Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 17

message: I don't mind what figures people want to use for the infobox and main casualties table, but at the moment, they are two different figures. They need to match. Also, we can save some space by either not referencing the infobox casualties because they are already referenced in the main table, or using the "ref name" reference tags to reduce the number of references. However, we can only do that once we've decided what figures we're using. --Iorek85 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Syncing the two tables

message: There has been a huge edit war with the lowest possible figures usually winning through to help a range figure that appears meaningless.  I suggest we believe the Lebanese Health Minister's figures, like for example a week ago when he said the figure is a around 750+ instead of certain members making their own little calculations which is what we have now and ending up then with 577 - 832.
Support or Oppose the Lebanese Health Minister's figures over wiki member's own calculations:
#Support Reaper7 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanese Civilian Casualties 

message: (New discussion so I can archive the old stuff)
I've been doing a news roundup of as many recent sources as I can find.
*Reuters - more than 800 total.
*CNN - more than 750 in Lebanon and Israel.
**CNN - "On Sunday, Lebanese Security Forces said the violence has killed 693 Lebanese, mostly civilians." Just a note TewfikTalk 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it doesn't fit the 'civilian' qualifier for upper limit, we should use this so as not to minimise the count. TewfikTalk 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it is normal for news outlets to adjust their casulty figures one way or another as more information comes in. For example yesterday, the BBC reported that 40 lebanese were killed in a single attack on an apartment complex, yet a few hours later they were forced to concede that the airstrike killed only one individual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC

message: I think this is interesting, and should be added somewhere... but where ?
Observer: Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets 
--imi2 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey, will any of you two place in that suggested section ? --imi2 08:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious how many others here saw that article on the indispensible Antiwar.com, as I did. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did +imi2 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cerejota: "Military Intelligence" exists, although is often filtered, even twisted, to fit a political purpose. MX44 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets 

message: People the article is huge once again... some subsections are back to the size they where when they were turned into subpages, etc etc etc, where can we cut and move?--Cerejota 08:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it now, that Hezbollah actions section is huge! --Iorek85 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. there are not one, but two subpages the info could go into, military operations and timeline. I also think Position of Lebanon, Negotiations for ceasefire, and International reaction, each with subpages, can be shortened to briefer intros.--Cerejota 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should do it sooner or later, most of our current events eventuallly have sub-pages when the main article gets too long. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making summaries is the normal way to proceed. But summaries mustn't exclude valuable information. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Tazmaniacs 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we must summarise with the most important information in the main article. ;) --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size

message: Hi, User:Tazmaniacs in attempting to correct an issue they have with the external links section, has reverted the page back a couple of hours, losing some updates to the main article. Can someone go through and correct this, since I don't want to be accused of 3RR. --Barberio 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page reverted to out of date version. 

message: Looking on the article:
*The use of armor-piercing depleted uranium munitions by the Israeli Defense Forces has been criticised by Amnesty International because some studies suggest that they may pose a significant health risk. 
Looking on the reference:
:8.3 Depleted Uranium Weapons 
:Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal used particularly in armour-piercing ammunition. DU weapons are denser than conventional arms, meaning they can penetrate heavy armour more easily. They burn up on impact, creating a radioactive dust, the effect of which remains the subject of safety debates. Like other heavy metals, DU is toxic and constitutes a health risk independent of any residual radioactivity. 
:AI is calling on governments to consider refraining from the transfer and use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons. There is much controversy over their long-term effects. Some studies suggest that DU dust, which remains in the vicinity of targets struck by DU weapons, poses a significant health risk if inhaled or ingested. AI calls for a moratorium on their use pending authoritative conclusions on their long-term effects on human health and the environment. 
:According to media reports, the USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon.
Unless we have a reference for:
*that USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs (I know, it is easy to find)
*that GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads (Are they?)
*that Israel uses GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs against targets in Lebanon (Who knows?)
We mustn't say that:
*The use of armor-piercing depleted uranium munitions by the Israeli Defense Forces has been criticised by Amnesty International.
There is no proof. 89.0.219.66
UK protests at bomb flights' stop in PrestwickDepleted Uranium in Bunker Busters Quit being such an apologist 89.0.219.66. for death and destruction. Best Wishes Will314159 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It 's better to move this part to "Amnesty International reports"--Sa.vakilian 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually belongs in the environmental damage subsection.  The pollution of the munitions is what makes them remarkable in the context of the conflict, not their use. 82.29.227.171 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Depleted Uranium]] munitions  

message: To quote a comment on the page:  Daaaaaam, That "Bitch got Owned"! --Striver 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: omg

message: Could someone with a login please correct spelling on reference number 2 - it should say "says" not "syas" 67.55.199.6 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo in Reference

message: :I don't know how many of you noticed it, but there's been a report in Jane's Defense Weekly about Iran supplying Hezbollah with more military equipment, should a potential cease-fire develop. 
:http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060807_1_n.shtml
Ruthfulbarbarity 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read it more closely, you'll notice that it their source is "Western diplomatic sources", and that Jane's further down state that the SAMs mentioned have been used by Hezbolla all along, according to the Israeli Air Force. Consequently, it isn't anything new. And there is nothing about "should a potential cease-fire develop" in the article, so that's obviously your POV. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran Supplying Surface-To-Air Missiles To Hezbollah

message: "Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. Therefore, it is innacurate and dangerously misleading to list "Palestine" as one of the countries on the casualty list. A more accurate terminology would be "Palestinian Authority" as the area is under Palestinian Authority rule. However, it is not yet a country. Please make the change accordingly. --160.81.239.98 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. Agree. 89.1.254.24 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Country Error 

message: As of late, some sort of reference template has been used, and as a result many empty fields remain on the page, presumably contributing to the space defecit. Additionally, the numerous separate lines make viewing difs a little harder. Any thoughts? TewfikTalk 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to delete the empty lines, but having each option on its own line makes it MUCH easier to copyedit/debug the text than having it as one long run-on citation. -- Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article is comprised of both European and American schemes. We should pick one and stick with it. As an initial impromptu poll of preference, please sign under which option you prefer. Thank you. -- Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating schema - vote 

message: 2006 Shiyyah airstrike
2006 al-Qaa airstrike 82.29.227.171 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template Update needed

message: What about this one?
 
The image is provided by the iDF, and was released by the IDF spokesperon, as well as the picture we use now. 89.1.205.36 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the picture on the title 

message: Challenged not only by commentators on Hezbollah and their activities but also by HRW who said they found no evidence of this "shielding" in incidents of attacks on civilians they looked into. Just another example of the unbalanced slant this article has adopted. 82.29.227.171 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its better to make a point with sources then just comments. So you may want to provide sources to counter the existing ones and open a conversation about the idea and validity of the sources. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any independant (non-Israeli/Lebanese) sources that can confirm that Hezbollah is currently using human shields in Lebanon during this conflict?  All of the above links seem to indicate that Israeli intelligence is the source for all of the current laims, and that's just horrifyingly biased given the casualty situation.  --Keyne 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a source on the ground who has looked into the claims is probably enough.  Eyewitness testimony supporting the IDF claim is great but without the balance of people who have been in the area and found no evidence of the 'shielding' claim (which exists in spades) its appear as some kind of Hasbara POV. 82.29.227.171 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should post your sources here that claim no use of human shields has been going on then people can look at them and weigh them against the sources stating there is human shielding going on and we can have a discussion and a result. However just stating its not happening and saying eyewitnesses support you does not help elicit a meaningful conversation on the topic. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Brought them up already on the talkpage for civilian areas. Hard to see why the detail on 'human shields' appearing there is duplicated in this article in a pretty unbalanced hasbara POV way. 82.29.227.171 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tone conveys much about your intentions, however feel free to add what you feel is important, other people will judge it and discuss it. Also you may want to post the sources here since you are attempting to have the conversation here. Telling people my sources are somewhere else ... well not many people care to dig for them. I think just to point out some of opposition you will face, most people consider storing weapons in a civilian structure, where civilians still are, as using them as shields. Much like the whole UN outpost thing. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My aim is balance in the article and bringing the slant in the article to the attention of others. I already gave a link to the source of the HRW report which dismisses the 'human shield' myth. Problems with the "the whole UN outpost thing" arose after 6 hours of shelling, despite being told to ceasefire numerous times, the IDF dropped a bomb on the patrol base destroying it. The human shield issue, addressed in the article on targeting civilian areas and duplicated here, is without balance from witnesses & investigators attesting to its falsehood. Dont blame me, I just noticed the imbalance, I didnt edit it like that. 82.29.227.171 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure who is blaming you for anything. However as I said and you seem to not want to, I would in my last reply to you here reccomend bringing your sources here for other to see. HRW may have said there is no human shields but other sources may say otherwise, hence the need for collaboration on topics. Have a good day. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is HRW not reliable enough to be a counter-mention, that Human Shields may not be under the employ of Hezbollah?  --Keyne 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is depending on the date of the reports. If HRW says no, but they said it before any report said yes, then it may not be. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah using civilians as human shields

message: I find this absolutely ridiculous.  Every subsection in the "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section makes little to no mention of Hezbollah and instead focuses exclusively on Israel's actions.
Amnesty international and HRW have BOTH released statements critical of Israel AND Hezbollah, and yet only the criticism of Israel is quoted?  This is blatant POV.
Why is it that all mention of Hezbollah's use of shrapnel-filled warheads, including the two references to this fact, have been removed (one of them being the HRW report on Hezbollah)?  I asume this is POV vandalism, because this was a key point backed up by references, and there was no reason to remove it.
Also, qualifying statements about Nasrallah's assertion that Hezbollah previously only attacked military targets have also been removed.  Instead, it appears as though Nasrallah's quote is taken as truth.  And yet similar assertions quoted from Israeli sources are surrounded by equivocal wording obviously meant to cast doubt on their veracity.
I do not have much time to fix these problems now, but they should nonetheless be fixed.
Last week this article actually had some semblance of NPOV, but has quickly degenrated back into volleys of POV vandalism from either side. --Uncanny Marbles 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be true. You are invited to contribute and discuss any sources you have. -- Szvest 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many editors just doing what they want when they want. No discussion, just deletion/rearranging to suit their POV. Article is a mess quite frankly. 82.29.227.171 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section is completely POV 

message: Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict|Request for Arbitration on WP:EL-Links and Images]]