Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 8

message: It seems out last poll helped us reach a clear concensus about including Hezbollah in the article title, but now having read some responses it appears many people believe it should be renamed as a war (some very passionately).  Lets put this one to a vote.  Criptofcorbin 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "War" Poll

message: To avoid another chaotic debate, I suggest that we have a poll (which is in itself not binding), which could also avoid a repetition of the same discussion and the same arguments. It would also give a clear view on how many people support and oppose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict". Sijo Ripa 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah Poll

message: This page should be renamed to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict to clarify the parties involved . A title stating 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is misleading as it implies that the conflict is between Israel and Lebanon , whereas the conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has explicetly stated that they have no conflict with the country of Lebanon itself or its people.--CltFn 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we should rediscuss it and today is not then. There is no finality to anything in Wikipedia, the issue can be brought up again. --CltFn 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just discussed a few days ago.  I know there's no binding decisions, but bringing it up every few days is just wasting time.  --Cyde↔Weys 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it keeps coming up , then it is not a resolved issue now is it.--CltFn 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't keep coming up.  You're the first person who's brought it up since the old discussion stagnated, and you did it in a terrible way, by trying to do thrice over before even starting to discuss.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support I strongly support the move, for the reasons I gave earlier.  ObsidianOrder 18:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict

message: The following passages are either continually removed or added, as specified, and lend to an extremely POV presentation.
* Hezbollah has concurrently engaged in extensive rocket attacks on Israel's northern cities, including areas like Haifa which thus far have been out of range, as well as a number of attempted infiltrations.<ref>  This is continually removed from the intro. Without it, the reader would have no knowledge of the Hezbollah rocket campaigns which so dominate the hostilities both in media coverage and as one of Israel's stated motivations.
* The "Hezbollah rocket campaign" subsection after "Israeli response" is continually removed under the same reasoning and that it is covered in the "military operations" subarticle, which creates the same effect. Subarticles are meant for expansion of information in the main, not in place of them.
* Note: this section got renamed to a misleading "Hezbollah counter-response". Rename it back to what it is: daily rocket assault of Israeli civilian areas.
* The Juan Cole observation/accusation/speculation on Israeli motives which discusses war crimes and some grand scheme of manipulating the MidEast is extremely POV when presented in the "Civilian casualties" section, especially in light of how controversial the man and his belief's are.
Please discuss if you disagree that these actions lead to non neutral POV, and form some compromise. In the meantime, please try to preserve balance here. Cheers TewfikTalk 23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your quote of 10,000 fleeing - Are you using one of those hand held click counters?  Because if you are, can you please take a picture of it and put it on your photoblog and release the image?  We can just replace the infobox with that photo.--Paraphelion 07:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV emendations 

message: I would rather see a direct quote from the PM about this.  Also I cannot find this statement elsewhere.
I have found a few links.  One 
He said the intensifying aggression "in this barbaric way proves that Israel has decided to push Lebanon back 50 years."  
"Continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon could set its development back 50 years, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said Tuesday"  - 
"Lebanon for years has been trying to build itself back up and come back after many years of civil war," Shalhoub said. "This has set us back 50 years. All of us are affected. People are running out of supplies and food and there's no way to get anything in from the outside. We're going to do our best to help." -
Shaloub is the Rev. Elia Shalhoub of St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church in West Palm Beach.  Unless Lebanon has a West Palm Beach I think this guy is from Florida.--Paraphelion 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of Lebanon and Chris Matthews 

message: Can a left-wing news program be considered an NPOV source???? If not, I suggest removal of all its quotes and the paragraphs in the article based on them immediately. Tweekerd 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why you don't suggest removal of sources coming from arab countries or israel.--fs 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that might be a good idea. I'm from Israel, and I know for a fact some of our papers have extreme left-wing orientation, and others extreme right-wing. Those should be avoided. I don't know much about the Arab countries' papers, except for my personal view that most of them are filled with anti-Israeli propoganda (unless proven otherwise)....In Israel, Ha'aretz IMO should be avoided. Tweekerd 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All sources are biased.  Regardless, bias does not disqualify a source.  Please read Wiki's policy on sources.  FYI, Democracy Now harshly criticizes the Democratic party, so I don't see how it's biased. FightCancer 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Democracy Now!" ?????? 

message: I'm not sure where that section went exactly, but this is my response:
:I try to. That said, there are extremely basic pieces of information that you have removed. Subpages don't mean that nothing on that topic is included in the main page. Rather a few paragraphs summarising the most important parts of the subpage should be included under the section title. TewfikTalk 08:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Pretty please 

message: On Saturday [July 15, 2006] the United Nations Security Council again rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. 
The above statement statement from the article seems to me to be inaccurate and misleading. Based on the following article , it seems to me that Democracy Now's website (from which the statement is a direct quote of), may be inaccurately describing the situation. The statements seems to imply that the council voted in to reject a call for a ceasefire when reality it seems that the issue was really a disagreement over the text of the call for a ceasefire. It appears the U.S. is the only security council member rejecting a call for a ceasefire at this time. It should be corrected to more accurately reflect what really happened at the UN Security Council meeting that day. --Cab88 11:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is what really happened.  According to your source above, "The United Nations Security Council held closed-door consultations late Saturday on the mounting violence in Lebanon but failed to reach agreement on a statement that would have called for a ceasefire."  By that quote, how is the DN quote inaccurate or misleading?  FightCancer 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Security Council resolution issue 

message: Why is it called a "raid" when Hezbollah enters Israel and a "border clash" when Israel enters Lebanon with "a force of tanks and armored personnel carriers" (according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz)?  Invading another country is not a "border clash".  I suggest renaming this section title to "Hezbollah and Israeli raids", "Hezbollah raid and Israeli invasion", "Beginning of conflict", or something else to avoid the obvious violation of neutrality, IMO. FightCancer 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah raid and ensuing border clash 

message: Yes, the English Wikipedia is not neutral. It has a decided Israeli slant. The French wikipedia says the attack on the Israeli Humvee took place at Aita al Chaab, which is clearly in Lebanon. The English wikipedia omits this information. This was not a mistake, as it allows the false claim that the attack took place in Israel. If the English wikipedia makes this claim, then it should provide facts to support this assertion, which is a VERY VERY important detail. I have already posed this question in the main article. I expect to have it omited. Secondly, ONLY on wikipedia have I heard the claim that Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel BEFORE the soldiers were captured, an astonishing and also false claim that has not been made anywhere else. These two facts leave me with my doubts.
I notice many comments in these discussion pages in the end mean things like "by saying that you make X look worse than Y" or "Y looks worse than X and that's POV".. No. Who says neutral point of view means forced equality? Neutral point of view is closer to being cool and reporting the facts, rather than an operation of making everyone look as bad (or as good) as everyone else. --fs 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but when it comes to an ongoing issue, and one that is controversial worldwide and upon which there is no unanimously-agreed opinion in the international community, then - in my opinion - the only way to keep the article NPOV is by keeping it balanced as well. Tamuz    (Talk)   19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only thing is... nothing in the world will ever be NPOV as long as humans are on it. We cause wars starting with conflicting opinions. At least here, we should try to make everything NPOV. If, and only if, it requires balancing then do so.--Znitrx 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't confuse NPOV with "must make both sides look equal on everything"

message: This article is only getting more and more POV. I am getting really tired of adding comments in the talk page and cited addition in the article, only to see my addition reverted and my comments either unanswered or deleted. The big reason is that for some reason, Israel's attacks are under the neading "attacks on civilian ares", while Hiz' attacks are under "Hezbullah Rocket Campaign", while in reality, Hezbullah attacks are on civilian areas (you can't really refute that) and actually almost everyone in Israel and many Americans claim that they are deliberate attacks on civilians. In addition, while the section on the Hezbullah attack is written in clean, 'military' language, and no mention is made of tragedies such as the two Arab children killed in Nazareth, the section on the attacks made by Israel goes into detail, telling of specific events and using words like "mass grave" and "massacre". Also, while unsubstantiated claims by Lebanese sources as to the use of illrgal weapons are in the article and even get highlighted, the following (cited) claim, added by me, was reverted without explanation:
: Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav told VOA that among the rockets that have hit Haifa are some clearly designed to cause massive civilian casualties. "The specialty of these rockets is that they contain thousands of metal bullets which are going to be spread around when the rocket hits the ground," he said. "In this respect, it has the same effect as the belt of a suicide bomber." 
This is exactly the same kind of claim, made by one od the fighting forces. Wither both this and Lahoud's comments are relevant, or not; any other option is blatant POV. M. Butterfly 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. The Slant is ridiculous. I acknowledge my bias as an Israeli and yet STILL the slant is ridiculous and I deem myself absolutely objective in saying that. --AceMyth 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV article

message: I don't understand why this conflict is do debatable on wikipedia. We should all put aside our emotional feelings and forget about our support to whatever belief we have. Let's just look at the facts. Israel left Lebanon in the year 2000. And six years later, Hezbollah launches an attack against Israel (Israel had NOT done anything to Hezbollah or Lebanon provoke such an attack). Therefore, the fact is simply that Hezbollah is a terror organization that seeks the destruction of Israel. Another point to be made is that each time Israel withdraws for a territory, the area becomes a stronger base for terrorist organizations as we see in southern Lebanon and Gaza. Why don't Hezbollah and Hamas seek peace? READ THEIR CHARTERS! They seek Israel's complete destruction. So my point is...please LOOK AT THE FACTS and stop trying to twist everything to meet one's own view. I only want a FAIR and HONEST view of the conflict. And if someone disagrees, I welcome any challenge --68.1.182.215 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first challenge is to produce an english version of the Hezbollah charter. Actually I would just like to see it and be able to cite it on the page.. I am sure it's pretty ugly. Additionally, I don't know all the details, but I'm sure you can find people who would argue about what went on in those 6 years and whether or not Israel left Lebanon amicably. It is difficult to believe you want a fair and honest view if you don't even acknowledge or try to address any possible issues regarding this.--Paraphelion 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This conflict is not being debated. The article in Wikipedia is being debated. Really different. I don't think that you bring a NPOV either by the way. --Deenoe 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deenoe, I agree that debating is important. But it is hard for us to debate, if you keep deleting people's comments. Deleting our comments indicate that there is a truth you want to suppress since you are unwilling to discuss it. --68.1.182.215 06:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never deleted someone's comment upon purpose, because I believe in free speech. I checked all my history in this talk page and I don't see when and where I erased comments. Sorry if by accident I did. I find it very offending that you jump to conclusions like that. Erasing comments would be plain censorship and I don't play this game. --Deenoe 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That is correct, this is not a forum on the conflict only the reporting of it. Israel, Lebanon and Palestine all have there good and bad people/point's. And the U.S.A attacked Iraq, so what does that make the U.S.A a terrorist country?. Enlil Ninlil 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is all, of course, very WP:POV and WP:OR, to point out the obvious. What WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS sources report is exactly what Wikipedia should be stating, not some internal notion of 'truth'. Nysin 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a Wikipedia editor, it tells me what WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS sources say it tells me. Nysin 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing the Best Way to Report What Happened, NOT what a reporter thinks on wikipedia

message: i think this news source is not reiable.
:Why? It's often cited in major world newspapers and is considered Israel's best daily.  Editorially, it leans leftwards. nadav nadav 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please explain why it's unreliable. FightCancer 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Me three. I think it's especially useful to have it as a source, since it's both an Israeli newspaper and critical (editorially speaking, not in slanted news articles) of Israel's actions and policies. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO all news articles are slanted.  That's why I want the original poster to state why Haaretz "is not reliable." FightCancer 16:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haaretz as a source 

message: This page as it stands right now is nothing but a mixture of POV from all sides, rather than a collection of facts presented in a NPOV, it is really a collection of POV presente
I predicted this, and its spiraling. For example, rather than putting information on miliary operations in the page for that purpose, editors continue to put it here, making people who dont agree for POV reasons to then add more stuff which they think supports their POV, then others respond, then someone reverts, etc. Provocative edits serve no purpose but to hide the facts of the conflict from emerging, and only serve to push a POV or the other.
Lastly, a section dedicated to "Hezbollah's Rocket Campaing" but no section for "Israel's Air Bombing Campaing" is a flagrant violation of NPOV balance.
Not only does the page currently deserve a NPOV (not POV check, NPOV) tag, but it also must be rewritten, data moved to the several subpages available, and its quality and NPOV presentation restored.
I have no time today, but will in the next days focus on this, and call on other editors to think about this and to help make this page a good one. I know it can be done as it has reached that level on the past.
Lastly, please use the subpages whenever possible, thats why they are there!!! Think before editing if what you are going to put in belongs here or on the subpages. With the existence of subpages, this page is not about ALL information, but only about a general background and introduction, plus a running tally of casualties and major events not covered by the subpages.
--Cerejota 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page quality, NPOV, etc

message: There are several pictures from several sources that I have added today for this article, but everytime they have been removed. Even when I gave clear source and licensing they would sometimes even be completely deleted within minutes. One was even a private picture of Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah. Anyway, what do I see there? There is an Israeli picture with (AP/Yahoo) source, and that is even allowed, wtf? Example: Image:Idftroops.jpg. Not only have there not been many Israeli anons editting like crazy since day one, but even some admins try to help these people any way they can. ArmanJan 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for your frustration.  What evidence is there that these edits are being made by pro-Israeli posters or pro-Israeli admins? FightCancer 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Isreali admins

message: Perhaps some editors are not clear what NPOV means, and why it exists. Perhaps they havent had time to visit WP:NPOV, or perhaps they think they do know. Drawing upon the edits of the last day or so I can say a lot of editors seem to have no idea. So please visit WP:NPOV to have an understanding. This rule is non-negotiable and stands as it is written now. So it is not your views on what is NPOV that count, but the objective comparisons with the policy.
As such, to any reasonable person the article as it stands is not NPOV. The policy itself does provide a guide on how this can be achieved:
"Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."
That is, get out of the soapbox. Wikipedia is not a sopabox.--Cerejota 11:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification on NPOV

message: According to a leading intellectual: "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately."  
Anybody else see any sources for this version? The source is impeccable, but Im sure people here would want to see 
"official" "proof." -Ste|vertigo 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly would want "proof" in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The archive will reflect that this statement was presented in the name of Noam Chomsky. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What more proof could there be? It's published on a reliable web page. Here's more proof: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidnapped_by_israel.php FightCancer 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't it belong in the article about 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict? Tamuz    (Talk)   22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, yes.  FightCancer 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First shots

message: ===Israeli casualties===
There were no Israeli wounded? I find that hard to believe. -71.156.37.218 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Government censors tell the media to omit facts that could be used by the enemy. This is not remarkable.  Everything else you write is wrong. nadav 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They were miraculously healed.  Just kidding.. there's discussion about it elsewhere here.  Some people don't want to show any injury statistics at all, some only want to show one side, some want to show both.  I've replied last in the discussion and will add back the Israeli injury stat later today if no one else has done so.--Paraphelion 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously both are relevant, I don't know exactly what the stat stands at so I can't re-add it myself, but you should go ahead and do it.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please do not re-add it. See discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else has already put it back, and I see no reason not to based on my last response in the discussion above, which no one has yet responded to.--Paraphelion 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The solution is to find better sources, not just omit it from one side only.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, as was said also in the discussion above, the best is to remove the number of injured on both sides in the infobox, and keep them in the casualties section. --213.65.178.172 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth these figures are always going to be iffy because it's in the interests of each side to inflate the numbers as a justification for their continuing fighting.  I have no doubt that Israel is using a very loose definition of "injured" (probably everyone who ends up going to the hospital), but their death count is probably at least accurate.  On the Lebanese side I bet the death count is probably inflated, as they don't have the right kind of media infrastructure in place to keep those kinds of numbers honest.  Of course, all of this is just my own personal opinion, so it shouldn't go into the article unless we can find a verifiable source.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different issues here.  Some people are saying injuries are not part of the "most important information".  If you want to argue that, fine.  Others doubt the numbers; however, we have used some of them as sources for fatalities or their numbers of fatalities agree with other articles we are citing for fatalities.  If we are going take fatality figures, I do not understand why we won't take injury figured from same or similar sources.--Paraphelion 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above: ..."injured" means different things for the different sides. "Killed" can mean only one thing.--213.65.178.172 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There was something there that said 10,000 displaced Israelis, however there was no source but I did try to find one. If you can find one post it. If you post it here I will be happy to read it and edit the infobox. Actually I did find one source, Debka - , but I think people had some issue with this as a source. I don't know much about it.  I found a vague source and put that up there.  It's not exact but I think it's worth noting something rather than nothing.--Paraphelion 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: From a random article, 220,000 in shelters. Sorry, I don't have the source, it was on google news. ObsidianOrder 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaretz quotes an estimate local officials estimates of 30% - 50% of the northerners. I'm not sure what the term "northeners" covers (north of the Akko - Amihood road? maybe also south of that line, like Haifa and Tiberias?). The official number of "people under rocket/missile threat" that the media here states is 1.5 milion. I don't think that 300K people have left, but the number may certainly be over 100K. I'll try to find more sources. Eranb 06:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The estimate of displaced people in Lebanon is from UN/UNICEF, and they probably haven't made any estumates of how many people is getting away from Haifa. I don't think this is because of some big conspiracy, but because the situation in Lebanon is likely to be "a bit" more serious. --Battra 18:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Added it to the International Reactions page. --Deenoe 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casualties

message: There were no Israeli wounded? I find that hard to believe. -71.156.37.218 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Government censors tell the media to omit facts that could be used by the enemy. This is not remarkable.  Everything else you write is wrong. nadav 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They were miraculously healed.  Just kidding.. there's discussion about it elsewhere here.  Some people don't want to show any injury statistics at all, some only want to show one side, some want to show both.  I've replied last in the discussion and will add back the Israeli injury stat later today if no one else has done so.--Paraphelion 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously both are relevant, I don't know exactly what the stat stands at so I can't re-add it myself, but you should go ahead and do it.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please do not re-add it. See discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else has already put it back, and I see no reason not to based on my last response in the discussion above, which no one has yet responded to.--Paraphelion 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The solution is to find better sources, not just omit it from one side only.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, as was said also in the discussion above, the best is to remove the number of injured on both sides in the infobox, and keep them in the casualties section. --213.65.178.172 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth these figures are always going to be iffy because it's in the interests of each side to inflate the numbers as a justification for their continuing fighting.  I have no doubt that Israel is using a very loose definition of "injured" (probably everyone who ends up going to the hospital), but their death count is probably at least accurate.  On the Lebanese side I bet the death count is probably inflated, as they don't have the right kind of media infrastructure in place to keep those kinds of numbers honest.  Of course, all of this is just my own personal opinion, so it shouldn't go into the article unless we can find a verifiable source.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different issues here.  Some people are saying injuries are not part of the "most important information".  If you want to argue that, fine.  Others doubt the numbers; however, we have used some of them as sources for fatalities or their numbers of fatalities agree with other articles we are citing for fatalities.  If we are going take fatality figures, I do not understand why we won't take injury figured from same or similar sources.--Paraphelion 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above: ..."injured" means different things for the different sides. "Killed" can mean only one thing.--213.65.178.172 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli casualties

message: (my comment was removed probably by mistake)
Why is there no estimate of the number of displaced Israelis? I'm from Haifa, and for almost a week now I've left my city and the northen region and moved to central Israel. So have a lot of other Israelis (tens of thousands? maybe more) that live in northen israel. Eranb 06:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was something there that said 10,000 displaced Israelis, however there was no source but I did try to find one. If you can find one post it. If you post it here I will be happy to read it and edit the infobox. Actually I did find one source, Debka - , but I think people had some issue with this as a source. I don't know much about it.  I found a vague source and put that up there.  It's not exact but I think it's worth noting something rather than nothing.--Paraphelion 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: From a random article, 220,000 in shelters. Sorry, I don't have the source, it was on google news. ObsidianOrder 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaretz quotes an estimate local officials estimates of 30% - 50% of the northerners. I'm not sure what the term "northeners" covers (north of the Akko - Amihood road? maybe also south of that line, like Haifa and Tiberias?). The official number of "people under rocket/missile threat" that the media here states is 1.5 milion. I don't think that 300K people have left, but the number may certainly be over 100K. I'll try to find more sources. Eranb 06:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The estimate of displaced people in Lebanon is from UN/UNICEF, and they probably haven't made any estumates of how many people is getting away from Haifa. I don't think this is because of some big conspiracy, but because the situation in Lebanon is likely to be "a bit" more serious. --Battra 18:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displaced Israelis 

message: ====Civilian vs Military casualities====
Honestly, there is no way to say if there are X civilians casualities and based on media reports. We have to admit that either Hezbollah either Israël's special forces may be fighting with civilian clothers, and most probably does. One part of the psychologic part of the ware is to play down your losses and to "improve" your civilian losses. Of course, no doubt for a 11 years old girl: she is a civilian. But what about a man blasted with his truck: civilian, or bringing supply for Hezbollah's fighters, or trying to spot target for Israël. Only a invastigation could make it for sure, and due to war time this is not always possible and media people are not crime scene invastigator and led by local people. So even such account has to be very cautious and should have a warning. Specially in such a war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.13.150.106 (talk • contribs).
====Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed====
If this logic was applied to a rapist who raped both children and adults, and if one source cited 10 children raped, and then later another source cited 20 unspecified raped, you savages would omit any mention that 10 children were raped.  But I suppose it's useless trying to argue this point with people who don't understand what's wrong with this and have consistently made edits only in Israel's favor, barring complete vandalism.--Paraphelion 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: If this logic was applied to a rapist who raped both children and adults, and if one source cited 10 children raped, and then later another source cited 20 unspecified raped, you savages would omit any mention that 10 children were raped.  But I suppose it's useless trying to argue this point with people who don't understand what's wrong with this and have consistently made edits only in Israel's favor, barring complete vandalism.--Paraphelion 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed

message: We should add this. Not sure what section though... 
Hello32020 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it to the International Reactions page. --Deenoe 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Report of Attack on Canadians Unconfirmed" 

message: This israeli source talks about "370, mainly civilians": http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279504,00.html. You could add "mainly civilians" up there since also, it can't be seriously said that the "500,000 displaced" can be something else other than mainly civilians anyway. --fs 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible solution to the "civilians" edit war