Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 43

message: 30,000 soldiers were deployed only in the last few days. During most of the time it was 10,000 (once the ground deployment was decided upon). I suggest changing it to something like: "Up to 10,000 initially. 30,000 in last few days." It would probably be better if someone who follows the article more closely changes it rather than me. ehudshapira 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that info. ehudshapira 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: IDF strength 

message: shouldnt israel be capitalized?(69.251.127.235 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone incorrectly moved the page without discussing it first. I've reverted their move. — George [talk] 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: The Israelis, as they have in all past wars, collected detailed information on each tank that was hit by enemy fire. Israel won't, for obvious reasons, release all this information. But they have provided some data. There were "several hundred" Merkavas sent into southern Lebanon in 2006. Of those, ten percent were hit by enemy fire (including mines and roadside bombs). Merkava faced modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) for the first time in 2006. Only 18 tanks were seriously damaged, and only a third of those were from several hundred ATGMs fired by Hizbollah. Only two of the 18 heavily damaged tanks were destroyed, and both of those were damaged by roadside bombs. In those two cases, the tank was over the bomb when it was detonated. 
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20070115.aspx
Flayer 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merkava Muddles and Miracles in Lebanon 

message: No, not of the article (sighs of relief) but why do we need four alternative names in the opening paragraph? Do we really need to point out every possible name it could be known by? I was happy for the names used in Lebanon and Israel, as they indicate that the current title is a compromise, but four of them seems excessive. Next we'll have to have a section for the names of the war... Iorek85 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick to the article title, and the ones used most commonly in Lebanon and Israel too. Adding descriptive names – 33-day war, 34-day (yes, both are used), summer war, and all the descriptive variants involving either parties or locations – will get way too long. — George [talk] 10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never even seen the name "The 33 Day War" anywhere except that article. Is it even used elsewhere? Krynnish Conspiracy 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen it. I'm guessing it's just a description, rather than a name. I'll get rid of the other name, since there are no objections. Iorek85 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The article should address it somewhere. As i have tirelessly pointed out, the military experts have said it was not classic guerrila warfare but that HA in Lang's words "fought from fortified positions dug into the terrain and sited for mutual support." These positions were sometimes as deep as 20 meters, had steel blast doors, TV cameras, and were very sophisticated. Thus a position may be overrun on the surface but not fully occupied. This is why Maroun al-Ras was contested at the end of the war.  I made the following edit. It was reverted by guess-who. It is key to understanding the War. It was not a guerilla war. HA waged an Iwo Jima or Okinawa type defense but prevailed.
"*Journalists Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry in their three part series HOW HEZBOLLAH DEFEATED ISRAEL in the Asia Times vividly describe the essential elements of this battle. The following is from PART 2: Winning the ground war
* "The difference between "pushing" out a force and invading and occupying a town was thereby set, another clear signal to US military experts that the IDF could enter a town but could not occupy it. One US officer schooled in US military history compared the IDF's foray into southern Lebanon to Robert E Lee's bloody attack on Union positions at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, during the American Civil War. "Oh I can get there, all right," Lee's lieutenant said during that war, "it's staying there that's the problem."
* After-battle reports of Hezbollah commanders now confirm that IDF troops never fully secured the border area and Maroun al-Ras was never fully taken. Nor did Hezbollah ever feel the need to call up its reserves, as Israel had done. "The entire war was fought by one Hezbollah brigade of 3,000 troops, and no more," one military expert in the region said. "The Nasr Brigade fought the entire war. Hezbollah never felt the need to reinforce it." "Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Character of Ground War

message: I find that having Imad Mughniyeh as a Hezbollah commander in the war a little strange. Little is known about the man and even less is known about his involvement, if any in this war. I read the sources to his inclusion and they do not give any credible information about his involvement, Hezbollah and Israel have not said anything about the man, I do not think he should be included as a commander based on those two sources, a mention in the article some place is much more appropriate. Awaiting feedback Abufijli 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Asharq Al-Awsat is a widely-known international Arabic daily, and the Jerusalem Post story by Khaled Abu Toameh is based on Fatah sources. Whether that justifies inclusion in the infobox can be discussed, but I'm not sure that we should necessarily strike it completely from the entry. Perhaps others disagree? TewfikTalk 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imad Mughniyeh a Hezbollah commander? 

message: Was this war different from previous assymetric conflicts? Hezbollah seemed more capable than other insurgent groups (such as those in Iraq) at taking on modern tanks and helicopters. IIRC, the US didn't lose a single tank going into Iraq, whilst the Israelis lost 5 in this conflict. Also, Hezbollah made extensive use of rockets, and were able to bombard Israel right up to the end of the war. I don't recall other guerilla groups doing this on such a scale. 
Regardless of who 'won' the war, Hezbollah seems to have held their own remarkably well considering how easily forces such as the Taleban were defeated. If they have discovered new and better tactics to fight western armies, can we expect to see others copying these tactics?
I'm no military expert, so I'm not the editor to do this really. Could someone more knowledgable about such matters comment? Damburger 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military significance of the conflict 

message: Hi Funky,
I apologise if my edit summary wasn't clear, but the sourcing was only one part of the reasoning for removal of the image, the oter which was that an image highlighting a similar point already exists, and the weight of such images is even greater following the recent removal of several other images. The image's encyclopaedic value is also questionable, since Wikipedia is not a memorial. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't really the point of inclusion of the image. As you've correctly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we already have a picture illustrating casualties. Iorek85 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. I don't see the significance of specifically identifying a dozen or so of the hundreds of civilians who were killed. The existing image with the coffins being laid to rest is sufficient illustration for the section. — George [talk] 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image inclusion 

message: *User:Teens! and User:Clintonesque have been participating in the editing of this article. 
*They are sock-puppets of . See here. 
*Both have been permanently blocked. PalestineRemembered 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isarig been using sockpuppets 

message: I think regarding this article that it's important that although Hezbollah was by far the largest militia organization, and took the most part in the conflict, that even in Lebanon they (and other groups) are collectively known as the 'resistance'. As the article indicates this loose coalition includes the LCP, Amal and the PFLP-GC, and enjoyed great popular support not just as a partisan shia resistance by a national one, I think this deserves more recognition in this article. If I can quote the article linked in this wiki file:
" Despite persistent attempts to cast Hezbollah as an isolated "terrorist organization" of Shi'ite Muslims, the majority of the Lebanese population - including Christians and Sunni Muslims - have thrown their support behind the group. In one recent local survey, 87% of the population was reported to be supporting Hezbollah, including four out of every five Christians and Druze and nine out of every 10 Sunni Muslims.
But while most Lebanese acknowledge Hezbollah's leading role in fighting Israel, what many Lebanese consistently refer to as the "national resistance" is a broad coalition that includes virtually all of Lebanon's most important political forces, including Amal, the other main Shi'ite movement, the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP), other left groups and liberal democrats - and even the right-wing Free Patriotic Movement of General Michel Aoun.
"We have a joke that, in the average Lebanese family with seven children, four will be with Hezbollah, two will be with the communists and one will be with Amal - all of them with the resistance," says Khaled Hadadeh, secretary general of the LCP.
The LCP, a leftist secular party whose membership cuts across the confessional lines, has itself been very close to Hezbollah and fought alongside it in the frontlines in the south. According to Hadadeh, at least 12 LCP members and supporters died in the fighting. "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.253.195 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance? 

message: This is a very biased Zionist POV title, how can we change the title to something more neutral like the "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" or at least add the much accepted "2006 Israeli war on Lebanon"
"No the title = NPOV. You think that: "2006 Israeli war on Lebanon" is neutral ?? ^^ Mrpouetpouet 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Lebanon war 

message: It seems to me that there is a clear consensus that Israel lost. However, If this means that Hizbullah won (and if Hizbullah won at all) is still disputed. I there for propose that the current "victory disputed" be replaced with "Hizbullah victory disputed", thus leaving no doubt whose victory is disputed. Any comments? Objections? Rami R 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Hizbullah victory (disputed)"? Putting it without the brackets sort of gives the impression that Hizbullah lost. Pocopocopocopoco 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal: "Hizbullah victory disputed"

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Two things that should be fixed:
#"However, given the response from Israeli military forces, which caused widespread destruction in southern Lebanon, as well as a new UN force to occupy what was formerly a Hezbollah controlled area, the conflict is generally seen as weakening Hezbollah militarily." This statement has a citation needed tag after it, make sure to add one.
#"He said that Israel had lost "to a very small group of people, 5000 Hezbollah fighters, which should have been no match at all for the IDF," and stated that the conflict could have "some very fateful consequences for the future." Could also use an inline citation.
Other then this, the article still meets the GA criteria. Editors of the article should seriously consider taking the article to WP:FAC. I'd recommend getting a peer review and copyedit first, and make sure to have all of the inline citation templates consistently formatted. By the way, you might want to archive this talk page as well, it's starting to get a little long. At this point, good job, and I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, Nehrams2020 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review Pass

message: By way of analogy no one would dispute the fact the U.S. Senator Larry Craig said he was not "gay." Although many would dispute the contents of his statement whether he was indeed "gay." Likewise the BBC and another source, inter alia, have clearly stated that Arab Israelie citizens say that Israel sites its military installations close to Arab population centers. The siting may or may not be true. Becuase of the heavy military censorship, it my be neigh impossible to verify or report out the verification, but it is irrefutable that the assertion of the siting has been made. Yet User: Tewfik has deleted the following reference twice.
*[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]] leaders accused the Israel for using the Arab populations as "human shields" by placing artillery units beside Arab villages in northern Israel.Patience, Martin. Israeli Arabs caught in middle. BBC NewsNearly All the War Crimes Were Israel's Counterpunch Magazine August 16, 2007 Nearly All the War Crimes Were Israel's The Second Lebanon War, A Year Later By JONATHAN COOK 
*How is the above edit different from this one?
*Israel also maintained that the civilian infrastructure was "hijacked" by Hezbollah and used for military purposes.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't no about the history of this but the passage your complaining that Tewfik removed is currently in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 16:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Poco x four. He says he works by consensus. Maybe he will now see a consensus.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you in this specific case (I don't see any reason it shouldn't be in the article), in general we can't just keep adding accusations that have been made; while repeating them might not indicate that they are true, there could have been a rebuttal from the other side, or the claims could be propaganda. If I were to claim you stole money from me on an article on you, (completely falsely), I don't think you'd want to leave it there, even if it just said "Iorek claims that Will stole $5000 from him". If at all possible, we should try to ascertain whether the claims are true, and whether Israel had anything to say about them. It can be a tricky line; NPOV doesn't mean a 50:50 balance of criticism for one side or the other (which at times this article has strayed towards) which can give an unfair picture of who was criticised the most by the world. We don't want to give undue weight to some claims. Iorek 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree regarding the need to watch out for giving minority views undue weight. I believe this likely constitutes a minority view, and I support the statements removal. If it is kept, it should be cleaned up since, to the best of my recollection, the source only cited a single Israeli Arab politician as having made this claim, not the plural Israeli Arab "leaders". ← George [talk] 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So someone else has also backed up those claims? Good. But in regards to your statement "It is irrefutable that it was made by former MK Bishara. If you believe in balance a neutral point of view then it should be in there." that is not the case. NPOV does not mean every point of view. Iorek 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorta with Will on this issue. I think that special treatment might be warranted in the article to present the views of the Arab population in Israel as normally their views are that frequently obtain by the media and that they may normally be afraid to present their views for fear of reprisals. - Pocopocopocopoco 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Balance and neutrality are hardly equivalent, and this should not just be a listing of claims and counter-claims, even if they were notable. In this case, there is the claim by one man, Azmi Bishara, echoed by Jonathan Cook on CounterPunch, not a reliable source. The HRW report explicitly rejects those accusations, lending discussion only to speculation as to whether the Arab-Israeli population received adequate protection, though I'm unsure as to whether including even an accurate version might not lend undue weight to a minor issue among many others. TewfikTalk 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed my mind on this subject. Initially, all I saw was the one news article citing one Arab Israeli MP who made this claim, but after reading the HRW investigation and report Will cited, and given the fact that HRW would go to the lengths it did to investigate and publish the issue, I don't think that the subject still falls below the bar of inclusion set forth by undue weight policy. It's still a minority opinion, but not to such a degree that it warrants complete deletion from the article. ← George [talk] 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HRW says We found no evidence that Israeli authorities or the IDF intended to use civilians in northern Israel in this fashion during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah and the rest of the report deals with the broader issue of having military bases in cities, hence the charge is that of Azmi Bishara alone (echoed in an editorial in Counterpunch, which is not a notable occurrence). Upon emending the passage to accurately represent its references, its inclusion here seems quite odd in light of WP:UNDUE. I don't see how it is more relevant than a half-dozen other events consigned to the subarticle. TewfikTalk 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference Between the Existence of a Statement and the Truth of the Contents of the Statement

message: We don't need to have a novel in the factbox about who won nor write one trying to decide that. What may happen is a non-consensus outcome will get put in and then the article will get protected in that state. We can agree that the subject of the outcome is as disputed and contested as the outcome itself. Let's just put DISPUTED or CONTESTED and move one.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a risk of page protection as a result of an edit war, as so far editors have been more or less civil and discussed their edits (or proposed edits). That said, I don't mind if something indecisive such as "ceasefire", "provisioned by UNSC Resolution 1701", "contested" or "disputed" is placed as the result. I also don't mind if my compromise proposal is accepted. Rami R 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Look at what's happened to Battle of Bint Jbeil‎

message: Loathe am I to make major changes to the article, but I think the length of the article is unwieldy. For me, the reviews of the conflict and 'post conflict events' are the longest sections; perhaps we could merge the two and create a separate article for them? Compacting these sections, summary style, would cut about 30 references and a good few KB of text. From a quick check, the article prose is 8,300 words long, 53kB, and the whole article is 122kb. It lies in the middle of the 'to long' guidelines for size, so it isn't an urgent split, but one that should be considered. Iorek 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: I have noticed that in the infobox, it says that the two Israeli soldiers are POWs, while the Hezbollah soldiers are 'captured'. While you can stretch it and say that according to the Third Geneva Convention this would be true, you can also say quite rightly that the Hezbollah does not recognize the Third Geneva Convention, therefore the two Israeli soldiers are not POWs. Moreover, Israeli law insures that each foreign prisoner in an Israeli jail, whether a POW or not by definition, is treated as a POW according to the Third Geneva Convention. Therefore, if anything, the 13 Hezbollah soldiers should be POWs. However, for the sake of neutrality, I propose using the same term for both sides ('captured' would be fine, as it has no legal meaning AFAIK). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captured vs. POW