Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 25

message: === The map with the legend "Israeli Assault on Lebanon" ===
The map seems awfully POV (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg). It refers to the "Israeli Assault on Lebanon", and shows only places in Lebanon that were struck, not places in Israel. Further, the sidebar features a very non-balanced discussion of the issues, which are covered more encyclopedically in the article. The way the strikes are drawn with large circles seems calculated to convey the POV idea that destruction hit larger areas of Lebanon than is probably the case. Also, it highlights the strikes on August 13, which may have been important on August 13, but isn't now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.164.74.137 (talk • contribs).
For all these reasons, I think the map should be removed soon, and once someone finds a better one that can be added.
:No. I can honestly say I havent read the side info, if its POV we can just cover it up with something. But the fact it only shows Israels attacks on Lebanon isnt POV, we have a map that shows where Hezbollah hit Israel too. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about POV

message: The map seems awfully POV (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg). It refers to the "Israeli Assault on Lebanon", and shows only places in Lebanon that were struck, not places in Israel. Further, the sidebar features a very non-balanced discussion of the issues, which are covered more encyclopedically in the article. The way the strikes are drawn with large circles seems calculated to convey the POV idea that destruction hit larger areas of Lebanon than is probably the case. Also, it highlights the strikes on August 13, which may have been important on August 13, but isn't now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.164.74.137 (talk • contribs).
For all these reasons, I think the map should be removed soon, and once someone finds a better one that can be added.
:No. I can honestly say I havent read the side info, if its POV we can just cover it up with something. But the fact it only shows Israels attacks on Lebanon isnt POV, we have a map that shows where Hezbollah hit Israel too. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map with the legend "Israeli Assault on Lebanon" 

message: The "results" section is currently led by this image. Might it be MUCH MUCH more NPOV to create a "side by side" comparison of covers representing both sides, or maybe something more NPOV like a headline reading "Who won?"? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image for "Results of the conflict" section

message: I found this article from The New Yorker on Hyphen5's user page. Guess which 'pedians make a cameo appearance in the 2nd paragraph 
. Happy editing, TewfikTalk 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! But only 4000? We're at 12,250 atm, making this the 7th (and soon to be 6th) most edited article on Wikipedia, ahead of WW2, 9/11, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. (885 of those edits are you, btw. :) ) Iorek85 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, mostly just the result of my abandoning the preview button as a result of tachy-editconflictia. TewfikTalk 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but we all deserver a big WOOT!!!. In spite of the eternal debates and the various conflicts, to date there are no bans and we have been able to troll along. Keep it up people! Be bold!!!--Cerejota 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Yorker 

message: Lets put the soapboxing under control: this article is not about your pet theories, your original research or for venting on how evil the other side is and how good and godly your side is. Its boring, its unhelpful, and it reads like a script when you meatpuppet via megaphone :D. Besides, we can all go to Fox News, Al-Manar or Haaretz when we need partisanship...
If you have that overwhelming, uncontrolable urge to soapbox, open a blog or comment in one. ANd call your likeminded buddies over (althought I find looking at a mirror boring ;-).
Please people lets concentrate on what we are supposed to be doing! ;)--Cerejota 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quite frankly, is getting boring!

message: There is a minor factual error in the casualty box, which is the inclusion of Amal and PFLP-GC casualties under the Hezbollah heading. In my opinion they should be put under Lebanon, because its the only logical spot, as putting them only Hezbollah makes no sense to anyone who has even vague knowledge of the hatred between Amal and Hezbollah (the PFLP-GC is more friendly to Hezbollah, but still independent).
Furthermore there is no verfiably and reliably sourced material that says that either participated actively in this conflict. 
Amal are Lebanase, and while PFLP-GC are not, we are including foreign nationals under the Lebanon heading anyways.
I don't think it is POV to have them there, I just think it makes no sense at all. ;)--Cerejota 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All set -- Kendrick7 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I feel mislead here, now that I read the sources. The CNN article says Berri, Amal's leader, said Amal has fought along side Hezbollah in every engagement of the conflict. Strange-bedfellows. PFLP-GC's one death from an Israeli airstrike on their HQ does seem that is should count under civilian deaths, since the person was esentially a non-combatant. -- Kendrick7 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Militias in casualties

message: In "Targeting of civilian areas" there has been a paragraph stating that Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending…among women and children” and condemned their pride at "having many more children and women dead than armed men." The cowardly blending thing is correct (although I've changed it slightly to the BBC version, as those three "..." make it look as if something had been omitted), but the end of the sentence was a very slanted version of his actual statement. What he actually said, according to the BBC, was: "I heard there was a statement they were proud they had lost very few fighters, and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think you want to be proud of having many more children and women than armed men [killed]". So he was referring to a hearsay statement, and basically said that if it was true that they had said they were proud that the civilians were bearing the brunt, his answer was that they shouldn't be proud. As the text was such a distortion and as he was just reacting to a rumour, there was no reason to keep it, so I removed it. If someone can find a reliable source to the claim that they actually said so, then we can put it back in. Thomas Blomberg 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not opposed to shortening it for space reasons, it is important to note that there is also no proof that Israel employed white phosphorus or depleted uranium (or vacuum bombs etc.), yet we stil include the advisory statements dealing with the possibility. TewfikTalk 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the chronological order of two statements addressing two different things, made by the same person during the same trip, isn't vital at all, as you claimed in your revert. I chose to do it in that way in order to make it easier to read, and also to link it more directly to the Hezboallah statement in the previous paragraph (which you should appreciate). Secondly, the fact that Amnesty and HRW have condemned Israel for using white phosphorus and depleted uranium has nothing to do with this. The problem I have with the Jan Egeland paragraph is the end, as it distorts what he actually said. You have now reinserted it and have added the word "rumoured", in an attempt to make it look more neutral, so the text now states that he condemned their rumored pride at "having many more children and women dead than armed men." What "rumoured pride"? Where can we read about this rumour, which apparently is so very well known that there is no need for Wikipedia to explain it further? As this "rumour" isn't covered anywhere else, I think that last part should be removed. It has only been added to try to strengthen his already very strong statement about Hezbollah. Please note, that your addition of the distorted ending has already resulted in somebody inserting a counter text, stating that HRW "has disputed intentional use of human shields". One POV push will always be countered with a POV push in the opposite direction, and the end result is just a crap article. Let's try to be neutral! Thomas Blomberg 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Jan Egeland said 

message: I'm placing the HRW disputation next to the Engeland quote, and I'm removing Engeland's accusations of mutual international law violation, which is already stated by all the other NGOs quoted. What is unique about Engeland statement is the 'cowardly' part. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human shields 

message: This section is extremely relevant to the ceasefire discussion, and at least a condensed form belongs in the lead:
though Hezbollah declared through its members in the Lebanese cabinet that they would not disarm south of the Litani river.
It is essentially a Hezbollah declaration that they are not going to uphold all parts of 1701. If you think it should be removed, please explain why. TewfikTalk 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it belongs: in the section about the ceasfire (currently titled "Current ceasefire", I believe). Not in the lead, which would be better off in its previous concise incarnation of recent times. Unless, of course, you want to push every bit of pro-Israel POV on this (as if there already isn't too much of that to go around) ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be in the header as its very important that one group involved has basically not accepted the terms. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the terms are that Lebanon speeds up the disarmament of Hezbollah. That's not a term contingent on Hezbollah, is it? -- Kendrick7 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point it should be noted that both Lebanon and Hezbollah are non compliant as Hezbollah said they will not disarm and Lebanese officials said they will not force them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look at the text of the resolution, under Determining, point 8 doesn't apply to Hezbollah (compare point 7, where it clearly says "all parties"), so you can't say they aren't compliant; you are right though about Lebanon. You can't really call it a loophole -- I'm sure Hezbollah would have never agreed to a cease-fire that actually put the onus on them to disarm themselves. -- Kendrick7 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the aftermath of the cease-fire should be a whole other article, and if the ceasefire is breached it should be another-other article as this article is long enough. -- Kendrick7 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is clear this is Lebanon's fault (and I think they would have promised to send unicorns to mars if it would stop their people being killed, even temporarily). There's nothing in Resolution 1701 where Hezbollah agreed to disarm. -- Kendrick7 22:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah caveat 

message: The article is getting too long again, at 78kb. We need to make an effort to shrink it down - do we really need 5 references for the Lebanese casualty figure? Do we need such a long 'historical background' section? Iorek85 09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Hezbollah "historical background" section could be completely chunked; it's certaintly not history (perhaps one side was a little hopeful it soon would be?). The main Hezbollah article just needs to be edited to include the facts about their membership in the Lebanese parliment up top. -- Kendrick7 09:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did that. -- Kendrick7 10:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, ceasefire attempts and proposals are no so important. A proposal that brought ceasefire was 1701 UNSC resolution. All the rest should be moved to Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Flayer 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those sections should definitely be reduced, but I wanted to point out that in general, the article has almost stabilised this last week, with very few drastic changes (most edits are the warring about capture/kidnap and the same POV insertions and deletions). After trimming the article down to around 64kb perhaps, we should have a renewed mobilisation towards improving the numerous subarticles. In particular, I feel many of them should be merged to reduce the amount of repeated information, though Thomas takes a different position on the matter. The bottom line is they should receive serious attention, as some of them now have their own subarticles (!). Anyways, I feel that further combat lacking, we may be removed from the main page soon, which would give us all more room to breathe Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length