Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 30

message: I think it should be clarified that just prior to the cease fire the IDF did not advance to the Litani but were airlifted to just south of it. This left the IDF forces in isolated pockets serving no tactical purpose and certainly not controling much. The only purpose served by this airlift on the eve of cease fire was PR, to make it appear that the IDF had made some inroads into southern lebanon. 24.69.71.229 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IDF control to the Litani

message: Diff 1 
Your edit comment says "the reference is right there", can you please show me the passage where Germany "asserts Israel's right to self-defense"?
* The reference's citation of Angela Merkel's stress on the fact that Hezbollah started everything is certainly clear enough, but to remove any ambiguity, I have supplied a Foreign Ministry statement which spells out the phrase. Anyways, there were other statements in the sub articles. TewfikTalk 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to Diff 4, take a look at the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies article, refernced in that section. It has multiple sources, from the Jerusalem post through Fox News to The Australian. Isarig 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments are above. TewfikTalk 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your excuse for not having clarified the edits I brought up constantly changes. Your latest claim is that I've put you "on trial", but you tell me to assume good faith? Think about the following passage in WP:AAGF and consider reducing your excessive referral to WP policies in the future: "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." Thanks. Regarding the article, Robertson's assurance that Hezbollah facilities were hit *is* and *was* included in the article, but you deleted and "paraphrased" far more than just that. And you equal "human shield tactics" to "deliberately maximizing civilian casualties"? Please see Human shield and note that the implication of a "desire to maximize casualties" or "garner sympathy" is your own POV. Keep it out of the article. Btw, these tactics lead to higher civilian casualties only if the enemy will open fire anyway. Exactly this accusation has been brought forward by the UN and several human rights organizations against the IDF, but you repeatedly streamlined these passages to your personal liking. Kosmopolis 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too feel that the "human shield" expression is inappropriate even though it's often used by Israeli propaganda. To hide between the civilian population is a time-honored practice in asymmetrical warfare and was used by the Minutemen in the American Revolution, by the French Resistance in WWII, and by the Vietcong. I guess Jewish underground groups used the same tactic pre-1948. I also agree that "desire to maximize casualties" doesn't sound right as it is well documented that Hezbollah, as all successful guerrilla movements, is very good at gaining the civilian population's support. BTW, there is also a bit in the article that mentions Hezbollah preventing civilians from leaving the war zone that does not sound factual either and neither is a major POV. This article certainly needs some cleaning up. Dianelos 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: You ignored multiple requests by several editors to explain your edits. A lot of these could have been treated en bloc. In the meantime, you made well over 23 other edits, but still refused to cooperate, varying your excuse from time to time. While I accused you of your usual revert orgies, you accused me of putting you on trial. Now, we can either continue throwing mud at each other or comment on edits. Like I tried to show you, I prefer to stay on topic. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Those "unnecessary quotes" are important in understanding the nature of the tour. The Hebzollah guide was not the only factor that prevented Robertson from going through the rubble. I added your paraphrasing in an effort to end the edit-war. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: And I told you countless times to keep your POV out of the article. Egeland's comment does *not* say that Hezbollah was trying to "maximize civilian casualties".  Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: I reverted it because you try to use Gabi S. irrational edit (which was marked as "Remove nonsense") as the new starting point for this section, while we had a consensus version. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Your argumentation suggests that you have a deeply flawed understanding of "neutrality". Neutrality does not mean deleting passages only because you can find no reliable sources that support "the other" position. I reduced the "excessive" quoting and made the passage more descriptive. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: I did. It strikes me that you accuse me of "reverting", while I was usually the one who *added* information to the article in the first place. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing comments

message: As we now have a pretty conclusive reference that the july 12 Hezbollah attack took place in Israel proper I propose we delete the redundant:
:The UN, the European Union, the G8, the United States, and prominent news agencies,[22] including Al Jazeera,[23] have characterized the Hezbollah action as "cross-border".[24]
Dianelos 12:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree in theory, but the last two times that we removed it we ended up with users suggesting alterate versions of what happened. I generally regret not having protested the more removal of sourcing from contentious claims, as often, much energy has been spent on simply affirming that those claims were indeed sourced. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's try again. I think by now everybody will agree it was cross-border. Dianelos 02:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning of Conflict

message: I find the member Tewfic very pro Israeli in all his edits, can there be some sort of review to question his neutrality? #
Reaper7  
:If you have content disputes regarding this article, please deal with those specific issues, rather than focussing on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do these kinds of reviews happen often on Wikipedia?  It reminds me of McCarthyism... Valtam 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That is all fine, but please stop the ad hominems (like the edit summary fate of Israelis very relevant to most people heartless Tewfik; ironically, this was in response to someone else's edits). All other considerations aside, it is still practically more effective if you address specific edits, rather than general, unsubstantiated complaints. In terms of the compromises that have stood for months, this new flurry of editing has generally been contrary to the consensus, rather than upholding it. TewfikTalk 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bust Tewfik and apology. I misread the history line (the shaitan interceded) and there was no way to back and correct it. However, you are known as the man of the thousand edits on this article and many of them IMHO just pure POV pushing.  I remember when I put a Moshe Arens opinion in and you took it out, saying why is he notable? I see he's back in now. Best Wishes Will314159 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I think it's obvious that the voting above will not lead to any kind of consensus. I think that when the rest of the world calls something "a spade", this encyclopedia's article should call it "a spade" too. This is not a matter of what is the more correct expression for some reason or other. You might find it interesting to read this article in Haaretz to see how overwhelmingly this event is called a "war" in Israel. Dianelos 10:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let wikipedians decide. You're welcome to make those pages redirects, by the way. Iorek85 11:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who voted above appear not to know about the relevant Wikipedia policy that applies here (see their comments). I think that policy should have been mentioned at the beginning of the voting section. Dianelos 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "War" or "Conflict"?

message: Currently the article says that 14 Israeli Merkava main battle tanks were destroyed by Hezbollah (what does destroyed mean?). But in the Merkava article it says "50 Merkavas were hit and damaged", so which one is accurate? Geedubber 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the source for "14 destroyed" requires a subscriber login to access, and the source at Merkava is a direct link, I think your change is preferable. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can try to verify Will's claim first? I don't think that there is good reason to include damaged vehicles in this article (it is a big enough stretch to include destroyed materiel), though perhaps the Merkava entry should note the two different numbers, again, contingent on verification of Will's hunch. TewfikTalk 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume Will is right. Nevertheless, 'destroyed' is a vague, narrow descriptor . Hit and damaged is a more inclusive and informative term. (also, I have a suspicion the number 14 actually refers to the # of tanks hit during the last 2 days of war. From the article cited in the Merkava entry "In the last two days of the war, in the battles in Wadi Sluki and Marjayoun, 14 tanks were hit") Geedubber
The best way to think of it is this. You give the total number of casaulties and then break it down into 1)dead and 2)seriously wounded. Destroyed means killed. Hit and damaged means no simple field repair like fixing the track shoe but had to use a tank recovery vehicle to do serious repair. Best Wishes Will314159 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think the term 'hit and damaged' would include tanks destroyed. Destroyed=severe damage. Geedubber 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Israeli tanks hit/destroyed?