Talk:Operation Sharp and Smooth

message: Believe it began late on 1 August, check the military where I placed some details Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict  82.29.227.171 16:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. 89.0.169.123 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: This story is narrated from Israel viewpoint.--Sa.vakilian 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's completely fucked. I'm in the process of neutering the POV right now.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Are you sure abount that? I seems like 200 troops took part in the operation, but there were much fewer comando troops... 89.0.243.231 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. For now I'm seeing news sources reporting it as "200 commandos," I guess we should try to find the original IDF press release for confirmation. --Bingman06 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approximately 200 elite commando 

message: What does "fast-roped" mean? Especially as they seem to have done it over the Med while re-fuelling (or is that just poor sentence construction?)? Please refrain from military jargon. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fast-roped"?! 

message: This article is not NPOV, in the casualities box its mentioned that Hezbolla suffered 18 dead, however the only bodies shown on TV were those of civilians & chidren, how would the IDF be sure he killed 18 fighters, i doubt in a commando raid you have time to count the dead bodies, have a cup of tea may be, then withdraw before reinforcements arrive, as for the prisoners, Hezbolla announced that they were civilians & i tend to believe that for more than a reason: at the beggining of the war Israelis captured what they claimed to be 2 hezbolla fighters, hezbolla denounced that, 3 days later the 2 men were released & IDF declared they were civilians. In this raid, one of the captured is a 65 year old grocery owner whose name is Hasan Nasralla, that shows what kind of evidence IDF has against these ( hezbolla Fighters). so please stop refering to israeli figures since its all for propaganda purposes.
:Both sides are engaging in heavy propaganda.  In general when sources do not agree about something, we should put in both versions and be clear about who says what.  Of course when something is retracted that changes things. Dsol 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caualities

message: The operation objectives were: Assassinate Hezbollah Leader, and locate the arsenal, not capture someone by the name Hassan Nasserallah, who isn't THE Hassan Nasserallah. In my humble opinion, this operation was a complete and utter failure.
Sure it was a failure, though its funny to see that in every battle during this conflict propagandists on wikipedia are using the terms (israeli success) & (israeli victory) while the outcome of the war itself was an ( israeli fuckup)..of course the israeli fuckup was obvious for all observers except for Mr. Bush & equally intelligent species.
:How do you know what the objectives of the operation were? Are you a member of the Israeli General Staff? The Result as "Mission Failure" seems to be POV violation right now. It is not known what the mission was and whether the objectives were met. I suggest changing the Result to "Unknown". --68.161.176.76 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the Result to "Unclear" which is what it has been for a while. --68.161.176.76 (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success? 

message: Should the date, results and casualties from this raid be added to the infobox ?imi2 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second operation took place 17 days after the first one, and they are not related. Rabend (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd raid 

message: IDF is not a reliable independent third-party source. We have two independent sources showing that most of the casualties where civilian. First and foremost Human Rights Watch. Both the Interior Security Forces and al-Mustaqbal newspaper are controlled by the Hariri clan and thus no friends of Hezbollah. The claims of the IDF cannot be regarded as anything but claims.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: HRW is biased and present certain POV and thats ok as Lebanon sources and IDF. We should attribute the sources. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As you reverted my changes and made the article factual incorrect and POV I will tag it accordingly.Shrike (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: No its not OK, we should attribute views and not state HRW and Lebanon POVs in Wikipedia voice--Shrike (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one will answer in talk I will change the article to reflect all the POVs according to WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: This article was created in August 2006. I started making my edits in December 2011 and I’m quite proud of my achievements. Up till then the article was dominated by editors whose main concern seems to have been to present the Baalbek raid as an unqualified Israeli success or victory and doing so by deliberately inflating Hezbollah casualties. Their claims were not supported by sources and a quotation from al-Jazeera was completely faked.
* How many Hezbollah fighters were killed in the raid?
The IDF claimed to have killed 10 Hezbollah fighters, as was reported by IDF itself as well as by Israeli media (see article for sources). Hezbollah did not publish any casualty number but denied this claim. Independent third-party sources however confirm only 2-4 killed combatants (2 of which were Hezbollah) as well as 12-14 civilians. None of these sources was quoted in the earlier version of the article.
That version of the article even claimed that 19 Hezbollah fighters were killed. But the alleged source said nothing of the kind. It discussed another raid on Baalbek several weeks later and did not discuss the number of Hezbollah casualties in either of them (or in the war in general). This nonsense claim – which not even the IDF was making – has been included in this Wikipedia article at least since Aug 7, 2006 with nobody – successfully – challenging it. Really a very low mark for Wikipedia.
The earlier version of the article made no reference what so ever to any civilian Lebanese fatalities in the raid in spite of many sources making this claim, such as BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5237098.stm
This is a disturbingly common pattern in Wikipedia articles on the 2006 Israel Lebanon war. Most of the articles on the individual battles in the war that I have checked, not only quoted IDF as the ultimate authority on the number and status of Lebanese casualties but on top of that substantially inflated IDF claims without any kind of sources backing this claim.
So where did the number 19 come from? I have of course no idea. But there were early reports that 19 civilians had been killed in the raid. See for example:
http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/08/20084916445795272.html
I decided not to use this item since two subsequent independent inquiries (HRW and ISF) both agreed to a lower number (16) of fatalities. It is quite easy that preliminary numbers become inflated when persons who are simply missing are assumed to be dead.
* Who were the five abducted Lebanese men?
The IDF incorrectly believed that they were related to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and/or where active in Hezbollah. There are clear indications that some of them were the actual targets of one of the two missions. The IDF eventually realized their mistake and released them three weeks later.
While this fact was admitted in the end of the article it was not made clear elsewhere in the article. In the infobox they were still counted as Hezbollah belligerents.
* Faked quote
The following quote supposedly from al-Jazeera was found in the earlier version of the article: 
A group of Israeli commandos was brought to the hospital by a helicopter. Hezbollah fighters inside the hospital opened fire, but the commandos managed to get inside the hospital. They captured many Hezbollah weapons. Hussein Rahal, a hezbollah spokesman said that the commandos were trapped in the hospital and engaged in fierce clashes with hezbollah fighters. He also added that Israeli jets outside were attacking the surrounding hezbollah forces with rockets. "They entered the hospital and they are trapped inside." 
The link to the alleged source is dead but I managed to find it here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823080733/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DB65EDEA-76AC-4AC2-9ADC-8A0B14B9B587.htm
The “quote” cannot be found in this article. More specifically the formulation “Hezbollah fighters inside the hospital opened fire, but the commandos managed to get inside the hospital. They captured many Hezbollah weapons” is nowhere to be found. It is completely made up.
* Reliable sources
At least one editor user:shrike has questioned whether Human Rights Watch or the Lebanese Internal Security Forces can be described as independent third-party sources. I really cannot understand this position. If they are not considered reliable sources just who would be in the Lebanon war? They both carried out investigations on the ground, interviewing survivors etc. working independently of each other and came to the same conclusions. 
I don’t mind including IDF claims of Hezbollah casualties in the article but these claims should not be put on pair with HRW/ISF. The IDF and Hezbollah are not third-party sources.
According to HRW most of the Lebanese fatalities was caused by missiles fired from drones or helicopters at night. The IDF evidently failed to correctly identify the five abductees in spite of being on the ground. The risk of doing so from the air at night is of course much higher.
* An Israeli victory?
The earlier version of the article described the result of the raid as an “Israeli tactical victory” but I found very little support for that. The IDF has not presented any evidence suggesting that anything was achieved. The targeted kidnapping victims turned out to be innocent civilians. Most of those killed turned out to be civilians. Hezbollah leader Yazbek survived unhurt. Since the actual aim of the operation is not known for certain it is of course difficult to evaluate whether it succeded. Perhaps the best explanation is that the raid was a PR stunt as Maariv wrote.
I think my formulation “Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective” covers most possibilities. It does not exclude the possibility that the raid accomplished a less apparent objective.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits have introduced radical changes into the article. You have deleted sourced material. Your personal views are not relevant and you have presented original research e.g. I think my formulation “Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective” covers most possibilities. Please discuss the individual changes that you wish to make in the Talk section.Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal analysis is not relevant to this article, despite your insistent claims to the contrary. I suggest you find reliable sourcing for the changes you wish to make as opposed to mass reversions.Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Been watching the argument on whether mission met objectives. First we have to know what were the actual objectives to make a determination as to success or failure of mission. I don't think anyone will ever know for certain what the operational objectives were. Some have speculated that the objective was to show that the IDF can land anywhere and reach Hezbollah with impunity, kill its personnel, capture equipment and obtain intelligence. If that was the operational objective, then it was a success. Others have speculated that the objective was to capture high level Hezbollah operatives. If that was the objective, then it failed. In the absence of a definitive answer, we should not even attempt to speculate and the results section should either be left empty or noted as "disputed." (So what else is new?)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What have I done?

message: from WP:Vandalism: 'Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.' I advise you to pay very close attention to the section I have bolded. Jeff Song (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: As far as I can see I have just added well-sourced RS material, vastly improving the article. But of course I could be mistaken. Others claim that my contributions are "full of errors and policy violations". Could you pleae be a little bit more specific about what the main problems are with the article as it now stands (that is, before the next total revert...)? If you have any constructive and specific suggestions for improvements, I might be able to accomodate you. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a more constructive approach? 

message: Having reviewed this more carefully and after reading both Israeli and HRW reports, I’ve come to the following conclusions. HRW confirmed the deaths of at least 2 Hezbollah members. Three other militants belonging to the LCP were also killed. An additional two armed men, referred to by HRW as, “hospital security guards” were wounded. HRW further acknowledges that the IDF recovered AK47s and other weapons from the hospital. According to the IDF, 10 terrorists, armed and wearing flak jackets, were killed. The IDF provided footage of the operation. There were no IDF casualties. The IDF succeeded in landing in the heart of Hezbollah land, inflicted enemy casualties and succeeding in leaving without incurring a single casualty. However, the raid came up short in that it did not succeed it catching the "big fish." So in one sense it is tactical victory by drawing on the brute statistics of war but in another, it came up short. Therefore I propose the following language for the "Results" section, "Israeli tactical victory though no senior militants captured."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is OR and therefore a policy violation. I have removed it. The "Results" section doesn't have to say anything but its contents must comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Operation Sharp and Smooth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/mideast.main/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified