Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Lebanon War/Archive 1

message: Included a 1 line detail on the Lebanese Gov investigation in main article. 82.29.227.171 08:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added DU Weapons detail

message: Wrote this up as best I could, it may develop if he is prosecuted. 82.29.227.171 09:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added detail on what Halutz said

message: It isnt a comprehensive list, and as new ones are reported/old ones come to light will add 82.29.227.171 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added detail on vehicle/convoy attacks

message: Is there a consensus on whether attacks on Hezbollah should be included here?  Attacks on various Al-Manar buildings have been ongoing through air campaign- Al-Manar article says 3 confirmed attacks, 5 attacks since those (uncited). It has been condemned by various Human rights/journalist bodies- see article. 82.29.227.171 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it in- there have been other attacks- but included Israeli Foreign Ministry explanation given plus reaction. 82.29.227.171 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bombing of Al-Manar TV

message: The intro now is badly written, does not work well as an intro (it delves into the Englard issue rather than given a concise intro of what is going on) and is somewhat POV (linking to an op-ed article by Jonathan Cook). It should be rewritten completely, with the info now found in it removed to other parts of the article. M. Butterfly 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its badly put together so far, needs NPOV'd.  82.29.227.171 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Introduction

message: Added an IDF response disputing that they use illegal weapons.  82.29.227.171 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phosphorus bombs

message: I'm writing my comment here but I could have written it in one of the other "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" articles. I find the number of articles rooted in the main topic (the conflict) problematic. Maybe some would say the idea of an encyclopedia is to document history thouroghly, but right know it seems that any topic - how tiny and akward that may be - gets its own article. And sometimes it smells of POV fork. What's a hot topic right now, may be regarded as a minor detail in history in the future. Not a hundred years from now, just a few months from now.
Does anyone but me think that small aspects of a topic should be kept in as few articles as possible? Medico80 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article proliferation

message: I'm not asking this as a matter of agenda, but in an attempt to be objective--is Iran any more a direct participant than the United States, as each nation is only directly related to the conflict in that it has armed and supported one side or another? This has the US listed down with France and Norway, which I would consider an inaccurate characterization of the nation's role in the conflict. Fearwig 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Participants" section 

message: Jerusalem post amongst others reported it initially, quoting the "Senior Airforce Officer", then IDF denied it a few times. See article. 82.29.227.171 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleared up the IDF radio Halutz story

message: Dont think this belongs in the article as I dont think they can be described as "civilian areas"- they were known to both combatants, marked on their maps etc. Attacks on UN is a special case. 82.29.227.171 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN section

message: *titled: "Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon"
*link: 
"Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Lebanon between July 12 and July 27, 2006, as well as the July 30 attack in Qana.. cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians... Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack."
Can this source be considered NPOV since it doesnt look at Hezbollah attacks? I think with the wealth of information in it forks will be needed to document it all. 82.29.227.171 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Watch Report

message: The text which is written under merge tag is moved from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
to this article. Please merge it with the body of this article.--Accessible 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge tag

message: I realise that there are a lot of things to keep track of for the editors of this article.  That said, please be more careful with the use of unlicensed images.  Images sourced from blogs without authorship or copyright-holder status do not meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.  Images taken from news agencies do not meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.  They are subject to deletion and should not be placed into articles.  Thanks.  Jkelly 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT? That is simply NOT TRUE, they are eligible under fair use, considering the importance of the events! The whole article has been striped of pictures, with no discussion whatsover! I strongly object to this, see here for previous versions. Restore the pictures and put them on vote for deletion, dont unanimosly decide what is and what is not fair use. --Striver 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think importance of the subject matter is actually a criterion for considering the images "fair use". Additionally, it's easy enough to revert the pictures back once their copyright status is established--there seems to be good reason for their removal. Fearwig 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples number five. I urge you to not upload any more images that you haven't created until getting a good grasp of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Imagevios from commercial news providers' websites will be deleted. Jkelly 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The photobloggers may also be willing to freely-license their images if asked, although may be less friendly if they notice that they are republished here without permission.  All of that aside, I wasn't intending to keep watching this article, but there are now redlinks to the deleted images because of an unthinking reversion.  This needs to be cleaned up.  Jkelly 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I secured permission to use some of the above images. 82.29.227.171 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After having all the images I uploaded listed as 'copyright violations' by Jkelly earlier today I was informed that to make the process of securing creator permission 'official' you need to have the original creator send mail along the lines described here , once wikipedia have it in writing to permissions AT wikimedia.org you can use them. 82.29.227.171 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After asking the photographer they agreed to a Sharealike license 2.0 and edited the permissions on Flickr to that license (see the copyright symbol under the Flickr image).  That meant I could then upload them to wikipedia using the Sharealike 2.5 license.  Credit must still be given to the photographer. Sharealike 2+ license is needed in this case as wikipedia asks that license allow for commercial use of the images hosted at wikipedia.  Check the image tags if you need guidance, or message on my talk page, I will try to help if I can. 82.29.227.171 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image use in this article 

message: Thomas Blomberg has raised a problem with the use of blockquotes to frame the words of people/organisations quoted in the article.  Thomas Blomberg says:The blockqoutes are messy. It's something recently introduced in Wikipedia by a few people, and it's highly debated, as they make the pages look terrible. They were originally intended for very long qoutes, where they may serve a purpose, but in this article they are being used very irregularly, and sometimes for just one sentence. There are already quotation marks (") around each statement in the article, so there is no reason to separate them out in addition. If you do, it should be done for every quote in the whole article, not just those some people find important - but if that happens, the article becomes twice as long. In addition, the article contained two different types of blockqoutes.
Thomas lets us know its "highly debated" but didnt waste any time debating it on here so you wont see blockquotes in the article now. The passage above is using the blockquotes format I adopted and stuck to. Anyone think its useful? I think the use of blockquote makes whats said more legible making what was said more distinct.  If you dont use blockquote then what the person said has a tendency to get hidden in a block of text as it is now.  It shouldnt be hard to standardise the use of blockquotes in the article if this is such a massive issue. 82.29.227.171 12:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded them standardised now, its important particularly in the 'comments made by' area to be able to read what the people said. Likewise when statements are made by IDF in rebuttal. Also that case when text is taken from various reports. Really do not see the problem here.  If length is an issue (is it really?) then probably the UN stuff and the double recurrance of the "human shields" stuff can go. 82.29.227.171 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anonymous user, I agree that blockqoutes make peoples' statements stand out. However, there are two problems with them: 1) If not used consistently in an article, but only where users pushing a certain POV insert them, they make the article NPOV by itself, as they led higher visibility to some statements than others.2) They create an empty line both before and after such a quote, making the text very spaced out each time. If the <:blockqoute> and <:/blockquote> commands just created carriage returns before and after the quote, combined with an indent and a different style (smaller font or italics), I would have less problem with them, as they would keep the text together and still achieve a higher visibility. Perhaps one of the people who have created Template:Cquote could create something like that. Thomas Blomberg 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a question of making them stand out to push a POV- Ive introduced quotes both 'for' and 'against' in this article, any I introduced I blockquoted where it made sense to do so. For example, if a particular subsection is about the actual quote itself it made sense to give it that prominence. By all means introduce a consistent format around quotations and excerpts you've identified. Just when you do, upgrade to a higher standard instead of downgrading them all please. It might also be an idea for you to talk about changes like that first otherwise, with only 1 edit on the article, people might take you for a vandal as I nearly did. 82.29.227.171 17:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of blockquotes

message: There should be some links to the international laws and conventions regarding this issue.
imi2 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking of links to international law and conventions ? 

message: These came from 'Masser's flickr account, I asked for permission to place the images on wikipedia first and it was granted. Then made 'Masser' aware where the images were placed and that they can be ammended/removed at any time if he/she changes their mind. 82.29.227.171 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added images by photographer 'Masser'

message: I've just removed a picture montage of Israeli casualties as it was a clear copyvio - see Commons discussion. Thomas Blomberg 01:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed copyvio picture montage 

message: Excuse me, what is the purpose of that israleli casualty pie chart? I think I can comprehend the numbers (better) without such silly graph. Medico80 09:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. At least make it a bit smaller. AndrewRT 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pie chart

message: :The enviroment scope of the damage is really big, maybe it's should have it's own article ? BBC: 'Damage is done' to Lebanon coast
imi2 12:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good idea. 82.29.227.171 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other with thought of the matter ? imi2 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. Environmental damage is important ebough to have own article but doesn't fit in with this article or any other current article. Suggest Environmental consequences of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict for a title. AndrewRT 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's own article perhaps ? 

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 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating schema - vote 

message: Please see the Wikipedia policy for dates, specifically Dates containing a month and a day and Incorrect date formats. As long as you link the dates it doesn't matter which approved date format you use. Once linked they all come out the same for registered users who have set their date preferences in "my preferences" above: 9 August 2006 becomes 9 August 2006, August 9, 2006 becomes August 9, 2006, and 2006-08-09 becomes 2006-08-09. Likewise, writing just 9 August becomes 9 August and August 9 becomes August 9 . So a variation of the dates is only a cosmetic "problem" for anon users, or registered users who for some reason have decided to select "No preferences" in the date preference set-up (or don't know that the settings exist). The dates, however, cause no confusion for them as long as we stick to the approved dates. Cheers, Thomas Blomberg 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No need for a vote

message: AFAIK, Israel claims to target military objects, including dual use ones. As any army, sometimes they miss the target. Until there a conclusive evidence that they indeed target strictly civilian objects, to use the word "targeting" in the article's title is POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose to change the title to Civilians in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already raised this use of the word "Targeting", it is POV. I proposed "Attacks on civlian areas..." because Hezbollah weapons can not be described as targeting except in targeting a general locale. With IDF they cant be accused of targeting for the reason you outlined and they have given a response to each accusation made against them in the article. I think "civilians in..." gives a much wider brief and would see a lot of superfluous detail included.  82.29.227.171 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Targetting civilians is a war crime, so having an article with "targeting of civilians" would strike me as being accusatory, and hence NPOV, in the absense of any trial and conviction. I like the idea of Civilians in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which would clearly cover alleged targetting of civilians, and also the humanitarian impact. What kind of superfluos information do you think that would bring in? AndrewRT 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just that I think its a vague title meaning that the detail to be included could be confused with non relevant detail. "Civilians in.." sounds like its about civilians when the majority of information here is about events involving attacks on civilian areas/infrastructure or areas which contain civilians.  I would stress the 'areas' because attacks on civilians is not neutral. While Hezbollah only discriminates between Arab-Israeli and non arab, the IDF say they dont attack civilians if they can help it. If the focus of the article is civilians then all kinds of legal matter would need to be introduced to describe the legalities of attacks on civilians in wartime.  I tried to explain it before under my IP address 82.29.227.171 here Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Organization of Article 82.29.227.171 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd prefer Civilians in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict but could live with the title Attacks on civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, because these titles do not imply that these areas were always deliberately targeted. Sidenote. Compared to other wars, this one is covered in WP way out of proportion, which makes WP what it's not: a blog. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, both Hezbollah and Israel openly admit to targetting civilian areas. Both offer detailed excuses for this targetting, but none deny it. If they did deny it would be ridiculous, as the rockets are not THAT innacurate and the Israeli Air Force and Artillery can be so bad shots that the civilian casualty counts would be as high as it is. I think the title is very NPOV almost weasel wording the facts, because a salient, verifiable fact is that civilians and civilian areas are the majority of the casualties on either side of the border--Cerejota 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Fact check: targetting civilian areas is not a war crime, as it would be impossible to conduct war today if it were. What is a war crime is to conciously and consistently target sites in civilian areas with no military value. This is probably why Israel takes pains to explain that its attacks are directed at military and dual-use infrastructure, and that damage to civilians is due to "human shields", and hezbollah takes pains to explain weapon innacuracy in assymetrical warfare.--Cerejota 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle 

message: The beginning of this section claims that "Rockets also landed and resulted in casualties in the Israeli Arab population. 11 Muslim civilians (including 3 women and 6 children) and 3 Christian civilians were killed", quoting a website from the Israeli Foreign Ministry as source. However, that webpage, which lists Israelis dead so far, does not identify their religion. The text was inserted on 6 August by the anon user 88.152.85.85, and is in addition illustrated with a strange pie chart from Commons, based on the same source. The pie chart has been created by someone called Lior, which is surprisingly similar to Lior, who has been blocked since 17 July on English Wikipedia. A new anon user, 88.154.4.171, who activated himself/herself on 8 August, was nice enough to insert the picture from Commons two hours after activation, and just 20 minutes after Lior had uploaded it to Commons.
As 88.152.85.85 made his/her debut on 4 August by inserting a copyvio picture from Commons, which was a montage of copyrighted pictures of dead Israelis sourced from the same website, created by the same Lior, I have the suspicion that 88.152.85.85, 88.154.4.171 and Commons Lior is the same old Lior who has re-emerged under a set of new IP addresses.
However, my main reason for writing this, is that I can't understand how you can determine someone's religion just from that person's name. How would you know that Habib Isa Awad is a Christian, Amir Naeem is a Sunni Muslim, and Frida Kellner is a Jew? The two first are Arabic names and the last is a German name. You can't determine people's religious belief just from their name any other country, so how would it be possible in Israel? Thomas Blomberg 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frida Kellner is a Yiddish name first of all, when you talk about Israel :) Yms 09:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is unverified - which it appears to be - then it should be removed. I agree that you shouldn't infer someone's religion or race from their name. AndrewRT 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally the inferred breakdown of religion from the names is given at:  AndrewRT 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sources for victims' religions: Awad - Christian . Shnati Shnati, Amir Naeem, and Muhammad Faour - Arabs . Hana Hamam & Labiba Mazawi - Christian . Manal Azzam - Druze . Rabia Abed Taluzi - Arab  AndrewRT 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah's attacks on civilian areas 

message: Do we need this tag still? I think the article is well written now, and has been there since the creation many many edits ago. Is everyone ok with me taking it out? AndrewRT 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Editing 

message: Someone, most probably unknowing, has corrupted a bunch of ref tags (see the list). I'll try to fix them over the next few days, but please be careful when using them. Also, in my opinion, it is preferable to use  instead of  if you are quoting from a website, unless the article brings the page number of the print edition. -- Avi 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at  is says: "This template ... is specifically for web sites which are {my emphasis) not news sources" This would seem to go against what you say above. By the way, thanks for sorting out all theose dodgy links AndrewRT 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This article is currently a mess of repetitive redundancy. It repeats itself, mentions things that it has already mentioned, makes throw-away comments on subjects that have their own whole sections before or after that, is highly redundant, details the same disputes and quotes and counter-quotes twice and even thrice, and repeats itself. Someone ought to unseathe the eponymous +3 glowing sword of copyediting posthaste. --AceMyth 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims of repetition are unverified.  They also remain, at this time, unconfirmed.  That is to say, no evidence has been provided at this time.--Paraphelion 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition and redundancy. Also, detailing the same things more than once. And repetition 

message: Is there any doubt that Hezbollah uses Lebanese citizens as human shields, at least some of the time? There are countless videos and independantly verified reports that Hezbollah operates and launches katyushas from civilian populated areas.  I say the word "alleged" gets deleted from the topic heading unless we also write that Israel "allegedly" targets Red Cross ambulances.  Any thoughts? --GHcool 08:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'm taking the word out.  --GHcool 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" human shield tactics  

message: It would appear that someone or a small group of people are going on every Israeli-Lebanese-Conflict-related article and distorting certain sentences in favour of Israel.  In this article, I just corrected a few instances where someone replaced the words 'Israel' and 'Israeli' with 'Hezbollah', and changed 'Lebanese civilian targets' to 'Haifa'!!!  What kind of sick-minded criminal would do this?  Seriously, whichever barbarians are going around the Net altering information like this should know that they are promoting the murder of civilians.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps THIS ARTICLE adds some insight to the whole phenomenon. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have seen both things happening so...imi2 09:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People Fooling with the Article 

message: I have to admit, in this case, in my opinion, user:Deuterium is correct, the article does not say anything about shielding, and the fact that they are in plain clothes to blend in would be WP:OR -- Avi 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivana Watson article 

message: Attacks on civilian convoys in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 
No POV, just a size issue- page is too long, which probably has a lot to do with all the stuff on hiding amongst civilians.
Regarding the article names; in the case of convoys the IDF has yet to respond to the accusation that they were targeting them all in every case.  Same in the case of the industry- unclear if the industry was a target ie. if the attack was on the industry, or an unintended casualty. Attacks is a compromise as that an attack took place is not in dispute.
Articles for Israeli industry could probably also be created.  RandomGalen 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created articles for convoy attacks & industry attacks 

message: This needs its own article. It has increased the size of the article for little net value. RandomGalen 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah's "human shield" tactics

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Support====
# Support, as I'd say current title risks presumption that civilians rather than combatants in civilian areas were targets. (This might be/have been so, but title shouldn't risk its presumption.)  Regards, David Kernow 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I understand it, the conflict was/is between Israel and Hizbullah, which happens to be a Lebanese organization.  The Lebanese government is a bystander, however whether it is a guilty or innocent bystander is subject to debate.  --GHcool 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is however a valid point given the existing name of the article. Perhaps the proposal should be move to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah conflict. Garrie 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support, as I'd say current title risks presumption that civilians rather than combatants in civilian areas were targets. (This might be/have been so, but title shouldn't risk its presumption.)  Regards, David Kernow 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I understand it, the conflict was/is between Israel and Hizbullah, which happens to be a Lebanese organization.  The Lebanese government is a bystander, however whether it is a guilty or innocent bystander is subject to debate.  --GHcool 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is however a valid point given the existing name of the article. Perhaps the proposal should be move to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah conflict. Garrie 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Weak oppose. I think the reader is more interested in deliberate action than in merely the result of that action. —Ashley Y 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #Neutral for now. I have to think on this, and that hurts my brain. -- Avi 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: Does this article still need to be copy edited? Aside from the fact that its a little bit long, I think its ok in its present form.  If nobody disagrees, I'll get rid of the call for copy editing at the top of the article.--GHcool 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit? 

message: The Herald Sun link is already there as note #102, which links to the original Herald Sun article. That is the best source for it. Weblogs have a WP:RS issue, and we do not need two links to the same source, especially when one is the original article itself. -- Avi 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herald Sun article 

message: For the record: The information I brought (well-cited and supported according to WP:RS and WP:V can be seene here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=71198350&oldid=71186194
The fact that in 2002 the terrorists performing the attack were in Gaza as opposed to Kiryat Shemona should be irrelevant. A few tens of miles does not mean that the entire modus operandi of terrorists changed. The citations show that 1) Under international and Israei law, there are times when “ambulances” lose their protection, to wit, when they are used as combat or munitions transports and 2) this has happened to the state of Israel any number if times. The fact that the 2002 and 2004 reports happen to predate the 2006 conflict does not mean that Hezbollah has had a collective lobotomy and would never even conceive of using such tactics. -- Avi 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, it is not about a few miles. It is about that this article deals w/ Isreal-Lebanon conflict. If your edit was on the conflict w/ Hamas article, i'd not remove it. -- Szvest 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that wikipedia should use sources related and specific to the issue on hand. You seem to believe that Hezbollah would not use ambulances, because they have a different name is just untrue Avi. Have i removed any sourced material re Hezbollah in all the related articles? If yes, than i'd say you're right and would apologize. Let me talk to you about my reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions yourself. In the court, we judge the person who is responsible of a crime, not their neighbours who did the crime before him somewhere in the neighbourhood. They've already been judged. What i know is that i never judged your reasoning. For the rest, I don't object your other points above. I have an idea which may explain to you clearly my weak reasoning. The info we are talking about would fit very well into something like Usage of ambulances by terrorists or Usage of ambulances on wartime. -- Szvest 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your understanding. No worries Avi. I know your intention and no need to apologize. -- Szvest 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, we are not judging the Lebanese or Hezbollah. We are bringing the long-standing Israeli position, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Israel (a left-wing establishment in my personal opinion, but that does not matter) that attacks on ambulances are warranted. The Geneva convention giving the protections in the first place (Red Cross/Convention 1) also does not mention Lebanon, does that make it inapplicable? Of course not! That very same convention brings the times those protections are stripped, as confirmed by the Israeli Supreme court, which is also applicable without mention of Lebanon. I feel that the defense must remain as the NPOV balance to the accusation. -- Avi 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, I think you have misunderstood your role as Wikipedia editor. Your job is not to come up with defenses for Israel's actions. It's perfectly okay to report what Israel's defense is, but that requires verifiable quotes that Israel has actually referred to the Palestinian misuse of ambulances as explanation for the ambulance attacks in Lebanon. If they haven't, then you're trying to do it for them - and that's definitely POV. Thomas Blomberg 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambulances 

message: I made some major changes to the page structure, but I did not remove any information (except for a redundant citation).
*I've tried to place all of the weaponry allegations in one section, and removed "prohibited" as the first sentence in that section say that these weapons are not expressly prohibited
*I've tried to place all opinions in one section, broken down by UN, US, UK, etc.
*I've tried to combine the leaflet issues, which were in at least three different sections.
*I've put the Lebanese gov't statement about Israel targeting industry under the industry section.
*I combined the two different Engeland sections together, and followed it with the Hezbollah defense under the UN opinion section.
*I combined the to Arbour sections together under the UN opinion section.
*I combined most the numerous AI allegations into one section under AI opinion, but I left the individual AI allegations of weaponry is in the weaponry sections.
I think it is more logically combined this way. The next step is to go through and remove unneccesary, excess, redundant citations. -- Avi 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, Avi.  :) --GHcool 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page restructure 

message: The use of depleted uranium ammunition is illegal indeed. This is verifiable and in my opinion should be reflected in the article. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depleted Uranium ammo is illegal under the Geneva convention, yes. But Israel and the US aren't signatories to the convention, and so when they sue it, it's not illegal in the slightest. HawkerTyphoon 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. Israel's position should be reflected too. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 04:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be of interest also, if DU is illegal under Lebanese law or if Lebanon is signatory to relevant Geneva conventions and exactly under whose jurisdiction is US-made Israeli DU munition exploding on Lebanese soil. --Magabund 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Which Geneva Convention you might mean that neither Israel nor US have signed or ratified? If you are talking about the 1949 convention both have signed as well as ratified the convention  . If you mean the 1980 convention restricting the use of certain conventional weapons both have ratified and US was also one of the signing parties . --Jhattara 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depleted uranium ammo *is* illegal 

message: The Remba article is brought in its entirety in a number of places including:
*http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000170.html
*http://www.ameinu.net/perspectives/israel.php?articleid=106
*http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/article.asp?key=7249
The article has been verified. You do not expect something like this on Al-Jazeera's website. -- Avi 12:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please. Like I said in my comment: I removed references to an opinion piece by a former Israeli PM official and current president of a self-proclaimed zionist organisation, written on a website called "zionism-israel.com". Please comment if you think that this is a reliable source. You accused me of removing Harvard references, but trust me: I wouldn't even dare to touch them. Feel free to quote published Harvard scholars, anytime. Cheers. Kosmopolis 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remba 

message: I know I am a bit of a wikipedia neophyte, but I digress...
It is of interest that no-one has even mentioned the fact that the targetting of Ambulance during the 2006 conflict has been all but debunked at http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
BTW, before you accuse me of stating a fringe view remember that Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer publically spoke out against this particular photo fakery.
So I suggest that the Author of this article also try and remedy some of the information on Qana, as he, on a supposedly unbiassed and academic site, has completely whitewahsed the fact that there was prior warning to the attack. In addition, it must be noted that rockets were fired from the building that was hit, not, as the author purports, near the building
Isn't this website meant to have a neutral POV?
:http://www.zombietime.com is hardly NPOV.  The articles and essays on that site have a severe right wing bias. If zombietime is a legitimate source, then so is Loose change. --Joshua242 07:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Adding "sources sympathetic toward Israel" in a section for voices critical of Israel – when there is already exists a subsection "sympathetic toward Israel" – injects POV rather than ensuring NPOV.--G-Dett 05:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "added sources sympathetic toward Israel to ensure an NPOV" 

message: if someone is reading this they need to know that israel did make attacks on civilians. many people died in lebanon as a result of israels malicious, and cruel bombardment of the country, with the majority of casualities being the lebanese citizens. my family and i were there on vacation and we were amoungst the people being bombed, but thank god no one from my family was injured. but when anyone says that israel was not targeting lebanese civilians, it is a lie and i can not just sit here and read it with out responding. May 12, 2007, 9:26pm
:Thanks for your opinion, but this talk page is for the improvement of the article.  It isn't a forum.  Feel free to read the article and if you'd like to improve it, this is the place to talk about it.  --GHcool 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: I think this article should be merged into the new article at Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War. This would be a subset of that subject, albeit large. — George Saliba [talk] 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I would support such a merge unless I hear a compelling argument against it.  --GHcool 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also worth noting that this article has a section titled "Allegations regarding various weaponry," which  may not match the articles current title. This would fit much better in the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War's "Use of prohibited weapons" section I think, and I think that article has a more NPOV title. — George Saliba [talk] 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems sensible.  I was just going to ask if the NPOV discussion tag could be removed - I don't see a lot of edits happening now, and the article looks pretty comprehensive. Random name 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the NPOV tag.  --GHcool 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, they should be merged, but I've been too busy. I fear that any attempt to merge over time (a section per day or week) will be reverted by other editors, so it likely has to be done in one fell swoop, which would take hours. If anyone feels up to the task, please be my guest. ← George [talk] 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: I have read the cool down caution and it has been a long time since the last discussion.  That time has allowed the cooling, but not necessarily the NPOV.  Please excuse my first contribution to Wiki.  I am not yet qualified to do the edits, but give the existing Editors the following sources:
Human Rights Watch has recently issued two reports on the 2006 Lebanon War (http://hrw.org:80/english/docs/2007/08/30/lebano16740.htm) Aug 29, 2007 and (http://hrw.org:80/english/docs/2007/09/06/isrlpa16781.htm) Sept 6, 2007, which cover both sides of the conflict.  Since HRW is already referenced, I assume their data is good, or at lease acceptable.  
These articles will also, hopefully, help the Editors with NPOV.  A highlight on the NPOV with this subject can be found at (www.fair.org/index.php?page=3176), where I found it.  
CasualObserver'48 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be bold and edit it as you see fit. El_C 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Not to mention that "however" is one of the words to avoid... ← George [talk] 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Data for Editors and NPOV