Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 34

message: The infobox currently states 30,000. Shouldn't it reflect the fact it changed during the month? Initially there were none, then up to about 10,000. 30K was only in the last few days. How about "(Up to?) 10,000. 30,000 in few final days" or something or the sort? ehudshapira 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we maintain a neutral presentation for both sides. I'm not sure what the best way to clarify this point while still being encylopaedic would be - maybe a footnote within the infobox describing the extreme changes in deployment? Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is a short sentence too long to fit in there? If yes, is a range (10,000-30,000) too cryptic/non-representative? If a single number, then maybe I'd go for 10K + footnote, which was more or less true for most of the time with ground activity. ehudshapira 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Israeli ground troops 

message: IMHO as an IP in the Englisch language WP, the Article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict should be moved/modified/enhanced.
1st) The name is wrong, since the main article is named 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The name is too long, no living man ever will enter this name to get this article.
2nd) The article makes a mosquito an elephant. No misunderstandigs here, please, I don't question the relevancy of this article. I question the sense of the subject of the article, since in this conflict 7 died and 12 were injured, but in the 28 years of the existence of UNIFIL before, about 250 UN soldiers have died and a lot more than 12 were injured. Therefore I pledge to modify this article to include events happened after the installment of this UN mission in 1978 and change the name into UNIFIL casualities. Focus on the entire history of this mission, but not only on Ten Days in July. (Sorry, couldn't resist, Mr. Woodward!)
3rd) Of course, WP is about encyclopedia, not counting apples. Therefore, the information that Maj. Lang from Austria is survived by an 11-years-old boy and his mother is really a tragedy (WTF, they send soldiers there who are an only parent of a young child?), but the 249+ casualities before also had family members. What I want to express is, for instance, that this article tells through 3 pages about the Khiyam incidence, but the other three deads and the 12 wounded are handled within half a page. Of course, the incident earned widespread media echo, but a statement of Ehud Olmert, who phoned Kofi Annan and expressed his deep regret over the death pf the four UN observers including the rest of this paragraph is simply not important at all and should be discarded. (Since hundreds of years leaders excuse for having done bad things while they didn't give a shit about what happened at all!)
Please undertake the measures needed and appropriate for the article. User :de:Benutzer:Matthiasb in the German WP. (here only an IP) --213.155.224.232 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks on UN personnel... 

message: It's not exactly the right place to do so but I feel the necessarity to point out on the latest modification of the Timeline articles to this conflict.
Especially in Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (late August) and Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (since September) extremely POV can be found, e.g. from the latter: 
* Kofi Annan travelled to Iran and all is fine about Lebanon, the contents of the article is suggesting.
* Once Iran supported Hezbollah, but during the conflict only politically. Anway its over, Iran considers a Lebanese solution of the problem is needed.
* Hezbollah is not a headache for Israel alone. That's POV pure (though I agree, but choosing words ... feh!)
* On Spetember 4th Jesse Jackson -- what this guy, presidential candidate decades ago, has to do here? Irrelevant. This is no American WP, but an English language WP which is to be used by many smaller language versions as a source for translation.
* Women in southern Lebanon wept at the graves of loved ones killed in the Israel-Hezbollah war, at the start of a major holiday marking the end of Ramadan. In the bombed-out villages of southern Lebanon, the mood was morbid and the festivities subdued. There is only sadness and desperation and fear for the future.  (October 23 entry) -- Whre this comes from? Live from Hezbollah War-Propaganda agency?
* October 24th: Some Shiites will begin the Eid al-Fitr-holiday. Fine. Czech people will have a holiday on this Saturday, too. May I include this information here?
* References 4 to 9 are citing sources, but only titles, without any link. Therefore useless.
In the former article (late August) we find for example the August 30th entry for Lebanon (!): The war costed the lives of nearly 1200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis (sic!), mostly soldiers. Though this statement is correct, but why the 157 dead Israelis are mentioned within Lebanon, pointing out civilians vs. soldiers?
Please undertake the measures needed and appropriate for the article. User :de:Benutzer:Matthiasb in the German WP. (here only an IP) --213.155.224.232 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not had so much free time as of late, but I will try to get to it eventually. TewfikTalk 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline(s) of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 

message: The background people keep reverting to, in spite of all discussion, is still absolute Israeli bias.
 
Firstly the version you keep reverting to does not mention the fundamental background to the Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, the existence of Palestinian refugees. Secondly the "failed to control" phrase in the first sentence has connotations far too negative towards Lebanon, and ignores the fact that Lebanon has suffered far more greatly than Israel from militancy within its borders. Thirdly the background mentions that Hizbollah continued to make attacks on Israel after Israeli withdrawal from most of Lebanon (attacks whose frequency have incidentally been greatly exaggerated), yet it doesn't mention that Israel also carried out incursions into Lebanon during this period. Once again I re-iterate, it is those who keep reverting who are not respecting the neutrality of this article, and no-one has has yet explained to me how I in any way am breaching WP:NPOV in this article
By the way, are the people who keep insisting on this version American? I only ask because a lot of Americans are ignorant of the Arab position in middle-east conflict and instictively pro-Israeli,even when Israel commits the most horrific war crimes, they therefore often misconstrue otherwise lucid neutrality for pro-Muslim bias.Nwe 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: "July War" seems to be by a considerable margin the most commonly used name for this conflict by now (cf google results ). Should we consider moving it there? Palmiro | Talk 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google test is not a good method of establishing the proper term past a certain scale. I found minimal/no reference to the "July War" on CNN or The Guardian compared to other more popular terms. In any event, a Google search for "july war" 2006 yielded 41,600, while "lebanon conflict" 2006 yielded 682,000. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a move? 

message: Apparently Israel has violated the UN resolution today and flown jet fighters over Beirut and the Bekaa valley... Can someone include this in the article?
--Burgas00 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be quite a feat, as it is not yet November in Israel or Lebanon. Have the Israelis mastered time travel accorrding to your source? Isarig
Any constructive response?--Burgas00 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: yes - if you have a reliable source that adds anything to what's already in the article, go ahead and include it. Isarig 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Isarig, I am willing to help you, so I give you more sources ,   and  I think we need to create a new section, or new article about Israeli violations, since they have done it very often and it makes the 'Post ceasefire-events' section too long Nielswik(talk) 10:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your disruptive behaviour on this page - the constant removal of well sourced claims, the insistence (even in the preceeding paragraph) on the use of a banned, hate-mongering TV station as a source over the objections of multiple editors, the use of sockpuppets to evade blocks - does not inspire much hope that you are "willing to help". If you want to create a new section on Israeli violations, go ahead. Please don't forget to create one for Lebanese violations, as well, since you're so keen on making this article better and NPOV. Isarig 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why we need a new artice about these Israeli violation on Lebanese souvereignity and on UN resolution 1701. Nielswik(talk) 10:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no such thing, hezbollah obeyed UN resolution unlike Israel. And nobody say Israel won. pro-Israeli people say either it's a draw or Israeli defeat, neutral sources say it's Israeli defeat. Note:don't mispell Hezbollah(Hizbullah is fine but Fiz isn't),as it alters the meaning--Nielswik(talk) 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Continued smuggling of Arms from Syria to Hexbollah ; Refusal to disarm Hezbollah ; Refusla to return Israeli POWs. Surely you've heard of all therse? Isarig 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cited from Jerusalem Post. Does any non pro-Israeli source report it? Hezb is willing to return the POW, but Israel keeps refusing prisoner swap as Lebanon demands. And please stop accusing me of using sockpuppet. --Nielswik(talk) 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The JP was reporting a UN report, Go read it on teh UN web site, And see below from a Russsion source that says the same thing. Israel erfuses to swap POWs for convicted murderers - as is its right. Lebanon's refusal to return captured POWs is a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions - a war crime. Isarig 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not. Lebanese governemnt officials have publicly declared they have no intention of complyign with UNSCR 1701 as far as disarming Hezbollah , and the Lebanese army has not deployed to the Syrian border to stop the smuggling. Isarig 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Isarig: And if you do not believe the Al-Manar report (which is confirmed by AP and Reuters as I listed), i'll give you a pro-Israeli one  --Nielswik(talk) 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, haaretz cannot really be called pro-Israeli government but I suppose in your mind anything even remotely connected to Israel must be the "mouthpiece of the evil occupation". Second of all, you are citing an editorial, editorials generally present viewpoints very different from the norm.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: October violation of ceasefire by Israel

message: This was not a conflict but a war and a war ends with ceasefire or a treaty not with a end of the blockade. --Thepresident1 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi man calm down --Nielswik(talk) 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But he said we all are stupid(not only wikipedia) --Nielswik(talk) 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article, stupid Wikipedia

message: The section has grown and grown since it was first put there - I think the time has come to pick a few numbers and stick with them (and summarise), and link to the Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. Iorek85 08:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the numbers provided by respected parties in the infobox, and remove the rest--Nielswik(talk) 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what would we base our "pick" on, other than a certain POV as to which is correct? It is too early to remove the contradicting claims. It may take several years until there are academic studies that show the actual results. Isarig 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't only mean choose between sources, I also mean choose between what totals to display. Do we need numbers for Hezbollah, Amal, LCP, PFLP-GC, IDF, Lebanese Civilians, Israeli Civilians, Lebanese Military, and U.N personnel? Can't we just have Israel Military/Civilian, Hezbollah/Lebanon Civilian, and then link to the others as "more"? As for which numbers to pick, just go with the lowest and the highest, and put (diputed) next to it? Iorek85 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that, and one of the reasons the chart reached the state it is currently in, is that a middle-ground source gives a better idea of where the truth really lies (ie, 80-700 is quite different when punctuated by a UN statement of 500). In general, we need an overall policy on how to maintain sourcing, since the previous policy of simply removing it resulted in much wasted time as the same issues subsequently were argued over. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties in the infobox

message: Actually, on the interview with the jazeera channel Hassan Nasrallah didn't only say:
"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it." 
he actually said:
"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it, But, and I insist on the 'but', july's war was preapared long before operation truthful promise, as a part of the israeli-american project on the middle east, we had clear and undoubtful evidences so we decided to take a preventif move."
My translation is not accurate because my english is poor, but please edit the article because I am new here and I have no clue about using editing features. THX. 193.95.111.88 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasrallah statement 

message: can someone repair the infobox without reverting? --Wiafejwiaaf 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  repair infobox 

message: Does anyone, especially Isarig and Nielswik, want to explain what the issue is about the recent ping-pong reverting? Thanks, Vic226 08:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Nielswik added total numbers of IDF forces because he felt that putting total Hezbollah forces was somehow imbalanced. I explained to him that the reason that the total Hezbollah numbers are included (as well as intermediate numbers: active, available, and reservist) is because there is no official number published, while the numbers for the IDF are published and noncontroversial. However, I do not understand at all why he removed part of the casus belli and reference to Hezbollah attacks on civilian locations, or why he removed the context from the background section (diff). Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent revert war 

message: See BBC, a major service calls it a war See "Israeli onslaught" part" --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name issue 

message: We can add the outcomes of this conflict by using Implications of the Israel-Hezbollah War  and .--Sa.vakilian 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcomes

message: Hezbollah cracked the code
I haven't seen anything like this discussed here or in the article (although I admit it was a quick search), so I just thought I'd mention it and let the editors who have been editing this article on a regular basis take a look. Markovich292 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signal interception

message: The Israeli's initially named their response as "Operation Just Reward".  I think it is biased to leave that out of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.15.46 (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article fails to name the Israeli operation 

message: I am mainly referring to the statement by Bar-Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg in San Franscisco Chronicle on Friday, July 21, 2006. I find his statements present the entire conflict in a totally new light. And I briefly quote the article quoting Mr. Steinberg: "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board." Find the original here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP -- read and please comment --EndurinFreedom 03:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that here is an Israeli Professor Of Political Sciences using the word WAR about this "conflict".--EndurinFreedom 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess the Background section. You may want to call it "preparing for" rather than "planning", as that would be more neutral I think. — George Saliba [talk] 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. I am not an expert on Political Sciences, but does it seem like Israelis were just looking for an excuse to start a full scale campaign in Lebanon, according to Professore Steinberg and the military sources quoted, what is your opinion? --EndurinFreedom 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess thats one way to interpret it. --EndurinFreedom 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact all the professor said that it was on the level of burning words on wall - it was clear that the conflict with Hizballah is inevitable. So there were war games, operation plans and staff like this to prepare to this pending conflict. May be You are unaware of it but - it's what military in HQ do, their job actually. If they don't have plans for possible wars - they are not working.Arusinov 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation that "all the professor said" is in complete conflict with statements of Professor Steinberg and the military spokesmen. Read again the 5th paragraph of the article. It clearly describes a detailed plan. It is one thing to prepare for generic defensive and offensive scenarios, and another thing to prepare for a specific offensive scenario. Also, Your reply is condescending, which probably speaks a lot about your character and motivations. --EndurinFreedom 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the fact that Israel had been planning this military operation since the year 2000 fit in? 

message: Hi all, I'd like to discuss the name of this article. It is presently titled "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". I think there was some discussion during the fighting about the appropriate name, but I'd like to submit the follow chart from Google showing the relative popularity of different terms that I've heard proposed for naming this article (please note that the year is set to 2006). I think that it shows that the most commonly used term for referring to the conflict is war (rather than conflict), and the most commonly used term for referring to the combatants is Israel and Lebanon (rather than Israel and Hezbollah). It also shows that these are the most commonly used terms in Lebanon and Israel themselves (click the Regions tab below the chart). Moreover, the terms war, Israel, and Lebanon are still the most commonly used well after the end of fighting. Thoughts? — George Saliba [talk] 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you realise, but this is a graph of searches conducted by users of Google, and not necessarily a reflection of academic or encyclopaedic usage. In any event, I commend you on the good work that you've done with copy-editing and such, and hope to continue seeing you around. Cheers, TewfikTalk 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Twefik, thanks for your kind words. I'm trying to stay as NPOV as I can with my edits. I totally agree regarding what Google search results mean and what they don't mean. Does anyone have an idea how we can more accurately determine the most commonly used term from an academic or encyclopaedic view? I'm not even sure if other Encyclopedias have entries regarding the conflict yet, so it still may be too early to determine. Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Amoruso, I admittedly only skimmed over all the discussions in the history, however my interpretation was that the conclusion reached was to wait until a common name was chosen by the media, and until then to use the term "conflict". There was also a straw poll showing preference for the term war to conflict, and what seemed to me to be pretty good explanations and examples of why a declaration of war wasn't necessary, under Wikipedia naming guidelines, to use the term  "war". If there was something I missed please let me know. Thanks. — George Saliba [talk] 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be useful to collect all the prior discussion regarding naming into Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/name, so that we can move forward to a conclusion, rather than re-discussing the same points "ad nauseam". Martin 11:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Lebanese soldiers were killed by Israel, Lebanese public infrastructure was destroyed by Israeli munitions, and Lebanon's ports were blockaded by the Israeli navy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.211.32.50 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Lebanon not listed as part of the conflict in the infobox?