Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 2

message: Does anybody know where the kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers initially took place? Jakro64 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did Hizbollah cross the border?

message: OK. So what's not resolved? Can we maintain a list so we don't keepthat ugly and redundant POV tag up forever? --Elliskev 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV resolution

message: There is no citation to support that other countries or "leaders" blame Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. Israel is the only country to make this claim.
"The international reaction to the crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel. At the same time, many leaders have stated that Hezbollah initiated the crisis and Lebanon shares responsibility for letting Hezbollah operate within her jurisdiction. Many nations have also expressed concern of a possible escalation of the conflict. [76]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.112.57 (talk • contribs).
:Agreed. The citation given does not support the claim. I have removed it. --Elliskev 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey this extremely bias

message: Wow, I gotta say, I really think kudos are in order for you guys. To have such a complete, accurate, and balanced article on such a controversial and constantly-changing topic in so short a time... I gotta say I'm impressed. I know there are probably eight hundred big and little debates debates going on over numbers, wording, and probably everything else in this article, but overall it looks amazing. A nice slice of pie for all who've helped out! --Gpollock 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: This is the discussion about reported events/supposed events and source searches.
===Ehud Olmert's 3 Conditions===
Can we get a source for this one? Yossiea 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reported Events/Supposed Events

message: Can we get a source for this one? Yossiea 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ehud Olmert's 3 Conditions

message: Probably needs a better source. This seems to suggest that Syria may go to war, and if that happens then the shit will really hit the fan. I'll look around for additional sources.
Found one - Reuters. 
Not good. I'll try to edit it into the article. Mysticflame 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Syria ready to go to war?

message: The Christian Science Monitor is quoting several people as stating that this is now a war, not just a "border skirmish." . Under what criterion does this conflict become an official war? --MZMcBride 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When does this become a war?

message: Robin Hood 1212 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I have searched Ynet and I haven't find nothing. Probably mr. "Robin Hood 1212" has misread the op article... dott.Piergiorgio 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that if A: Israel does declare war, and since both sides say it's a war, we should change to article so, or B: Someone else declares war and joins the fray. Just my thoughts.--Planetary 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: According to Ynet, Olmert declared war

message: That sounds like a good compromise to me. It's bigger than a crisis, but it isn't officially a war. It's an armed conflict involving Israel and Lebanon. 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, then, seems reasonable to me. It's clearly an armed conflict, and it clearly involves Israel and Lebanon. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed above, but basically we can't call it a war until it widely referred as such. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is discussed above. But I do not agree about widely referred as a criterium. Occuying, shooting, civil deaths: that's war to me. Some global opinion (or US/Washington opinion) is too little to wait for~, and cannot be discussed with. To me: it's a war. -DePiep 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we call it a "conflict"?

message: ===Does anyone know which Israeli Navy vessel was hit?===
Does anyone know the name and/or class of the vessel? Sijo Ripa 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered it was a missile boat.  Israel has three types (Saar 4 class missile boats, Saar 4.5 class missile boats, and Saar 5 class missile boats). Now I wonder which class it was. Sijo Ripa 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Haaretz in hebrew is reporing it is a Saar 5 class missile boat.  --darkskyz 00:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's INS Hanit. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about weapon types

message: Does anyone know the name and/or class of the vessel? Sijo Ripa 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered it was a missile boat.  Israel has three types (Saar 4 class missile boats, Saar 4.5 class missile boats, and Saar 5 class missile boats). Now I wonder which class it was. Sijo Ripa 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Haaretz in hebrew is reporing it is a Saar 5 class missile boat.  --darkskyz 00:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's INS Hanit. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone know which Israeli Navy vessel was hit?

message: ===Casus beli infobox===
I changed the casus beli in the infobox to a less awkward one, does "Border attack by Hezbollah's military wing killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers, in attempt to release Palestinian POWs held by Israe" seem NPOV enough to everyone? --darkskyz 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. corrected accordingly. --darkskyz 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you might as well say it all began in 1948 when israel was founded or when the first jewish settlers came to israel some 130 years ago. However, the current hostilities started with the Hezbollah attack. --darkskyz 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

message: I changed the casus beli in the infobox to a less awkward one, does "Border attack by Hezbollah's military wing killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers, in attempt to release Palestinian POWs held by Israe" seem NPOV enough to everyone? --darkskyz 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus beli infobox

message: I think it is worth noting in the article that Hebzbollah's motive is actually complete distruction of Israel.  As it is read, it makes it seem like Hezbollah's entire purpose is to regain a 20 sq km parcel of land from Israel. Masterhomer  11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hezbollah Motive

message: I think the article needs more explanation of the right of a country (in this case Israel) responding militarily in a general fashion against another government's (Lebanon's) assets after an attack by a specific non-governmental organization within the other country. It is an unfamiliar concept in international relations to many people, I think.
I know the U.S. action against Afghanistan in 2001 is somewhat analogous, but in that case the U.S. seemed to be trying to overthrow Afghanistan's government, whereas in this case it is more a matter of reprisal (or is it? this is where explanation is needed).
The lack of an explanation of this concept may affect the NPOV of the article, since if people do not understand what principles are involved they may think that Israel is acting irrationally or unjustifiably rather than by established principles of international/military practice. It might clear up some of the arguments I'm seeing in the Talk page. --Cam 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation needed

message: Clarification: Is this local time? -Litefantastic 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. corrected accordingly. --darkskyz 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you might as well say it all began in 1948 when israel was founded or when the first jewish settlers came to israel some 130 years ago. However, the current hostilities started with the Hezbollah attack. --darkskyz 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The fighting began at around 8 AM on July 12, 2006"

message: ===Split the article?===
This article is getting quite large, so perhaps it would be a good idea to split it into a list of the Israeli attacks, and a list of the Hezbollah attacks? Damburger 11:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree for the moment. The article has many pictures, references and templates which make it quite large. The article text however is not too large for the moment. Sijo Ripa 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we do not split things such as this up. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why was this articled unlocked? Yesterday it was locked, and now today it is unlocked. --Kranar drogin 00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

message: This article is getting quite large, so perhaps it would be a good idea to split it into a list of the Israeli attacks, and a list of the Hezbollah attacks? Damburger 11:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree for the moment. The article has many pictures, references and templates which make it quite large. The article text however is not too large for the moment. Sijo Ripa 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we do not split things such as this up. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split the article?

message: Can't we just get rid of all of it? It's relevant at Hezbollah, but not so much here. --Elliskev 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hezbollah]]/[[Iran]] mess in Background section

message: This article needs an overhaul in it's structure. People are adding comments in a hurry leading statements to be repeated FOUR different times in random places leading NO sense of structure or timeline.
This article really needs to be locked for unregistered users and new users as it is quite a heated topic and could easily get out of control.--Ddahlberg 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this articled unlocked? Yesterday it was locked, and now today it is unlocked. --Kranar drogin 00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Structure

message: A minor point in all this, but could we put double square brackets around dates in order for them to show up correctly for readers? This is a non-US topic, so it is inappropriate for dates to be listed in US format (eg. "July 14th" rather than "14 July") Putting dates into correct wikidate format such as 14 July 2006 ensure that they show up in a reader's preferred format. --Jumbo 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidates

message: While introductory comments might be in order, we must keep in mind this page is about the crisis, not about the actors in the crisis. Hizbollah, Lebanon, and Israel all have very long and informative pages, and these pages are linked form here. So all this talk about describing any actor, beyonf introductory purposes, diminishes the qualy of this entry.
This is not a POV issue, but one of quality of the entry.
--Cerejota 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is about the crisis, not the actors

message: ===Can a semi-protection be put on the article===
For example one user just changed captured to kidnap in like 5 seconds. While that one is arguable there are a lot of other vandalism in the article that is not. Times Square lebanon thing for example.  74.137.230.39 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it for semi-protection, in the future you can request protection by either directly approaching an admin or posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, <fontstyle="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</font>Talk 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've approached two admins but neither seem to be logged in right now. 74.137.230.39 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I found one instance of vandalism in the last 30 minutes. Am I missing something? -Ganeshk (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have slowed up a bit. Articles generally will fluctuate but this suprises me.  When I was on, I saw numerous different vandals.  On one other note, is it really wise to take off the NPOV template. While little things have been heavily discussed, I doubt many have had a chance to step back, and make a decision on whether or not it is neutral.  I don't know but it wouldn't be a bad precautionary template to use. That's just my opinion of course. 74.137.230.39 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I realize that it will prevent me from editing too.  I don't have much  to add to this article at this point, for the people that do constant vandalism makes it difficult to expand, and clear up. 74.137.230.39 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes it was a bug a result of someone not removing the fact tag after sourcing.--Cerejota 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about the status of the article

message: For example one user just changed captured to kidnap in like 5 seconds. While that one is arguable there are a lot of other vandalism in the article that is not. Times Square lebanon thing for example.  74.137.230.39 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it for semi-protection, in the future you can request protection by either directly approaching an admin or posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, <fontstyle="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</font>Talk 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've approached two admins but neither seem to be logged in right now. 74.137.230.39 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I found one instance of vandalism in the last 30 minutes. Am I missing something? -Ganeshk (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have slowed up a bit. Articles generally will fluctuate but this suprises me.  When I was on, I saw numerous different vandals.  On one other note, is it really wise to take off the NPOV template. While little things have been heavily discussed, I doubt many have had a chance to step back, and make a decision on whether or not it is neutral.  I don't know but it wouldn't be a bad precautionary template to use. That's just my opinion of course. 74.137.230.39 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I realize that it will prevent me from editing too.  I don't have much  to add to this article at this point, for the people that do constant vandalism makes it difficult to expand, and clear up. 74.137.230.39 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can a semi-protection be put on the article

message: Is the text (and "citation needed" tag) before the citation in footnote 7 a bug or not?  --zenohockey 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes it was a bug a result of someone not removing the fact tag after sourcing.--Cerejota 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 7 

message: I haven't used revert before, someone says 6 million Israel civillians dead, don't know if they removed source, someone revert.
Hello32020 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I put up the original picture, of the black and white aerial strike. It is better than nothing, but I still really dislike it. I am having trouble finding adequately sized photos that qualify for fair use, so if anyone can find a better picture show it here so we can try and find the best. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's possible to resize pictures. A bit too small or way too large pictures are as a consequence no problem. What sometimes bothers me is the current trend to put "clean" pictures of wars in articles, such as the video game like air strike picture. That gives the impression that human casualties are only a secondary event (they are almost invisible), which is IMHO not the case. Sijo Ripa 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think our best bet for a free photo will be either a photo from a Wikipedian over there (doesn't seem very likely) or something from an Israeli soldier (are they in PD as with US soldiers)?  As for fair use, any rationale will likely be somewhat thin as every image of the conflict has great commercial value right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, AP/Reuters images are no-no's, however images from the IDF site will be able to be used. They are just a bit slow to upload them though. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed two pictures, one being AP and one being Reuters. It's a pity we can't use them, but we have to stay clear of copyright-violations. Thomas Blomberg 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerial strike

message: Cows of unknown origin and allegiance have invaded Lebanon, impeding Israeli mobile artillery units in doing so. --Paraphelion 08:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROTFL ! I candidate this for the Wikipedia:BJAODN !!! dott.Piergiorgio 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a pretty depressing article so was kind of happy to see something about something other than death when looking through articles... but now that I think of it, there is potential that this is relevant.  It might not be random cows walking around, but Israel could be using them to set off possible mines in the area, especially since 4 Israeli soldiers died from a mine, and right now 4 is 40% of soldier deaths.  Also seems kind of odd they are walking in an orderly fashion ahead (though a good deal in the background) of the artillery unit, but I am no expert on cows or how they walk.--Paraphelion 08:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 Israeli soldiers died from a mine - that's one efficient mine! - ironcito 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referenced in the article in the infobox next to the tank casualty if you are interested.--Paraphelion 08:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a third faction enters crisis

message: There are hundreds of Lebaneese held by Syria. Hezbulla never chalnged that, called for their release or kidnapped any syrian soldiers (who until recently were occuying Lebanon) or Syrian intelegence people (still in Lebanon).
*You know, it is never a good idea to randomly create a new topic attempting to make a point, when you cite no sources and do not even sign your comment. The great kawa 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenaneese held w/o trial in Syria 

message: Lots of Christians have been saying that when the whole world is at war, the end times will come, or something like that. But a little bit before the End, Jesus will appear and Rapture everyone. I don't quite remember what its about, but I think it should be added by someone with good knowledge of this subject. - supmyman7 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the Rapture is relevant to this article, as this is currently a Middle East conflict, not unlike the ones that have taken place for the last 50 years or so.  I think it's a little extreme to mention anything apocalyptic at this time. Erik 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just what we need in this article, more unfounded hysteria and subsquent edit-warring. Sheesh. Emax0 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For every important event, some groups claim the end of times, an apocalyptic end. Without meaning any disrespect, I will move this to Archive2. I'm doing all I can to keep this page structured, readable and under 200kb (which is already too much I think). Sijo Ripa 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should add about the End Times