Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 22

message: Do we need to include every prominent Israeli's "estimate" of the number of Hezbollah militants that have been/will be killed, when the IDF is releasing solid, confirmed kill numbers?  I know of at least three different "estimates" from varying ministers (including the tourism minister, whose was the highest), and various editors keep removing any "estimate" save the tourism minister's (including removing Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz' 300 estimate).  If we are going to include "estimates" in the infobox, we need to include them all, or decide to stick with only the confirmed kill numbers the IDF is now releasing.  Also, if editors wish to only use a "+" figure ("300+," "500+") to cover all estimates, base estimate used must be the lowest. Thanks, Italiavivi 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors are still removing all "estimates" save the highest, despite there being multiple such "estimates."  Again, if editors insist on listing these "estimates," it's all or nothing.  I'm becomming more and more of the opinion that we should stick with the IDF's confirmed kills only. 206.255.20.48 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It was done again, changed from 165 to 500, with no one fact-checking or source-checking the anon who did it. 206.255.21.51 05:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been trying to discuss this all week, no one is willing.  The article gets an NPOV tag until it's resolved. Italiavivi 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Estimates" from the tourism minister, etc. 

message: Update as of 11 August:
*Guardian: "Civilians: 1,009 killed (based on Lebanese government estimates"
*BBC: "More than 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians...Lebanon says" no distinction of civilians
*CNN: "861 Lebanese, mostly civilians, according to authorities in [Lebanon]" no distinction of civilians
*CBS News: "727 on the Lebanese side" no distinction of civilians
These numbers raise the same issues as before, namely that there isn't a minimum figure for civilians killed (and thus the "civilians" qualification is problematic). Suggestions? TewfikTalk 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56360.EN (10/08/2006)
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56488.EN (11/08/2006)
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56470.EN (11/08/2006)
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=56529.EN (12/08/2006)
Flayer 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IDF is not necessarily the most objective source in this conflict. --Jambalaya 12:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a claim. "530+ claimed by IDF [2], of which 165 claimed confirmed by IDF" Flayer 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jambalya, I know you are being sarcastic. But must statistics during this conflict released by the idf have been true and the lebanese government has agreed with it. Im going to check these links and then do some investigation before we move further on with this. --Zonerocks 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  530+ dead Hezbollah 

message: === Main Picture ===
The main picture is seriously misleading. It ignores how the conflict started and the current situation. One look at that picture indicates that Israel just began firing. What about the thousands of rockets that Hezbollah has fired? A good majority of these rockets have been fired from people's homes and have caused severe damage and forced hundreds of thousands of Israelis to seek safe places. Furthermore, Hezbollah even uses human shields, which is prohibited by Human Rights Laws. These illegal acts by Hezbollah only make it even more difficult for Israel to eliminate the terror group. It is extremely unfortunate that so many civilians have been killed on both sides, but the civilian toll would be a lot less if Hezbollah didn't use human shields and use innocent lives for its own cause. Israel is fighting for its survival. Unfortunately, it is surrounded by many hostile countries. Hezbollah, is an organization that desires the destruction of Israel. Once Hezbollah and other groups that seek the destruction of Israel are elminiated, can there then be hopes for peace. --68.1.182.215 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... the picture is doctored or changed, as U can see... so the authentisity of it, might be questionable... to say the least. Not possible to tell where or when it's from --imi2 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about Pictures

message: The main picture is seriously misleading. It ignores how the conflict started and the current situation. One look at that picture indicates that Israel just began firing. What about the thousands of rockets that Hezbollah has fired? A good majority of these rockets have been fired from people's homes and have caused severe damage and forced hundreds of thousands of Israelis to seek safe places. Furthermore, Hezbollah even uses human shields, which is prohibited by Human Rights Laws. These illegal acts by Hezbollah only make it even more difficult for Israel to eliminate the terror group. It is extremely unfortunate that so many civilians have been killed on both sides, but the civilian toll would be a lot less if Hezbollah didn't use human shields and use innocent lives for its own cause. Israel is fighting for its survival. Unfortunately, it is surrounded by many hostile countries. Hezbollah, is an organization that desires the destruction of Israel. Once Hezbollah and other groups that seek the destruction of Israel are elminiated, can there then be hopes for peace. --68.1.182.215 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: Hey, I was wondering, shouldn't we update that map under the header "Israeli Action" with the caption "Areas in Lebanon targeted by Israeli bombing, 12 July to 27 July 2006"? I mean, it's getting kind of old and there's a new, almost identical map with more up-to-date information. The newer version of the map can be found here. Someone would have to change the "occupied Palestine" label to "Israel" but that's all. The map says "feel free to circulate" so that's not a problem either.--Nibblesnbits 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update the Israeli bombing map?

message: Where may we use this? Flayer 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... the picture is doctored or changed, as U can see... so the authentisity of it, might be questionable... to say the least. Not possible to tell where or when it's from --imi2 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: All of this sick pro-Israel bias begins to make more sense when you read articles like THIS ONE. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear god. Not that again. Howabout making some specific criticisms of the article, rather than blaming the vast Zionist army? I see you did. Good. Iorek85 09:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, I'm just blaming the vast 'Zionist army'.  Give me a break.  I'm pointing out the lengths to which the USA and Israeli governments will go to misrepresent reality and distort public opinion to thier liking.  It is just pathetic.  The worst thing about all of it is the fact that those two states are about to start a third world war by their own admission, quite possibly.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  The BBC, AP, Reuters--all have reported on this matter.  Do you not read the news?  Honestly.  They have all (USA, Israel, Russia, China, etc.) been stockpiling nukes for about five years now, and matter-of-fact statments about World War III are being made by politicians and generals in all of these countries.  The admission is that this is 'inevitable' (which it isn't) and the maniacal promotion of this Third World War by many of these people.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'either BBC news is increadibaly in-accuart', whatever the hell that means, or I'm a 'another nutty conspirisy theorist', gosh darn it!  Do you people have any better means of addressing reality or discussion about world events than picking up on non-sensical labels that mean nothing?  Conspiracy Theory, in its pure form, refers only to the view that history is mostly guided by the combined, planned actions of societies, rather than by random chance.  Somehow PR experts have twisted it to mean 'whacky ideas about governments', which is patent non-sense.  What would you class as a 'conspiracy theory'?  The idea that Pearl Harbour was foreseen by the USA government?  The idea that the USA engaged in Operation Gladio and commited terrorist attacks as part of this operation?  Perhaps the idea that there were not WMDs in Iraq?  If you answer yes to any of these, you need to read some history and seriously re-work your paradigms, my friend.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making Sense of the Bias

message: "The conflict has killed hundreds of people, caused widespread infrastructure damage in Lebanon, ... and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel." in the third paragraph. This implies a fairly even spread of dead- which is rubbish. Most victims have been Lebanese and this should be stated at the start of the article rather than forcing the reader to go all the way down to the casulties section and do the maths. Very misleading.
Also in the "begining of conflict" section with have the Israeli view of the account of the start of the conflict but no Hezbollah view.. 
::"In an interview with The Times on 2 August, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two, but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately."[24]"
Again this is unacceptable. Olmert's account contradicts the statements written above it- they say only military objects and persons were attacked. Either take away the Olmert comment or add an account given by Hassan Nasralla. -- This unsigned comment was added by User:Rm uk
:"forcing the reader to go all the way down to the casulties section" - to the infobox directly to the left of that statement? And it's mentioned that there is dispute: "In a report the Lebanese police force stated that the Israeli soldiers were attacked and captured on the Lebanese side of the border" - it's also mentioned about the shelling "diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians". It's exactly in line with what Olmert said. Iorek85 09:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay--and why on Earth do you support the 'pro-Israel camp'?  Why is this any better than supporting a renegade militant group in Souther Lebanon?  In fact, it is much worse.  You can't just pull opinions out of thin air and asser them to be 'yours' without even thinking about it.  You have to formulate them based on actual knowledge, logic and evidence.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in article 

message: Terrorism is consisely defined by WordNet as:
: terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
Hezbollah admits, nay, is quite unabashed about doing just that in the words of its envoy to Iran:
:"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. [..] We will expand attacks. The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave."
Calling such deliberate targeting of civilians "terrorism" is not expressing a POV — it is stating a fact.
Whether or not Israel does the same is irrelevant.
пан Бостон-Київський 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Along with pretty much every other nation in the history of the world, almost definitely including yours. The WordNet entry may be the textbook definition (as well as the one I employ), but the word has picked up far too many connotations in modern parlance to be casually dropped whenever it's technically accurate to do so. That would be propaganda. Seeings as the article already mentions both Hezbollah and Israel being criticized for attacks against civilians, this sort of bombastic nomenclature seems both redundant and incendiary. And this is coming from an Israeli who has no doubt, as far as personal opinion goes, that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the state of Israel is responsible for numerous acts of state terrorism. The "Targeting of civilian areas", "International reaction", and "Historical background" sections seem more than sufficient, and I fail to see how referring to Hezbollah as "militants" or "guerillas" would make the article any less accurate. 89.1.68.175 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would be a fool to think that it is NPOV to selectively call militant vigilantism 'terrorism' and not call 'shock and awe' tactics by the USA and Israel 'terrorism' (when it is the exact same thing).  The word is just too broad in its definition.  It is a useless term, unless you want to B.S. like Bush and his crew do constantly.  There is no such a thing as terrorism--it's all quackery.  There are such things as criminal acts, as well as war crimes, which both Israel and Hizbollah are responsible for.  But there is no such a thing as this 'terrorism' that is used constantly in terminology these days to demonise certain groups/acts while promoting other groups who perform the same acts.  Let's stick to the rational approach.  If Hizbollah has commited acts which break the Geneva convention, specify those acts--use the correct terminology, not blanket buzz-words like 'terrorism'.  The only real use for the word 'terrorism' is in reference to the tactic in combat--scaring your enemy, or your populous, or some other target, using violence.  I would really appreciate it if I could see at least some people around here exercising reason and an understanding of the meaning of words--rather than engaging in the distortion of terminologies.  There is a major lack of reason in the world today, as evidenced by the practise of pouring suspect nitroglycerin into trash cans with other prospective volatile chemicals (!!!), as some supposed defence against this illusory enemy of 'terrorism'.  The whole bomb plot was known a week in advance of the media reports by Bush and Blair, and they actually talked over how they would use this for maximum political effect by using these violent and scary possibilities to incite fear in their populations, and augment this by introducing silly non-sense laws regarding 'safety'.  That could be called terrorism, by the definition of it.  Just goes to show what a silly and ridiculous term it has become, in its post-911 usage.  I wonder what student of Bernays thought that one up.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isnt a political chat forum, please take this to your respective discussion pages as this talk page is filling fast. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is about the use of terminology in the article, O great nosy one.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although modern commentators have invented the word 'scarrorism' to describe such acts of baseless fear-mongering using made-up terror plots and silly laws and security measures.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Terrorism? 

message: What is the total number of Lebanese POWs in Israeli prisons? Does anyone have an exact figure?
--Burgas00 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanese citizens in Israeli hands 

message: look, even the non-political Al-Islam.org changed their main page due to the genocide: http://www.al-islam.org/  --Striver 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand what your point is in relation to the article, can you please write it out completely, if this is not related directly toward editing the article can you please move the discussion to user talk space where its more appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gen·o·cide
noun : The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Let's try and keep our language encyclopedic, or at least vaguely accurate, eh? The Mark David Chapman article mentions the Lennon Assassination, not the Lennon Massacre. 89.1.68.175 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For reasons of objectivity, perhaps we should make note that the Israelis are actually developing inherently racist/genocidal weapons.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't it all make you feel kind of like Nazis? Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shi'a page

message: I disagree with this. While casualties are listed as part of the main table for the article, these numbers are confused and often very different from what other media is reporting. The table of casualties gives a good break down by nationality, as well as brief explanation and sources. Casualties are VERY important in war, both as a measure of how large the conflict is, and as a central discussion for a variety of other issues (bombing of civilians, civilian aid, etc). Even the International Reaction section has more text than the casualty section, which is merely a link! Casualties should be one of the most important things on this page, and should absolutely have its own section of text as part of the article. Cut something else thats less important, I'd say. (I dont know enough about the working of tables and such to make the change myself, otherwise I would do so). Harley peters 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty table removed... 

message: Im am editing the beginning where it says how many israelis died on july 12th link is not valid and it is a false fact. |url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738310.html}}--Zonerocks 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa... lets all try to stay cool here. TewfikTalk 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unavaliable link 

message: We need to add this to the article. Let's discuss it. --Zonerocks 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boys, it was already done one hour before Zonerocks asked for it. See the lead. Thomas Blomberg 04:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Agrees to Resoultion