, Israel had no intention to capture Bint Jbeil. Rather, the IDF sought to control the city from outside. Brigadier General Shuky Shachrur, the Northern Command’s chief of staff, said the plan was to raid specific targets based on intelligence.”
The result was accomplished and israel achieved victory, which was to raid specific targets and eliminate them. Sprmni (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Result 

message: Citation 19 does not exist, as well as it was published by a left-party journalist and it is a lie.
There was never such an intention.
Citation 20 does not represent the true intentions of the commander which named the operation “Web of Steel” - that means not to capture, but to “web” - to souround and slow the town so nobody can enter or retreat - and that was achieved. Sprmni (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations (19&20) 

message: This article references "Final Winograd Report" several times, but doesn't complete that reference. Is more information available -- an online source, an ISBN or DOI number, maybe? Why can't a full citation be provided? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mikeblas please see Winograd Commission; Huldra (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one of the references at that article can you use to provide a usable reference here? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if that the report is available in English; pinging User:Bolter21 and User:RolandR; they might know more, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the report was ever published in English. The site to which the article linked has been hijacked by spammers, so I have replaced the link to an archived version, where the full report (in Hebrew) is available as a pdf. It's over 600 pages long, so I'm not going to read it; but I'd be happy to check any of the specific references, if needed. RolandR (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report references

message: This entire piece was written by Hezbollah. It is not editorial, it is fictional. None of the sources mention the subjective writing in this section. Mtreston (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2021 

message: At the end of the battle israel succeeded to  conquer the town Davidreznov (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2023 

message: Davidreznov (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: because there is nothing to do. You need to propose specific changes, with sources as appropriate, in the form "change X to Y", or "delete X" or "add X after Y" or something similar. You have proposed absolutely nothing. The purpose of an edit request is to propose constructive changes, not to air complaints. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2023 

message: The result of the battle in the page isn't true. The Israeli troops succeeded to take the village and they succeeded to find the weapons Davidreznov (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Propose the wording you want to replace and cite a reliable source to back up your claim. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the plan was to raid the city find weapons and documents Davidreznov (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you fail to read or fail to comprehend the previous comment? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Editor has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The result of the battle 

message: On 18 July, I removed the following claim, sourced to this Haaretz link:
 "According to a newspaper reports, Chief of Staff Dan Halutz at one time demanded that Bint Jbeil be "wipe[d] out from the air " but the demand was rejected by the defence minister."
The article, which is a book review and not a news article, says instead:
 "...Peretz realized there was no real purpose behind the chief of staff's demand to escalate air force operations (in order to wipe out Bint Jbail from the air, for example)"
This is a fundamentally different meaning and it is mendacious to pervert the link's language, which shouldn't be included in this situation anyway. This source absolutely does not support Halutz making such an incendiary statement, and it is especially reckless to do in Wikivoice.
On 29 July, @Jokkmokks-Goran reverted the removal (with no edit summary). I will remove this statement, unless @Jokkmokks-Goran can explain themselves here. 
Longhornsg (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The text takes some liberties, but are there any broader issues with the quote from the newspapers? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. AGF and not to put words in your mouth, but reads to me like you don’t see a problem that an editor distorted a quote to say something different than the RS, and in a way that defames a living person? In a topic so contentious, Im absolutely not inclined to allow editors to “take some liberties”. Longhornsg (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread it. I see it's not part of a quote. Weird thing to insert in square brackets. Go ahead and remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wipe from the air"