Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 1

message: WHY DONT JOIN THIS ARTICLE AND THE ONE OF SUMMER RAINS?
In fact, this conflict is going on since the creation of Hezbollah (frequent border skirmishes etc.) This event is a part of it.--TheFEARgod 13:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the naming error. As soon as heavy airstrikes and further Israeli advance take place I'm renaming the name to 2006 Lebanon War. (see 1982 Lebanon War)--TheFEARgod 15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, to me, it seems that this is connected with the Gaza thing. Their spokesman of Hezbollah said that they did this to aid the Palestinian militants in Gaza, so in their minds it's connected at least. Rangeley 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Israelis won't certainly fight them under Operation Summer Rains-I think--TheFEARgod 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They wont necessarilly. But it doesnt need to be the same operation to be the same war. Rangeley 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dunno, that sounds sort of silly. Perhaps we will just have to wait to see how the press classifies it. Rangeley 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (2006)? — ceejayoz talk 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Forget the formal propaganda names for an article name. In the interest of NPOV, something like 2006 Israeili conflict should suffice. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't this follow the conventions of the other article(Summer Rains) and be called Operation Just reward under its official name?--Elatanatari 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Any objections?--Elatanatari 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: If you want a name for this conflict, could 2006 Israeli War work? I'm basing this conclusion on the following....
* Historical precedent: Six Day War
* Operation Summer Rain
* This article's conflict
* The apparent threats against the Syrians (they apparently threatened to kill Assad the other day).
This whole mess reminds me of what I've read about the Six Day War: if I recall correctly, the original point of that war was to take out the Egyptian strike forces, not to conquer a Greater Israel. This situation seems to be a similar expansion from original intent.
Cwolfsheep 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the "Six Day War" was called that until afterwards.  Right now this is best considered an escalation in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, not a new war. That could change, of course, if the Lebanese military gets involved. — ceejayoz talk 13:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They have had a base been bombed, so yea. They would not have called it the 6 day war before it ended, but they would call it a war nonetheless. Rangeley 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about the Tammuz War because the fighting started in Tammuz (month), and was especially grusome on Seventeenth of Tammuz? --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Israeli War suggested... 

message: The article looks great, good, fast work everyone.  One suggestion - the MilHist project has a guideline that suggests not using operation names as article titles;
Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.
What does everyone think about changing back to a geographic/time title?  Thanks, TheronJ 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, the primary reason for returning back to the geo/time title is NPOVness. The current one is just POV and reflects an Israeli POV disregarding the Lebanese one. CG 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name revisited 

message: Could we move back the article to July 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash. It'a for now the most NPOV title. The current one is just POV and reflects an Israeli POV disregarding the Lebanese one. CG 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true. I doubt a Lebanese would call this operation just reward. We are not only talking about the operation here, but the whole conflict. Maybe we can make another page with this name that has a link to this page? however, if we are going to change the name of this, why aren't we changing the name of operation summer rain? I don't see the difference... but still overall, I would like to see the name changed (yet I wouldn't do it myself : P)
oh, by the way, IMO arab-israeli war would be a huge generalization, since egypt/syria/iraq are not involved. --Jadelith 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't need every Arab nation to be involved but surely it needs more than one to be given a pan-nation name.  Also it's not a war at the moment.  I'm currently content with either the current or former name. MLA 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not talking about calling this, Operation Just Reward, the Arab Israeli War. The 2006 Arab-Israeli War is the wider conflict for which this, and Operation Summer Rains is a part. Rangeley 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict until the media settles on a historical name. CG 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. --Delirium 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree too. Though there is some connection to the happenings in Gaza, this is not yet a full out war. The 1982 Lebanese war also started as an operation, and was only later considered war by the concesus. Maybe July 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict would be better, in case there are more conflicts later in the year.--darkskyz 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done this move since no one seems to be opposing it. A separate article on Operation Just Reward (as a military operation, rather than a conflict) could also be created. —Cuiviénen 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because that details the operation. As we consider this part of the 2006 Arab Israeli war, we cant consider this specific part to be a war in itself - for instance in the Six Day War there wasnt a 1967 Egyt-Israeli war, Iraq-Israel war, etc. Rangeley 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am for 2006 Arab-Israeli War too. Operation Just Reward is Israeli POV. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or may be since 2006 Arab-Israeli War already exists, it can be July 2006 Hezbollah-Lebanon-Israeli Conflict. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move back to [[July 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash]] 

message: Do not move this article again without talking about it. It causes so much confusion with redirects, double redirects, triple redirects... Talk about it on this page before taking any unilateral action by moving it. Rangeley 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have protected it from move. Please message me on my talk or another admin when it is appropriate to remove this protection.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP 

message: i called it 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. Robin Hood 1212 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be best for now, at least until historical researchers and/or international organizations give it a more permanent name. -- SwissCelt 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it'll end up at 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.  We don't want to use a propaganda name, either Israel's "Operation Reward" or whatever Jihad name Hezbollah is calling it.  We need to remain neutral.  2006 Israel-Lebanon War is a good, descriptive, neutral name.  --Cyde↔Weys 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So we don't know the real name 

message: === cleaning up ===
IMO the hezbollah raid and the attacks on israel parts should be conjoined. They both say the same things. Also, we should add a summary that links this to operation summer rain.
I didn't want to edit anything in as I'm new to wiki..Jadelith 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is part of a larger two-front war in Gaza and the Lebanese-Israel border that could easily expand to include Syria, Iran, and maybe even the U.S. Thus, we might have to have a larger article called the 2006 Middle East Conflict or something.--24.154.173.243 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Depending on the level of escalation, it may get difficult to determine where what goes. --Elliskev 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Urgh, edit conflict.  I disagree with this action.  It does not have consensus on this page and there was discussion ongoing about the very point.  Unless Israeli War is the term used by the consensus of external sources then it's not the correct term for Wikipedia.  Also, the new article draws inferences that I believe are dangerously close to original research. MLA 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, this is a really problematic title now, and making it 'war' is not much better. How about 2006 Israeli conflict or something of the like. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its clear that the two operations/fronts are part of the same thing (war/conflict/battle, whatever you want to call it). It is appropriate to include them together in some way, and 2006 Arab-Israeli war seems appropriate, and NPOV. Rangeley 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about whether it's clear to you or clear to me, it's about whether this is what external commentators choose to collectively describe the conflict as.  This is not wikinews, it's an encylcopedia and everything must be based on sources. MLA 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, and why it is clear to me is because news sources are calling it a two front war   etc. Just take a search for "Two Front War" in Google News. Further, Hezbollah said they attacked to help Hamas, thus making what they do part of the same conflict. We know that the involved parties and press see it as a two front war, and we decided to call it the 2006 Arab-Israeli War. Perhaps it will later be named officially, like the 6 day war. Until than, this is good enough. Rangeley 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, and only currently, the overwhelming weight of sources are not calling it a war.  These sources include every global government spokesperson to comment to date.  Also war between Israel and Hezbollah or Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas is not necessarily a war.  Further, it most certainly is not an Arab-Israeli war at the time of writing as it is a conflict between Israel, two non-state actors, and potentially one Arab state.  MLA 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not hypothetical, the conflict is real. There seems to be an issue of what to call it, I proposed a renaming of it to the 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict to try and reach a compromise. But there is no debate that this is a part of the conflict that began in June, because Hezbollah itself said it carried out its attack to aid Hamas in Gaza. Rangeley 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's part of the same conflict, and that conflict deserves an article, but it could probably be argued otherwise.  The reason I made this comment is because somebody changed 2006 Arab-Israeli War to Arab-Israeli Conflict in the infobox.  --Pifactorial 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I am talking him about it to see why he objects. Rangeley 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, more than Hezbollah make the connect, .  And why is it in violation of NPOV? If they say they joined the conflict to aid Hamas, and that they are working together, its a fact that they are in the same conflict. Rangeley 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link lists nothing, neither does a search on google give any results. It isn't NPOV because there is no real connection between the two events, Hezbollah is only using the Gaza events as justification for hostilities. They aren't realted more then any other two events in the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict. --darkskyz 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The link I gave you shows tons of news stories through a search on Google that refer to it as a two front war.  this one too. Israel views this as a second front, Hezbollah views this as a second front. The press sees this as a second front. Rangeley 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in terms of media coverage, actual events, and combatants, even if these are two fronts of one war, it's still more useful to our readers to have two separate articles on the subject.  Whether there should be one overview article linking to these two is a separate question better discussed at Talk:2006 Arab-Israeli War. --Delirium 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree, noone is even suggesting merging articles. All we are talking about is saying that this is a part of the larger conflict. Rangeley 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to Operation Summer Rains?

message: IMO the hezbollah raid and the attacks on israel parts should be conjoined. They both say the same things. Also, we should add a summary that links this to operation summer rain.
I didn't want to edit anything in as I'm new to wiki..Jadelith 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is part of a larger two-front war in Gaza and the Lebanese-Israel border that could easily expand to include Syria, Iran, and maybe even the U.S. Thus, we might have to have a larger article called the 2006 Middle East Conflict or something.--24.154.173.243 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleaning up 

message: 2006 Israeli War
Unless someone can come up with a better name, the press thinks its all related.
Cwolfsheep 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Depending on the level of escalation, it may get difficult to determine where what goes. --Elliskev 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Urgh, edit conflict.  I disagree with this action.  It does not have consensus on this page and there was discussion ongoing about the very point.  Unless Israeli War is the term used by the consensus of external sources then it's not the correct term for Wikipedia.  Also, the new article draws inferences that I believe are dangerously close to original research. MLA 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, this is a really problematic title now, and making it 'war' is not much better. How about 2006 Israeli conflict or something of the like. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its clear that the two operations/fronts are part of the same thing (war/conflict/battle, whatever you want to call it). It is appropriate to include them together in some way, and 2006 Arab-Israeli war seems appropriate, and NPOV. Rangeley 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about whether it's clear to you or clear to me, it's about whether this is what external commentators choose to collectively describe the conflict as.  This is not wikinews, it's an encylcopedia and everything must be based on sources. MLA 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, and why it is clear to me is because news sources are calling it a two front war   etc. Just take a search for "Two Front War" in Google News. Further, Hezbollah said they attacked to help Hamas, thus making what they do part of the same conflict. We know that the involved parties and press see it as a two front war, and we decided to call it the 2006 Arab-Israeli War. Perhaps it will later be named officially, like the 6 day war. Until than, this is good enough. Rangeley 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, and only currently, the overwhelming weight of sources are not calling it a war.  These sources include every global government spokesperson to comment to date.  Also war between Israel and Hezbollah or Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas is not necessarily a war.  Further, it most certainly is not an Arab-Israeli war at the time of writing as it is a conflict between Israel, two non-state actors, and potentially one Arab state.  MLA 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created war article 

message: I think this should still be listed as part of the hypothetical 2006 Arab-Israeli War, as long as this debate is ongoing.  --Pifactorial 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not hypothetical, the conflict is real. There seems to be an issue of what to call it, I proposed a renaming of it to the 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict to try and reach a compromise. But there is no debate that this is a part of the conflict that began in June, because Hezbollah itself said it carried out its attack to aid Hamas in Gaza. Rangeley 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's part of the same conflict, and that conflict deserves an article, but it could probably be argued otherwise.  The reason I made this comment is because somebody changed 2006 Arab-Israeli War to Arab-Israeli Conflict in the infobox.  --Pifactorial 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I am talking him about it to see why he objects. Rangeley 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, more than Hezbollah make the connect, .  And why is it in violation of NPOV? If they say they joined the conflict to aid Hamas, and that they are working together, its a fact that they are in the same conflict. Rangeley 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link lists nothing, neither does a search on google give any results. It isn't NPOV because there is no real connection between the two events, Hezbollah is only using the Gaza events as justification for hostilities. They aren't realted more then any other two events in the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict. --darkskyz 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The link I gave you shows tons of news stories through a search on Google that refer to it as a two front war.  this one too. Israel views this as a second front, Hezbollah views this as a second front. The press sees this as a second front. Rangeley 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in terms of media coverage, actual events, and combatants, even if these are two fronts of one war, it's still more useful to our readers to have two separate articles on the subject.  Whether there should be one overview article linking to these two is a separate question better discussed at Talk:2006 Arab-Israeli War. --Delirium 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree, noone is even suggesting merging articles. All we are talking about is saying that this is a part of the larger conflict. Rangeley 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab-Israeli War 

message: shouldn't we include that operation in the introduction? I remember hezbollah saying that this was their reaction to the gaza offensive. I added that yesterday to the introduction but it seems like someone deleted it. If anyone can find the source for that, I think we should add that to the introduction again. --Jadelith 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: referring to operation summer rain in the introduction

message: since the army too is participating. Robin Hood 1212 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I re-added Hezbollah's leader, as someone removed it. Rangeley 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I added the name of the general of the LAF

message: Anyone have it?Hello32020 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently deleted because of license issues:  --Pifactorial 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old image can be found here, but it's non-free.  Anybody have a free version?  Want to trace up an SVG?  --Pifactorial 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah flag gone

message: Shouldn't the flags in the intro box be Lebanon and Israel, rather than Hezbollah and Israel?  Whether they wanted it or not, Lebanon is now involved, and its a bit unfair to state that the Lebanese civilian casualties were Hezbollah members RedEnsign 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Hezbollah and Lebanon should be in the infobox. Rangeley 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: *State of Israel
*Hezbollah
*Republic of Lebanon
Starks 22:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper names for combatants

message: We have Israeli commanders and the leader of Hezbollah. Who would be considered the Lebanese commander? The President? The Prime Minister? A Chief of Staff? —Cuiviénen 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanese Commander?

message: The article says nothing about it. Am I missing something? Admiral Rupert 05:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No US soldiers are involved in the conflict in any way. I removed the USA from the infobox. --dm (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was just reluctant to remove it myself, in case somebody knew something I didn't. Admiral Rupert 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worst case, someone will put it back with a citation.  Be bold! (-b, to lazy to sign in.) 68.146.8.255 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the United States listed as a combatant in the infobox?

message: Should Lebanon be listed as part of the conflict or not?  62.0.108.180 doesn't think so.  --Pifactorial 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  They've had a couple of military air bases hit and a couple of soldiers killed. They've basically lost their airport.  They are under a blockade. --Elliskev 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought so.  Should we consider 62 a vandal then?  --Pifactorial 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should. People keep removing commanders, messing with combattants, messing with what it is a part of. This is very hard to put together with people constantly removing information. Rangeley 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a semi-protected state on the article? This is probably gonna be vandalized a few more times before this is over. Frinkahedr0n 21:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon

message: There's nothing in this article about Israeli raids in Lebanon, the destruction of most of southern bridges and a power station, and the attack on the Beirut Airport or the killing of civilian. Please keep this article balanced. CG 10:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, above there is a question regarding power station. do you  have any reference? -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Include them! -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Second, I'm sure some of the injured israelis are children, but I don't think it's relevant to the article. --Mlrts 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was reading the article, I saw that 10 children had been killed in (). I think this is biased. If you are going to list the children, you need to list all men and women also for both sides. It makes the article sound like Israel is evil for killing children while Lebanon is alright. --Kranar drogin 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That may purely be because the Israelis have been saying more about it though, don't you think?  The Lebanese government has been quite quiet up until to-day. Shirelord 2355, 18th July 2006 (British Summer Time)
I've been following this issue pretty dilligently since the news broke, and I've search hundreds of news articles, there is has been almost no reaction a all from the Lebanese Gov't aside from a request for cease fire. The really isn't any good new source on the Lebanese front at the moment. If you want to find out what has been happening in Lebanon your only source will be the IDF.Jacksatan 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: keep this article balanced

message: Since this will be both controversial and plenty of POV, lets agree to disagree and nominate...
--Cerejota 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Nomination

message: If there's not going to be any discussion, that tag could stay there forever. I'm removing it soon, unless I see something here. --Elliskev 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... I came here to see the reason it was added, but it appears the adder hasn't posted anything? --Delirium 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to the "POV disputed" tag.  Now, let's dispute.  --Pifactorial 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I placed a request on the editor's talk page to address his concerns here. --Elliskev 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I came here for the same reason. I generally think it's okay to remove dispute and warning tags that aren't backed up by anything on the talk page. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who placed it responded on my talk page with his concern. It's a good faith edit (the template). I invited him to bring his concern here for discussion. --Elliskev 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at that user's contributions and talk page, it would seem that he recently edited some pages in order to remove cited information regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict in order to bend the articles twords the Arab POV, and has been banned already for such practices --darkskyz 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check tag

message: This is the type of POV stuff am talking about:
"Hezbollah does not recognize the Blue Line and does not consider as the real borders between Israel and Lebanon."
No sourcing. Are we supposed to belive this?
It is worse, because it is not true. According to the SOURCED Hizbollah entry, the Government of Lebanon (not Hizbollah), doesn't accept the Blue Line *only* in the Shab'a farms area. It accepts it in the rest.
Not only is this a biased comment, but it doesn't meet Wiki quality standards. Am putting cleanup too if comments like this appear again. (I apologize for my spelling mistakes, if any, please fix them!)
--Cerejota 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing, bias, and sloppiness

message: Currently, the article notes that the lebanese victims are According to the Lebanese government, according to The Lebanese security officials, etc, while no such qualifiers used for Israel, making a pov problem. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's an issue that not every statement has a "qualifier." Every statement should.  Read WP:NPOV - the section about Attributing and substantiating biased statements.  In other words, please stop removing attributing qualifiers.  They are a good thing. --Elliskev 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag added

message: This better get a citation or is getting deleted. There is no need for claims of terrorist organisations to be mentioned unless we even have a source for it. Xtra 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hold on, I remember reading it somewhere. --Jadelith 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: meh, I couldn't find it. but still, this is a recent event so a lot of things aren't cited. No need to be hasty in deleting stuff; I sincerely remember reading it somewhere (well, before opening up wiki that is, so it should have a source : )) --Jadelith 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is saying they claimed something. There should be at least some report of it. Xtra 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only Hezbollah said that, but the General of the Lebanese army has included this in his report during the last government meeting. And please be Civil.  CG 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are historical claims of Hezbollah claims, but it is not being claimed in this instance. BTW, most historical claims have been proven false. I am removing it. nmourfield 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hezbollah claimed that the soldiers crossed the Blue Line." 

message: watch news....CNN mentions term 2 front conflict--TheFEARgod 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lebanese army involved--TheFEARgod 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanese airbase bombed 

message: This is not reported in cited article, being removed until correct citation. I couldn't find a source. --Nmourfield 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No word on that. Italian tv reports a mass exodus from Lebanon into Syria --TheFEARgod 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Congrats to Nmourfield. Great to find that you came out to edit after your first edit in April 2006. I hope that you shall continue to guide all of us with your insight. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing Shia Prayer House 

message: I found an arabic timeline of Israeli attacks in Lebanon during these two dayshere. It's of course a lebanese POV but materials could be added to balance this article. CG 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a source

message: AP reporting Israeli officials say a rocket has hit the city of Haifa. Any confirmation? --Shizane 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed an uncited statement to that effect.  When the reference is available, add it in.  mdf 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A rocket hit Haifa.  Hello32020 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Confirmation  --Pifactorial 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My account only 1-2 days old so i can't.Hello32020 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. --Elliskev 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New TV has just stated that Hezbollag denies any invlovment in this rocket. CG 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I reworded the article to reflect that.  Can you take a look and see if it's okay as is? --Elliskev 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, great. CG 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haifa

message: Anyone with more info please add (i already added my limted info).
(CNN/AP)
:I saw at the Israeli news channels, at around 22:00, 13.7 (Israel local time), that Israeli ships hit some fuel tanks in the airport, and the 3rd landing stripe. I believe that if Israel admit at bombing the airport again, it should be true. I'll try to look for citation. Máfiàg 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the CNN says exactly what I saw in Israeli channels. Máfiàg 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport Attack #2 

message: ===Intro===
Does anyone else think we should amend the introductory paragraph to mention the Israeli retaliation and/or Lebanese deaths? Right now, it largely describes only the deaths of the IDF soldiers. --Elcocinero 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also could we reword this? "As a result, Israel has killed 48 Lebanese terrorists and civilians" - this sound quite clunky and not very NPOV. Maybe we could reword this to "On the Lebanese side X (suspected) terrorists and Y civilians were killed by Israeli forces" or "On the Lebanese side X (suspected) terrorists and Y civilians were killed during the combat operations" CharonX/talk 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: changed it.. but its still sounds ugly... could anyone make that sound better? : ). We should use the word "militant", not "terrorist" IMO. Also, yes 48 militants and civilians doesn't really show the problem as the majority of the casualties are civilians. Jadelith 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, militant is far better, couldn't think beyond adding "suspected" in front of the word, good idea. CharonX/talk 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: thefeargod said something about 47 civilians and 2 militants above. I wonder if he has a source for that. If he does, we should edit both casualties parts. --Jadelith 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 2 Israeli civilians killed from this citation. --TheYmode 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The numbers don't seem to agree, but I think the removal is just vandalism.  Anybody have a reliable figure?  --Pifactorial 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it due to a lack of a WP:RS for those numbers. Either they were based off the Lebanese government's claims(which do not fit with Wikipedia's requirements for reliability), or they were figures of general casualties, without differentiating between civilians and militants. I think we should refrain from putting up numbers until there are some actual well established facts out there. Right now, everyone is giving different numbers. I suggest we put "Unknown" as the number of casualties until things calm down some. Bibigon 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --Pifactorial 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a source up there a little while ago from  that says 47/103, killed/injured.--Paraphelion 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That source says 47 Lebanese killed, not 47 Lebanese civilians. It also cites Health Minister Mohammed Jawad Khalife as the source, not the AP itself. The AP is a reliable source, the Lebanese government on the other hand should probably not be considered a reliable source for these purposes. Bibigon 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Lebanese-government claims should certainly be reported, properly labeled.  It's not really our job to determine if their estimates are accurate; we should report them matter-of-factly as something like "According to the Lebanese government ...".  If Israel disputes the numbers, say that too.  If in the future the UN or some other third party comes up with independent estimates, report those too. --Delirium 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I think the Lebanese government claims should be reported in the main casaulties section. My point is that in the infobox, we don't have room for the back and forth debate over these casaulty figures, and we can't just report their POV, otherwise we would be violating the NPOV policy. In the main article, the Lebanese claims should be mentioned however, along with other reports. That's why I haven't touched that section. The infobox is more for confirmed and undisputed info however. Make sense? Bibigon 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem taking the world of the Israeli government as only one POV, and not as fact. To my knowledge however, Israeli casualty counts are not routinely disputed, and thus I was less concerned about that. I think it would be reasonable to keep both sides of the infobox as "Unknown" in terms of casualties, because of the difficulty of getting accurate information. Bibigon 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, that's a source reporting what the Lebanese police are saying. That is not indisputed, and thus does not belong in the info box. It belongs in the casaulties section, where a full discussion of the various counts can take place. There is no room in the info box for the back and forth needed to avoid a NPOV issue. Please revert to "Unknown." I will not revert myself to prevent an edit war. Bibigon 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it should go in the infobox with "(Lebanese government account)" after it, analogous to how we do things at articles like Operation Dewey Canyon. --Delirium 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would be acceptable to me. I don't want to make the change myself, as I've already edited this part of the article several times today and don't want to start an edit war, but anything that notes that the numbers are from the Lebanese government works. Please make the change. Bibigon 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is currently impossible to tell Hezbollah casualties from other civilian casualties. Reports on one Hezbollah militant dead are based on this funeral (Getty). I suggest we accept the death toll reported by Lebanon and note it includes 'civilians and militants'. If you find a single source telling the two apart, add it instead. --Lior 08:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since it is impossible, you obviously can't say "civilians and militants" there is nothing to back that up. You can't assume anything. You need to cite referecences for each "militant". If not they should be considered a "civilian". Since the only reference is the Lebanese government for the civilians, and the one funeral for the 1 militant, it should remain that way until new sources surface.
===Inconsistent Numbers===
In the box at the top the Hezbollah/Lebanese Casualties have 53 civilians dead, in the article under casualties it says 47 civilizans dead.  Which is it?  Shouldn't it be consistent or am I missing something.--Jerluvsthecubs 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Different numbers here at Yahoo!.com. I think the difference comes from the fact that wikipages are updated sporadically, and one part might be out of date. -Litefantastic 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that AP is reporting the 47 mentioned by the Lebanese gov't, while reuters is reporting some "over 50" from unidentified "security sources". I tend to take the AP numbers as more official right now, until some more reliable sources are found. Also, I belive this is a bit moot, as unfurtantly it seems the number of casualties is going to rise... --darkskyz 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casualties

message: Does anyone else think we should amend the introductory paragraph to mention the Israeli retaliation and/or Lebanese deaths? Right now, it largely describes only the deaths of the IDF soldiers. --Elcocinero 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Eight Israeli soldiers and two civilians have been killed, two soldiers and 120 civilians were wounded and two reserve duty soldiers were captured.
There's a citation for the Lebanese casulties ,
but I didn't find one for this piece of information. -- Omernos 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also could we reword this? "As a result, Israel has killed 48 Lebanese terrorists and civilians" - this sound quite clunky and not very NPOV. Maybe we could reword this to "On the Lebanese side X (suspected) terrorists and Y civilians were killed by Israeli forces" or "On the Lebanese side X (suspected) terrorists and Y civilians were killed during the combat operations" CharonX/talk 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: changed it.. but its still sounds ugly... could anyone make that sound better? : ). We should use the word "militant", not "terrorist" IMO. Also, yes 48 militants and civilians doesn't really show the problem as the majority of the casualties are civilians. Jadelith 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, militant is far better, couldn't think beyond adding "suspected" in front of the word, good idea. CharonX/talk 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: thefeargod said something about 47 civilians and 2 militants above. I wonder if he has a source for that. If he does, we should edit both casualties parts. --Jadelith 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 2 Israeli civilians killed from this citation. --TheYmode 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Two points: 1) Have there really been 90 Israeli civilians injured? At the moment this is unsourced - I haven't come across a figure even approaching that anywhere. Conversely, there aren't at the moment any numbers in for Lebanese injured which seems unlikely. 
2) Also there seems to be some variation as to wording: we have Israeli soldiers "KIA" and "WIA", others are "killed" or just "2 Lebanese soldiers". See Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict --Jobrahms 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox casualties 

message: In the box at the top the Hezbollah/Lebanese Casualties have 53 civilians dead, in the article under casualties it says 47 civilizans dead.  Which is it?  Shouldn't it be consistent or am I missing something.--Jerluvsthecubs 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different numbers here at Yahoo!.com. I think the difference comes from the fact that wikipages are updated sporadically, and one part might be out of date. -Litefantastic 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that AP is reporting the 47 mentioned by the Lebanese gov't, while reuters is reporting some "over 50" from unidentified "security sources". I tend to take the AP numbers as more official right now, until some more reliable sources are found. Also, I belive this is a bit moot, as unfurtantly it seems the number of casualties is going to rise... --darkskyz 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent Numbers

message: Ynet reports two more civilians killed in a bomb attack on Moshav Meiron - a young woman and a child.  89.138.32.183 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli casualties

message: ===World War III===
Am I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasmacannons (talk • contribs).
No you are not.
At least youre not right yet.Cameron Nedland 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more worried about India/Pakistan getting involved in this than Russia or China. Pakistan is Islamic. It also has nukes. India accuses Pakistan of not taking care of the folks who bombed Mumbai. Who knows what might happen over there? And what if it starts kowtowing to Iran? 205.188.116.131 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about whether it is a war

message: Am I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasmacannons (talk • contribs).
No you are not.
At least youre not right yet.Cameron Nedland 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more worried about India/Pakistan getting involved in this than Russia or China. Pakistan is Islamic. It also has nukes. India accuses Pakistan of not taking care of the folks who bombed Mumbai. Who knows what might happen over there? And what if it starts kowtowing to Iran? 205.188.116.131 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World War III

message: ===Druze solidier===
It was initially reported that the soliders captured by Hezballah were Druze.  Based on their surnames, it would appear that only one is a Druze, if either.  Relevant?  Should it be noted?  This has a great deal to do with Arab-Israeli relations and that one of the soliders taken is an Arab says a lot about the conflict.
:Neither of the soldiers is Druze. One or two of the dead soldiers is Druze, however I'm not sure that this info is relevant to the topic. --darkskyz 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true. We should still have the names of the captured soldiers though. --Jadelith 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the captured soldiers

message: It was initially reported that the soliders captured by Hezballah were Druze.  Based on their surnames, it would appear that only one is a Druze, if either.  Relevant?  Should it be noted?  This has a great deal to do with Arab-Israeli relations and that one of the soliders taken is an Arab says a lot about the conflict.
:Neither of the soldiers is Druze. One or two of the dead soldiers is Druze, however I'm not sure that this info is relevant to the topic. --darkskyz 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Druze solidier

message: It's a war, Wikipedia won't mention every single name of soldiers who dies there (not mentioning creating articles for them), I've removed for that soldiers' names from the Israeli side casualties --Mido 07:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true. We should still have the names of the captured soldiers though. --Jadelith 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soldiers' names

message: ===Tank Name===
The article states that the tank that was destroyed by the mine is "An Israeli Merkava Mk. II Tank." Is this correct? I was under the impression that the Mk II is an old tank and was replaced by MK III in 1990. Please confirm.--24.188.141.194 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merkava MK 2 (actually all the MK 2 are upgraded to MK 2B) is still in use in the IDF. --TheYmode 07:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about weapon types

message: The article states that the tank that was destroyed by the mine is "An Israeli Merkava Mk. II Tank." Is this correct? I was under the impression that the Mk II is an old tank and was replaced by MK III in 1990. Please confirm.--24.188.141.194 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merkava MK 2 (actually all the MK 2 are upgraded to MK 2B) is still in use in the IDF. --TheYmode 07:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank Name

message: The picture is for WWII Katyushas, very different from those used by Hizbollah.
--Cerejota 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Katyusha

message: ===Lack of clarity===
Casus belli should state "Hezbollah border attack" ... it is not clear who is doing the attack. Please make it clear!
:Done. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

message: Casus belli should state "Hezbollah border attack" ... it is not clear who is doing the attack. Please make it clear!
:Done. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of clarity

message: Could whoever is restoring the spelling and grammatical mistakes please quit it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Should we move international reactions to a separate page, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings#Too_many_international_statements  --Pifactorial 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it is one of the only solid parts of this article, since there is no room for editors themselves to put their sleazy "spin" on it.. Dan Carkner 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate page needed?

message: A Seperate page for Int'l Reactions was created as of 07:12, 14 July 2006 by Siqbal. Copying discussion on the matter to talk page for that article, please continue all discussion on the matter there. --darkskyz 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate Page Created

message: Originally this dealt with escalation in the fighting.  That's already happened.  Newer edits are refering to possible expansion.  Should the section be renamed or removed? --Elliskev 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible escalation section

message: ===Semiprotection===
I've semiprotected this page after a wave of vandalism by IPs. It can probably be unprotected in an hour or so. —Cuiviénen 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Let it be semi protected. I can see bunch of ip are doing lot of Vandalism. --SkyWalker 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Other IPs have been making good contributions. I think semiprotection should be lifted after, say, ten minutes tops. --Elliskev 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But IPs edits are extremely biased. I prefer we semi-protect it to preserve the balance of the article. CG 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that you enable it, if you can, I've made many contributions and would like to start again (My account is only 1-2 days old.) Hello32020 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected it. It's been protected for more than half-hour. Will keep a watch for vandalism. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's pro-Twinkie propoganda all over the article! It's all caps though, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Canuck90 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the status of the article

message: I've semiprotected this page after a wave of vandalism by IPs. It can probably be unprotected in an hour or so. —Cuiviénen 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Let it be semi protected. I can see bunch of ip are doing lot of Vandalism. --SkyWalker 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Other IPs have been making good contributions. I think semiprotection should be lifted after, say, ten minutes tops. --Elliskev 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But IPs edits are extremely biased. I prefer we semi-protect it to preserve the balance of the article. CG 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that you enable it, if you can, I've made many contributions and would like to start again (My account is only 1-2 days old.) Hello32020 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected it. It's been protected for more than half-hour. Will keep a watch for vandalism. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection

message: Article just had werid errorHello32020 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ARticle

message: Can someone remove the "TWINKIE IS GOOD" in the fact square to the right,please/
Thank you/Alexmcfire
:There's pro-Twinkie propoganda all over the article! It's all caps though, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Canuck90 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: ===Old Map===
im making maps right now...  71.71.54.198 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lebanon is spelled wrong in the map. --Elliskev 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did a quick photoshop of the map with the correct spelling of Lebanon until the original author (STREET) does so. Hope that's okay. Cep76 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: im making maps right now...  71.71.54.198 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lebanon is spelled wrong in the map. --Elliskev 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did a quick photoshop of the map with the correct spelling of Lebanon until the original author (STREET) does so. Hope that's okay. Cep76 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Map