Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 7

message: ===Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc.===
In most (if not all) Wikipedia battle and military operation articles damaged and sunk warships are mentioned (of course only when sufficient information about such casualties is available). Just check for instance: Battle of Taranto and Attack on Pearl Harbor. War articles however do not always mention such casualties, see for instance: World War II or Falklands War. Nevertheless do even some war articles report about damaged/destroyed tanks, planes and ships, such as: Yom Kippur War. As this is still considered a battle/operation article, damaged warships should be mentioned. It's open for discussion once it's considered a war. (I actually think they are seldom mentioned in war articles, simply because information is not available or reliable) Sijo Ripa 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. (1) most of the times accurate information is not available, which explains why such casualties are not always mentioned. (2)The argument of navy battles (which you used on my talk page) is not appropriate either as the Yum Kippur war was mostly a ground war. (3) equipment losses are in conflicts and wars often more significant than human casualties as such (in tactical/startegic terms). I don't object a separate listing in the infobox, but please do not remove it from the infobox itself. Sijo Ripa 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm hearing Hassan Nasrallah or a spokesperson for Hezbollah is claiming 4 Hezbollah deaths - I'm urgently trying to find a source, it's just a shame NPR hasn't web-posted it yet, but they have spoken of it on the radio. Can we trust news organizations trusting Hezbollah to give out accurate numbers of their own casualties? Ranieldule 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: However there are sources that do specify civilian death tolls of over half that number, but of course that source has been removed and now you and others for some reason would rather forget that piece of information, which presents the infobox as one particular side as the only one to have civilians killed.--Paraphelion 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those should be cited in conjunction with the infobox text, then. Nysin 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casualties

message: In most (if not all) Wikipedia battle and military operation articles damaged and sunk warships are mentioned (of course only when sufficient information about such casualties is available). Just check for instance: Battle of Taranto and Attack on Pearl Harbor. War articles however do not always mention such casualties, see for instance: World War II or Falklands War. Nevertheless do even some war articles report about damaged/destroyed tanks, planes and ships, such as: Yom Kippur War. As this is still considered a battle/operation article, damaged warships should be mentioned. It's open for discussion once it's considered a war. (I actually think they are seldom mentioned in war articles, simply because information is not available or reliable) Sijo Ripa 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. (1) most of the times accurate information is not available, which explains why such casualties are not always mentioned. (2)The argument of navy battles (which you used on my talk page) is not appropriate either as the Yum Kippur war was mostly a ground war. (3) equipment losses are in conflicts and wars often more significant than human casualties as such (in tactical/startegic terms). I don't object a separate listing in the infobox, but please do not remove it from the infobox itself. Sijo Ripa 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc.

message: No reference is given for the claimed "4 Hezbollah Deaths" in the infobox [UPDATE: Ok, somebody added a "no reliable source" to the infobox]. This claim can be found later in the article (search for "Four Hezbollah") with a reference, but the reference does not mention anything about Hezbollah deaths [UPDATE: This problem still remains]. This does not appear to be a case of the site changing the story that the reference links to since the title of the reference in the wikipedia article is the same as the site's title for their article.
(I think 2 of these deaths took place during two failed infiltration attempts.)
For that matter, the same problem exists with the claimed "3 Lebanese Soldiers", also in the infobox.
Whatever the previous total of Lebanese soldier deaths was, my intention is to increase it by 8 due to the following very recent story on aljazeera.net: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4BA16706-0A31-4524-ACE6-FD3420939327.htm.
Anyone know about the existing numbers? --srostami 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm hearing Hassan Nasrallah or a spokesperson for Hezbollah is claiming 4 Hezbollah deaths - I'm urgently trying to find a source, it's just a shame NPR hasn't web-posted it yet, but they have spoken of it on the radio. Can we trust news organizations trusting Hezbollah to give out accurate numbers of their own casualties? Ranieldule 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah casualties

message: Can we please be careful when labeling casualties civilians? The current Lebanese civilian casualty count is based off a Reuters article which says "He said more than 300 people had been killed and 1,000 wounded in the eight-day-old Israeli assault." The article does not specify civilians. As a result, neither should Wikipedia. It's that simple really. Bibigon 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However there are sources that do specify civilian death tolls of over half that number, but of course that source has been removed and now you and others for some reason would rather forget that piece of information, which presents the infobox as one particular side as the only one to have civilians killed.--Paraphelion 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those should be cited in conjunction with the infobox text, then. Nysin 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanese casualties

message: ===Terminology between rocket and missile===
I think we should use rocket only.  A missile is something with intended target...more technological.  A rocket is more sensical, because they are just shooting them over...there is no intended target beside the a city.  Kind of shooting off a bottle rocket...you can't come close to pin pointing it.
And a more accurate assesment of a missle is percision guided...these rockets aren't precision guided.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - the term is rocket. What Hezbollah is using was originally developed by the Soviets during World War II. They were either truck-mounted or on towed cassions. These rockets were not guided but intended to be fired in salvos of hundreds of rockets and used to totally soften up some sector of the German lines that Soviets would then charge thru with Tanks and infantry.  Firing them in a couple at a time is really more of a nuisance (terror weapon) than an actual tactical weapon. In a way, their very inaccuracy is unnerving to the Israelis - "where will the next one land."  That the Israeli army feels no threat at all from them, is clear when you see the Israeli IDF pilling up palot after palot of 155 shells with NO overhead protection - with point detonating fuses (geesh that's dangeous - you can set one off with a hammer) literally screwed into the projectiles.  Also you see the wooden boxes carrying the propellant - itself highly explosive, just sitting out in the open.  All these practices would be suicidal if the IDF felt there was even the remotest possibility of enemy return (counter-battery) fire.  I've even seen photos of Israeli kids writing "death to Hezbollah" on the projectiles with markers - Incredible! I'm a retired US Marine Artillery officer and I know this is kind of nuts.  Almost reckless. SimonATL 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about weapon types

message: I think we should use rocket only.  A missile is something with intended target...more technological.  A rocket is more sensical, because they are just shooting them over...there is no intended target beside the a city.  Kind of shooting off a bottle rocket...you can't come close to pin pointing it.
And a more accurate assesment of a missle is percision guided...these rockets aren't precision guided.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - the term is rocket. What Hezbollah is using was originally developed by the Soviets during World War II. They were either truck-mounted or on towed cassions. These rockets were not guided but intended to be fired in salvos of hundreds of rockets and used to totally soften up some sector of the German lines that Soviets would then charge thru with Tanks and infantry.  Firing them in a couple at a time is really more of a nuisance (terror weapon) than an actual tactical weapon. In a way, their very inaccuracy is unnerving to the Israelis - "where will the next one land."  That the Israeli army feels no threat at all from them, is clear when you see the Israeli IDF pilling up palot after palot of 155 shells with NO overhead protection - with point detonating fuses (geesh that's dangeous - you can set one off with a hammer) literally screwed into the projectiles.  Also you see the wooden boxes carrying the propellant - itself highly explosive, just sitting out in the open.  All these practices would be suicidal if the IDF felt there was even the remotest possibility of enemy return (counter-battery) fire.  I've even seen photos of Israeli kids writing "death to Hezbollah" on the projectiles with markers - Incredible! I'm a retired US Marine Artillery officer and I know this is kind of nuts.  Almost reckless. SimonATL 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology between rocket and missile

message: Wikipedia is warning that the size of the article is too big. I suggest we find ways to fix it. I would begin by moving all info besides an introductory paragraph from the "International Reactions" section into the main article for that. Also maybe two new subpages, one on attacks on ISrael another on Lebanon might be in order. Support, objections? 
Please keep in mind that what we want is to reduce article size without reducing article or information quality.--Cerejota 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: Operation specific information on Operation Truthful Promise, Operation Just Reward. and Operation Change of Direction would be more appropriate in my opinion as to ensure article length considerations, and as to ensure ease of reading and full information on the Operations. 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the section "Possible expansion and resolution", I agree that it should be deleted, since we shouldn't speculate. That section also contains paragraphs that strays from its subject, such as "The situation is further complicated by the thousands of foreign nationals who are stranded in the country. Although at least 15,000 tourists and Lebanese citizens fled via road into Syria on 13 July, an Israeli strike on that road has now made travel into or out of the country much more difficult." (The evacuation is already being discussed at two other places in the article.) There are some things I think should be somewhere in the article, for example Syria backing up Hezbollah, and Iran backing up both Hezbollah and Syria. And the talks about ceasefire, in the subsection "Proposed ceasefire" should of course remain in some form.  --Battra 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Sub Articles

message: I understand that we are trying to keep the article short, but non-coverage of the Hezbollah rocket attacks makes creates a twisted perspective on the events. I am going to restore some of the removed information in the interest of balance and NPOV. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you mean? Are you sure they weren't removed to Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? --Cerejota 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been, but the main conflict article makes one passing comment on what is a major component of the hostilities. I don't have time to do it now, though someone should. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah campaign

message: I have no problem with it stretching back to 1948, etc, but I have reneged on my promise to edit because I cannot find a way to reduce it that still makes sense, and in time to not get an edit conflict. 
It HAS to be shortened, I think we must agree on this. I mean, by choosing one storyline on background over the other we are dangerously approaching POV,  but if on top of that all that we are doing in citing other wiki pages, then why not just go out and out and do it?
This is what I suggest: either we rewrite it to make it shorter, or come up with a minimal paragraph or two pointing at specific events, and then linking to seealso's. If we have done it with Hezbollah, I think we can do it here.--Cerejota 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Background

message: ====The editor of http://pixane.net/blog/====
Claims that his blog isn't frontline when he said : "Amusing, since I’m far from being frontline" in his "Frontline?" Issue. I will remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
====Russian====
A person who browses English Wikipedia most likely doesn't know Russian; therefore the link to a Russian website is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
====Free Lebanon: WTF?====
What the hell is "Free Lebanon", why is it quoted in an encyclopedia article, and why do its press releases sound like they were copied and pasted from a 13-year-old's blog? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs).
====Robert Fisk====
I removed this from the article - not sure as to the relevance. TewfikTalk 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance?

message: I removed this from the article - not sure as to the relevance. TewfikTalk 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Fisk

message: Okay, this is it. In te article and related article are three are used. Yet only one its true (or truthful, he-he). So why dont fetch the arabic original term, request some arab speakers with near dual fluency in english, or even better translators, and get this one settled.
Once we do, lets freaking get it together and for qualities sake edit the thing all across the boad with just one name... how about that?
--Cerejota 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Truthful Promise" is what Daily Star of Beirut translates it as, and they are probably better in translating Arabic than most Western news agencies. Also, if you Google the various expressions, "Operation Truthful Promise" gets four times as many hits as "True Promise". I've now changed the one "True" to "Truthful", so there shouldn't be any variants anymore, as "Fulfilled" disappeared some time ago. Thomas Blomberg 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! it might still exist in some of the related pages (Military operations, timeline, and international reactions) so lets check that!--Cerejota 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Truthful/True/Fulfilled Promise?

message: ===Requests===
The article is very informative, and amazingly short, considering how long the discussion page is.  But, is there a map of the land practically held by the Hezbollah's?  I checked the Hezbollah's page in Wiki and there is no map there?  I would appreciate it.  Bptdude 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't want to overlap with the second map illustrating the rocket-attacks in Israel, if you follow somewhat the format of the previous maps and incorporate some conflict zone, then please extend it to the current reach of those rockets (I can supply further information if you like), which would require extending the map a few cm south. Other key features are the Israeli blockade of Lebanese ports (Beirut, Tripoli, etc.) as well as bombing of various airports (Beirut, Rayak) and the highway to Damascus. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice map. I'd love to see what you can do for this article! --Falcorian (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We already have a page for that Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. You could make an infobox with the known strike, althought I think it could get unwieldly. We already have an infobox showing casualties.--Cerejota 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: The article is very informative, and amazingly short, considering how long the discussion page is.  But, is there a map of the land practically held by the Hezbollah's?  I checked the Hezbollah's page in Wiki and there is no map there?  I would appreciate it.  Bptdude 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests

message: I'm just gonna go ahead and say it.  The map of the Arab-Israeli Conflict in the scond infobox looks like poop. It's beyond blurry so as to provide little to no information to anyone coming wanting to learn about this important topic.  It should be fixed or reverted to the old map.  Njjones 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict

message: Hello, I am hereby volunteering for map-making, here is an example. I will consider the outstanding requests and see what I can do tomorrow. KWH 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't want to overlap with the second map illustrating the rocket-attacks in Israel, if you follow somewhat the format of the previous maps and incorporate some conflict zone, then please extend it to the current reach of those rockets (I can supply further information if you like), which would require extending the map a few cm south. Other key features are the Israeli blockade of Lebanese ports (Beirut, Tripoli, etc.) as well as bombing of various airports (Beirut, Rayak) and the highway to Damascus. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice map. I'd love to see what you can do for this article! --Falcorian (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Volunteer

message: I'm trying to go through the notes of all members or contributors here, but it's not quite clear and I'm confused of how is it possible to update the map. I am more than open to editing it and make it fit into the information, facts and representation issues. So please sum up what you'll be needing to add, substract or change for the map and I'll be more than happy to edit it for you. And I would take the suggestion by members mostly NOT anonymous contributors. -- Omernos 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Update

message: What do people think about creating a list of all locations in Israel and Lebanon hit as a seperate article, and linking it from here?  Ideally we should have a table and map showing the break down of all known strikes and casualties, if we can keep up with the news that is. Dsol 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a page for that Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. You could make an infobox with the known strike, althought I think it could get unwieldly. We already have an infobox showing casualties.--Cerejota 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: list of locations hit?

message: ==== Image:Marwahin.jpg ====
where does Image:Marwahin.jpg come from?  It does not appear in the linked BBC article.  I have no problem with graphic images but at present we have no idea where this image comes from, who the people are, when and how they were killed, or whether there are any copyright issues.  These all need to be adressed or cannot be used.  Dsol 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they are almost certainly from Lebanon -- it's a hallmark of war that this sort of stuff becomes as common as spit.  You can peruse more at http://fromisrael2lebanon.com/ and similar (http://www.cryptome.org is also hosting daily selections, with his usual acerbic commentary).  The images, however, are likely to be news agency "rip offs";  I recognize several at the fromisrael2lebanon.com site that were distributed by AP.  mdf 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say they are almost certainly from Lebanon if they don't even have any sources given?  They could just as easily be from Iraq, or they could just be older pictures from other violent outbursts.  No source information means we can't say anything for sure about them.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bayesian inference.  Notwithstanding, it is likely the problem of provenance will be solved when the copyright is worked out.  mdf 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After f/b from Cyde, I double checked the provenance of these photos. They are from the attack on civilian families at Marwahin (Macleans has the story and one of the images), but one is from the Associated Press, and therefore therefore I expect that the others are too, and thus copyrighted. AdamKesher 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely can't use them if they were don't know for sure, and anyway, who wants to get involved in a propaganda edit war? Leave the gruesome pictures out of it.  If you must, get a picture of a missile that hit its target, like a building or something. -Preposterous 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved here to keep discussion together Ryanuk 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: where does Image:Marwahin.jpg come from?  It does not appear in the linked BBC article.  I have no problem with graphic images but at present we have no idea where this image comes from, who the people are, when and how they were killed, or whether there are any copyright issues.  These all need to be adressed or cannot be used.  Dsol 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they are almost certainly from Lebanon -- it's a hallmark of war that this sort of stuff becomes as common as spit.  You can peruse more at http://fromisrael2lebanon.com/ and similar (http://www.cryptome.org is also hosting daily selections, with his usual acerbic commentary).  The images, however, are likely to be news agency "rip offs";  I recognize several at the fromisrael2lebanon.com site that were distributed by AP.  mdf 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say they are almost certainly from Lebanon if they don't even have any sources given?  They could just as easily be from Iraq, or they could just be older pictures from other violent outbursts.  No source information means we can't say anything for sure about them.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bayesian inference.  Notwithstanding, it is likely the problem of provenance will be solved when the copyright is worked out.  mdf 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After f/b from Cyde, I double checked the provenance of these photos. They are from the attack on civilian families at Marwahin (Macleans has the story and one of the images), but one is from the Associated Press, and therefore therefore I expect that the others are too, and thus copyrighted. AdamKesher 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely can't use them if they were don't know for sure, and anyway, who wants to get involved in a propaganda edit war? Leave the gruesome pictures out of it.  If you must, get a picture of a missile that hit its target, like a building or something. -Preposterous 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved here to keep discussion together Ryanuk 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Marwahin.jpg 

message: Can we please find a photo of Nasrallah?  Using a photo of a billboard is inappropriate for a few reasons, including 1) it is a photo of a painting, and therefore it's accuracy is suspect. and 2) the painting used is a glorification billboard commonly seen in the middle-east and to use it as Wikipedia's sole representation of the man violates the article's neutral POV.  This image is so glorifying, he practically looks deified.
If there was a normal photo of the man at the top with a caption of his name, and then lower down there was an image of this billboard explaining about where the billboard was and about these forms of propaganda - that would be fine.
--Drewson99 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper photo of Nasrallah