Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 14

message: I think it may be time to rename this article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.  It's now regularly being referred to as a war in the media, and what with Israel's latest announcement of a larger land invasion, it just feels apt now, whereas it didn't really feel apt two weeks ago.  What do you guys think?  --Cyde↔Weys 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lebanese Daily Star newspaper seems to be calling it the "July War", which seems a bit optimistic considering that it's August now and the conflict is still continuing... -- ChrisO 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to rename article to "war"? 

message: Please add a reference to the following statement: "Over 1,200,000 Israeli civilians were evacuated to shelters and other safe locations in fear of Hezbollah's rocket attacks. Over 1600 missiles have been fired by Hezbollah on Israel leaving over 600 buildings in damaged condition." PJ 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in the info box it says that 300,000 Israelis have been displaced, quoting an article by NY Times. If we accept these figures, it would mean that 800,000 of those 1.2 million have been using shelters nearby their homes or places of work, and "only" 300,000 have moved elsewhere. Considering the fact that the total population of the Northern District is 2 million, whereof Haifa accounts for 270,000, and that there are an additional 20,000 Israelis living in the occupied Golan Heights, these figures may be correct. They would mean that 15-17% of the Northern District and Golan Height population have packed their belongings and moved to relatives further down south at one point in the conflict, and that half of the remaining 1.7 million have spent some time in air-raid shelters. Considering how officials tend to play with numbers to prove a point, it is, however, impossible know if the 300,000 displaced refer only to people who have left the area permanently during the hostilities, or if the figure also includes people who just left for a few days and then came back; and, similarly, if the 800,000 using shelters include everyone who at one point or another during the conflict have visited a shelter, or if the figure only refers to those who stay in shelters more or less constantly. Thomas Blomberg 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli Casualities

message: :I wasn't aware of these. 
:In fact, I didn't even realize that Amal was still an armed militia, and had been under the impression that their paramilitary capability had been effectively wiped out by Hezbollah towards the denouement of the Lebanese Civil War. 
:Can someone please clarify this issue. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked around, and it seems that the only reference to it is the CNN story used as citation, which states that "CNN learned Wednesday that Hezbollah isn't the only militia in Lebanon fighting Israeli troops. Officials with the Amal Party, headed by speaker of the Lebanese parliament Nabih Berri, said militias loyal to Berri have been involved in every major battle since fighting began. Eight Amal fighters have been killed in the past three days, during which Berri met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss a solution to the crisis." To me it sounds like an unconfirmed claim by an Amal guy, feeling left in the shadow of Hezbollah. If it had been true, Israel would have made a big PR thing of it, considering Berri's position in the Parliament. Thomas Blomberg 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amal Casualties?

message: There has been a huge edit war with the lowest possible figures usually winning through.  I suggest we believe the Lebanese Health Minister's figures, like for example today when he said the figure is a around 750+ instead of certain members making their own little calculations which is what we have now and ending up with 577.
Support or Oppose the Lebanese Health Minister's figures over wiki member's own calculations:
#Support Reaper7 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanese Civilian Casualties 

message: I think the page about civillian attacks is too long. to quote every single senior human rights official about possible war crimes is "problamatic". If you adopt the perspective of UN officials weren't war crimes committed in every single war? how many civilians were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are there any targets that the United States did not attack in these places that Israel is attacking in Lebanon? was the american "response" any more "proportional"? and yet looking up these wars on wikipedia you will not hear about "war crimes".
:Well, the fact is, "war crimes" have occurred in almost every war (to pick one at random, the American Revolution - the British treatment [housing, mainly] of American enlisted soldiers would violate the Geneva Convention today), but since almost all major wars happened before the UN existed, it wouldn't really make sense to apply that retrospectively.
:The victors write the history books. Most high school students would probably not even think for one fleeting moment that carpet bombing in Dresden constituted war crimes, but everyone, at least in passing, knows that Slobodan Milosevic and Adolf Hitler committed war crimes. Even Stalin's purges are covered in less detail than the Holocaust - because, after all, Stalin was on the winning side in WW2 while Hitler was on the losing side. So, in short... in 20 years, I think this conflict will become condensed into something like - "Hezbollah fires rockets - Israel retaliates in self-defense - [whatever the outcome is]" with no mention of war crimes or anything of that sort. But right now, with the conflict still ongoing... ugen64 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian attacks

message: Should this article be a place for irrelevant facts? The Qana reference, as I mentioned somewhere above (where it is undoubtedly lost in other conversations), seems too unrelated. Someone immediately reverted my change and said it "provides context". Excuse me? I think that in the 60 years of this God-forsaken conflict, there is enough "context" to fill fifty articles, and it certainly does not belong here. This is specifically about the current (2006) conflict, and not about what happened ten years ago. While I don't mind if there is a brief historical section, I think that history should be placed in it and not in other parts of the article. What happened ten years ago is horrible, but it is not relevant to the recent bombing, and it doesn't seem to be relevant to international criticism either. It seems to be an excuse to add in just one more mark against Israel's civilian casualty record, or at least muddy the waters.Di4gram 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Lebanon had recently recovered from both a bloody civil war and a prior Israeli invasion and occupation of sourthern Lebanon before the current conflict started is of course relevant. Sanguinalis 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is fine, except I don't understand the reference. Why does it matter if this same place was attacked 10 years ago? Does it have strategic signficance? Does it have cultural signficance? Does it have any significane to the current conflict?Di4gram 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant facts

message: I propose to move casualties to a seprate article because the article is too long. We can add the statistic of Foreign nationals and UN casualties in the table of casualties.--Accessible 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - care to elaborate? The article is still over 65kb and growing, and casualties is a large section. --Iorek85 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moving casualties

message: It seems the reference section has been broken after #140.  Is this a technical limitation of Wikipedia, or is there a more mundane fix?  --Keyne 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One option is to remove duplicate sources that only reinforce one item. The other is to consolidate sources, find a good source and use it for more then its current location. For instance if reference 10 covers everything reference 19 does then remove 19 and source its location with reference 10. Look for duplicate sources. Sometimes a website carries an article by another paper. I am not sure if there is a wiki work around. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references for the section "IDF agrees to cease air operations for 48 hours" direct to the wrong links, the number is right, the link is wrong. I worry some overzealous editors may delete links without checking the code for the URL. Numbers are 127 82.29.227.171 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are numbered when you flick one it takes you to the bottom and you find the number you clicked, they always for some reason show a dif number in the URL. I believe this is because they do not update as the numbers in the article body do. I am really sure as to the why, just match number in article with number at bottom and you are all set.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: references seems to work OK with M$ IE6 but break differently, with Firefox and Mozilla, at the same point.  That is 49... Anon user 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References broken 

message: :Image:London-beyrut.jpg
:If it's not war, it's an armed conflict. ;) -- 72.201.35.139 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If it's not war so what is war

message: Could someone post this story in the article. I'll make a Wikipedia article on it later, but am currently trying to find more info on this story. Hello32020 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some detail on operations that began last night in Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict section.   82.29.227.171 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli soliders landing in Baalbeck

message: Fuck you people, you show a dead girl as a picture, yet the Israeli blood picture was taken down...this is clearly POV on the pictures.  Shame on you people--Jerluvsthecubs 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This fair use photograph from AFP/Getty illustrates what actually happened. As I understand the issue, the Israeli picture you are refering to had copyroght problems, and was removed for no other reason than that. The way to solve this problem is by adding photographs from the Israeli side, not deleting photographs. You're free to use this image as a template for how to do this if you wish. I'm restoring this image to the page. AdamKesher 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I see that this image was deleted by an anonymous user without explanation, not you. Sorry for making that implication in my response. AdamKesher 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I added an image representing Israeli casualties as well. Please feel free to be bold and add your own. AdamKesher 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're not. -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: tasc, you deleted this news service image once again without justification, claiming that it wasa "minor edit." I will revert this once. If you persist in deleting verifiable WP:V images from this artucle, we will again have to move to the next step. AdamKesher 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This news service images - staged. I'm reverting and edits automaticaly marked as minor. I don't see how 'verifability' can be used in referring to this images. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: tasc, please explain to us why you believe that this photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse and Getty Images has been "staged." AdamKesher 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reasons to belive that this girl's body was taken from that building? do you have any reasons to belive that this girl died in that building? do you have any reasons to belive that building collapse was somehow related to the airstrike? did you read this? -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFP is a legit source, unless the image is proven to be staged beyond a shadow of a doubt, it follows WP:V. A blog does not counter a legit news agency. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd appreciate if you'd considered reading my responses. Thanks. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: News sources are considered reliable. You therefore have to provide evidence they aren't. And some conspiracy page is not evidence; but even ignoring that, that page doesn't actually refer to those photos you've removed. By applying this unproven claim to them, you are, in effect, saying all images of the conflict cannot be included because you think they are all fake. --Iorek85 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't if they publish staged images. I didm't say that all images are fake. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YOu have yet to prove any of them are fake. Better yet you cannot prove it, someone else has to or its WP:OR and furthermore a blog is not a reliable source to do so. Especially when the majority of publications disagree. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I have to agree with tasc on one point, it is quite clear to my eyes the picture in question is propagandic in nature and there really is no proof that it isn't.  Same with the articles at hand. In my opinion, they shouldn't go back up.  John D'Adamo 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image being discussed is a fair use photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. This appears on CNN's website (link). Therefore, would you also say that CNN is using photographs that are "staged" or "propagandic in nature"? AdamKesher 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "Qana is fake" propaganda exercise is gradually being debunked one falsehood at a time- check talk on the Qana II page. The agencies concerned deny everything about posing or being manipulated.  Really do wish people would give it up, even IDF admits they bombed the building. I think image AdamKesher has is actually positive image- there is destruction but people are helping- it shows the spirit of the Lebanese in adversity which is one side of this conflict to show. 82.29.227.171 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures show clear POV

message: I was hoping to mention somewhere that Lebanon has now pulled out of all of its qualifiers for the Asian Cup (refer ).  This is as a direct consequence of Israeli strikes on infrastructure and homes.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of dubious ecyclopedic merit, TBH. Considering all the info already crammed in. And we'd likely have to include the fact that Liverpool FC are protesting any attempt to make them play a home game against Haifa in the Champions League due to rockets falling (And its a wonderful late equaliser by the Iranian scud?) --Narson 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian Cup

message: Got to say that regardless of the continuing and inevitable POV wars and the fact that we need to clean up the text for style reasons,. this set of articles and related articles is comming out great, in particular I loved the new casualties table (which while still needing some work, is such a great idea my second barnstar will go to that editor, User:Iorek85) and things have gone generally well with the sub-articles and the transfer of things there for article size reasons... althought we must pay attention to those because they are suffering a lot under POV attack from all sides (they are the lebanese civilians of wikipedia!!!) I think we are emerging with a very deep, fact based, view of the conflict, helpful to readers and in an encyclopedic perspective. We have not dishonored our front page status... now... lets keep it on!--Cerejota 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG PWND!!!

message: I think it would add alot to this article to include a section on the implications of International Law. Human Rights Watch has compiled a quite good FQA on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah at http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm. PJ 08:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Law 

message: How do the Israelis know the exact number of rockets that hit in Israel. Today they said 190 hit, but how do they know. Thats why I'm here to ask someone to include this into the article. Do they go to each site and count the sites or is it shown on radar? Thanks, Little Spike 11:54am EST, August 2nd, 2006.
:they go and count. -- tasc wordsdeeds 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  exactly. the remains of the rockets are also taken away... 89.0.169.123 16:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Radar, aerial photgraphs and video, reports, surveying the land etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Was Thinking

message: Every second there is a new image replacing another. The current images I see as of 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redd, could you please guide me to an agreement related to avoid inserting pictures? -- Szvest 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the "NPOV Tag Added" in this talk page. The NPOV was removed when those pictures were removed. Redd Dragon  talk 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please guys, note that the legality of a vote comes only if there are any policies doubting about, let's say inserting relevant pics to an article. In Wikipedia, there are policies and they come first. Later on come guidelines and than and only when there's a gray line between things, only then comes voting.  -- Szvest 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I believe they are POV in both articles. However, I don’t feel like arguing a POV problem in both articles. My head will explode with keeping track of discussion pages. The way I see fixing the problem would be keeping one Lebanese picture and adding one Israeli picture. Then on the main article (Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) adding some Israeli pictures and spread the Lebanese around the article rather than bunching them together. That is what I believe would fix the POV problem. Redd Dragon  talk 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I understand. I haven't looked at the sub article, will do now. Technically a 50:50 balance in this is actually less fair, because the vast majority of damage is in Lebanon, but I definitely think we should have a picture of the damage in Israel. We already had the crying soldiers, I don't know where that went. --Iorek85 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The crying soldiers picture is actually more relevant than a picture of Israeli civilian casualties would be, because more Israeli soldiers have died than civilians. Regardless, I think a picture of Israeli civilian casualties should be added - when you start playing number games, you forget the human aspect of the situation: 20 people are still dead in Israel. I think (regardless of my personal views on the conflict) that we are obligated to cover that in any non-biased article. ugen64 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images every second. 

message: This article is written as though the conflict exists in a vacuum. What started the conflict? How was it escalated? No such information is given. 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. The section beginning of conflict, Israeli response, Hezbollah rocket campaign, and historical background don't contain enough context? --Iorek85 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the background to the conflict

message: Having reviewed this article, its edit history, and the back and forth on the discussion page, I would like to suggest that the title of the article be changed to Israeli Rationale for the Invasion of Lebanon 2006. --172.192.114.34 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  That would not be a good idea.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not joking.  There should be a page centrally about the conflict, and not just a bunch of scattered articles.  You can make a 'rationale for israel' article, however, if you want to.  Doesn't matter what the rationale is, in the end, now does it?  Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He does have a point, however--creating a new article for these issues would suffice.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's actually not the case.  You cannot say that a conflict which really began with Israel refusing to return captured Lebanese to thier homeland, is the fault of Hezbollah.  Furthermore, western powers like the USA and Great Britain are partially responsible for not interfering before this got messy, and staging fake debates about 'ceasefire'.    Also, there is some evidence emerging that suggests that this may be the first major invasion over water sources of the 21st century,  , in which case it is all just about Israel expanding its territory and control of resources, using this one of many militia-attacks throughout their history as a strategic pretext.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested article title change

message: I guess, there are so many "smart" people here they can not recognize this fact... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.1.73 (talk • contribs).
: Read the talk archive. There has been an emerging trend to name current conflicts based on geographical locations rather than combatants, when one of the combatants is a non-State actor. For example, see the renamof 2006 Israel-Hamas conflict to 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. 
: Of course, you could try to convince us otherwise, but you you got off in the wrong foot by implying we are dumb. Man, there is hardheaded totalitarians, religious fanatics, cooky conspiracists, and all kinds of things among us, but I have yet to meet smarter people. :D--Cerejota 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, being a soapboxing totalitarian who makes Mussolini weep makes you blind. Seems like I missed the short-buser among us. :D --Cerejota 08:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really think that the American television 'mainstream media' has become nothing more than a televised version of Yellow Journalism.  They never cite facts anymore, always appeal to emotions, have 'scary' headlines like 'Terror in the Sky', and are totally sensationalist.  The way they are covering this conflict, with the exception of a few journalists, is just pathetic.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict against Hezbolla, only