Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 42

message: I think the IDF estimate of Hezbollah casulties (600+ dead) should be the only in the list of Hezbollah's casualties (or at least first), and not the hezbollah's estimate (about 250 dead).
Everybody knows that the Hezbollah estimate is not trustworthy, and it is a part of it's propaganda.
On the other hand, The IDF (and the UN) estimates are more authentic and based on facts. — 80.178.88.248 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this would inject POV and OR into the article – two things that we try to avoid, as they are against Wikipedia policy. — George Saliba [talk] 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now, Hezbollah's estimate is first on the list, and it's not really neutral... We are talking here about a terrorist organization!   80.178.32.222 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is a point of view. We are trying to give a full picture here... not a "correct" one.
Any ideas for how to balance this out? TewfikTalk 06:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove the "although", and split it into a new sentence like "Nearly all of them were able to return to their homes in the days following the end of fighting"? I'm not sure what the correct time period is, though I doubt it's much longer than a few days or weeks. — George [talk] 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the statement in question seems to refer to the Israeli displaced, and not the Lebanese displaced. When splitting it, we probably have to be careful not to mess up that correlation (unless it is incorrect). — George [talk] 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, that's really the issue. Are there sources for either, both? I believe most Lebanese returned to their homes in the last year, but our source is out of date. TewfikTalk 07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. I'd just rip the statement out, personally. If there were some significant numbers of either that remained displaced for a period of time, I would just cite that instead. — George [talk] 08:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of casualties 

message: Does anybody else think that this whole war was predicted in Revolations in the Bible?
:No. Dwmr 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I think so. (thats not the first time i heard that.) --Shamir1 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It would be POV not to include it. The article should provide anything related to the war. Just because you don't agree with it does not mean it should not be added. TFighterPilot 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This falls into the category of undue weight: "Articles that compare views... may not include tiny-minority views at all." — George [talk] 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecy 

message: An anonymous editor recently added 11k worth of new Timeline information. I'm suggesting that the majority of this addition be moved to the main Timeline article, and these sections be retitled from "Timelines" to something like "Key events". We worked really hard to trim down the article's bloat to meet GA status, and we need to be careful to not let it explode again. — George [talk] 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. Iorek85 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely Delad 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved to remove it, and suggested it be moved to the Timelines subarticle, and was reverted. I hope that its now clear that I'm acting in line with consensus and the general practice on this article of not adding new information to the main entry, but rather its substituents. TewfikTalk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I wasn';t aware of this consensus. I guess you're right, there is consensus. thanks. --Sm8900 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  11k of new Timeline information 

message: This article is POV because there is spoken war and nothing about what has happen before. Have everybody forget Syria soldiers which has on ultimatum of USA left Lebanon and return home. Sorry but Israel will never attack Lebanon if Syria soldiers has been there. Even if they attack military situation will be different. In the end we must put in this article story about Syria soldiers returning home in 2005.  Rjecina 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the policy on original research. — George [talk] 07:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research is not Syria soldiers going home in 2005  !! Timeline is very simple and timeline must be in article. Why in part of article with name Background you have all from 1968 to 2004 but not return of Syria soldiers home? If not writing about that is not POV what it is .Rjecina 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By OR, I was referring to your statements "Sorry but Israel will never attack Lebanon if Syria soldiers has been there. Even if they attack military situation will be different." Mentioning the Syrian withdrawal as a possible pretext for war is okay for inclusion in the Background section if (and that's a big if) it is properly sourced, and without the OR interpretations. — George [talk] 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure that the statement "Sorry but Israel will never attack Lebanon if Syria soldiers has been there" is correct, original research or not? After all, in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon there was a Syrian presence, it is even mentioned in the article here in Wikipedia.Krynnish Conspiracy 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a bit long, and it's important that it have some relation to the topic of the article. Do you have any sources (news paper articles, for instance) that say why the Syrian withdrawal is important to this war maybe? — George [talk] 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For that I do not need source, like you have not needed source to write about Syria 29 years of military occupation ! Background text is not so long so your argument for not writing about that is bad. Rjecina 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you misunderstood. We need to say why Syria's military presence is important to the 2006 Lebanon war, because that is what this article is about. To say why it is important, we need a source. — George [talk] 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try to take a look at these when I get a chance. Obviously any other editors should feel free to evaluate them as well. — George [talk] 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV (Syria-USA)

message: Unfortunately it's low resolution. By mistake. Please comment on possible changes or else.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the caption be? Also, why do we always pick the most sterile pictures of war we can find? Is there actual policy against, or POV implications of, picking images that represent the most damage done on both sides? — George [talk] 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what's inadequate about the current image alone. Italiavivi 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or else what? :) I like it. The helicopter doesn't really illustrate much (maybe a an air strike in progress would be better), but you work with what you have. Chuck it in. Italiavivi - the current image is open to accusations of POV by only showing the damage to Lebanon. Not that I agree with them, but they could be made. Iorek85 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: the helicopter is the only PD photo not showing damage or smoke. -- (TheFEARgod)161.53.48.211 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should clarify. By least damage visible I mean that of the three images, only the one of the apartment building really shows damage. The top one just shows smoke, and the third is just a helicopter, as you mentioned. I just noticed the comment about the images being public domain however – is that a requirement to use them? Again, I don't understand copyrights at all. — George [talk] 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good to use a non-free picture in a composite image. Some anti-fair use bad guys could delete it, like the past image we had (1-2 months ago) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer using thin black separation lines for the images --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they're non-free, just not in the public domain. They're mostly listed with that CC-SA-whatever stuff. I'll leave it to you guys though to do the image work (which images, borders, etc.), cause I'm definitely no master. ;) — George [talk] 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like some of those pics better, George, but if we're going to be NPOV, we should have three of Lebanon, one of Israel, considering the vast majority of the damage was in Lebanon. It's what we had before. I'd like (if they exist) some "action" shots, maybe Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel, or an Israeli air strike. Iorek85 09:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I guess I could see that. I agree that I'd prefer action shots too, though I couldn't find any good ones of Hezbollah firing katyushas. My biggest issue with TheFEARgod's suggestion (and the current image, and the composite image that proceeded it) is that they don't say war/conflict/fighting to me. The smoke thing almost looks like a thunderstorm (half-kidding), and aside from the apartment building in Haifa, if I were to see the other images, outside the context of the article, I don't know that my first thought is "Ahh, this shows a war/conflict/fighting". Again, I'm cool with whatever you guys decide, just listing some things to consider. Cheers. — George [talk] 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: DAMN! most of the excellent flickr photos are copyrighted like:  Even this:  --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am somewhat leaning towards Tewfik's idea. How about: 1 picture of damage, 1 picture of damage, 1 picture of Katyushas, and 1 picture of a tank...? Either that or perhaps a map showing major attacks (on both sides of the border of course). --Shamir1 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: then please help us find wiki commons-compatible images (again, only those can go in a composite image) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead picture 

message: Search this article's text for the word "don't."  This article's excessive use of contractions gives it too informal a tone. Italiavivi 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember if it was this article or another I was looking at, but at some point I saw an anon editor go through and replace all the terms like "it is", "do not", etc. with contractions. I didn't think those changes really improved the article, but I figured it was just a readability issue. If some of the contractions sound too informal, expand them I say. — George [talk] 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of contractions in this article's text. 

message: :Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG

message: The second paragraph that claims Hezbollah first fired at Israeli villiages needs a reference--we're not sure if it is true.  In this conflict, it is important to understand who first fired at civilian targets.  There is no evidence that Hezbolla fired at civilian villages first.  Their attack was on a military target.
:This claim is sourced to 2 references (a UN report and a BBC timeleine) in the body of the article. There is absolutely no question about the fact that Hezbolla fired at civilian villages first.  Isarig 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begining of the war 

message: every event in the timeline talks of Israeli soldiers killed, and Hezbollah actions against Israel. The Israeli timeline for the most part shows civilial casualties. Over 500 Hezbollah soldiers were killed, you would not know it from reading the timeline. Drsmoo 09:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Hezbollah wasn't really keen on letting us know about that sort of thing. TewfikTalk 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been extensive discussion on this issue before. For the latest example see here. Iorek85 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in Timeline