Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 5

message: #If you update the number of casualties, please add citations, as diffrent sources report different numbers, and the number changes as the time passes. Also, can anyone confirm the 10 children noted on the page? Even arab Al-Jazeera isn't reporting that. --darkskyz 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the Lebanese government can't possibly tell the truth in casualty reporting because the information just isn't available to them--or to anyone else. Recognizing that obvious fact isn't bias. There's simply nobody who can communicate with all of the hospitals and rescue workers in Lebanon, much less the untracked refugees, after the Israeli attacks. So the best anyone can offer is an estimate. It has nothing to do with "us" vs. "other". Falcotron 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use Citations + Disclaimer

message: If there is, as one person stated, no way to tell the difference between a militant and a soldier, then they should definately not be combined under one category entitled "militants and civilians". This clearly distorts that level of civilians who may have been civilians. Since no such categorisation is added to the Israeli side (nor should there be), it should not be on the Lebanese section. I am removing this categorisation and reverting back to "1 militant" and 55 civilians killed. I assume someone found a reference when they put the original claim of one militant killed. There is no justification to label 55 civilians as possible militants. Do we label civilians in israel who may be a member of the IDF (due conscription and reserves) a soldier? No, of course not.
: Israel separately counts casualties of civilians and military personnel. Since Hezbollah hides its deathtoll, it is clear that it's included in the Lebanese deathtoll. In simple words, if you write that 55 civilians were killed, you have to source it. Otherwise, it's 55 Lebanese killed. --Lior 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should err on the side of caution and presume they are civilians unless shown otherwise. Andrew Riddles 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deaths in conflict

message: The number of casualties in the fact box is being changed constantly, both because of some people thinking it is funny to change them, and because different sources are used. What sources should be used? In my opinion, the best would be newsagencies like Reuters, AP, AFP, or official sites of Israel and Lebanon in english if that exists.
At the moment the reference used for the number of killed lebanese civialians has disappered. Some hour ago the fact box said 147 i think, now it says 99. AFP says 129. 
--Battra 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 500 Israelis injured with 10 dead, compared to 268 Lebanese residents injured and 148 killed? I really doubt the veracity of that injury figure. How are Hizbollah approximately 30 times better at causing injuries than the IDF?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by unknown user (talk • contribs).
We need to find something better or remove it... 130.195.86.38 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah somebody needs to confront the 500 Israeli injuries, with more credibility other than an Israeli newspaper. Should we revert it back to what it originall was. In the following BBC Article written on Friday it says "dozens injured" referring to Israelis.[]W123 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well. the sentence that disappeared had not been removed, it just doesn't appear because of some bug. I'll see if I can fix it. --213.65.178.172 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have written about the 500 Israeli injury figure elsewhere here.  I don't think it's fair to have an injury figure for Lebanon and not one for Israel when we have sources for both.--Paraphelion 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also regarding who is to say what constitutes a casualty.. we are taking fatality numbers from these sources - why not take injury numbers?--Paraphelion 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The infobox should contain the most important information, and it is best that it do not contain information about neither Israeli nor Lebanese injuries (the reason has been mentioned by me and by IanOfNorwich above). On the other hand, the number of injured should be mentioned in the casualties section. --213.65.178.172 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for the number of casualties

message: In the "Casualties: Foreign nationals" section:
"A Sri Lankan maid of a Lebanese family was killed in an Israeli bombing.[1]
One Iraqi was killed by Israeli bombing.[1]"
The only information given in the source()  about these casualties is "Among the civilian deaths are 8 Canadians, 2 Kuwaiti nationals, 1 Iraqi, 1 Sri Lankan, 1 Jordanian, police have reported." The article does not mention that the Sri Lankan was a maid of Lebanese family, nor does it mention that either of these casualties are caused by "Israeli bombing".
A better source is required.--70.49.109.180 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of casualties not clear in source 

message: I am disturbed that the article currently lists about 200 Lebanese killed, and 'further people injured', while there have been 13 Israeli civilians killed and a further 500 civilians injured. It gives me the impression that the toll on Israel has been much larger, seeing that number 500 against the Lebanese 200. However, given that the numbers refer to injuries vs. deaths, it seems misleading, as there have most likely been far more Lebanese injuries. Considering that there have been reputable sources of estimated Lebanese injuries, I think it important that these be included in the article, even if the numbers are stated to be estimates. Especially as the 500 cited is also probably an estimate. Or, to give balance to the article, perhaps the number of Israeli injuries could be removed. - Aaronwinborn 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further people have been injured. 

message: Earlier today the killed figure for the Lebanese was "283" and now it is "300+", have we lost count? Surely it should be yesterday's figure plus the number killed today. The numbers aren't that big.--Manc ill kid 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losting count of Lebanese casualties 

message: Just a heads-up: The reuters link for van incident, where fleeing villagers were hit and 12 were killed, is broken. Since the other two sources for this are an Arab site and a site in German, we should make the effort to fix that link62.0.125.178 07:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Van Incident

message: ===Fajr-7 missile===
This is the missile Israel claims was used in the attack on Haifa. There is no article on it at the moment, so I set out to create one. However, I am having trouble finding information on any missile by that name, beyond the reports of it being used against Haifa. Theres plenty of information about a Fajr 3 rocket around. Is it possible the designation is wrong? Damburger 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Designation is probably wrong, as we're only familiar with Fajr 3 and Fajr 5, probably both capable of hitting Haifa. In fact, I have found no Israeli sources for a Fajr 7. Some Israeli news sources claim it's no Fajr, but the same kind of rocket hitting other Israeli towns (Raad or Katyusha or something). Personally, I think it's another exaggeration of Fox news. --Lior 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't paid to think though. I'm creating a page on the Fajr 7 anyway, hopefully if the issue clears up the relevant information can be added there. I'd appreciate any help with this page that people can offer. We can only add to the wikipedia what the news organisations are reporting, even if it is nonsensical. Damburger 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have to create a wiki article for every weapon system mentioned in American blogosphere, wikimedia would have to raise my salary by 30% once more. We're into citing *reliable* sources. The Hotair post doesn't mention Fajrs, and the PeaceWatch post  only says Hezbollah has these Fajr-7 rockets. If a non-Israeli news source claims that Fajr-7 is "the missile Israel claims was used", I expect some Israeli source to say the same. This is not to say, of course, that Israeli sources are more reliable than others. --Lior 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The weapon system was apparantly mentioned on Fox News, and also by a thinktank cited in the Fajr 7 article I created. I agree its likely they got the name of the weapon wrong given that the Fajr 3 was only tested in March, but as I said until better information comes along we should just present what is being given out by the media, albeit with qualification. I'll have a look at changing the wording to reflect this. Damburger 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. Do note that the NTI source you provided  talks of a series of military exercises titled Fajr-#, not of rockets bearing those names. There is no reason to believe that a guided missile have hit Haifa, rather than a ballistic rocket. On top of all that, the impact crater seems too mild to result from a 333 mm rocket. Then again, if they said so in the news, it's wiki worthy. Cheers. --Lior 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the links on the page Fajr 7 is to the military exercise, the other references missiles by that name possibly being moved into Southern Lebanon (which ties in quite strongly with whats been reported about this incident). If you want to discuss this further can we move it to the talk page for Fajr 7? Damburger 11:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. --Lior 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Hebrew article you mentioned currently asserts Hezbollah made no use of its Fajr rockets. Google News found only one Israeli news source speaking of Fajr 7. This source says the following: "...Hezbollah spokesperson denied that his organization has fired missiles towards Haifa. Nevertheless they report that the missile fired towards Haifa is a Fajr 7 with a diameter of 336 mm, capable of carrying a 100 kg warhhead."        Please have a look at the photos provided in this link. My untrained eyes assert this is no 336 mm rocket. Just compare it to the shoes near it. I can't tell whether it's 107, 122 or 152 mm, but 336 mm it certainly ain't. I think we can close the argument and remove the Fajr-7 speculation, but it's really up to you. --Lior 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the funding source of the Israeli rockets and equipment.  Where does Hezbollah get thier funds for weapons.  I have read that their source of funding for military equipment and other non-military articles comes from the country of Iran.
The missiles used by Hezbollah are Fagr (Dawn) type and Raad-2 and -3 (Thunderous Roar-2 and -3) type. Cionist army says the actualy Haifa missiles were of the Fagr type, but Hezbollah said in press release that only Raad-2 and -3 was used. Raad is very new type, the first ones were made in 2004 in Iran. One unguided missile hit a big oil drum in the oil refinery of Haia and one other missile hit the railway waggons depot, which is very nearby. The depot missile hit killed eight or nine people. Photo of the aftermath is here: http://index.hu/cikkepek/0607/kulfold/lebanon0716//.gdata/gp_11.jpg
===What rocket type has hit the Israeli navy vessel?===
Does anyone have any information regarding the type of weapon used? Apparently its a missile.... but guided....? Ryanuk 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Haaretz is reporting it was hit by an explosives-laden drone.  --darkskyz 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CNN reports that it was a missile, not a drone hittinh the ship  89.138.118.113 10:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is sourced from the IDF, if it was a missile, surely it was guided somehow? At least when we thought it was a drone, that explained how it was so accurate. This is alittle strange, does anyone have any information on this? Ryanuk 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone has added to the main article that a Silkworm_missile was used in the attack. However i see no citations for this..... That is one hell of a missile to ship to Lebanon Ryanuk 11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ynet says it was an Iranian missile called C802."A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile". Máfiàg 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is referred to as "an Iranian missile," it is unclear whether that means supplied or produced. The C802 designation is included though, so perhaps that can be looked up. Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it give a source for that and is it before or after the CNN?  Not sure what to do.. combine both sources some how?  Note that the CNN source also covers the Haifa missiles and says that Israeli military says that the Haifa missiles are Iranian-made.  One of the other links , is about that type of missile in general and implies that the C802 is Chinese-made. --Paraphelion 08:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: China designed the missile, Iran produces them under license. 167.24.104.150 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about weapon types

message: Does anyone have any information regarding the type of weapon used? Apparently its a missile.... but guided....? Ryanuk 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaretz is reporting it was hit by an explosives-laden drone.  --darkskyz 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CNN reports that it was a missile, not a drone hittinh the ship  89.138.118.113 10:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is sourced from the IDF, if it was a missile, surely it was guided somehow? At least when we thought it was a drone, that explained how it was so accurate. This is alittle strange, does anyone have any information on this? Ryanuk 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone has added to the main article that a Silkworm_missile was used in the attack. However i see no citations for this..... That is one hell of a missile to ship to Lebanon Ryanuk 11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ynet says it was an Iranian missile called C802."A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile". Máfiàg 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is referred to as "an Iranian missile," it is unclear whether that means supplied or produced. The C802 designation is included though, so perhaps that can be looked up. Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it give a source for that and is it before or after the CNN?  Not sure what to do.. combine both sources some how?  Note that the CNN source also covers the Haifa missiles and says that Israeli military says that the Haifa missiles are Iranian-made.  One of the other links , is about that type of missile in general and implies that the C802 is Chinese-made. --Paraphelion 08:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: China designed the missile, Iran produces them under license. 167.24.104.150 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What rocket type has hit the Israeli navy vessel?

message: Most major news articles mention Katyusha rockets, but this articles consistently says 9K51 Grad rockets are being fired by Hezbollah. These look like distinctly different systems. Were is the citation for the 9K51 Grad rockets? --MarsRover 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Katyusha or 9K51 Grad?

message: ===Media===
On Larry King Live Newt Gingrich called this World War III, with Senator McCain agreeing to a certain extent. Perhaps a mention of media coverage and terminology somewhere? Media is going to play a huge part in this. Frinkahedr0n 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about whether it is a war

message: On Larry King Live Newt Gingrich called this World War III, with Senator McCain agreeing to a certain extent. Perhaps a mention of media coverage and terminology somewhere? Media is going to play a huge part in this. Frinkahedr0n 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media

message: ===Casus belli and Hezbollah raid===
Most of the articles say 8 killed and two captured in the raid. This page says 3 kills.
: In the initial raid, three soldiers were killed. When Israeli troops entered Lebanon on the tracks of the abducted/captured soldiers, a tank hit a land mine. The four crew memebers are currently defined as MIA, but I think that it is safe to say that they are dead. In the attempt to extricate the bodies from the tank and bring them back to Israel for burial, a further soldier was killed. This makes a total of eight.
: The reason that there was such a fast attempt to bring the bodies of the tank crew back was two-fold. Firstly, Judaism (and also Islam) requires a speedy burial. Secondly, Israel was worried that Hezbollah would take the bodies and use them as bargaining counters. Cymruisrael 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was on my vandalism watchlist and I reverted b/c it was unexplained in the edit summary (sorry about reverting so quick). In any case, on the merits, it seems like the alleged ransom was integral to Hezbollah's purpose, so it should remain. Still, I'll probably defer to regular editors of this page on this point.--Chaser T 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do rephrase it then yourself if you won't let others do it. From the current phrasing it can be understood that the 'prisoners' were transported in the attacked humvees, which is not the case.87.69.70.61 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And to prevent the supply of weapons to Hezbollah, who are using missiles to deliberately target civilians. Yes. But primarily for (and would not have happened but for) the kidnappings. Xtra 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats what the Israeli officials said, so yes. But we can add something like "but person a suspects that they have wider goals there", if we have that person a of course. --Jadelith 08:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am inclined to agree.  After the response of Israel in Gaza to a nearly identical provocation just a week or so earlier, it is disingenuous to suggest that Hezbollah was expecting anything less than a military response when they did the same thing. The casus belli is the incursion and capture of Israeli military personnel, period. Fishhead64 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. TewfikTalk 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

message: Most of the articles say 8 killed and two captured in the raid. This page says 3 kills.
: In the initial raid, three soldiers were killed. When Israeli troops entered Lebanon on the tracks of the abducted/captured soldiers, a tank hit a land mine. The four crew memebers are currently defined as MIA, but I think that it is safe to say that they are dead. In the attempt to extricate the bodies from the tank and bring them back to Israel for burial, a further soldier was killed. This makes a total of eight.
: The reason that there was such a fast attempt to bring the bodies of the tank crew back was two-fold. Firstly, Judaism (and also Islam) requires a speedy burial. Secondly, Israel was worried that Hezbollah would take the bodies and use them as bargaining counters. Cymruisrael 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was on my vandalism watchlist and I reverted b/c it was unexplained in the edit summary (sorry about reverting so quick). In any case, on the merits, it seems like the alleged ransom was integral to Hezbollah's purpose, so it should remain. Still, I'll probably defer to regular editors of this page on this point.--Chaser T 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do rephrase it then yourself if you won't let others do it. From the current phrasing it can be understood that the 'prisoners' were transported in the attacked humvees, which is not the case.87.69.70.61 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus belli and Hezbollah raid

message: The opening paragraph says that the purpose of the Israeli operation is "to free the captured soldiers".  Is that accurate?  Or is the purpose to punish Lebanon and/or Hezbollah for capturing them in the first place?
William Jockusch 07:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to prevent the supply of weapons to Hezbollah, who are using missiles to deliberately target civilians. Yes. But primarily for (and would not have happened but for) the kidnappings. Xtra 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats what the Israeli officials said, so yes. But we can add something like "but person a suspects that they have wider goals there", if we have that person a of course. --Jadelith 08:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of the operation

message: "U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants.  Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.  For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.  For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say...."  From today's Washington Post.  This should be mentioned in the article appropriately.  --Ben Houston 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500957_pf.html WashPost:Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy]

message: How is the Israeli retaliation part of the Casus Belli?  For the past few days it's been good enough for the Hezbollah raid to cause this conflict.  I'm afraid trying to be super NPOV has caused us to to miss the meaning of Casus Belli.  It should be changed back.  Also why was the decision made to split up the actors of Lebanon and Hezbollah.  I know the Lebanese government would love to rout out the militants but I've yet to hear reports to the contrary that the Lebanese military is fighting Hezbollah.  The new layout makes it seem like each party is fighting each other, when there have been no reports to back this up.  This should also be changed back. Njjones 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree.  After the response of Israel in Gaza to a nearly identical provocation just a week or so earlier, it is disingenuous to suggest that Hezbollah was expecting anything less than a military response when they did the same thing. The casus belli is the incursion and capture of Israeli military personnel, period. Fishhead64 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. TewfikTalk 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in Casus Belli

message: ===Introductory Paragraph===
This is garbage:
"The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of military actions in Lebanon and northern Israel. On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah initiated their Operation Truthful Promise[10]; Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward [11], later renamed Operation Change of Direction.[12]"
What kind of descriptive opening paragraph is that?  Having read that introductory paragraph, can I walk away able to define in any way what the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is?  And what's with all the bold type?
Outlining the topic description in the opening paragraph by lacing it with the various designations of the military operations is not encyclopedic.  It is essentially jargon, albeit very colorful jargon, and does not plainly define the topic.  It's overly sensationalistic, colorful, distracting, and confusing.  While these may have a place as relevant descriptive information somewhere, they should not be jammed into the opening three sentences of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in this way. Someone needs to rewrite --Leaf2001br 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight more during a dawn raid termed Operation Truthful Promise.
Some of this should be in the article, but not right in the middle of the lead. TewfikTalk 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is written at the begining of article that Hezbollah called the operation "Operation Truthful Promise". What is the promise? Why did they attack Israel?
When you remove "Few weeks ago Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would carry out further operations at a later date to gain the release of the remaining Lebanese prisoners like involving Rafiq Yehia Skaf, Nassim Nisr and Samir Kuntar who are jailed in Israel for several years.[30] " from the begining nobody finds the answer of these questions. If this part "The attacks came two weeks after the beginning of the Gaza-focused Operation Summer Rains whose objective was to free the soldier Gilad Shalit captured by local militants in an earlier cross-border attack organized by Hamas. Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured." relates to the lead of the article , the reason of attack absolutly relates.--Sa.vakilian 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing as the conflict does not look like it is going to end quickly Restructure Article to be timeline based over the current format mcwiggin 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Once the crisis ends (or evolves into something else) a more content-based division of the article could be used. Sijo Ripa 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is significantly worse than the Operation Summer Rains article, which I think is a rather good read due to its structure. No offense to anyone, but this article has not come together well so far with the constant allegations of bias of POV, along with the constant removal of facts from the Infobox. But I think this would be a good way to work give the article some flow - a chronological order like that of Operation Summer Rains. Than perhaps this can be brought into a higher order of articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about staring to put it together at 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Timeline? -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same thing. Its good to have citations and references but this is sort of getting out of hand. sikander 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does wikipedia have a set way to hide footnotes? Frinkahedr0n 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are way too many footnotes to begin with.  it is kind of a slippery slope when people disagree with a point, back and forth, and they just list the "prove-it!"/ "sources" comment to the sentence.  and this kind of bickering keeps happening back and forth, even though many of these sources can be found together in a single article.  it seems kind of repetitive and annoying/excessive.  i put one of the footnotes in as an answer to a "needs sources" request, although i dont think it was needed in actuality, with all of the sources already listed at the bottom, i think it was about 100 at the time i did it, now it's 30% or 40% more than that.  sorry about the rant, it just seems like there needs to be some kind of checks and balances about that issue... --72.20.207.29 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really worth touching the references at the moment. Once the conflict is resolved and interest in the article dies down, the references can be condensed. Hiding them seems a good compromise for now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, why didn't you fix the four grammatical mistakes, and improve the article?  We don't have any policy around here saying editors need to be entirely confident of their ability to write in near-flawless English.  The editors contributing to the article with flawed English are doing far more to improve the article than you just did.  Tempshill 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I even think there is a Wikipedia policy called "the joy of editing": no one has to be a perfect writer or needs to have the best expertise. As long as someone can add something valuable, his/her contribution is appreciated. (Note also that almost every article has its importance - you could very well argue that only native speakers have the right to contribute on this Wikipedia). If this article would be written by native speakers only, I think the systemic bias (POV) would be much more pervasive. I also think that this page would never have reached the same size. Don't forget that most Wikipedia language communities often translate  (parts of) the English page, which wrongly gives the impression that each language community can reach an equally large page on its own. Just contribute and fix those errors. :-) Sijo Ripa 10:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In the time that it took to tell us you found four mistakes, you could have fixed them and probably more.  Stop bragging about spotting mistakes and start fixing mistakes.--Smallwhitelight 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. So, deleted. --Cerejota 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Regarding the evacuaton efforts, there is a discussion about that under "Reported Events/Supposed Events".--Battra 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: fixed.--Cerejota 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, looks like it was fixed. Dunno what happened. Frinkahedr0n 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

message: This is garbage:
"The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of military actions in Lebanon and northern Israel. On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah initiated their Operation Truthful Promise[10]; Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward [11], later renamed Operation Change of Direction.[12]"
What kind of descriptive opening paragraph is that?  Having read that introductory paragraph, can I walk away able to define in any way what the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is?  And what's with all the bold type?
Outlining the topic description in the opening paragraph by lacing it with the various designations of the military operations is not encyclopedic.  It is essentially jargon, albeit very colorful jargon, and does not plainly define the topic.  It's overly sensationalistic, colorful, distracting, and confusing.  While these may have a place as relevant descriptive information somewhere, they should not be jammed into the opening three sentences of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in this way. Someone needs to rewrite --Leaf2001br 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight more during a dawn raid termed Operation Truthful Promise.
Some of this should be in the article, but not right in the middle of the lead. TewfikTalk 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is written at the begining of article that Hezbollah called the operation "Operation Truthful Promise". What is the promise? Why did they attack Israel?
When you remove "Few weeks ago Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would carry out further operations at a later date to gain the release of the remaining Lebanese prisoners like involving Rafiq Yehia Skaf, Nassim Nisr and Samir Kuntar who are jailed in Israel for several years.[30] " from the begining nobody finds the answer of these questions. If this part "The attacks came two weeks after the beginning of the Gaza-focused Operation Summer Rains whose objective was to free the soldier Gilad Shalit captured by local militants in an earlier cross-border attack organized by Hamas. Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured." relates to the lead of the article , the reason of attack absolutly relates.--Sa.vakilian 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Paragraph

message: As this crisis turns into a multi-day event, wiht numerous attacks and counter attacks, parhaps the "current conflict" section should be restructured in chronologial order rather than by sides, as this would make the timeline of the events more understandable, rather than a list of events on each side with no correlation between them? --darkskyz 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the conflict does not look like it is going to end quickly Restructure Article to be timeline based over the current format mcwiggin 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Once the crisis ends (or evolves into something else) a more content-based division of the article could be used. Sijo Ripa 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is significantly worse than the Operation Summer Rains article, which I think is a rather good read due to its structure. No offense to anyone, but this article has not come together well so far with the constant allegations of bias of POV, along with the constant removal of facts from the Infobox. But I think this would be a good way to work give the article some flow - a chronological order like that of Operation Summer Rains. Than perhaps this can be brought into a higher order of articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about staring to put it together at 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Timeline? -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Convert to timeline-based article

message: I've noticed that down there in the article, there are some "Hezbollahs" and some "Hizbullahs". I think that we should be consistent in naming those terrorists. So, which should it be? Personally, I'm inclined to "Hezbollah". --Terrancommander 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah or Hizbollah - Need of being consistent

message: Is it possible to have a button to hide the footnotes? There's nearly a hundred, and they take up about a quarter of the page. I've seen some pages with sections that can be clicked on to hide/show. --Iorek85 03:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. Its good to have citations and references but this is sort of getting out of hand. sikander 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does wikipedia have a set way to hide footnotes? Frinkahedr0n 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are way too many footnotes to begin with.  it is kind of a slippery slope when people disagree with a point, back and forth, and they just list the "prove-it!"/ "sources" comment to the sentence.  and this kind of bickering keeps happening back and forth, even though many of these sources can be found together in a single article.  it seems kind of repetitive and annoying/excessive.  i put one of the footnotes in as an answer to a "needs sources" request, although i dont think it was needed in actuality, with all of the sources already listed at the bottom, i think it was about 100 at the time i did it, now it's 30% or 40% more than that.  sorry about the rant, it just seems like there needs to be some kind of checks and balances about that issue... --72.20.207.29 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really worth touching the references at the moment. Once the conflict is resolved and interest in the article dies down, the references can be condensed. Hiding them seems a good compromise for now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding footnotes

message: I found four grammatical mistakes in the first major paragraph of this article before I gave up and stopped reading. My hunch is that these glaring grammatical mistakes are a result of the number of non-native English speakers editing this article.  I suppose it's rather blunt to say so, but if you're not entirely confident of your ability to write in near-flawless English, then why not edit the Wikipedia article about this crisis that's written in your native language?  This is an important and serious article, and Wikipedia is not served well by an article written in obviously incorrect and choppy English.  70.92.166.154 05:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, why didn't you fix the four grammatical mistakes, and improve the article?  We don't have any policy around here saying editors need to be entirely confident of their ability to write in near-flawless English.  The editors contributing to the article with flawed English are doing far more to improve the article than you just did.  Tempshill 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I even think there is a Wikipedia policy called "the joy of editing": no one has to be a perfect writer or needs to have the best expertise. As long as someone can add something valuable, his/her contribution is appreciated. (Note also that almost every article has its importance - you could very well argue that only native speakers have the right to contribute on this Wikipedia). If this article would be written by native speakers only, I think the systemic bias (POV) would be much more pervasive. I also think that this page would never have reached the same size. Don't forget that most Wikipedia language communities often translate  (parts of) the English page, which wrongly gives the impression that each language community can reach an equally large page on its own. Just contribute and fix those errors. :-) Sijo Ripa 10:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In the time that it took to tell us you found four mistakes, you could have fixed them and probably more.  Stop bragging about spotting mistakes and start fixing mistakes.--Smallwhitelight 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical mistakes

message: Is there a purpose to the quick vote link from CNN? --aishel 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. So, deleted. --Cerejota 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Someone added a section about the various evacuation efforts of different countries. It seems to me that it takes up alot of space without saying anything that couldn't be said in the main article of "international reactions". Most of it isn't sourced or cited either anyway.
I propose to move it to the main article somehow, or delete it. Mlrts 07:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the evacuaton efforts, there is a discussion about that under "Reported Events/Supposed Events".--Battra 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "International reactions" section 

message: I took this from someones redundant and badly placed edit, cleaned it up removed redundacy and included as sub sub section. I would delete but I think the info can be used... may its just in the wrong place? Dunno, it is a combination of background and post-raid stuff... ...comments?
--Cerejota 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah's arguments for raid and Lebanese government political reactions

message: The page still needs the combatant box to show Hezbollah as the first actor, Israel the second and Lebanon third... but I've given up waiting (and my efforts to change it seem to end up as character stew in preview) 210.86.74.223 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed.--Cerejota 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Did someone try some new code or something? I get a side-scrolling bar at 1024x768, Mozilla Firefox. Frinkahedr0n 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, looks like it was fixed. Dunno what happened. Frinkahedr0n 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page has a side scrolling bar

message: ===Please POST a picture of the damages caused by a Hezbollah strike===
Someone please post a picture of the damage caused by a Hezbollah strike such as the fires and damages in Haifa. --68.1.182.215 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link added to Getty photo. --Lior 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be good if u can publish any pictures but that under GNU. In the german Wikipedia we haven't any photos bout the situation. And here the ones we can't use cause the License isn't clear. --Japan01 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that anyone doesn't want to add such a picture. In fact, I even think that such pictures were added, but had to be removed due to copyright violations. Freely available pictures are scarce. Therefore this is not caused by POV (and that's one of the reasons why I moved this comment down to the pictures section). Sijo Ripa 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, several images have been placed up depicting it, but they were deleted shortly thereafter for not qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could u try 2 use GNU license? Would be great so we canuse the pictures in the german wikipedia 2. --Japan01 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, we don't have any say in the matter on whether the images are released as GFDL.  That choice lies with the person taking the photographs, and none of the news agencies release their images under free licenses.  Maybe if there was a Wikipedian in Lebanon with a digital camera then we could get something good we can use, but until then, we can't just take a news organization's photo and try to pass it off as GFDL when it clearly isn't.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Phabi0: While I appreciate your effort for a picture of the Israeli bombings, (1) could you prove it's a picture of such a bombing during this crisis? I visited the source site of this photo, but couldn't find any confirmation. (2) Could you also make the copyright status clear? Thanks! Sijo Ripa 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently 4 pictures up of the bombings - I am deleting them, as they are copyrighted and not published under a free license. -Preposterous 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also replaced the battleship image with the original fair use qualifying one. The new one provided a better view of its side, however no link was provided to its source so we cannot determine if it qualifies. The one currently up does, however. ~Rangeley (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Someone please post a picture of the damage caused by a Hezbollah strike such as the fires and damages in Haifa. --68.1.182.215 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link added to Getty photo. --Lior 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be good if u can publish any pictures but that under GNU. In the german Wikipedia we haven't any photos bout the situation. And here the ones we can't use cause the License isn't clear. --Japan01 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please POST a picture of the damages caused by a Hezbollah strike

message: I was surprised not to find any pictures of lebanon being bombed. Seeing those pictures will create some kind of understanding to what happens, and will change the point of view and make it more neutral. Eshcorp 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that anyone doesn't want to add such a picture. In fact, I even think that such pictures were added, but had to be removed due to copyright violations. Freely available pictures are scarce. Therefore this is not caused by POV (and that's one of the reasons why I moved this comment down to the pictures section). Sijo Ripa 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, several images have been placed up depicting it, but they were deleted shortly thereafter for not qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could u try 2 use GNU license? Would be great so we canuse the pictures in the german wikipedia 2. --Japan01 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, we don't have any say in the matter on whether the images are released as GFDL.  That choice lies with the person taking the photographs, and none of the news agencies release their images under free licenses.  Maybe if there was a Wikipedian in Lebanon with a digital camera then we could get something good we can use, but until then, we can't just take a news organization's photo and try to pass it off as GFDL when it clearly isn't.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Phabi0: While I appreciate your effort for a picture of the Israeli bombings, (1) could you prove it's a picture of such a bombing during this crisis? I visited the source site of this photo, but couldn't find any confirmation. (2) Could you also make the copyright status clear? Thanks! Sijo Ripa 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently 4 pictures up of the bombings - I am deleting them, as they are copyrighted and not published under a free license. -Preposterous 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures of bombings of Lebanon

message: I have replaced the aftermath photo with the Howitzer once again because the aftermath photo does not qualify for fair use . Its a press image. I noticed that it had been removed several times before by people for this reason, upon which the original uploader reverted it and said he was "rightfully accusing you of bias" and said they were "covering up warcrimes." It seems he has since been blocked from editing, but in any case, it has been removed by me due to its lack of qualifying for fair use.  ~Rangeley (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also replaced the battleship image with the original fair use qualifying one. The new one provided a better view of its side, however no link was provided to its source so we cannot determine if it qualifies. The one currently up does, however. ~Rangeley (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath Photo 

message: ===Talk about Talk Pages===
Is it possible to reorganize the talk pages using subpages? The multiple archives can be confusing...
I recommend
* Talk/Article Structure
* Talk/Status of Action (conflict v. crisis v. war)
* Talk/Combatants
* Talk/Developments
* Talk/POV Issues
* Talk/Events Reported v. Supposed
* Talk/Casualties
* Talk/Weapons
* Talk/Historical Background
* Talk/Maps
* Talk/Pictures
* Talk/Status of Article
I think this will aid in fluid discussions instead of needing to go to 5 various pages that cover 15 issues to read about one? Jon Cates 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not necessary and even more confusing for new contributors. What needs to be done is some archiving and summarizing these archived discussions in a few sentences (which is often quite easy as only a few positions are taken and only a few arguments are used). Sijo Ripa 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: I know I did this in the past days, but I don't have time today and the following days. Can someone else do it? Thanks. Sijo Ripa 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the talk page

message: Is it possible to reorganize the talk pages using subpages? The multiple archives can be confusing...
I recommend
* Talk/Article Structure
* Talk/Status of Action (conflict v. crisis v. war)
* Talk/Combatants
* Talk/Developments
* Talk/POV Issues
* Talk/Events Reported v. Supposed
* Talk/Casualties
* Talk/Weapons
* Talk/Historical Background
* Talk/Maps
* Talk/Pictures
* Talk/Status of Article
I think this will aid in fluid discussions instead of needing to go to 5 various pages that cover 15 issues to read about one? Jon Cates 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not necessary and even more confusing for new contributors. What needs to be done is some archiving and summarizing these archived discussions in a few sentences (which is often quite easy as only a few positions are taken and only a few arguments are used). Sijo Ripa 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: I know I did this in the past days, but I don't have time today and the following days. Can someone else do it? Thanks. Sijo Ripa 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk about Talk Pages

message: My compliments for the article, it looks and reads much better than a couple of days ago. Also, it's much more balanced in terms of NPOV. Let's try to keep it this way and let's hope people can restrain themselves from waging implicit (or explicit) edit wars. 84.193.50.72 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Much Better