Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 23

message: ** Consensus for 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, Name change from crisis to conflict
**Poll for changing the name of the article, either to war or Hezbollah.
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discussion about the name of the article;
**Latest Developments, "War" Poll (This Poll is closed now - 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the name of the article

message: * 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict → 2006 Israeli-Hizbullah conflict … Rationale: The war started with the kidnapping of uniformed Israeli soldiers by non-uniformed Hizbullah militia and was waged to effect the return of the hostages.  Lebanon never authorized the kidnappings nor did they declare war on Israel.  Israel took great pains to avoid involving the regular Lebanese Army in the war including dropping leaflets on target areas to be hit.  Claiming the conflict was a battle between Israel and Lebanon is misinformation.  --Neil Brown 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to 2006 Israeli-Hizbullah conflict 

message: * Oppose because there are so many varied ways to spell Hezbollah, and Israel didn't just bomb Hezbollah, it bomb Lebanese army bases, and non-Hezbollah roads, powerplants, etc. 132.205.93.88 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: * The area of conflict is Israel and Lebanon, and non-Hezbollah were bombed by Israel, so that would be a POV rename. 132.205.93.88 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello there,
I wrote about this on the NPOV section but I don't think many people read it.  I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia article on the same subject.  I have been following this article as well as a comparison.  I think there are several important NPOV problems with this article.
The tremendous damage inflicted on Lebanon's infastructure the the extent the Lebanese have suffered are not reported with justice.  I believe the authors of this article have taken a somewhat pro-Israeli stance.  Just saying that there are over thousand dead and the infastructure is damaged is not enough.  The article should be written in such a way that when people read it several years from now, they will understand the horrors involved.  Life has been hell in Lebanon during the last month and that should find its place in the article. --85.103.57.38 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck - the "NPOV" Israeli editors will have it out in seconds, decrying the massive damage caused by Hezbollah and demanding 50:50 coverage of both sides. Iorek85 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   This is NOT about whether Israel or Hezbollah are 'in the right' or 'in the wrong'.  Both groups are terrorists--both are criminals in different ways.  Hezbollah are practising an illegal variation on vigilante activity.  Israel is responsible for major war-crimes and general incendiary behaviour in the Middle East which threatens to foment WWIII.  No one here is 'in the right'.  The world will not be at peace until Israeli is totally dissolved and the United States of America withdraws from ALL foreign nations, including Iraq.  There is no question about this.  It is becoming an extremely serious matter.  We cannot pre-occupy ourselves with silly debates about the specifics of who did what in this insane conflict.  All of it is criminal--all of it threatens the peaceful way of life of human beings on Earth.  It is time for all of these individuals, the Israeli government administration, the militant Muslim groups, George W. Bush's administration, Tony Blair and his goons--all of them are CRIMINALS, and the time is imminent to convict them, lest they make a mess of the entire planet.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a political chat forum, please keep discussions not directly relating to the improvement of the article off of the talk page please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say this as though I do not know what this talk page is for.  Every talk page related to a controversial event has discussion about the politics.  This is about the approach we need to take to actually be objective, which, it would appear is not the approach you take.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no this talk page and the others used for those purposes are not what they are for. There is no political discussion needed not directly related to items being added or removed from the article, what you are looking for is a political forum, this is not one. Please refrain from general chat on the topic here, as its noted at the top. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It would appear it is not the approach you take either... Advocating genocide, as you do, is frowned upon... Valtam 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you propose "totally dissolving" a nation-state against its will without the use of genocide?  (I do appreciate the fact that you read my user profile - name of Wotan, indeed!) Valtam 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, Matt. You know the names of Wotan through your writings on the subject, as per your user page. I find your anti-gun-control and anti-abortion views interesting, although I don't think most people would agree with your proposal to forcibly sterilize prisoners... Valtam 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say anything about moving the Israelis themselves--just getting rid of the State--the government of Israel.  Also, the Mossad needs to be strategically dismembered.  Yes, Vikings and Wotan are very interesting.  I like the Eddaic approach, personally--describing the history of the gods, many of them men who were attributed god-like status.  Dissolution of the State of Israel simply means just that--dissolving the government of Israel, and then establishing an internationally-governed country that encompasses Israel and the Palestinian areas--making no discrimination, as the Israelis do, between Arabs and 'Jews' (see ).  Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting idea - so no-one would have to move...  My first thought would be that the Israelis would be afraid of being out-populated by the Arabs...  Who would control the international governance?  The UN? UN Security Council? Egypt? Saudia Arabia? The US? China? India? A mixture? Valtam 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  For the time being, an elected council of officials from each newly-established 'county'/region of the 'Israeli' area.  This would be overseen and arbitrated by the UN for a while.  The new country could be called 'Canaan' for neutrality reasons.  After all, the Phoenicians (Cnaani) ruled the region long before the Palestinians or Israelis even existed.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing the point.  Lebanon has been reduced to one big pile of rubble.  More than a thousand people has died.  Life has been hell for the Lebanese.  It is our duty to make people, who will read this artic in years to come, feel what has been happening.  This article fails to describe the brutuality of the situation.  This article unfortunately has taken a pro-Israeli stance when it comes to describe what has happened to the Lebanese.  That has to change if we want Wikipedia to be able to live up to its fame for neutrality. --81.214.107.32 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage inflicted on Lebanon 

message: I want to put "According to Haaretz" at the bigining of "Bigining the conflict). What's your idea.?--Azmanet 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just according to Haaretz, it's according to almost (if not all) major news outlets. Iorek85 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing funny about biting newcomers. Just don't. Zocky | picture popups 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: According to Haaretz

message: 1. Why is the number 40,000 placed beneath Israel under the "strength" section? They don't currently have 40,000 troops placed in Lebanon. And if it's an estimate of the number of Israeli active-duty soldiers and reservists-which one would assume, since the number placed below Hezbollah is 5-10,000, i.e. the number of Hezbollah militiamen/terrorists currently under arms-then it's even more inaccurate.
2. Why is the box beneath Lebanon vacant, rather than being filled with an exact number of active-duty soldiers in the Lebanese military?
3. Where are the sources documenting the deaths of non-Hezbollah combatants? I realize that there have been reports about Palestinian gun-men and Amal gun-men being killed during the present conflict, but it would be nice if there were some verifiable sources to document this. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions Pertaining To The Infobox

message: It seems we got a vandal who has been tampering with the section: Israeli Action. It seems he added some qutoes and changed some qutoes that where there before. He put qutoes that make israel look really bad and that they want israel to be wiped out. Here are the qutoes.
"and promised Lebanon a “very painful and far-reaching response.” “[i]f the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land. His screen name is Avraham.
and though those are qutoes. He changed the wording, and added new words to the qutoes, and the link of sending lebanon back 20 years is not in the article, that is provided for the link. --Zonerocks 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is what the citation says. Follow the link. Now, if that source is a forgery, or is judged to fail WP:RS, that is another story, but when going through the citatiuons one-by-one I check links and content. I save the WP:RS, WP:V judgements for when I have more time to think. If you ask a few editors around here, I think it is quite clear where my personal opinion about this conflict lies. However, here on Wikipedia we need to provide both sides of the story, and that means I check, confirm, and enhance sources for both sides of the conflict. And my name is Avraham, by the way, but please call me Avi. -- Avi 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I must say, I guess this proves I'm doing something correctly. Oiboy and Sarastro accuse me of vandalism and being an Israeli pawn of operation megaphone, and now I've been accused of vandalizing this article for the Hezbollah side. :D :lol: -- Avi 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it makes you feel any better, I, of all people, have even beena accused of being a 'Zionist spy'!  It all depends upon which extremist camp you're debating with.  If I'm debating with the American Bush-ites about their criminal government, I'm called a 'Left Winger' or an 'America-Hater'.  If I'm debating the unethical and criminal behaviours of the IDF with Israeli extremists, they call me a 'Nazi' or a 'Self-Hating Jew' (as if that has anything to do with the State of Israel).  On the other hand, if I'm talking to those folks who believe that 'the Jews' are behind everything from Freemasonry to Homosexuality, I'm accused of being a 'Zionist Freemason conspirator' or simply a 'Zionist', seemingly only on the grounds that I don't believe the Israelis should be kicked out of their homes when the State of Israel is dissolved...  People these days--they're all extremists.  There are only a few rationals out there who can see it all for what it really is: a bunch of criminals manipulating different creeds against one another.  Quite sad.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The funny thing is that I usually do not add material to this article; rather, I check material for accuracy. CNN reported Halutz said that. For all you know, I agree with him >:) . Regardless, CNN is a reliable source, and thus there is no reason to remove it from the article. Conversely, I monitor whitewashing of Hezbollah as well. For the record, I'm an American, (great satan, not little satan ;) <-- HUMOR ALERT!!! ) -- Avi 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   We have a vandal 

message: I agree that there was no consensus, 14-18-whatever is not overwhelming. However, when there is no consensus on wikipedia, the usual result is that no changes should be made to the status quo, which in this particular case happens to be "kidnapped". I will be restoring that pending a more clear resolution on talk.
Further, people keep on removing properly cited material with edits such as "does not belong in lead". That is somewhat confusing, as the acceptance of the cease fire is critical to the article. I am putting that information back in.
Lastly, this article seems to be devolving into a full-scale edit war based on this consensus/lack of consensus. The article may need to be locked for a while until the various editors here can hammer out their differences without skirtinig WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and whatever other alphabet soup is being honored in the breach.
-- Avi 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, what was the status quo? -- Szvest 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What if someone considers the status quo to begin w/ the first stub we had instead of the "time you were monitoring the article"? -- Szvest 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought "status quo" meant "existing state of affairs."  What state of affairs existed during the polling? Valtam 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During the polling it was "kidnapped" -- Avi 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to review the, um, "discussion" in the archives here and at the article for Hamas' business in Gaza:  it's all been said before.  At this point, it doesn't make a spit of difference what started it all, let alone which word is used to describe the action.  Archduke Ferdinand -- oh, right, wrong war.  Ooops!  Not a war, a "conflict"!  I suggest that we follow the references directly cited by this article:  they use "kidnap".  Anything else is just an inevitible exercise in Israeli/Hezbollah agitprop.  mdf 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus, 'abduction' was an option in the poll and it received only 2 or 3 votes.  BTW, is the poll still open? Valtam 19:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clay, as you can see from the voting, I agree with you. But abduction also has connotations of illegality, and perhaps shades of ambiguity are what is required to allow everyone to feel as if their views are represented, without sacrificing what each of us believes is the truth. -- Avi 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What international law was violated?  Where is the force being used to apprehend these supposed criminals to be tried by the supposed legal system to which they are supposedly held?  The captures took place outside of law and the response is being taken outside of law - aka war/conflict.  Hezbollah are not citizens of any entity which is trying to apprehend them for criminal activities.--Paraphelion 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear that Hizbullah violated UN resolutions establishing borders as well as the Geneva Conventions regarding captures/kidnappings, etc. Just because a specifically legalistic remedy is not used does not mean that the actions should not be described as illegal. Claymoney 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so clear that we can't cite the laws and so clear that the UN has not dispatched a force to apprehend the supposed criminals.  Of course, Hezbollah isn't part of the UN or a signatory to the geneva convention.  This is nothing but an attempt to describe actions in terms of civility when there is none.  Anyone can make up laws and claim aliens on another planet are breaking it.--Paraphelion 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humane and dignified treatment of prisoners is present throughout the Geneva conventions because it has been accepted as a norm of international law. Therefore, the fact that Hizbullah is not a signatory is irrelevant. This thread is getting away from the discussion, however. Claymoney 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was referring to a previous comment calling Hizbullah an illegal organization. I was not describing my position Claymoney 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As you are new to wikipedia, i have the duty to guide you to read Wikipedia:Consensus -- Szvest 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would very much appreciate if you could say it 43 more times.  BTW this is official notice that I have extended your deadline to Feb 29th, 2170.  I am also offering voter amnesty at this time.--Paraphelion 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (EC) FayssalF is correct in stating that the word used prior to the vote was captured. However, as the vote makes clear (50/50 split), it was hardly consensus, and it was contested from day one, which makes me doubt that it is any more legitimate. Perhaps we can take the opportunity to find a compromise solution that would satisfy both sides? TewfikTalk 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus, lack thereof, and removal of cited information 

message: It is important to note that Lebanon and its military units were involved on a minor scale, this was a war and not a conflict, it was between Israel and Hezbollah, do not put the end date Aug 14, since there will be some fights on the borders and as of today there are casualties. It's important to stress that Israel did not win this, because their goal was to destroy hezbullah and they did not do that, on average they dropped 150 rockets into Israel, on Sunday they dropped 260 or more. So this tells us a lot, they could have continued doing that for the next year or more. It's hard to say who won, but certainly more victory belongs to Israel, since the party exists and it will exist and they will be part of rebuilding Lebanon. It's important that this does not happen again, such attacks only destroyed Lebanon and its people, not only Hezbollah, all those bridges, hospitals, institutions could have been mostly prevented. I do not see the point of destroying them since Hezbollah's supplies in 35 days did not diminish one bit. 
Somebody should change the name of the conflict to Israel-Hezbollah war, not conflict because conflict is on a minor scale, this was on a huge scale, all Lebanon now looks as Warsaw did in its uprising of 63 days in Oct 1944.
This is Hezbollah-Israel war, only and the date of the end of the war not known yet... Victory is mostly on Hezbollah side! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.11 (talk • contribs).
Again this is the same guy. To bad your ip will be banned from editing. --Zonerocks 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict and Dates 

message: This is getting somewhat bothersome. Firstly, that source is the source for the acceptance of the cease-fire as well, it is the same article. Read the first through sixth paragraphs. I am afraid this is not a content dispute, but vandalism, and may not be subject to WP:3RR.
This has been sourced by a reliable and verifiable source, and removing it is plain vandalism, unless someone can show me a wikipedia policy that implies otherwise. -- Avi 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't important as long as they stop. TewfikTalk 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't in the past because the Reuters citation below seemed to contradict it, but now I see the the former is a specific to south of the Litani. TewfikTalk 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing paragraph and source about South of Litani 

message: *Vote here if you support the use of the word Captured  (Sign your entry.)
#Support: I think it's a pretty neutral word taking into account the graveness of the conflict. --Jambalaya 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF. --Hyphen5 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Captured

message: *Vote here if you support the use of the word Abducted  (Sign your entry.)
#Support -- abducted is a fairly neutral term. -- ArglebargleIV 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the term Kidnapped is somewhat POV, and during an armed conflict the correct term is naturally Captured. However, the incident took place before it became a war (or an armed conflict), hence the correct term, AFAIC, should be Kidnapping. Fuzzy 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhu... Ask the "militant" Samir Kuntar. According to UN, Israel is NOT occupying any area of Lebanon. Flayer 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought Israel gave back all captured Lebanese/Hezbolla militants for, what was his name, you know, that drug dealer. Never mind, this discussion is a waste of time. Fuzzy 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You distort the truth.  Israel has failed to release many Lebanese prisoners.  Furthermore, Hezbollah has a right to exist, as does any militia group formed of civilians during war-time.  The criminal actions of the 'organisation' can be attributed to a few specific people who ordered and/or carried out these actions.  In general, Hezbollah is just a civilian group oriented at community work.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah's military wing operates against UN resolution 1559 --Epsilonsa 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN is far from a world government.  The UN operates against my personal resolution 53,663,773, which I signed into law last week in my personal kingdom.--Paraphelion 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Those in Hezbollah's military wing responsible should be prosecuted under their own government's laws regarding militant vigiliantism and such.  Israel should be severely curtailed by foreign nations, and punished by an international war crimes tribunal.  The World Trade Organisation is currently the closest thing to world government on this planet--and it is very dangerous and corrupt--corporatist.  However, the UN is the only organisation which officially enforces international law on this scale.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abducted

message: There is no mention of Hezbollah manipulation of the press, now known as "the Fauxtography Scandal." As a journalist, I find this very disturbing.
Fauxtography is so pervasive that it has already become one of the greatest scandals in the history of journalism. As of this date, the evidence of tampering and coverup is overwhelming. The Reuters clouds, the "Passion of the Toys," the Green Helmet Guy, the Pieta of Tyre (taken by an American photographer for the NYT) -- all will affect careers and personal relationships for years to come. The reaction may have an effect on the outcome of the war.Scott Adler 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources?--Cerejota 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies presents some of the basic claims. TewfikTalk 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Honestly, these Bush-supporters are now the silliest, biggest conspiracy nuts out there.  They accuse 'terrorists' and 'left-wingers' of just about everything these days.  Don't even make mention of the fact that the entire Jessica Lynch story was made up for propaganda purposes, or that the Saddam Statue Toppling was staged...  Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks wasn't aware of the page, thanks! Seems like the mother of all the POV forks tho...--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WTF? The Reuters photos, hallo? Proven doctored? Hajj fired, 920 photos pulled, hallo? Where's conspiracy theory? It's a proven fact for God sake! As far as I know the only conspiracy nuts are those trying to prove Joos are behind 9/11 relying on Al-Manar reports! OMG, do you learn the facts before you post? Aleverde.
Well Scott, that's what I don't like about our administration's PR efforts in the war on terror. the terrorist's know how to work other people's media's and especially ours. --Zonerocks 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text:   It's Waco.  Yes, that was major criminal activity.  Janet Reno should have been punished for it.  Clinton's administration were major criminals.  But, Clinton is just an associate of Bush Sr., and works for the same cartel as Bush Jr.  Your remarks are a perfect example of why political parties should not exist as they do now.  Somehow people become convinced that this dichotomy is the guide to 'right and wrong', rather than actually bothering to investigate facts.  Bush is actually centre-left in his policies, just for reference.  He is more left-wing than Clinton was, although more toward the authoritarian side.  You need to do some research and think independently instead of just associating everything good and wonderful with the Republican party.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Matt, just out of curiosity, can you direct me to a reasonable argument showing GWB is center-left?  I'm being serious - I can think of some reasons, but would like to read more.  Thx! Valtam 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fauxtography Scandal

message: Well the voting found a concensus that most people support the word kidnapped over captured. By a vote of 14-18-3, the word kidnapped will be implemented into the article in whatever place it needs to be added.If anyone changes the words, you will be reported for vandalism. --Zonerocks 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Zonerocks, striking out other people's votes will get you reported for vandalism. Please note that the log shows everything you do. The same goes for removing anything on this page. You just removed a response to you claim above, which, just as I do, accused you for striking out other people's votes. Thomas Blomberg 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked him about it, and he explained that it was because they were made after the vote was closed. And it is true, he did set a deadline originally that it be closed at a set hour, and when this came he closed it. That is essentially his rationale. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: Dear Zonerocks,
This voting is totally invalid, as it hasn't been handled correctly at all. You first set an incorrect and very ambiguous closing time for the vote. 28 hours later you set the deadline 12 hours earlier. When the second ambiguous deadline is past while the first is not, presumptive voters are given a message that easily can be interpreted as "Last chance, the voting is closing soon." Four minutes later you start overlining "late" entries (including some that came in well before your second deadline) while that message is still up, and nine minutes later - in a totally different place on the talk page - you declare that the voting is over and that "your side" has won. However, not until three hours later do you change the "hurry up" message to Polls Closed - and at that moment your first ambiguous deadline is still eight hours away; a deadline many may have counted on, as they never expected the deadline to change.
#The time you set was incorrect and very ambiguous. The only valid time reference in Wikipedia is UTC. Not only is CST a largely  unknown entity outside the US, Canada and Australia - and In Australia it means something totally different. When it's 20:00 (your first time) Australian CST, it's 10:30 UTC, 04:30 US CST, and 03:30 US CDT (the time reference you probably meant to use). And when it's 08:00 (your second time) Australian CST, it's 22:30 UTC the previous day, 17:30 US CST the previous day, and 16:30 CST the previous day. However, as probably not even the Aussies thought that you would be nice enough to set the deadline according to Australian CST, we'll assume you meant US CST. But as it's summer in your part of the world, you probably meant CDT, i.e. Central Daylight Time, but we can't be sure and many editors would have had no idea. Why you would pick the time zone for the metropolis Askov, Minnesota (how on earth can Americans call a place with 368 people a "city"?) as time reference for the very global English Wikipedia nobody knows but you. 
#Your first entry, at 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid voting

message: What a surpirse, fox news has just confirmed that in the last three hours, over 10 katusha rockets where fired from lebanon towards israeli outposts. Im going to keep looking for an article. But it was just on foxnews. --Zonerocks 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not seeing at at the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, Fox News just reported that, but nothing about artillery being fired. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I read it as being attributed to AP, but I can't find an English language report yet...TewfikTalk 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are.  The agreement is for the IDF to hand over their locations directly to joint international/Lebanese forces when the latter are ready to take over each individual location.  Therefore the withdrawals are expected to take at least several days, with the first handovers expected to occur on Thursday.  And I heard that this morning on WABC radio (ABC network news), based on some of your user boxes I am pretty sure you can get that.   :)  6SJ7 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cease Fire broken