Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 28

message: Add "# Support", "# Oppose", or "# Neutral" in the proper section followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
=====Support=====
#Support Although I think I would prefer Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006, I think that there is what to be said for conforming to a standard, and one that is better than this date-first option. -- Avi 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support Although I think I would prefer Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006, I think that there is what to be said for conforming to a standard, and one that is better than this date-first option. -- Avi 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Oppose not good enough Doom777
# Strong Oppose. Google search for Israel-Lebanon Conflict 2006: http://www.google.com/search?q=Israel-Lebanon%20Conflict%202006 - about 3,720,000 results. Israel-Lebanon War 2006: http://www.google.com/search?q=Israel-Lebanon%20War%202006 - about 8,270,000 results. Clear enough? --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # Neutral - Doesn't really matter what way you name it, but if the Military WikiProject wants to do a War of YYYY format, then they should really get someone to fix all the Jewish/Arab Wars.  It's not confusing to alter it, but it is pretty amateurish to have it several different ways.  Retropunk 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: Should this be renamed to Israel+Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict? This isn't a conflict with the Lebanese Government. It is with Hezbollah and both the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government are teamed up on this one. 203.158.32.23 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide some sources of more then just words being spouted, meaning action taken by Lebanon against Hezbollah, I think it would support your point better. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is so named because the fighting occured in Israel and Lebanon. Just like the 2001 war in Afghanistan is named after the place it occured rather than the faction it was against (the Taliban were seen as rebels and not the legitimate government,) this article is named for where it occured. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: The survey above is getting tricky because there are so many different choices, it's not clear what anyone is voting for.  I propose the following survey.  
Note that per WP:STRAW, we need to agree on the survey before we vote, so this survey proposal is for discussion purposes only and not for voting.  Once we have consensus on a survey form, I'll post it and we can vote.
Survey proposal:
This survey is to assess community opinion about possible renames of this article.  There are three separate issues about which to vote.
: Issue 1 - Date placement Please express support for only one of the following three options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:
:: 1) 2006 [description of combatants] [description of conflict]
:: 2) [description of combatants] [description of conflict] of 2006
:: or
:: 3) [description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006)
: Issue 2 - Description of Combatants  Please express support for only one of the following three options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:
:: 1) Israel-Lebanon [description of conflict]
:: 2) Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah [description of conflict]
:: or
:: 3) Israel-Hezbollah [description of conflict]
: Issue 3 - Description of Conflict  Please express support for only one of the following three options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:
:: 1) [description of combatants] conflict or
:: 2) [description of combatants] war
I know it's complex.  Alternately, we could try running each one of those straw polls separately, one per week.  Thoughts?  TheronJ 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, let's run them simultaneously, but sectioned. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, as per CP/M. Perhaps put it on a subpage, as I can see the discussion getting long! -- ChrisO 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is Issue 1 really as important as Issues 2 and 3?  I think the resolution of the latter two is a more difficult task... Valtam 02:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New survey proposal regarding rename 

message: I see now that the Hebrew Wikipedia has renamed their article (belatedly, I think) to "the Second Lebanon War" and now with this as an encyclopedic (as opposed to journalistic, of which there are plenty) reference, I'm inclined to rename the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon war (i.e. beyond a conflict). So unless there are objections, I'll be implementing the move in the near future. Thanks. El_C 08:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to "war"

message: Is the logic that Hisbollah started it because they "hit back first"? Does wikipedia have some sort of goodlike ability to see that there were absolutely no other preseding event?
Why is kidnapping of the two Palestininans been disqualified as a starting event? Or any other atrocity that has been committed since 5 decades back?
Maby you can use your "special powers" to finally answer the question, which was first the hen or the egg. I will look forward to the results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.213.2 (talk • contribs).
Because we aren't discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather a specific event, which was immediately prompted by Hezbollah's raid. Others can feel free to expand if it becomes necessary... (my mouth is dry). TewfikTalk 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why you can't pinpoint when the conflict started 

message: This is not written in a NPOV way. It should be rewritten. Thank you. 203.217.83.31 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with it? Iorek85 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I misunderstand you, but how was the pre-ceasefire conflict caused by Israel's breach of the ceasefire? TewfikTalk 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And I should probably have seen that 
. In any event, there were actions on both sides, and at least the US's stated intention in the resolution's drafting wouldn't support the contention that the Israeli action was a violation, hence the neutral heading. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ceasefire 

message: Anti-Israel biasness. Problems:
* Picking Israel's color blue for the template.
* Picking a photo of Israel attacking Hezbollah. Clear NPOV voilation. How about something more peaceful like this photo 
* This article pays no attention to Hezbollah's propaganda war. It should also be in the template. 
* This article is a regurgitation of the NY Times/Reuters/CNN biased reporting. I have multiple references of expert military analysts who ,correctly IMHO, believe Hezbollah was no more successful than previous Arab combatants against Israel.Olmert's ridiculous goal of gaining the freedom of 2 kidnapped soldiers was just a political statement by a craven politician.
The real criteria for military victory: 1. "Possession" of the field of battle 2. casualties as a percentage of troops of each army. 3. Damage to military and economic assets as a percentage of total assets. In these 3 areas, Israel was clearly more successful.
User: Jaywhite 06 Sept 3,2006
Please feel free to add some more points. Thank you. 203.217.83.31 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if 1 and 2 are even serious. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read carefully, you will see that these events have been dealt with in their appropriate levels of detail, and/or expanded in the subarticles. TewfikTalk 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I found the Hebrew name of "Operation Just Reward" in Archive 1: - שכר הולם. Is there a name in Arabic for the Hezbollah operation, "Operation Truthful Promise"?Vints 15:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: عملية الوعد الصادق , as you can see from this al-Jazeera article and this article on the Arabic wikipedia. Palmiro | Talk 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Hezbollah operation 

message: Why is Lebanon now in the same category of combatants as Hizbollah? Nwe 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The Parry source does not engage in this debate, but merely puts kidnaping in quotation marks once. The Chomsky source does discuss this point, but that is hardly evidence of a widespread debate, which is what the section you keep adding claims exists. While I appreciate that you provided sources, the passage is still unsourced OR that reads more like a summary of the Talk on this page than any external debate (which was noted by Rangeley), and this single source is no reason to keep it. Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw what you removed; completely agree. It's not really relevent to the conflict anyway. Iorek85 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just want to make sure that the IP adding this passage is aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. TewfikTalk 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidnap Capture debate (outside WP) 

message: It's been a week, now. At what point do we stop using these varying "estimates" from the tourism minister, etc., and start using Israel's confirmed Hezbollah headcount? At what point should these "estimates" be disregarded for statistical purposes, given the IDF is also releasing confirmed kill counts? Thanks, Italiavivi 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IDF has one list of confirmed kill - actual names of combatants killed, obtained when they have the actual body. In addition, there is an estimate of Hezbollah fighters killed, whose identity is unknown - such as thoe killed when in air attacks on areas not in IDF hands. These lists are not contradictory nor are they mutaully exclusive. they are not "estimates from the tourism minister", but IDF estimates published by WP:RS. There is no reason not to use them in the article. I remind you that WP policy is verifiability, not truth. If you are the anon editor 206.255.1.73 - sign in before editing. Isarig 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the IDF is not the only government entity releasing "estimates." So long as Israel's government allows both its ministers and its military to make "estimates," all such estimates should be included (if they are to be included at all). Using only the highest of such estimates is irresponsible, in addition to looking quite POV. Italiavivi 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it up. First of all, you were the one who insisted we use IDF esimates only, not gov't official's estimates (when you thought those IDF estimates were lower, that is). You are using an old report issued while the war was still raging. The current article is both post-war, and more current than your article. Using low estimates from a week before the war ended can only be described a POV pushing. What would your reaction be if I added an estimate of Lebanese civilian casualties of "300", from two weeks before the war ended? I have several of these on hand, just say the word...Isarig 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. I have said that we should use IDF confirmed kills only, and leave the varying "estimates" out of the infobox altogether. I will not "give it up" in the face of blatant POV-pushing and wikilawyering on your part. Italiavivi 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't lie. In your edit summary you said "estimates from the tourism minister have no place" - but now, when IDF estimates are higher, you are suddenly in favor of including these estimates, which earlier you contended "had no place". Are you in favor of using only confirmed numbers for Lebanese civilian casualties as well? Why the double standard? I repeat: the article you are using is from August 10 - nearly two weeks before the war ended. Of course it is going to have lower estimates than an article published after the ceasefire. Why on earth would we wnat to use a figure 2 weeks out of date? It is blatant POV pushing of the worst kind. Isarig 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At what point do we move past these contradictory "estimates"? 

message: They are getting way too long. I think that post conflict, the news links are no longer needed unless they give a special insight to the conflict - before, they were good as they allowed quick access to updated news, but that's irrelevent now. Maybe even the blogs, since the conflict is over. Iorek85 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Just a remark that the INFO box on the lebanees map depicting Israely bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg) is rather biased against Israel.
The remark that "Factories,warehouse..... CHURCHES AND MOSQUES ... were bombed" is false.
The remark that "Reported Israel use of internationaly banned bombs" is False.
:Agree. I've created a derivitive map that retains the useful info in the map, but blanks the POV "fact box" Isarig 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the info is accurate, why do you think that that particular claim isn't? Internationally banned bombs isn't accurate, no, but isn't far from the truth. Israel has been criticised for using cluster munitions on civilians, as well as phosphorus weapons. And what is the rubbish about "non hezbollah sources" in the comments? Just becuase it says something an Israeli doesn't like, it's got to be from Hezbollah? The orginal was fine, but the edited version is good, too. I just fear we'll end up stripping the article of any claims because someone will find them POV.Iorek85 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that the rest of the info is accurate, but it is at least not POV. You agree that 'Internationally banned bombs isn't accurate' - so what are you complaining about? Surely we don't want information that we both agree is not accurate in an encyclopedia. The "rubbish about "non hezbollah sources" " appeared in the comments of the original file, and I merely copied them into my summary. Feel free to edit it out if you like. Isarig 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the info is accurate, then it isn't POV, is it? I've said why I don't mind the the change, but also why the removal of anything that offends anyone as POV worries me. Iorek85 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reread what I wrote - "I don't know that the rest of the info is accurate". In simple english: The map says: "Israel attacked location X". I don't know if that is true, but it is not blatantly POV, so it stays, for now. The map used to say "Israel used internationally banned weapons". That I know to be false (and you agree) PLUS it is blatantly POV, so out it goes. And BTW, if removing POV statements worries you, you should not be editing WP. Isarig 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've no problem with removing that statement. But you removed all of the statements, including the one that the first poster here had a problem with. And be careful not to mistake NPOV with No Points of View. I've no problem with removing POV - but I do have a problem with removing information because people with no evidence claim it is POV when it isn't. If both 'sides' had their way, there would be no information in the article, because it's all "POV". Listing civilian deaths makes Israel look bad, listing Hezbollah as the initators of the conflict is POV, etc etc etc. You end up with not a balanced article, but something which says "There was some sort of a conflict that could also be called a war in which people of various types may or may not have died. Generally, it was considered bad, but some people think killing people is justified. There were combatants, but how many and at what level they were involved is disputed. The conflict might have ended with a ceasefire, but It might not have because there was still fighting after the ceasefire, but that might or might not have been a breach of the ceasefire." Just so we're not getting off on a tangent (my fault) here; I don't mind removing that one claim. I do mind removing all of the claims without proof they aren't accurate, for "POV" reasons. I don't mind removing them overall becuase the map is just one of "areas struck in Lebanon" - the rest of the details are already in the article. Iorek85 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You are mistaken. The original image was uploaded with a CC license, which clearly reads "You are free:
  * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
  * to make derivative works
  * to make commercial use of the work
Under the following conditions:
by 	
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
sa 	
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.
I have created a derivative work, which is allowed, since I have properly attributed the work and disributed it under an identical license. I can't find your nomination for deletion - could you pint me to it? Isarig 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of lebanon Info Box 

message: Does anyone know of a chart (or could make one) that shows the percentages of casualties suffered by each side? Carbonate 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chart of casualties 

message: The bombing chart provided by samidoun.org should be removed or changed to something coming from an NPOV source. Samidoun.org, while primarily a relief organization, is not the Red Cross or even Amnesty International. Their website contains materials demonizing Israel as racist and they definitely are non neutral. Claymoney 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been concerns raised about the text in the box. The most valid of those being the bombing of churches and mosques and the use of illeagl munitions statments are false. BUT, the US is investigating the illeagle use of cluster bombs and it is very difficult to prove that not a single bomblet fell on a church or mosque. Even if these individual items are inaccurate, the bulk of the material presented in the map is the locations and numbers of bombs being dropped and no one has yes shown that to be innaccurate in any way. Carbonate 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting reversal of the onus of proof - since we can't prove something is false - it stays, even if the ones making the claim can't support it. I've already addressed your issue - and created a derivative work of that map, that has all the locations and # of attacks intact, but removed the POV text. You removed this map. Why? Isarig 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing Chart 

message: Kosmopolis, please don't keep on adding those details to the lead. It's making it far too long and overly detailed. See WP:LEAD for how to write a lead section and for advice about length. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of remerging your edits and shortening the lead while you indiscriminately reverted my edits for the 2nd time, now. Please limit your rvs to the lead if you have objections thereto. Thanks. Kosmopolis 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I know there was some violence after the ceasefire, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the conflict is still on. The last recorded violence was (according to the page) was on August 19, over two weeks ago. Iorek85 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing?