Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:56, 20 July 2006

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Todo priority

Archives
Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4

Should Iran be Officially Added as a Combatant?

We have been debating this already, but today there was a big development in this story. Ehud Olmert himself proclaimed that Iran had organized the kidnapping of the two Iraeli soldiers.. I have moved the old debate about Iran up to this section. Let the debate begin.

New Iran Debate

Olmert claims Hezbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers was timed by Iran to deflect attention from its nuclear program. Bush says Syria is to blame, they're trying to get back into Lebanon. On the current evidence we should add neither nation as combatants, unless we create a new category for proxies, and add the US to that as well.Karldoh 04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Karldoh makes a good point. I agree at this point that we should refrain from adding Iran to the article. A reader who is persuing the root causes of the current conflict will undoubtably read articles that outline the connections between the various actors in the Arab - Israeli conflict. Speculating, which is what I believe it is at this point, in not in best interest of readers. I believe that stating in the article that Iran stands accused by Israel, Syria by the United States, and the US by Hezbollah (and others) of being involved (either directly or by proxy) may be a good neutral stance until there are more developments in this area. This is an area that could see rapid change so I think that keeping the discussion regarding this issue going is benificial. rex 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On the current evidence, Iran should definately be added as a combatant, although not Syria. Hizbollah is Iranian proxy in the conflict, receiving funding and weapons, and many Hizbollah fighters are Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops. There is strong circumstantial evidence that Olmert was right that it is an Iranian diversion during the G8 summit which had Iran at the top of its agenda. This is a tactic used very often by Hamas and Islamic Jihad during the peace process -- whenever a high profile peace meeting was held, the day before or morning of the meeting it would be guaranteed there would be a suicide bombing in Israel, and the meeting would be defocused and the lose condusive atmosphere for peace.Darianb

Unless Iran is directly involved in the conflict, it should not be considered a combatant. Yes, Iran does sponsor and support Hizbollah very much, but that goes for the United States supporting Israel as well. Israel is given weapons and money by America just as Hizbollah is given weapons and money by Iran. If Iran is to be considered a combatant, so should America.

I do not see any reason not to include Iran as a combatant. It is well known that Iran supplies Hezbollah with weaponry and training. Also, several sources have stated that upwards of 300 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Troops are actively involved in the conflict. The only debate should be whether Syria is listed.

By that logic should we not also add the United States? Israel is a Major non-NATO ally, receives funding, and receives weapons from the United States. I believe there is strong circumstantial evidence that the United States and Israel have shared intelligence information. And there is evidence that the United States has influenced Israeli policy. rex 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that iran should be added as a combatant. After all the conflict they have encountered, they have no reason to intervene with palastanian/israili/lebanese affairs. The kidnappings dont correlate with iranian interests, therefore iran could possibly not have anything to do with the kidnapped israili soldiers. AR

• Iran should be added. Hasan Nasrallah received some of his education in Qom, Iran, in 1989 and receives money therefrom to pay his militants.--Patchouli 07:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Iran nor Syria should be added, since there is no evidence that they are combatants. When they say that they declare war, or when an Iranian officer in Lebanon is interviewed on TV, then we could add them. Before that happens, adding them would just make Misplaced Pages seem unprofessional.--Battra 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Iran should be added, at least not directly. For guidance, see Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where the "Combatants" are the rebels, though it informs the reader that the U.S. supplied them. Perhaps a similar compromise? Zenosparadox 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll support that compromise. Good example. -Preposterous 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I too will support that compromise. Tewfik 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support this compromise. I have seen sources that directly say Iran/Syria is supporting Hammas, but also sources that merely say that US/Israel claim that Iran/Syria support Hamas. If you can express that they are just claims rather than present them as absolute fact, that would be fine, but I doubt the infobox will fit all that. Alternatively if one can find a source citing credible evidence about US/Israel's claims, that would be good too. I myself am "pretty sure" that Hezbollah is supplied by Iran and Syria, not having seen a piece of direct evidence or even a statement about direct evidence - i.e., someone capturing Iran smuggling arms to Hezbollah. There used to be mentioned in the Hezbollah section of this page, however it has since been removed. I would be for adding this back. I do not know the circumstances of the US support for rebels in Afghanistan, but I did notice that there is no citation for it. Consider also who gives aid to Israel in direct arms or money used directly for arms, yet somehow no one wants to see those countries named?--Paraphelion 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Iran Debate

It has been stated that Hezbollah is trying to transport them to Iran. Or should we wait till it is confirmed that Iran is harboring them?

Harbouring fighters does not indicate combatant status for a nation. That's at most a support role until the combat involves that nation's armed forces or their territory. MLA 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont ad them yet. Like MLA said harbo(u)ring soldiers duz not mean yur on ther side.Cameron Nedland 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I add Iran as an combantant? Based on their involvement in the Haifa missile launch. Hello32020 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not definitive yet. As I mentioned above, it's still possible the missile came from Hezbollah. --Pifactorial 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, only Fox News has reported this and even they aren't really sure I think (they say: Israelian radio says so - but what radio was it? a reliable one?). Most news services say it is likely that Iran or Syria provided the missile type to Hezbolah. That however is not enough to be listed as combattant, as for instance the USA and USSR together supplied many conflicts in the world with arms. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its way to early, israel uses british tanks but britain is not a combatant and we have no solid evidence yet. Also it is in effect an accusation of warmongering by Iran and i would want Very notable people saying that before we put it in.Hypnosadist 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read online that CNN also reported it. However, its too early to say this. Its not held up by any news agency as truth, its just a "report" at this phase which isnt validated. Israel is not claiming Iran fired the missile at this time. Rangeley 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not a combatant. Neither was Lebanon proper until the attack on Beirut. Even then it is still not clear the relationship between Lebanese forces and Hizbollah forces in this conflcit. Yet another POV point: we accept ISRAELS view on the conflict, while the Lebanese government has condemned Hizbollah.

Now we itchy to add Iran into the fray. Following this logic, Saddam Hussein is behind it all. :D --Cerejota 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It would be equally valid to add the USA as the major supporter/supplier of Israeli Military. USA provides Israel will helicopters and weapons—Dananimal 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN reported it during their morning TV segment today, as well as online, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, I agree that it's early to add them. While it may be valid that Iran supplied the missiles, it's too early to know if they were supplied specifically for Hezbullah's actions this week. Meanwhile, given the fact that there are Iranian revolutionary guards in Lebanon, if any of them come under attack, that might quickly change things. Acarvin 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there Iranian revolutionary guards stationed in Lebanon today, beside those guarding the Iranian Embassy? Who says? Thomas Blomberg 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not yet. Ahmadinejad has just been posturing so far. UltraNurd 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added Iran - I have no doubt. Here's the source Hello32020 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I readd? Someone just qualified my source and article (from New York Post) as a "fake article." Hello32020 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is making things seem bigger then they are. The only source it has about Irani involvement is a statement made by Israeli military, with no external confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

New York Post can hardly be considered a reliable source, see for example .--213.65.178.172 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There's critisism with other news organizations see 1 and 2, that does not make them unreliable. Hello32020 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN and Fox News which you refer to is indeed criticized, and quite unreliable, though not as unreliable as "New York Post". It think would be best if Fox News and CNN were avoided as sources for Misplaced Pages though. --Battra 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we can't just not believe any source that has any controversy 3 4 5. I mean if we did that we wouldn't have an article. Also that is just an opinion and others could have completly different views. Hello32020 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I believe your argument is void per WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth Hello32020 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should readd if we get more sources confirming though. Hello32020 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are we confirming? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That Iran is a combatant. And I'm thinking I should readd them as one (someone removed regarding NY Post ariticle as "fake) per Misplaced Pages policyWP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. Hello32020 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, many sources are saying that Israeli intelligence says 100 iranian troops are in Lebanon, and that they have helped fire missiles. I think its reasonable to add the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a combattant as these are the specific Iranian troops involved, rather than just saying Iran. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i can't find in the article any real source that iran is taken an active role in this conflict. --Japan01 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IRGC removal. i removed it because it is not a active/ directly involved the the war.if you want to add IRGC then CIA's flag should equal it on opposite side.Yousaf465 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Iran should be mentioned as a proxy combatent Red1530 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definately mention that Iran and Syria as supporters of both the political and armed portions of Hezbollah. By doing so, you would be indirectly naming the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China as indirect suppliers. The Russia and the PRC are the main military suppliers to Iran and Syria. An examination of the Iranian military equipment reveals that it has had three main supporters in the 20th and 21st centuries: the Soviet Union, Russia, and the United States.

saying that, you cannont in any good reason list Iran as a combatant. Was the Third Reich considered a combatant in the Spanish Civil War? Prussia and the United Kingdom both had observers with the Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War. Were those nations combatants? The United States actively supported freedom fighters in Afghanistan and the government of Greece in their struggles against the Soviet-backed communist forces, or in the case of Afghanistan, the Red Army. The United States supported Hussein in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. Were we combatants in these conflicts? If we want a real look at history, we need to put ourselves in the position of the real combatants: the freely recognized and UN-backed democratic state of Israel, and the Hezbollah military factions, internationally listed as a terrorist organization. There is no question, no debate. There is an accurate telling of history and there isn't. Like or not, it's our history, and its happening right now.

oh, and by the way, to answer someone else's question. there are approximately 350 soldiers from Iran's Revolutionary Guards. These soldiers are fulfilling the same role that the United States has filled in Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Phillipines, Columbia. This is the same role the Soviet Union filled in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba (after the mrbm's were removed), Grenada. ---- JRK

Which source of intel you have for IRGC helping hezb.Yousaf465

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the name of the article
  • Summary: Consensus that 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis is at the moment most appropriate article name.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about the name of the article
  • Summary:
    • No references found for Operation Change of Direction
    • Lebanon is considered a crisis actor. (See also the ongoing discussion about whether or not Lebanon is a combatant.)
• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"War" Poll

It seems out last poll helped us reach a clear concensus about including Hezbollah in the article title, but now having read some responses it appears many people believe it should be renamed as a war (some very passionately). Lets put this one to a vote. Criptofcorbin 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Our grounds for deciding whether or not to call it a war cannot be what media outlets call it. Surely, there is some fairly standard definition of the word "war," and we should attempt to apply this definition. If it fits, then it's a war; if not, then it's something else.--128.186.13.112 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support "War" (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

I see it as a war. It has been discribed my many as a war, and has been dubbed a war by both parties. some even go as far as to dub it as the third world war. I see much reason to name it as a war.--70.39.205.84 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To use the word "war" in this situation -- then refer as to what a war traditionally is called.

"War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups." See War

Also, from Dictionary.com: "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

By definition, this current event is indeed a war.

KyuuA4 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a war. The amount of destruction and miliary operations merits that this should be called a war. Hello32020 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although this conflict may seem like a war, it has not escalated enough to be a war. This is a one-sided conflict that needs to be stopped immedeately. Until the conflict drags in other nations, which it most likely will, this should not be considered a war nor a conflict. This is an unfair and unjust fight...this is one step away from being a genocide.

Whilst older news outlets are refraininmg from calling this a war due the conutations for international law and the Geneva Convention, it sure looks like a war to me--Manc ill kid 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. How hard is it to identify a war when you see one? Obviously a war, and it reaches much farther than Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. Kyleberk 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Opppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

Oppose Until we start seeing it constantly being called a war in a varaity of major media sources, we shouldn't jump the gun. Frinkahedr0n 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As above, we need everyone to start calling it a war before we do. Fine for wikinews to be sensationalist and jump the gun a bit, but not the pedia. The primary conflict isn't even with a sovereign state but an organisation. And yes, while it is current hyperbole to call things like that wars (war on drugs, war on terror, war on sesame street) they arn't acctually wars. Inaccurate language use in the wider world does not make it ok. Until such time as Israel starts handing out declerations of war or there are actual meaningful clashes on the ground between sovereign nations, its still a crisis or a conflict. --Narson 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose In wikipedia it seems the standard is to call ongoing military engagements with no declarations of war a "conflict". For example Arab-Israeli conflict. "War" is used usually post-facto or if an official declaration of war, for example, Six Days War and World War II.--Cerejota 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"'Oppose'" In response to the dictionary arguments, the fact that a war is a "state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties" does not mean that every open armed conflict between parties is a war. A knife fight between myself and another person would fit that definition. Sure, the distinction between war and conflict is blurred, but as an encyclopedia, it makes sense to reflect consensus rather than rush to judgement when history might judge differently.--Kanmalachoa

Support - I see the media everywhere calling it war. See this video which shows Dan Gillerman, Israel Ambassador to the UN, declaring it war, as well as the media themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_ykNverhQ&search=gillerman --aishel 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as the Libanon army is not (yet) involved 195.85.146.234 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose war as there has neither been a declaration of war nor a concensus on it. If the 50-year Arab-Israeli situation is only a "conflict," this can be no more only on the basis of the amount of destruction or by a definition of the word war. Also, someone has already changed words in the article to "war" - I will now change back, as there is no concensus, and should match title. -65.35.57.80 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry-that was me before I logged in. -Preposterous 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OpposeI would say they have been at a 'cold war' state for years and this incident may be considered to be possibly the first political/military actions leading up to an active, 'hot' war, whether deliberately or not. So this is an incident, or some other such term, to be seen as part of a broader, 'cold' state of war.

Naming discussion

I know we had this discussion already but as the "crisis" enters its first week soon, I think we should reconsider the article name. This is no longer a crisis, but not really a war on the classic sense.

So perhaps "conflict"?

Also it is becoming clear that this is not a conflict with just two sides, but three, and the title should reflect this.

So I think we should rename the article "2006 Hizbollah-Israel-Lebanon Conflict" or something similar.

--Cerejota 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this call for a name change. I agree that is a conflict, not a crisis. While it is of course a hugely caotic, just calling it a crisis doesn't imply violence. I feel conflict is more accurate in that it allows for the violence that is occuring. It was the "Cuban Missle Crisis" but if Cuba had lauched a missle in to an American city, I don't think that is how we would refer to it today.Criptofcorbin 13:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Crisis can mean violence, even war. See for instance Suez crisis Sijo Ripa 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well is there a way to put it to a vote?Criptofcorbin 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm perfectly fine with lebanon being involved in the infoboxes et al, Israel-Lebanon Conflict sounds like its Israel and Lebanon fighting it out. Israel-Lebanon Crisis is probably the best fudge for now. Lebanon is involved and is the 'host nation' for this years International Middle East Toys-Out-Of-Pram Fest but is certainly not in any real 'active' conflict (that is, to imply they are fighting back). Having said that...perfectly open minded about other possible ways of presenting the name if anyone has any? --Narson 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The "crisis," or more accurately, war, is between Israel and Hezbollah--Lebanon happens to be the staging area for attacks by Hezbollah. Lebanon doesn't have the wherewithall to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is like a tumor to the Lebanese. Since Iran and Syria are pulling the strings here, perhaps we should consider adding them to the infoboxes. Proposed article rename: "2006 Israel-Hezbollah War." Kyleberk 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for several reasons: most victims are Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah moreover has buildings and networks in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere - Iran? Jordan?), but Israel does not wage war against these Hezbollahs. Therefore if we prefer "conflict", the conflict should be called "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Israel and Lebanon" or simply "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon" (as most action happens in Lebanon). Sijo Ripa 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon", as you can't simply ignore the part Lebanon has in this, whether they actually want it or not.Frinkahedr0n 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" Criptofcorbin 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. Kyleberk 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". Wars/conflicts are generally named by the countries involved, not the parties involved. It's the U.S.-Iraq War, not the Republican-Insurgent War, for instance. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah holds two dozen seats in Lebanon's government and all of the fighting is taking place between forces in Israel and forces in Lebanon. If you want to distinguish that it's Hezbollah in particular and not just Lebanon, you might as well distinguish it as the ruling party in Israel rather than just Israel, as I'm sure not all Israelis are for this. --Cyde↔Weys 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Lebanese government has been begging for a cease fire since the beginning. They want nothing to do with this. Israel is a sovern nation using it's military. Hezbollah is a militaristic political party, and terrorist group in the eyes of many. Adding Lebanon's name to the article's title is unfair to a government that is doing everything it can to stop this conflict. As for the example of the insurgency in Iraq. I have heard it most often referred to as "the war in Iraq" or "the war for Iraq" not the "Iraq war." I think that term fell out of use after the mission complete-air craft carrier thing. I still vote "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" Criptofcorbin 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualified Oppose: If it does not fit some proper definition of "," then I vote for conflict; however, we should call it what it is. If one of our pedians can provide us with a reasonable definition of "war" that this incident matches, then we should us that word. We should NOT establish media usage as a criterion for our decision. Media call a great many things by names that are neither accurate nor appropriate.--128.186.13.112 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with naming it the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War -- for crying out loud, that is exactly what it is! Arkracer 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Opppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

Can only be called a war ex post facto. Not Misplaced Pages's role to label events before a consensus arises first. 16:43 18 July 2006

Hezbollah Poll

To avoid another chaotic debate, I suggest that we have a poll (which is in itself not binding), which could also avoid a repetition of the same discussion and the same arguments. It would also give a clear view on how many people support and oppose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict". Sijo Ripa 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (please add your name and your arguments for "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments against the current or another article name.)

Support This is not generally seen as a war against Lebanon, but a war against the people who kidnapped the soldiers. The Lebanese Prime Minister has repeatedly called for a peace treaty. Despite the attacks on bridges and airports, the Israelis have been concentrating their fire power on Hezbollah targets only. Israel has not officially declared war on Lebanon, but have said they want to destroy Hezbollah's military capabilities. The Lebanese are simply the people stuck in the middle.

Support The Lebanese government has been doing all it can to end this conflict. However, they are a very weak force within their own country, and very little control over Hezbollah. I believe putting their name in the title implies they are the main combatants of Israel. They are clearly not, nor do they want to be. Hezbollah on the other hand is the clear adversary of Israel. They are the ones holding the Israeli soliders hostage. Yes, Israel is holding the Lebanese responsible for the return of their soldiers but this is clearly just a political tactic meant to create pressure. The Israeli military has struck almost exclusively Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. They did strike the Beiruit Airport and Highways leading out of the country, but these attacks seem to have been meant to prevent Hezbollah from moving the kidnapped soldiers to countries where they would be harder to reclaim. I agree this is not the very best way to title this situation but anything regarding Kidnapping or abduction sounds too clumsy. Criptofcorbin 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Hezbollah commited the first act in this conflict, has fired rockets at the Israeli's, and has been targeted by the Israeli's. They should be included. Hello32020 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Hezbollah is waging the war against Israel. Hezbollah doesn't have a country (except Iran or Syria, but it's so much better to risk someone else's back yard than your own). Lebanon is a victim. Kyleberk 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose (please add your name and your arguments against "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments for the current or another article name.)

Oppose While Lebanon isn't really a direct combatant, you certainly can't ignore them in the title (Bearing in mind that Israel not only holds Lebanon responsible but seems to see this as a wider Middle East situation). The arab nations also seem to see that as a wider thing than just Hizbollah. If we could only come up with a suitable word for 'capture' or 'abduct' we could have the 2006 Soldier Abduction Crisis (Middle East) or something less clumsy. But again, this is short sighted by me as any escalation woudl require a total renaming. I say we wait 2 or 3 days, see if any other parties show up as a party to this. Its the encyclopedia not the news, snappy up to date titles are not a must. --Narson 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Lebanon needs to be mentioned as they are a major factor in this, whether they want to be or not Frinkahedr0n 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Takes place in Lebanon. Name of a country in the name of a war/crisis/whatever doesn't always mean it has anything to do with the government and should not imply that government's position one way or another.--Paraphelion 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Elatanatari 19:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose the "Hezbollah" part, Support the "Conflict" part. In fact, I think I'm going to be bold ... Cyde↔Weys 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose; total fucking weasel words. The article should be titled "2006 Israel-Lebanon War". This is as outrageous as the continual use, here as elsewhere, of the euphemism "enter": IDF soldiers apparently "enter" Lebanon, with the same kind of ease one enters a room in one's house, as another commentator has pointed out. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Until the rest of the world calls it a war or if war is actually declared, we can't go that far, as much as I agree with you. Frinkahedr0n 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So far as that goes, both Israel and Hezbollah have virtually declared all-out war. As you know, no state (or even other non-state entity) now bothers with the formality of "declaring war", a musty, dusty, quaint pre-20th century ritual that apparently gets in the way of a modern state's bloodlust. So I think we must judge for ourselves in this case, as a formal declaration of war may never happen. (Judiciously, of course.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with the sentiment, but that is not our job. If there is an article about why this war is not being called a war, that might be appropriate for inclusion in this entry.--Paraphelion 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shit or get off the pot. We are supposed to come up with "our" concensus, not parrot whatever consensus was achieved at Israel or Hezbollah's Ministry of Agitprop, as mangled^H^H^H^H reported by CNN. Given the scale, ferocity, and the results, war is the only honest characterization of the event. Do the missiles land softer in a "conflict"? Is the RDX more powerful in a "war"? mdf 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember WP:RS and WP:OR. We are not in the business of making the news, only reporting on it and summarizing it. Until it is commonly being referred to as a war I think we should defer to conflict. --Cyde↔Weys 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. And here I was recently reading Qana shelling, where the most common external reference to the event is the "Qana massacre" -- for blindingly obvious reasons -- but somehow, against all of the assumed reliable and previously published sources, the official Misplaced Pages moniker of the event was watered down to "shelling" for reasons of "concensus". Or was that political propriety? I guess it doesn't matter. While I am a huge believer in common sense -- to the point that it trumps even Misplaced Pages policy -- I'll switch my "vote" from "war" to whatever Israel or Hezbollah say this business is at the current time. "Operation Change of Direction" was it? mdf 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

'massacre' is POV. That aside, the Qana article mentions in the text that it is commonly called a massacre. UOSSReiska 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

106 dead civilians is also a POV. The central issue to these debates is which POV gets to be called "neutral" and thus expressed at Misplaced Pages. mdf 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the two POVs both have significantly differing information, we mention both and note that it's disputed? UOSSReiska 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Israel attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah is the causus belli, but Israel is in Lebanon. (I have no opinion of conflict vs. crisis). TheronJ 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We are supposed to come up with "our" concensus based on all reputable sources out there that we can find. Coming up with a concensus that is not expressed by any reputable source is where original research and op-ed begins. We are closer to parrots than anything else, and if that does not sit well with you, you might do well to start a blog.--Paraphelion 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet all reputable sources and reports strongly suggest that the word "war" is an accurate one-word summary of the events in Lebanon and Israel. mdf 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, then you should have no trouble finding at least a half dozen reputable sources calling this conflict a war, verbatim.--Paraphelion 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Let us not forget that we are not here to analyse current events - the title of this article should reflect what it is known as in the wider world. Period. We mustn't forget the basics: No original research, Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. Tewfik 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Hezbollah are a militant group that exist in Lebanon. All attacks on civilian, military, Hezbollah targets are therefore on Lebanese territory and hence the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty is instrumental to Israel's aims. This is surely the more significant aspect of the conflict which is why its too narrow to restrict the title to just Hezbollah. 16:32 18 July 2006 (BA)

Support Hezbollah is the only known successful government in Lebanon. The capture of the 2 israeli soldiers can be negotiated but the israelis use this as an advantage to invade Lebanon as a form of revenge for its invasion during the invasion of lebanon. I urge Iran, Russia, Libya and Syria to take action against this. How can a developed country bully a 3rd world country?

I have recently been authorized by Iran, Russia, Libya and Syria to speak on their behalf and they would like to let you know that they have taken notice of your pleas here on wikipedia and do not take them lightly. Expect a response from our collective governments within the next few days.--Paraphelion 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Hezbollah and support most of the comments above. Had Hezbollah and southern Lebanon been Israel's only target, then I could see this as a conflict solely with them. However, Lebanon as a whole has been a target, including the airport, major roads, ports, and other infrastructure not directly owned or controlled by Hezbollah (regardless of the possibiliity that Hezbollah might use these locations for its own purposes). --petes5266 10:25pm, 18 July 2006

Discussion about the Combatants

Strength?

The infobox lists the IDF strength as 6,000. What does that number refer to? Where did it come from? Unless there is some citeation of a source with that number, I belive the strength field should be removed, as neither Hizbulla nor the IDF publish their strength. --darkskyz 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the most accurate description would probably be "variable". — ceejayoz 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be removed if it doesn't have verified source. --TheYmode 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The current estimation of IDF's strength as 400000-500000 is unverifiable, and besides, it is greatly exaggerated. It might refer to the strength of IDF including all of its reserves should a total draft be declared - which is not the case.

Is there any source for that? We can't just list our estimated strength of the combatants' strength without proper citation. reverting the strength section to "unknown" until someone brings up real numbers with proper citations. And please sign your comments. --darkskyz 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The strenght section in the infobox is misleading. It implies that the 68000-75000 soldiers of the Lebanese army are all deployed and fighting against Israel, same as for Hezbollah and Israeli numbers. Could you fix it or mark as Unknown. CG 15:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon?

In the infobox, under combatants, it lists Hezbollah & Lebanon vs. Isreal. I don't see this as true. The Lebanese government has not attacted Isreal, and have condemed the actions of Hezbollah. The govenment is stuck in the middle of this war, and have not yet officialy chosen a side. For that, i believe that Lebanon should be removed as a combatant, because they have not yet attacted anyone. I would like to here your opinions --Dimigw 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

Israel has attacked Lebanese instalations and Israel blames Lebanon for not reigning in Hezbollah. Lebanon has also fired anti-aircraft weapons at Israeli planes. Xtra 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Xtra, what are you talking about? First of all, Lebanon has not taken care of the "Hezbollah" problem because they are literally unable to. With the support of Syria and Iran, Hezbolla is much stronger than the country that houses it. Second, what other choice does Lebanon have? It is a lose-lose situation. If they are to aid Hezbollah and try to defeat Israel, they will surely lose. If they are to oppose Hezbollah and try to end their existence, they will surely spark a second civil war, similar to the one that destroyed their thriving country in the first place. Right now, Lebanon is dead either way.

Source for the AA fire by lebanese armed forces ? dott.Piergiorgio 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was reported on Fox News. Xtra 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ynet 89.138.32.183 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but lebanon is not on the side of hezbollah, they are firing AA guns (didnt know that prior), but they do not have forces with hezbollah. Maybe they should be listed as a third party. Just an idea.--Dimigw 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They can't be listed as a third party, they are under direct attack and are defending themselves. Obviously they are part of the war, who is reponsible for that is another issue. Ryanuk 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon should be listed as a third party. They cannot be listed on the same side as Hezbollah. Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. MJZ, 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah??? The civilian arm of Hezbollah is an official political party with members in the Lebanese Parliament! While other parties within the Lebanese government may not be allied with Hezbollah, the government, as an entity, is responsible for controlling Hezbollah and therefore responsible for its actions.--WilliamThweatt 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has approx. 400,000 members in Lebanon. That means the other 3.1M Christians, Druze, Muslims and others are NOT Hezbollah! Furthermore, the UN and EU urged Hezbollah to put down their arms and become political party. That is why they now have elected members of Parlimant. It is common knowldege that the Lebanese Government has no control over Hezbollah. The Hezbollah militia is better funded and better equiped than the Lebanese Military. Any attempt to disarm them would have erupted into civil war. Since Lebanon still bears the scars from a twenty year civil war, you can understand why no one there wanted to rush into another civil war.

I don't see an alliance with hezbollah either, i don't agree with listing Lebanon the palestines or (even) hezbollah as combatants. its an insult since most only resistance is of the gandhi kind. There hasnt been a lot of fighting. in gaza and untill recently none in libanon. just bombardments, raids, terrorising people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

So...guilt by association? What a very simplistic, narrow view you have...And does putting three questions marks after your "question" make it more pertinent? MJZ, 14 July 2006, 22:03 (UTC)

And does putting "question" in quotes make it not a question???????? Obviously, you weren't reading my comments but just distracted by the pretty punctuation. I didn't say "guilt by association"...it's just "guilt" and "responsibility". Hezbollah is a political party of Lebanon, participating in it's current government. Furthermore, it launched its attacks from Lebanese soil (for which the government is responsible). In not controlling what happens within its own borders, the government is at least culpable and at most passively supporting it. (I hope there wasn't too much punctuation here for you.)--WilliamThweatt 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin acted as the civilian branch of the IRA for many years, yet no-one is silly enough to attach guilt to the government of Northern Ireland for the actions of the IRA. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, GeeJo...definately worth considering further. However, it's not an exact parallel as the government of Northern Ireland (which, before Home Rule, was simply and extension of the government in London) not only publicly, and loudly, disavowed the actions of the IRA, but actively sought to reign in the IRA, through political, financial, and very public police/para-military actions. Had they not, then it would not have been "silly" to attach guilt. The government of Lebanon has never mounted any serious attempts to control Hezbollah...on the contrary, Hezbollah (and their foreign backers) are gaining more control over the government and therein lies the difference and the justification for attaching guilt.--WilliamThweatt 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the government does not speak against them, is that the next day their car explodes and they die. The lebanese government has absolutly no control over hezbollah. The majority of the egovernment is against them though, just not outspoken. The majority of people also despise hezbollah, its only the small minority of shite muslims and palistinianes. --70.39.205.84 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

69.125.1.187HOW CAN LEBANON BE A COMBATANT???? What does it mean to be a combatant because the Lebanese military has not done anything to "combat" Israel thus far, why is Lebanon listed as a combatant in the infobox? How can one be a combatant if the military has not done anything to the agressor. Are victims considered combatants? Just because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, I would have to say that they are acting independantly of the Lebanese government. I think the combatants as of now, are Hezbollah, and Israel. --El Presidente 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon should be removed as a combatant.I don't agree that Lebanon is a combatant. They are a bystander more than anything. By calling Lebanon a compbatant you give an inaccurate view of the actual conflict.

I do not know how Lebanon can be called a bystander in this conflict. Thier government has allowed Hezbolla to exist in the southern part of the country(mostly).Jrltex 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Under international law, a government is responsible for cross-border violence emanating from within its borders. If the Lebanese government can't control Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is staging attacks from within Lebanon, then effectively the Lebanese government ceases to be a player at all. It's just a figurehead in Beirut, or another faction. Accordingly, it may not be accurate to say Lebanon is a combatant, but that assumes that Lebanon doesn't exist as an actor in this conflict. You've got a war going on in territory you claim sovereignty over, but with which you are not involved. How do you square that? Epstein's Mother 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I square it this way, you have nearly 300,000 Palestinian refugees, which has grown from the original 120,000, displaced from the 1948 war, that were left to rot in camps in southern Lebanon. They are not citizens of Lebanon or Israel and Israel will never allow them to return homes. They live in camps stealing elctricity,they are not allowed to hold most jobs and many homes have no running water. Groups like Hezbollah offer them jobs, schools, medical centers and are seen as charities by most Shia's and Palestinians. Moreover, Hezbollah is well funded and better armed than the Lebanese Government. The Lebanese Government spends 560 million a year on defense, in contrast the Israeli Government spends 9 Billion. Regardless of the fact that the arab countries started the war against Israel in 1948, Israel had a responsibility to do something about the 600,000 Palestinian refugee's from that war. Israel took the stance that the arab countries were responsible for the Palestinians. This arrogance and lack of compassion is the primary reason groups like Hamas and Hezbollah exist. Lastly, the Hezbollah represent its 400,000 members, the Lebanese Government represents the other 3.1 million Christians, Jews, Druze, Muslims and others in Lebanon. It would be the equivilant of the US bombing Toronto because of terrorists in Quebec. Israel's bombing of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon is shameful.

If there were anti-American militants in Quebec, and they started shelling America, and Canada chose not to go after them despite being asked, labeling these militants as legitimate anti-American resistance, America would indeed consider Canada as harboring terrorists and thus in the same boat as the terrorists. Governments unwilling to go after terrorists in their land tend to be viewed as responsible in cases such as this, and Israel does indeed see Lebanon as responsible, hence they have bombed Lebanese bases etc. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwillingly to go after Terrorists?!? The Lebanese Government was instrumental in twarting a terrorist attack on New York's transit tunnels under the Hudson River, by arresting and handing over the suspected Al Queda member on April 27th of this year. Is this how we thank them for preventing a terrorist attack in this country? They are trying to avoid another twenty year civil war by trying to deal with Hezbollah diplomatically.

I wasnt aware the United States was involved. Israel is being shelled by militants in Lebanon. Lebanon has refused to go after Hezbollah. It is due to this Israel considers Lebanon responsible. Lebanon sees Hezbollah as legitimate resistance, not terrorists - otherwise they would not be negotiating with them at all. I dont want this to be a political debate, because this isnt the place for it, but instead I am just trying to explain the Israeli viewpoint as to why Lebanon is being targetted - its because they have not sent their army into southern lebanon to break up Hezbollah. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was simply answering Epstein's Mothers question which I believe was directed to me. One last point, the US is involved.

Well sure, same as Iran and Syria. They just arent being fought or fighting at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the lebanese government is extremely weak; they haven't got the strenght to deal with hezbollah.PerDaniel 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is my point. Lebanon, as such, is now a failed state. It doesn't have control over what happens within its own borders. It doesn't seem that the Israelis are targeting the Lebanese government itself. Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be directing any demands towards the Lebanese government, precisely because it recognizes that Beirut doesn't control what goes on in the country. Instead, it has made demands of Syria--which, at this point, also probably doesn't have much control over southern Lebanon. The problem we have here is symantic. There is a country called Lebanon, which is now a battleground. And while there is a legal government of Lebanon, at this point there is no "state" of Lebanon, its representative to the U.N. notwithstanding. So, to say "Lebanon" is a combatant is probably incorrect. At the moment, there is no single state actor called Lebanon that could be a combatant--even if it wanted to be. Epstein's Mother 04:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is "punishing" the Lebanese Government and 3.1 Million people that had nothing to do with this. This has admitted by Israeli leaders and widely reported by the media. Israel has destroyed over fifty major bridges, bombed the civilian airport four times and numerous residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, no one can say with a straight face, that Hezbollah has rocket batteries in Beirut. The blanket destruction of Southern Beirut involves Druze and Christian neighborhoods, too. There are no Druze or Christian members of Hezbollah.

The problem goes back to 1948. Israel never dealt with the "Palestinian Problem", leaving up to "arabs to take care of arabs", which is why you have Hamas and Hezbollah today. Further, the Lebanese Government was not given the support it needed by western Countries to deal with Hezbollah. There is a Lebanese State that wasn't supported by the West. Israel is also taking advantage of the fact the Syria had been forced out of Lebanon by the Lebanese State and was left defenseless. We have to learn by our mistakes so that they are not repeated. Unfortunately, we seem destined to make the same mistakes over and over, when it comes to dealing with the middle east. Israel and the US just turned millions of moderate arabs against them for allowing the decimation and indicriminate destruction in Lebanon to take place. History teaches us that this will be a quagmire for Israel like Iraq is for the US. This action will truly breed the next generation of terrorist's against Israel and the US.

Lebanon has not declared war, and war has not been declared on Lebanon. Lebanon is simply the country that Hezbollah calls home. This conflict is between Hezbollah and Isreal. Lebanon Is pleading for a cease-fire. They are not a combatant.--67.82.149.158 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)JC

That argument really isn't enough. By that logic, the United States hasn't been in a single war since World War II, since no official declaration of war has ever been issued by the U.S. Congress since 1941. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 12:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're arguing over the directionality of "combatant". Lebanon and Israel are definitely the location of the conflict, I'm pretty sure that's NPOV because that is simply where the attacks and raids and rockets have happened. Hezbollah is definitely a combatant because of their raid, and their rocket attacks against Israel. Israel is definitely a combatant, because of their raids and bombing runs against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and Lebanese infrastructure. Lebanon is a graph node with only incoming edges, because as far as we know, the Lebanese military has not acted in any official capacity against either Hezbollah or Israel. How can we indicate that Lebanon is experiencing the receiving end of combat, without implying that they are actively fighting by calling them a combatant? UltraNurd 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question. The Lebanese military is still not taking any military action against Israel. Does anyone know what the Lebanese army is doing? I doubt they are just drinking tea and following non-crisis procedures. Sijo Ripa 13:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are on state of high alert and would act if Israel tried to push North of Sidon. They man various checkpoints and anti-aircraft batteries but we're talking about leftover US equipment from the 1970's and 80's. The Lebanese army is no match for anyone. They are more like a big police force. The Hezbollah has more modern anti-aircraft equipment from the Russians and Chinese.

The template 'Infobox Military Conflict' indicates that the combatents shout be ordered cronologically by order of attack or involvement. and I do think that that is (1)Hezbollah, (2)Israël, (3)Lebanon and that the collums are not ment for indicating sides

I will change the combatents in that sequence--213.118.73.79 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the motivation for making the chronological change, but the current layout is very confusing because it makes it look like (Hezbollah and Israel) vs. (Lebanon). While Lebanon's infrastructure and civilian population is bearing the brunt of this violence, this conflict seem to me to be very nearly triangular (Hezbollah vs. Israel vs. Hezbollah vs. Lebanon or something equally confusing). Is there a way we can reorganize the combatants? I initially thought someone had made a small vandal change by moving Hezbollah over to Israel's column, to make some political point. UltraNurd 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal :) , I simply disagree that somebody can say that Hezbollah and Lebanon are on the same side, so I looked to te template if it was possible to make 3-sides, but found there that the left and right column were not meant to indicated sides, and that combatents shout be ordered by sequence of involvement. And that if Israël and Hezbollah are in the same column people woudn't still assume that the collumns indicates sides. But they still do ... And that does implicates that Lebanon and Hezbollah cannot stay in the same collumn! The best thing to do, is changing the template to 1 or 3 columns. I do think its more confusing for people to see that Hezbollah and Lebannon are in the same column because they will think they are one side.--213.118.73.79 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently :o). I looked over the template after you first mentioned it, and I think it's ambiguous what the template's designer meant. The bigger problem is that, if you don't know there's a template, you see two columns, you think two sides - and I think having Israel and Hezbollah together on one side or Israel and Lebanon on one side is going to make a lot more people go "Whaaa???" than putting Hezbollah and Lebanon together, even though they are not explicitly allied, makes the most sense to me. Oh, and if you do switch the combatant columns, make sure to switch the leader columns as well. UltraNurd 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Combatant - noun - One who engages in a combat or struggle. That is the definition of combatant. As such, Lebanon cannot be defined as a combatant. Iran and Syria are more suitable to list with Hezbollah as they have governments that openly support and fund it. Source for definition, Answers.com - MJZ, 15 July 2006, 18:07 (UTC)

According to CNN TV, Lebanon anti-aircraft guns are now firing on Israeli planes, right after the prime minister of Lebanon said it had the right to self defence. So does this now making it a partisipant?--Rayc 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Show us the article...69.125.1.187 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

One of their corspondants in Lebanon mentioned it, but didn't follow up with any information. I don't see it anywhere on the web. Sort of like the Iran missles thing, lots of talk, but no one can confirm.--Rayc 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Listing Lebanon as a combatant is factually incorrect and highly prejudicial. Are we simply waiting for the "inevitable" to justify this misinformation? Shouldn't this be corrected? MJZ, 15 July 2006, 21:52 (UTC)

It is highly prejudicial, yes, but can anyone think of an instance when this much damamge has been done to a countries infrastructure and the country's military didn't get involved? I think they have a lot of restrain in not retailating up to this point. Though, why retailiate when you can just let someone else do it?--Rayc 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we do end up listing Iran as a combatant then if the Lebanense army get involved (as opposed to just having their soldeirs killed by the Israelis as is the case so far) we defintiely have to add the USA as a combatant as 85% of armaments in the Lebanese army come from America. Andrew Riddles 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of the energy spent here could be used to add some information to the article itself about the position of Lebanon/the Lebanese government in this conflict. So far there seems to be nothing on that subject. --84.193.50.72 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if we start listig countries that are somehow involved (eg Iran because they supplied a missile, USA because they supply most of the military hardware to the Israeli AND Lebanese army (according to Misplaced Pages articles) then who knows where the list of combatants will end. Andrew Riddles 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is a combatant. They are in this war/crisis, whether they wanted to be or not. Hello32020 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese Army is not participating in any form of combat action, therefore it cannot be called a combatant.

We should at least keep it until we get more consensus though Hello32020 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is also combating Israel alongside Hezbollah. So either put Lebanon vs Israel or Lebanon and Hezbollah vs Israel . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.76.18 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How can Lebanon be called a combatant? It has yet to take any active part other than emergency response. I just don't understand how the only party to this conflict that has yet to take an active role can be called a combatant. --MJZ, 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

just one note - Lebaneses radar was used to target INS Hanit. This *was* an active military action. 62.0.125.178 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Ryanuk 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what the IDF claims; see for example ]. It also makes sense: It was a radar-guided missile, some radar had to guide it, and Hiz' has no radar stations of its own. 62.0.125.178 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

source does not state that Lebanese (as opposed to hezbollah) radar positions were used in the attack.Doldrums 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Y don't u put Lebanon and Hezbollah under the same column? Hezbollawh is Lebanese and part of Lebanon. Robin Hood 1212 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The goverment of Lebanon, while not engaged in military operations against Hezbollah, has not done joint operations with them either, and has called for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, whereas Hezbollah has declared open war.

To any person pursuing NPOV in good faith this indicates that the conflict has three characters:

1) Israel vs Hezbollah

2) Israel vs Lebanon

3) A potential Lebanon vs Hezbollah

This might change in the future, and if it does, we will obviously make a note of it.

Yet the POV that lumps Lebanon and Hezbollah together is not supported by verifiable sources at this time.

--Cerejota 13:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification Cerejota, it looks like I am not alone as a neutral who needs further information about the relationship between the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah, which is implied as known in the opening three paragraph of the article at present. --mgaved 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Lebanon are the same side, Hezbollah is Lebanese and supported by the Lebanese people, he liberated Ledbanon. He's not a foreign force like the Israelis say. Robin Hood 1212 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not a part in this! It's between Israel and Hezbolla! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

If lebanon tried to reign in Hezbollah they would start another civil war. And if a country has Israel invading its airspace then they should be allowed to fire at the aircraft. Lebanon is not a combatant, they are standing idle while their country is being pounded by shells and F-16s. Yahuddi 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be Israeli-Hezbollahh Conflict, with a distinct and prominent statement that "The conflict between exists between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hezbollah Organization in Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon." The majority of reprisals are confined to areas of Lebanon under direct Hezbollah control and influence Jon Cates 04:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

the article lead says "Lebanon, though having been attacked, has acted neither against Hezbollah nor Israel.". so i suggest that the listing of lebanon as combatant be footnoted with such a statement. Doldrums 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

People here seem to be twisted on what "combatant" means, what combat means. AA fire against foreign aircraft, regardless of provocation, is combat. Combat has no inherent connotation of blame and I think it would be a stretch in this case to say Lebanon actively sought to use any force against Israel, but the case is simply they have. Now, the moment the Lebanese government says "Look, we're out of this - please stop Hezbollah because we can't and we sure want't to" then they can take (and we Wikipedians) can give them noncombatant status. An emotional plea to stop hostilities does not make you a noncombatant and neither does defending yourself. "Majority of conflict" qualifiers can't strip Lebanon's combatant status - only their fervent nonaction can. Ranieldule 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

can u point to the source for the AA fire by lebanese forces? i see "Fox News" and "Ynet" in discussion above, not enuf to go by, and a promising listed source "Brink of War: Lebanon Launches Retaliatory Assault on Israel" (fox news) now links to "Israeli Jets Bomb Main Road Between Beirut and Damascus". Doldrums 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is as of Lebanon has not engaged in any combat, it is inapropriate to lable it a combatant. If the argument is that is has but hasn't been reported, than that lacks verifiability. The argument that Lebanon is a defacto combatent because of the location of the combat is bunk, and doesn't need footnoting to explain, anyone who reads the introductory paragraph is aware of the combat's geographic location. Finally, Lebanon 'inaction' in the policing of Hesbola does not make them a combatent. Even if they were patting Hesbola on the head and handing them rockets, the government and the army of Lebanon are not directly involved in any combat, and thus are not combatents. --Bigmacd24

this shld clinch it. "The Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to the Israeli attacks.". given this and the absense of any source reporting retaliatory action by lebanese troops, the listing of lebanon as a combatant in the infobox must be removed.Doldrums 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is your Lebanese anti-aircraft response to Israeli attacks. Here it is not immediately clear who's AA fire, Hezbollah's or Lebanon's is actively shooting at Israeli planes. I will definitely agree that it's beginning to look (outside of a possible anti-aircraft response) that Lebanon is merely "hosting" this conflict. Ranieldule 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

this is from a while ago, but oh well. i didnt bother checking if anybody else said this. true, there has been no official declaration of war. was there an official declaration of war in the American War of Independence? no. ok, so there was a declaration of independence which was technically treason based upon those circumstances. oops. loophole! how about that police action - no, what was it? um... advisory and regular military assistance to the independent South Vietnamese government in their struggle (failed) against the communist forces of the Viet Cong (actually Viet Minh, and later North Vietnamese Army). oh, and by the way, they weren't communists. Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist-Leninist second, and Vietnamese first. 58,000 people died. let me say it again, in case it didnt sink in. 58,000 Americans died in South Vietnam. wasn't a war, right. right. the population of Lebanon is 3,577,000. thats about how many people from independent democratic nations served in South Vietnam, fighting against the same cause that led to the declaration of independence and a new era of history - an era of American dominance in world affairs.

so let us be careful talking about declarations of war, ok. the biggest tragedy of the United States is our mistreatment of Vietnam veterans. oh wait - it wasn't a a war? tell that to 58,000 families who lost fathers, sons, and brothers. explain to me what killed those men if it wasnt a war. JRK

What is Hezbollah?

Excuse my ignorance - but I don't think that the article is very clear... but what is Hezbollah? What is its exact status within Lebanon? Does it have official rights to represent / fight for the Lebanese people, represent the Lebanese government, etc? The reporting of the crisis talks about Israel vs. Hezbollah and it's not clear how Lebanon as a nation fits into this. The opening paragraph of the article is on the lines of "Hezbollah did this... so Israel did this". I am confused as the two actors appear to be Hezbollah and Israel, not Lebanon and Israel.

I would have expected there to be talk of the Israeli armed forces and government, and the Lebanese armed forces and government... is Hezbollah the Lebanese army? Is it a militia movement within Lebanon supported formally or informally by the Lebanese government? is it a rogue organisation distinct from the Lebanese government? Why is the Israeli army attacking "Hezbollah" and not "Lebanon"? (but clearly attacks are being made on civilians in both countries). Why isn't the Lebanese Army responding to attacks on sovereign Lebanese soil? Has Israel officially declared war on Lebanon (or vice-versa) or is this a very public guerilla war? I was under the impression that Israel and Lebanon are two sovereign nations and this all seems quite confused. Help appreciated with any of these questions... cheers! --mgaved 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

In a nutshell, Hezbollah is a guerilla organisation that has recently won seats in the Lebanese parliament and has joined the ruling coalition (two cabinet seats). Thus the Lebanese government is viewed by Israel as technically responsible for the immediate attack, as well as being responsible for not implementing the SC resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah. As far as I know, Lebanese gov't institutions haven't been directly attacked excepting AA facilities that fired on attacking IAF planes and a radar site that Israel has implicated in the missile attack on their ship (INS Hanit). There have been no declarations of war, though there is no lack of rhetoric. Hope I was helpful. Cheers, Tewfik 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider roads, bridges and airports to be government institutions... 210.86.74.223 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of political neutrality, the political wing of Hezbollah was admitted into the government as an overture to try to convince Hezbollah to disarm and become a strictly political movement (the government of Lebanon held a large majority without Hezbollah). Clearly, it has backfired. —Cuiviénen 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is wikipedia entry on Hezbollah. It is also linked on the main article here, so I don't think we should discuss that here.--Cerejota 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help everybody. I'd like to ask again that *somebody clarifies the opening section of this article*. It is written in a way that suggests that Hezbollah=Lebanon, and Lebanese official policy and military forces, while you all have helpfully pointed out that while Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese authority and government it is acting in a semi-autonomous manner. I think the article will be greatly improved by clarifying this briefly in the introductory section. Thanks Tewfik and Cuivienen. Cerejota, I agree there is material elsewhere in wikipedia and its really useful but I think brief clarification will be useful. I'll try to make an edit now, feel free to improve one and all. --mgaved 08:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few words to frame what Hezbollah is and how it relates to the Lebanese government inline in the article for neutral readers ("Hezbollah, a minority member of the Lebanese government that operates an autonomous military wing" and later "(It is not clear what the official Lebanese government response is or whether the Israeli Government first approached the Lebanese government in order to resolve the crisis by non-military means).") but these have been deleted without comments so I'll leave the article to others to improve. Cheers for your help in explaining on this talk page though folks. --mgaved 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As part of the ongoing effort to reduce size, I think the Hezbollah section is to big a redundant with the Hezbollah page. Perhaps we can shorten it? I would delete it altogether, as no such section exists for the Israeli Defence Forces, but at lest shortening?--Cerejota 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel declared war on Lebanon not on Hezbollah. Why should we say that Hezbollah is an addition side? The org is Lebanese and was created to liberate the south from Israel. Another thing, rearraqnge the combattents. Robin Hood 1212 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about POV
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about POV (most notable: the discussion about the "Violation of International Law")
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about POV
  • Discussion whether to call the two soldiers "captured" or "kidnapped". Almost general consensus that "captured" is a better term. Reasons: (1) more widely used in the media coverage of the event, (2) is considered a more neutral term (i.e. less POV) - See also Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the captured soldiers for a similar discussion. Note that there is also a discussion about whether to use "captured" or "abducted". See below.
  • Discussion about whether or not to mention "Israeli war crimes".
  • Discussion about whether to call Hezbollah militants or terrorists. Preference for militants (except when using quotes).
  • Discussion about UNSC 1599.
  • Discussion about "who started this crisis"
  • Discussion about the expression "political rhetoric".
• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Capture vs Abduct

(I am reposting part of an archived discussion which has not yet been resolved)

I suggest using word "abducted". It does not imply helplessness or child’s qualities of a victim as “kidnapping” and has no military accent as "capture". I would like to point out that the target was any Israeli citizen and not a specific person, who was intended to be arrested. Michagal

Yeah right 85.138.208.125Fuck off, tards :o) just testing wikipedia talk

Abducted seems to be a good compromise. I'll begin making changes soon if no one objects. Cheers, Tewfik 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Abducted is cool by me!Hypnosadist 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Abducted is more weasel words. The only NPOV term is captured, as it describes the action without any judgement. Abduction has moral weight.

--Cerejota 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So far the consensus is abducted as an NPOV description. Please weigh in...

Captured or abducted. Both seem sufficiently neutral to me. Perhaps both could be used? (more rich vocabulary) Sijo Ripa 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Captured" seems to be the neutral way to describe it, as it can be both legal and illegal, right and wrong, good and bad. It does have military connotations, but it was a military attack that met with a military response, so that shouldn't be a real problem. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

abducted is more NPOV as captured implies that this was done during an ongoing active conflict, that it was done on disputed land or land under conflice (this was done during a cross-border incursion into another state), that it was done to forces active in a conflict (the soldiers abducted were on patrol in their own territory and not in active combat) and that it was done by a government's army (and Hisbullah is not a government but a private organization). This is either abduction or kidnapping but it was not anywhere near as neutral as capture.

Wow, and unsigned comment ignoring a whole lot of discussion. And POV to boot. I guess some dont get it.

First, NPOV requires we be neutral. The views expressing that Hezbollah is not a legitimate combatant engaged in legitimate combat are POV.

"Capture" does no such thing, because "capture" is not qualified in dictionaries.

In other words "capture" means "to take by force". Period. No reasons, no context, just dry fact.

"Kidnapping" and "Abduction", on the other hand, do imply illegality and give extra context, and support the POV that Hezbollah commited a crime. THis might be the case, I might even say that evidence seems to support this IS the case, but it is POV until a court of international law judges it. Since it is near impossible for this to happen in the near term, we must, in honor of NPOV, choose a word that doesnt imply that a crime was commited.

Is that so hard to understand, in good faith?

If it is, then I suggest we use "Taken by force". It is an NPOV description of the fact with no context. "Hezbollah took by force two Israeli soldiers", "taking by force two Israeli soldiers" etc.

"Abduction" is in essence a complete synonym of "kidnapping" and I thought we had agreed, in good faith, that "kidnapping" was POV. That leaves us with "capture" or "taken by force". I would be happy to hear other suggestions that describe the incidents, but retain NPOV.

--Cerejota 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we able to source our feelings that "captured" has military connotations? No dictionary I've consulted seems to discuss it in this way. If I recall all of the discussion so far, most of the objection to "capture" was made by users who insisted on "kidnap." That said I like the above user's idea of variety: take/taken, sieze/seized, abduct/abducted, capture/captured. Of these, abduct carries the most moral weight and leads the user to negative judgement (IMO). Failing the wiki community's developing Stockholm-syndrome-by-proxy, "abductors" will always be "bad guys," but captors/capturers could be either "good" or "bad" depending on the reader and the nabbers and nabbies. If we use language that casts one side of a conflict as "bad guys," we have obviously failed at NPOV. "Abduct" is a marked improvement over "kidnap," but I think if falls short of NPOV.--Smallwhitelight 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe "capture" would be the most suitable word. Although there was no open conflict when the event took place, it was a military action. Besides, "abduct" - in my opinion - may relate to capturing someone without harming anyone, while in this event, two vehicles were attacked and 8 soldiers were killed (during the action and during the attempts to stop the Hezbollah soldiers from retreating to Lebanon). By the way, for the record - I am Israeli, but I stick to the NPOV policy. Tamuz 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Noam Chomsky refers to the soldiers as being abducted, whereas U.S. President Bush refers to them as being captured. Does this make it any clearer?--Craven Maven 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... No. Only more confusing. But anyway, I think the word "abducted" is also fine, as long as it is made clear the amount of soldiers who died during that action. Tamuz 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV CHECK tag

Please refrain from removing the POV CHECK tag from the page. This tag means that the article might not be NPOV, and that a discussion is on going. We havent reached a consensus, so this remains true. This tag is more tentative than POV tag, and hence if doesnt mean the page is not NPOV, just that a discussion is ongoing, which it is. --Cerejota 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not over-use the tag, though. There's going to be some POV in such an emotionally charged article. Most of it can be dealt with rather quickly, without that ugly-ass POV tag. --Elliskev 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas Elliskev, the POV CHECK is intended to be a more permanent tag. Your POV might say it is ugly, but I think it is better looking and more relevant than the other POV tags.

My attempt by having it there for a while is aimed at preventing a POV tag war (the national wikipedia sport it seems) by not arguing that the article is not NPOV, but by saying there is a disucssion in this regards (which there is). I am tempted to remove the tag, as it seems there is a group of responsible, good faith editors from both sides of the POV, but I resist the temptation because there is still ongoing vandalism and non-consensus edits, some of them massive and by obvious wikignorants. I think we will come to remove the tag when this crisis is over, but will unfortuntelly still need it for a while.

Makes me whish there was a main article equivalent for the talk page "controversial" tag, if you get my point.

--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your feelings on this and withdraw my objection, for now. --Elliskev 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try to establish concensus on this issue by having a poll (Support/oppose) for the npov tag? -Preposterous 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Erpals 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this previous comment should go in the main POV discussion section?

--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice the POV check is being vandalised by being removed. There is a discussion thread about removing it here, and I see no discussion about that here. So I assume all removes are vandalism. Please discuss before taking any action, specially considering how controversial the topic is.--Cerejota 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in this discussion which leads me to believe we still need the POV check tag. If you feel differently, please make not of it and specify your concern. If you see something minor, then repair it on your own (this follows my attempts to engage in discussion on supposed issues by the poster). Cheers, Tewfik 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik: as you can read above, I have little specific issues. Others have raised concerns, which have been edited, but there are continous, seemingly concerted (if one follows the user's talk pages). THe reason I want a POV Check tag is because of the continous POV editing engaged mainly by pro-Israeli posters, but also some vadalic activity by pro-Hezbollah/Lebanon editors. This warns users that the article is both a work. As I said above, I wish we had a controversial tag like we do for talk pages, but we dont, and POV Check is the closests. You seem not to understand that the article is being constantly being peppered with major POV stuff, and that this is a semi-permanent situation. Why is it that in spite of all the constant editing you still want to remove the tag? Is it perhaps your own agreement with the POV being pushed?--Cerejota 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources are contributing to this article's bias

WHile it is highly unusual to mention websites or sources directlly instead of as citations, I can live with this as long as the presentation of this sources is NPOV. DebkaFile is a website with a clear pro-Israeli POV, supported by ads of Jewish only dating services, and with connections to the Israeli intelligent services, which they use as sources for their often exclusive stories. Hence, displaying them without qualification gives the wrong impression that they are a neutral, or NPOV adherent source, which they most surely arent.

Claiming "let the reader decide" assumes that they have all the facts at hand, and this is not the case. The simple description of DebkaFile as "pro-israeli" is not NPOV. It is as NPOV as describing Hezbollah as a Shia Mulsim organization. --Cerejota 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Who is citing Ynet as a legitamate source? There is nothing more biased than that. Of course there are NPOV problems when you only get Israeli news and Fox. Why don't I go get some Al-Jazeera and cite that? Erpals 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be preferable if we could use well respected sources. Ynet is just a webpage, which probably isn't independent, and surely not neutral in this conflict. And what I have heard about "Fox" isn't very reassuring, see Fox News Channel controversies.--Battra 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ynet is not 'just a Webpage'. It belongs to the biggest newspaper in Israel, Yediot Aharonot. quoting it is just as accurate as quoting any reputable Arab source.

As for the number of Israelis injured, I think you have some point. Ynet has already reported that 45 of the injured are still in hospital. The big difference here means that yes, Israeli sources are counting minor injuries (such as "shock injuries") which may not be 'counted' in Lebanon. If you want, you can report both numbers, letting the readers decide. 85.250.179.33 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then ynet should be a good source for the official Israeli standpoint, for example when it comes to the number of killed soldiers. But I still think it would be preferable to avoid references to webpages such as these as much as possible, and use for example news from BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, etc. --Battra 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Though the number "500" for the Israeli civilians injured could hardly be an exact number, it seems more likely that it is some kind if rough guess. --Battra 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I've found the sentence in that article "The hospitals have treated more than 500 people since Wednesday, most of whom were released to their homes." It doesn't say explicitly that they were injured in this conflict, though that might be what is meant. It would be good if we had a more exact number though.--Battra 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on this is that this figure is based off of the number of people treated at a hospital during the crisis, which will be anything from life threatening injuries to bad nerves, and that considering this, 500 seems low; consider the number of people "treated at hospitals" in New York City after 9/11 or any similar event. It can be argued that not all those people should be considered injured, but currently it is one of the few sources available. Also consider that one might not think twice about a figure of 500 injured if the actual numbers of Lebanese injured, by the same standard of anyone treated at a hospital, but unfortunately we will likely never have that figure or not for a long time.--Paraphelion 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely go with the figure quoted in CNN, i. e. over 100 Israelis injured, in the infobox. It should be OK to also give the 500 figure in the article itself, with the descrition "treated in hospitals". btw, Ynet attributes this number to the Israeli Health Ministry. 85.250.179.33 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it says 274 israeli civilians injured. 88.154.91.233 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

BBC's "What is Hizbollah?" article

Some editors are trying to use this a source, in particular regarding Hezbollah's ideology and activities. If you read the article, it is extremely POV, provides no sources, and in general is more an op-ed than reporting. Use of POV sources to support NPOV is not NPOV.

Hence this article is not a good source unless we specify it is an opinion piece and quote directly from it. --Cerejota 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC piece is a news article, and as such, is considered a reliable source. It is thus a good citation, even if it, like all news sources, has some POV. Tewfik 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik. The BBC article is biased, but not completely towards one side. Several sources say, without any evidence, that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah directly, and they state this as fact; this BBC article is one of those. Other sources only say that the US/Israel or others say that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah directly - and sometimes also that Syria or Iran deny this. However, if someone has a better source than news - something like a US government document citing direct evidence of Syria or Iran supplying Hezbollah, then that could be cited as well.--Paraphelion 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I should like to point out that the BBC has recently been criticised for its pro-palestinian stance (refusal to call bus bombers terrorists and the constant mention of occupied palestinian land despite that being a huge grey area). Not so much an objection of any kind but a 'do not assume that all western media is pro-israeli' note as its been tossed around a fair bit over the discussions. --Narson 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Narson, but the only people that consider the occupation of Palestine a "gray area" are psychopaths and Israelis. --Phabi0 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)phabi0

I cannot aggree more with the above observation. What a Gray Area means? May be Tel a Viv is a gray area for Hamas, but is it for the rest of the world? The same with the 1967 war occupied teritories.

Excuse me, phapi0, but the some people that consider the occupation of Palestine a "gray area" are also some valid scholars. However those equating Israelis and psychopaths perhaps have lost all objectivity, themselves.

Scientific studies like "Bad News From Israel" by Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the Glasgow University Media Group have proven many times that british television news media in general and the BBC in particular, are very pro-israeli in their reporting --Toshotosho 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And media research organization like "CAMERA" have documented decades of anti-Israeli bias by the BBC which can be read on their site before relying entirely on secondary research done to demonstrate a particular government's media as neutral.

"A particular government's media" - Which government would that be? The BBC has nothing to do with the British government and the two institutions are often bickering. The only possible link the BBC has to the British government is it's royal charter which has to be renewed by the government to allow the BBC to be funded. Even that renewal is a very indirect process. The BBC being a tool of the British government is a very common misconception. The BBC is a public broadcaster in the sense that it is a public serrvice funded by the public. It does not get its funding from the government in the same way other public service braodcasters do. The policy and editorial line of the BBC is defined by the reporters and editors, not by any government. --Abc30 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me phapi0 but no personal attacks please, hrm? (And for the record I am neither Israeli nor under any kind of action under the mental health act). I merely thought, considering Cerejota's demands for less israeli favouring news outlets I should mention that the BBC was found to be anti-Israeli in the recent review (I will go and find the report at some point if someone really wants? I just don't fancy searching through 2 or 3 months of news story archives for something that probably can be taken on good faith and is not important to anything but the talk page)--Narson 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I had never heard of CAMERA before, I just had a look at their website. They claim to be a "non-partisan" organisation only interested in a more fair reporting about the Middle East in the media. Then then list virtually every English-language newspaper, radio channel and TV channel as being "anti-Israeli", including ABC, CBS, NBC, History Channel, Discovery Channel and Fox News (!). I think we better stay away from them as a source of reliable information. Thomas Blomberg 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all that is published in the news media is a reliable source. Sometimes news media have opinion pieces, not news reporting. There is a difference. A reliable source is one that reports something. An op-ed piece is just that. Hence all I argue for is people to be concious that using opinion pieces compromises NPOV. If we want to do a good faith effor to remove the tag, I think we must be aware of this.--Cerejota 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that there are often opinion pieces published by news agencies, but this is not one of them. While this is within the news section of the article, it is an analysis piece and not reporting on a specific event. That said, it is written from the same dispassionate and objective view as any other news section piece. To be clear, this is certainly not an op-ed. I'll deal with the rest below. Tewfik 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why you htink it is not an op-ed? As a piece of reporting, it asserts, without providing quotes or sources, a number of controversial things. That qualifies it as an opinion piece. That you seem to agree with it opinion doesnt change this.--Cerejota 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Further more, according to wikipedia WP:RS, single sources should only be used when they are the most authritative or can be crosschecked. As the BBC article was used to support the Israeli POV, I think the BBC's article fails in both counts.--Cerejota 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm removing the POV tag unless someone presents specific area of the article that is disputed. Tewfik 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be a balance of images. I also think that pictures of the weapontry used should be replaced by buildings, damage on both sides. That's whats actually going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.253.208 (talk • contribs)

That is not a POV issue; there simply are no properly licenced pictures. Cheers, Tewfik 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting below my correspondance with the Wikipedian who posted the POV tag in the hope of resolving any POV issues and removing the tags Tewfik 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please discuss on Talk what passages are disputed and merit the tag? ThanksTewfik 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

if you read the discussion, you will see the specifics raised by me and others. The concerns have not been addressed.--Cerejota 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What specific issues do you have with the article? (please respond on either my talk or the page's talk - thanks) Tewfik 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, perhaps since you have arrived late at editing you are not aware of the concerns and reasons for the POV Check tag. As I did in my talk page, I suggest you read up on the specifics in the whole discussion including comments by me and other. Specifically we can discuss in the section I created for this purpose, "Removal of POV Tag".

To summarize, as specific examples can be revisisted in other places here, the objections are various. I cannot say I agree with all of them (ie the pictures issue seems a limitation not of good faith on NPOV but a lack of open sources), but they are legitimate concerns that merit the POV Check tag.

1) A lack of pictures showing the Lebanese or Hizbollah perspective.

2) A lack of citations for controversial assertions, in particular, but not only, centered on Hezbollah's relationship with Syria and Iran.

3) A heavy discussion as to the political and military motivations of Hezbollah, but not such discussion on Israel.

4) A dependency on Israeli and pro-Israeli media for sources. For example the DebkaFile.

5) A general pro-Israeli bias, whereas Hezbollah's actions are scrutinize for signs of illegitimacy but Israeli concerns are seen as prima facie legitimate.

Please do not continue to edit and revert without discussion, or disregarding views not your own, as you have done several times in the last day. Also, please realize that for the last 5 days many editors, from both sides of the POV, have attempted in good faith to achieve a consensus to reach great level of NPOV, which at times we have been able to achive until others (like you) arrive disregard the previous discussions and start editing from perspective we had already thought achieved.

Our objective is to reach a better quality article. Please join us, rather than abitrarily edit.

Lastly, I prefer to have discussion about specific issues in the talk page of the specific article, where all can see it. Please refrain from using my talk page, if possible. --Cerejota 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cerejota,

I saw your comments above which is what lead to my initial query; I'll deal with your points as you have:

1. The pictures, as you have noted, are not a POV issue, but rather one of availiability, and do not warrant a tag
2. The Hezbollah verse cited with the BBC was slightly discussed above, but the citation is not, as you seem to have inferred, an Op-Ed piece, but rather a news/analysis piece written from an objective, dispassionate POV. If you have concerns about other citations, please list them so that we may clarify and resolve. I encourage you to review Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources.
3. What specific discussion of the Israeli side do you believe is lacking? The only inequity that I noticed is that the background has a subsection detailing the history and makeup of Hezbollah - do you believe that we should discuss the history and motivations of Israel? Would that resolve any POV issue?
4. I haven't seen any dependency on Israeli sources. Many of the Israeli press citations merely quote AP or AFP reports, or report on events specific to Israel not covered by other sources. Are there any Lebanese papers that haven't been included? The Daily Star, which is a right-leaning paper, is quoted on casualties, and even Emile Lahoud's (singly sourced) assertion of Israeli war-crimes is included. On the other hand, Debkafile is only cited once, and is even singled out within the article as an Israel-based source.
5. Again, if you have specific concerns, please cite them so that we can discuss. There is qualifying language used on both sides as far as I saw, though I welcome you to note any necessary corrections.

Until this point, I believe that every (potentially controversial) edit I have made was in line with discussion on talk. I would like to note that I have been active from the first day (before you for that matter, not that its at all important;-]). And lastly, I would like to note that I indeed moved the talk from your page to here (see above). Thank you, and I await your (or anyone else who wills) response. Tewfik 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As to my support of the "POV Check" tag, I refer you (again) to the "Removal of POV tag" section in this talk page. Except for the "casualties" issue, and any that might emerge, those are *my* NPOV concerns. Others, in other discussions, have raised the points I have summarized. Perhaps if you dont agree with them you should discuss them there. But by assuming that the neutrality is not being disputed simply because it is spread around is disingeneous. No one has to sumarize anything for anyone, as the entire talk page is the collaborative display of the discussion. You are doing a Reductio ad absurdum: since no one is able to sumarize things to you, then the article mustbe NPOV. This is not a logical argument.

Lastly, your edits have not followed consensus, as example your continued, near (but not quite) vandalic change on "captured" into "abducted" after a heavily discussed consensus was reached. And your removal of the "POV Check" tag even in the middle of heated discussion. --Cerejota 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made no such assumption about summarising, rather this is a continuation of the POV discussion, within the same section heading. I had participated in them when they took place, and believe that your concerns were resolved there in various manners.

1. Capture --> abduct with discussion, which at the time was a consensus. If a different consensus develops at a future time, we can deal with it.
2. You rhetoric concern was rejected by several users
3. The NPOV tag war doesn't exist if there is consensus. Discussion has not yielded any serious issues. IP vandals are not a reason for an NPOV tag, if that was your concern.
4. The BBC has been discussed three times at this point

Despite the lack of clear reason to maintain an NPOV tag from the discussion above to which you continually refer, you have had another opportunity to cite your concerns again here. I have responded to them in the hopes of reaching resolution, and so if you think we require the tag, please respond. As for other users' concerns, I haven't seen any concerns above that were not dealt with, and it would simply be illogical to state that any number of future NPOV concerns should require the tag now. If and when any new problems arise, we can deal with them. I await your (or any other party who believes there to be NPOV issues) response. Tewfik 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ad vitam aeternam is peppering this article with POV. --Pifactorial 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And he's been blocked. --Pifactorial 09:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think that the article conforms to NPOV. However, the Attacks on Lebanon part describes the attacks as being almost-purely against military targets, while the Attacks on Israel part describes mainly attacks against civilians. This may be due to several possible reasons:

1. The article's writers aren't aware of the Lebanese civilian casualties or have no confirmed information about the scope of the civilian damage,
2. It is possible that Hezbollah in fact makes more attacks on civilians that the IDF, and\or
3. Hezbollah's military compounds are located near civilized areas, thus ensuring that any attack against them would also cause civilan casualties (which would, of course, worsen the IDF's image).

Whichever of the three is the reason, I do believe that this part of the article is NPOV, because a lack of sources is not a POV issue, neither are Hezbollah's tactics. I would welcome any comments on this, if anyone disagrees (or does agree). Tamuz 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We should definately research and include the Lebanese civilian information. One problem which has recurred, perhaps as a symptom of the same problem, is that there is no clear count of Lebanese civilian dead, as most prominent sources (CNN, BBC) group all dead together, while Israeli sources distinguish between military and civilian casualties. Cheers, Tewfik 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is probably simply a lack of reliable Lebanese news sources. Whereas Israel has a lot of organized news broadcasters, Lebanon doesn't have so many, and so we can hear more accurate information about Israeli casualties and less information about Lebanese. But I would guess that in the following days we will get some accurate numbers, as the Lebanese government would finish the casualties count and as more foreign news channels would enter Lebanon. Tamuz 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias in the historical background section

This part of the article is both biased and factually incorrect (and I haven't even looked at the rest of the article yet). It states that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 (Operation Litani) and left "mostly" in 2000. Here are my problems with this presentation:

1. As anyone can see from the entry on Operation Litani, Israel withdrew shortly afterwards, and returned to Lebanon only in 1982. This presentation makes it appear as if there was constant Israeli occupation in Lebanon from 1978 to 2000 (oops, I forgot "mostly").

2. Amazingly enough, only a paragraph later Israel suddenly invades again in 1982, even though it had apparently never left in the first place in the intervening years! Marvelous peace of logic, that.

3. No mention is made that at the end of the 1980's Lebanon War Israel withdrew from all of Lebanon except for the Security Zone. Once again this omission makes it appear as if the Israeli occupation was full and constant, whereas in reality most of the Lebanese territory was returned long before 2000.

4. What is "mostly" supposed to mean, anyway? I assume it refers to the "Shebaa Farms" deal. Need I state that the UN had determined it occupied Syrian territory, not Lebanese? Why is it even brought up without any context?

• According to the section on Israel in CIA - The World Factbook, Lebanon have claimed Shebaa Farms since 1948. UN appears to have a different opinion, possibly based on ignorant French cartographers mistakes back in the 1920's. MX44 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Why are the Qana shelling and the Sabra-Shatilla massacres haphazardly tossed in? Are they relevant to this current conflict, or is this just a reminder to readers how nasty and evil those Israelis are? Shouldn't there be a parallel list of atrocities committed against Israeli civilians by Palestinians based in Lebanon at the time, and earlier (such as the Maalot Massacre, for example)?

6. If this section is going to do a tally of Israeli-Lebanese invasions, shouldn't it also mention the Lebanese invasion of Israel in 1948 (along with six other Arab nations), instead of the oblique reference to the 1948 war? Or would that spoil the nice picture of Israeli aggression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtius Maximus (talk • contribs)

Mistakes happen and sometimes information is overlooked. That's not necessarily on purpose, and by the way, there are some who claim that this article is biased in favor of Israel. It is possible that whoever wrote that part wasn't aware or did not have sufficient knowledge on the subjects you mentioned. You seem to have extensive knowledge on the subject, so you are more than welcome to fix that section. Bare in mind that it is very difficult to write an article on a subject like this with a complete NPOV. Oh, by the way, I'm Israeli. Tamuz 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A user is rewriting this section from the version of the last few days, without discusion in the talk pages. I am reverting the changes to the last good version available. I asked him to stop. See history.--Cerejota 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical background was biased and uninformative until I changed it

The changes I made to this section clear up the bias in it which is displayed by only citing Israeli aggressions, and provide more detailed background about each conflict.

There is no reasonable argument why my changes should be reverted back to the biased "Israel has invaded Lebanon twice before" version. --BillyTFried 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking over it again, Cerejota may be correct in that it is difficult to have all the details there in that section. However, the prior version is clearly both biased and uninformative. Possibly some of the details, like a comment about the cause for the Israeli motivations? JoshuaZ 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I am open to further edits if others think there is too much info there, but I won't accept a revert back to the biased version it was before I changed it. --BillyTFried 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the following before reading yours, JoshuaZ

Why is it biased? I dont think so and for days people havent thought so, in spite of contentious editing all over the place.

Yours is too long, complicates the article, goes too far back in time, and there are not one but TWO template/infoboxes on the Arab-Israeli COnflict on the page, which to any person with a third of a brain should suffice to satisfy any need on clarity and/or depth in historical background and current events not directly related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Furthermore, you started your edits without first discussing it in this page, which considering the prominent POV Check and Controversial tags (which are there for a reason) shoudln't have let you to belive that it might be a good idea to discuss a major change before doing it.

This is a major breach of ettiquette and you cant possibly expect people to just sit there and watch as you destroy hard to build consensus.

If you are concerned about POV, please discuss it, and I am sure we can workout something short, simple, and not article size breaking.

--Cerejota 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not open to further edits and oh by the way there are no resonable arguments for there being any further edits. Just kidding, I just wanted to see what it was like to use that line of reasoning. Or lack of reasoning would be a better term.--Paraphelion 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Now lets work it then, what is your concerns on the specifics? I mean, there ARE mossad agents, israeli reservists, and all others kinds of pro-Israeli POV editors who seem to have overlooked this, so I am all ears...--Cerejota 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your version was CLEARY biased. Do you really want to waste everyone's time trying to argue that it wasn't or would you rather focus on the argument that my far more informative and unbiased version which got all it's info from other established Wiki articles may be a bit too much info. Which is it? --BillyTFried 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything that was pertinent to the article. I only added info that made it more informative and less biased.

Please state which parts you feel are inappropriate, or what info you feel I removed that shouldn't have been --BillyTFried 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First, it wasnt my version. It was the version in the article for ages. Second, I haven't wasted anyone's time. I simply assume that if people from both sides of the POV didnt botter thinking it was POV, then it wasnt POV. You just dont waltz in, declare THIS POV and then play g_d/god/allah. Now, could you explain why the version before your edits is POV? I dont think it is, but I am open to have my eyes shown the truth. BTW, wikipedia ITSELF is not considered WP:RS so please have this in mind.--Cerejota 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you dont reply soon I am reverting to the original section, until a discusion can be had.--Cerejota 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh hold on there, I think I have mastered BillyTFried's argumentation style and feel I can fill in for him at this time : You have no rational arguments to make and my actions are above questioning.. oh right any discussion with you is a waste of time. Do you want to waste everyone's time? You wouldn't want to do that would you? Then the terrorists have won. You wouldn't want them to win? Are you going to say you want the terrorists to win?

There, how was that? I think I got it down pretty well.--Paraphelion 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have the right to revert all of my work because 90% of it was VALID ADDITIONS and not removals of info already there. DO NOT remove ANY of my additions unless YOU have valid reasons.

Second, I have already stated why the original version was biased. Because it only named Israeli aggressions, and never gave what their reason for such actions. Do I really need to pick the entire thing apart and point out every single example of that when it was so obvious to anyone who read it? It that good use of both of our time? Do you really think that section has been damaged by my additions? --BillyTFried 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion, unless you have anything constructive to add, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself and focus on making this a great article. In the meantime you may want to review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Civility and try not to make any more personal attacks. --BillyTFried 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what changes you specifically made and I probably don't have any problems with them. I just find that your telling people that your actions are above questioning and telling people discussion is a waste of time is not productive, is not civil and that you're a dick.--Paraphelion 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BillyTFried: you started with the insults right of the bat. Of you give pain expect some in return. Its what people call, well, being normal. As to the thing at hand, your rewrite is too long, POV, redundant, and mostly souced by wikipedia which is not WP:RS. Will be editing accordingly, not reverting because it seems there is consensus that the previous was POV.--Cerejota 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please quote me where I insulted anyone or admit that you made that up --BillyTFried 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

Is there any reason to keep that thing on there? Unless there's a strong reason I'm going to remove it, because metadata tags at the top of articles are ugly and only appeal to the very small number of readers to the article who are actually editors. Since this is linked from the main page we have a much higher reader/editor ratio than most pages. --Cyde↔Weys 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant who they "appeal" to, if anyone. They are there to serve as a warning. This article is liable to contain new POV material on a regular basis, so the tag should be permanent until things have calmed down. Honbicot 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the more ridiculous things I think I've heard. {{current}} serves as enough of a warning; do you really want to have a permanent tag on here that basically says "This article sucks, it's totally biased", merely as a precautionary measure because someone might insert something? Have you no pride in your work? Thousands of people are reading this article every day, why should we try to scare off every one of them with an imposing metadata tag at the top of the article? --Cyde↔Weys 16:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I supported "POV check" instead of "NPOV". "POV check" the article may not be neutral. This I think is good definition of the state of this article, as many editors are editing to POV without discussion, and this is a semi-permanent condition.

I disagree that the "current" tag sufficies: many current event articles (such as those of natural disasters) are not under constant POV-motivated editing, and readers might understand that while the article content might change, its contents continue to be NPOV, even when this is not the case.

Furthermore, if you go to the other current and archived discussions here, you see many POV issues have not been addressed still, such as the balance of the news reporting, lack of secondary source information from within Lebanon, lack of citation/WP:OR issues etc.

I think we have made progress, but I think we still deserver a POV Check tag. We dont deserver a "NPOV" tag tho, as the article has been close to NPOV at times.--Cerejota 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I support removing it unless a new rationale can be added at the bottom of this talk page, aswell as any subsequent removal of it unless a rationale is added. Users (or non-users) adding that tag without a rationale are a problem. --Joffeloff 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply object to the assertion that the POV tag needs to stay on articles without any real reasoning merely because it is a "controversial topic" and it is "prone to insertion of POV material". That describes a good number of articles, and we shouldn't be essentially defacing all of them with an ugly, credibility-diminishing, metadata tag. The tag should be reserved for articles that presently have serious POV concerns, and when the tag is added, it must be justified. --Cyde↔Weys 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is absolutely correct. The POV tag should not be there unless there are specific objections that have not been addressed. --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Nimur 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In further justification, I think that there are so many facts with citations, and so few opinions, that the NPOV is well preserved. Nimur 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My own editing habbit has been that if someone drops a NPOV tag on an article and doesn't go into talk and explain why they believe it is POV it is fair game to remove the tag. It's really easy for someone to dump the tag in but a bit tougher to actually explain why. --StuffOfInterest 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that in this case there are current and archived discussions on this article not being NPOV, and they are apparently being ignored.--Cerejota 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this discussion page looks long overdue for an archiving. Thanks for the effort to keep it organized, but it may be necessary to break it into sub pages if you really want to direct discussions to the appropriate sections. --StuffOfInterest 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have put the "POV Check" label up, because I think the arguments are ignoring the points raised on all the other POV threads, many of which have not been addressed.--Cerejota 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read this section rather thoroughly and find no significant, actionable POV problem. The material certainly justifies the {current} tag, but new additions seem to be scrutinized very thoroughly. A NPOV tag is not obligatory for all articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. A NPOV tag is not meant as a permanent earmarker for controversial topics. Without specific and actionable comments, the tag should be removed immediately. If it stays, it should only stay in such sections where disputes remain. savidan 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, I've went through the archived POV discussions and have found no arguments that weren't settled, except for several issues which have already been removed from the article altogether (or, at least, I couldn't find them), so they are no longer relevant. Again, if you have specific concerns, please raise them here (and state in which part of the article they appear, 'cause it's a real pain going through all this), but I find no issues that weren't already dealt with. Saying this article is prone to POVing isn't a reason to put any POV tag, becuase this tag simply scares away readers who think there may be mistakes here. I support the removal of any POV tags from this article, leaving only the Current-Event tag. Tamuz 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is there consensus for maintaining the POV check tag? Tewfik 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping it. Even the most reasonable seeming editors of this article are very biased when you look at edits for the casualty figures, for instance. Pretty much everyone here who has edited these figures has done so along party lines - you'll see incrase, reduce and reword the casualty figures, often changing sources to support their view, and when doing so it has consistently been for increasing one side's number and decreasing the other side, never both. And this kind of thing is happening dozens of times per day, so until that stops I think the POV fits.--Paraphelion 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Paraphelion and are re-inserting POV Check, the "softer" POV warning.--Cerejota 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the casualties, there is a simple solution: attribute. If different sources give different figures, not the difference. It can only improve the credibility of Misplaced Pages not to try to fit information into a simple cookie cutter format when the situation is in fact more complicated. Perhaps only a approximate number or a range and a note to see the relevant section of the text? This seems to be the current state of the casualty info, thus making your objection non-actionable. Do to the difficulty of reading the entire archive and the rate at which content has recently been updated, I think its safe to say that one must restate a specific objection to maintain the tag. I removed the second POV template which gave the reason of "vandalism", which is never a reason for a content dispute. If there is vandalism just revert it. Every article can be vandalized at any given moment; we would have a tag on every such article very quickly... savidan 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This solution sounds good and I would volunteer but unfortunately I don't have enough wiki-experience to know where to begin on how to format such a thing. I can barely edit an infobox without breaking it.--Paraphelion 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If only the Casualties section is POV, then the tag should only be put on that section, not the entire article. Or, better yet, as Savidan proposed, write approximate figures and link to various sources. Tamuz 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just used the casualties as an example, but I believe it is indicative of the general pattern of editing on the article; that you will find few and far between editors that make edits which show both sides to be bad or both sides to be good. I have not been paying attention that closely for the last 24 hours so perhaps this has changed. Also perhaps my using those kind of patterns is not sufficient evidence for a POV tag.--Paraphelion 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Debkafile a reliable source?

I don't have any POV problem with DebkaFile, and I love reading it, but is it really a sufficiently reliable source for Misplaced Pages? IIRC, Debka runs a lot of lightly sourced rumors, so sometimes it gets early scoops, and sometimes it turns out to be just plain wrong. TheronJ

It's reliable insofar as WP:RS is concerned, yes. While much of their information may turn out to later be mistaken, the same is true of many other sources considered reliable and notable enough to be cited on Wiki. As long as we make sure to identify them as the source of the info whenever they are mentioned, it's reasonable. Rather than saying Ali Larijani flew to Damascus, we note that Debkafile is the source of the info. This is standard protocol with all sources which are likely to be disputed. You just mention make clear with every assertion that rather than being indisputed fact, it is coming from Debkafile. This is the same thing we do with the Drudge Report when they are sourced, or for that matter, any government, or the United Nations, etc... Many sources are often mistaken, or have their claims disputed. The real question is notability, and certainly within Israeli-Arab affairs, Debkafile has sufficient notability to mentioned. Bibigon 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with using it as a source per-se, but since it is a partisan publication, a bias-disclaimer might be in order. I think the way I currently edit is correct, providing space to those who describe Debka as pro-israeli and those who don't, plus a link to its wiki page. I think levaing it as is, with a quote to a news item no other major media outlet has picked up, is important to keep NPOV.--Cerejota 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below of this subject. Bibigon 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Debkafile biases commentary. I'd like to request that people stop adding "Pro-Israeli" or links to a small town library in Ohio saying "Pro-Israeli" before the Debkafile piece. We do not normally go into the various possible biases of the sources we cite when we cite them. While biases are important, space considerations prevent us from having a full debate of the various possible biases every time a source is listed. If we include "Pro-Israeli" we'd also have to add other notable points of view about their possible biases. A full discussion of their biases is simply not possible here, as it would take several paragraphs. Many, probably most sources that we use are alleged to have biases. Many people believe Reuters is anti-Israel, but we do not cite them as "The Anti-Israeli Reuters", or even cite sources calling them "anti-Israeli", because we would then have to get into a full discussion of that. Similarly, when we cite say, Fox News, we don't cite them as "Pro-Israeli." We cite the source, we link to it if they have a wiki page, and we move on. Commentary on the possible biases of thes sources is for the Wiki pages on the sources, not for every instance of a citation of that source.

I also wanted to add that so far, the only source given calling Debkafile "Pro-Israeli" is the completely non-notable Lakewood, Ohio Public Library. Even for the Debkafile page, that sort of citation falls below the standards of WP:NOTABLE. Bibigon 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DebkaFile is not Reuters, or the Associated Press, or the BBC. While this sources are not free of bias, they are well known, and hence people usually know their biases and styles. DebkaFile, on the other hand, is less well-known, hence a bief discussion of it bias is important. If the quotes from DebkaFile were idependently supported by other news media, then perhaps we would use those sources isntead of DebkaFile, and we wouldn't be discussing this. But by quoting DebkaFile, we make it our business, in order to keep encyclopedic standard, to allude to its possible bias.

If for example, DebkaFile where being mentioned only as a link, or as an information source, then perhaps such description of bias wouldnt be in order. But it is being extensively quoted with possibly POV views, and this requires a warning to the reader.

--Cerejota 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we then list it as a Jerusalem-based website, which is factually accurate, NPOV, and gives at least the same hint of possible bias that people have when they read AP, Reuters, or BBC articles. It establishes that they're working out of Israel, so a pro-Israel bias is possible.

I also don't believe that Misplaced Pages should operate on the presumption of our readers knowing the biases of the major sources that we cite. That's not just how Misplaced Pages operates.

A real discussion of biases is not possible here, not for Debkafile, not for anyone. Even ignoring the AP, Reuters, or BBC, not every source is that well known. Misplaced Pages cites a great many less known sources, and we don't describe the possible biases for any of them. For instance, not many people know about the possible biases of China Daily, The Irish Times, The News-Sentinel, or any of the dozen other less well known media outlets which this article cites. In none of those cases do we discuss their possible biases, again, because it would impossible to do these discussions justice in one or two sentences. Bibigon 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept the WP:NOTABLE argument for the Ohio library. I have added a republishing of a Washington Post article questioning the reliability of the DebkaFile. It is not about bias, but reliability, but it does do what I think should be done, which is qualify the quoted report from DebkaFile.--Cerejota 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is currently a 404. The citation you gave is to an e-mail that someone sent about the article, which does not meet our standards of reliability or notability. Bibigon 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, every source's accuracy has at one point or another been questioned. That's a pretty wierd disclaimer to put there, even if the Washington Post article were verifiable. Bibigon 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article link is dead, we can keep the citation as per Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, my attempt to link to that republishing was one to evade questions of veracity. In any case, "Jerusalem-based Israeli website" I think would be a good compromise, and are editing accordingly.--Cerejota 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Threat vs. promise

In the intro, the statement by Hezbollah's leader was described as "threat". That is the living definition of POV. Now, I have changed it into "promise" with quotes, as it is the direct quote, but i recognize this too is can be intepreted by those bilnd to quotes as POV. So my thing is how do we call the threat/promise in a NPOV way?--Cerejota 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Reported Events/Supposed Events
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Reported Events/Supposed Events
• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don`t think it`s fair to point to the actions by Hezbollah as the starting point of this crisis. It`s rather Israel`s attack on Gaza that started about 1 month ago! This disproportionate response by Israel to the kidnapping of just 1 soldier by Hamas is the real starting point, and was started. For one month Gaza is being attacked and no one says anything, then Hezbollah attacks Israeli soldiers and suddenly they are the main culprits of the crisis.

LINK? on Fox News Alert

Fox News just had an alert that said (something along the lines): Israe: Missle targeted at naval fleet, hits civilian boat. Sorry I can't remember the exact words, but essentially the alert said Israel said that a missle was aimed at their ship and it hit a civilian ship. Is there any links or other sites, tv, etc reporting and confirming this. I also question the merits of course, because Israel is reporting this....and there is nothing to confirm it...sorry I couldn't offer more--Jerluvsthecubs 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Too add on Fox has said they have confirmed that 4 Israeli Soilders are missing and they say they have confirmed a civilian vessel was hit. I'll search to confirm.--Jerluvsthecubs 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I confirmed it through Rueters . There isn't enough info though, but should there be any mention of this or should we wait until additional information comes out on this?

• I would wait. As an additional source, this AP story hosted on Yahoo News. Staxringold _talk 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for the link. I've found only one article from a local news source in Bangore, Maine on the 4 missing sailors: . Fox says they confirm the missing soilders, but again...you are right we should probably wait for more stories and stories that are objective.

Israel says Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship

Infiltration attempt reference?

IDF supposedly foiled a Hezbollah infiltration attempt. The reference given is

Title: IDF forces foil infiltration attempt on northern border. Jerusalem Post: (2006-07-14). Link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994586&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The link does not mention anything about this, nor did a search on the website for "infiltration" yield anything.

Anyone know about this?

--srostami 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed.

--srostami 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it. Apparently the page was reused for a more recent article, but I found a copy of it on some kind of a news board (as well as having read it at the time ;-]), and reposted with the new link. Cheers, Tewfik 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new to this so maybe you can explain something to me. Now the link goes to the site you put down, which in turn references the same irrelevant article as before. I don't understand how this is different than the way it was to begin with. I could have a "story" on my personal homepage that says "UN members unanimously agree to blow up the Moon" and then link to a CNN article about breast cancer. This Lucianne thing doesn't strike me as a "reliable, verifiable" anything. At the very least, doesn't the original article exist somewhere at Jerusalem Post? It seems pretty shady to me that a news site doesn't store day-old articles.

--srostami 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct; I reposted it without the URL until it appears in the archives according to Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Cheers, Tewfik 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Affects on oil price

It seems this crisis/war is driving up the price of oil. According to Radio NZ at least.

¿Why? Neither Israel or Lebanon have oil to speak of.Cameron Nedland 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's OR, but I'd imagine that it'd be affecting oil prices because: 1) International uncertainty tends to do it, and 2) Oil companies in the region are probably nervous about their tankers being messed with by Israeli or Hezbollah forces? UOSSReiska 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for oil prices being driven up is not from Lebanon and Israel having any substantial oil reserves, but rather from investors being nervous about another war the USA could be dragged into, bringing the economy and consumer confidence down with it. If the Middle East destabilizes, the world's primary source of oil is then in jeopardy. If it is cut OFF, we're back in 1979, with oil past $120 per barrel (adjusted to 2006 dollars and inflation), long line-ups, queuing, even rationing. The main underlying fears are that Syria, Iraq, the USA, and Iran are pulled into this, making it an international and regional affair. Most people agree that this may very well happen, if Hezbollah does not stand down. Of course, destroying Beirut's port and airport so people can't flee isn't exactly logical if Israel "is not at war with Lebanon, its people, or its army". Now, there are already concerns that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad may target oil tankers, either to further destabilize the region in copycat attacks, or to divert attention from Lebanon, in more coordinated attacks. For this reason, i wonder... who would send an oil tanker(s) through a war-zone? and since this conflict began, i saw oil rise from 0.92 Canadian Dollars per litre (2.87 US Per gallon), to roughly 1.08 Canadian Dollars per Litre (3.09 US per gallon).

If you thought the constant suicide bombings from 2000 to 2003 were horrible, this may be preparing us for "World War Three", as Newt Gingrich told NBC News this evening (Courtesy: WDIV Detroit). In a way, he's right. We have a war on several fronts: The Phillippines, Indonesia (The Bali bombings), Afghanistan (War on Terrorism), Iraq, a potential crisis with Iran over nuclear fuel (and now, about funding and aiding Hezbollah, and Syria, for threatening Israel with "severe punishments and retaliations" should they continue their assaults on Lebanon, or even attempt a direct invasion of Syrian Territory. These six fronts can easily merge into one large war, "involving The West, and The Islamic world" (Gingrich, NBC News), as they are not only long-lasting in duration, btu they are relatively close togehter, related in causes for disputes, and even with many of the same "players" in each dispute.

Times like this make me wonder where people like Lester B. Pearson are when we need them... Depending on how things go, it could be a repeat of the 1975 war that lasted 15 years, the 1982 crisis that threatened to bring Syria and Israel to direct confrontation, or possibly even 1939, the spark that set off World War Two.

While i feel that Israel has every right and duty as a sovereign nation to defend itself agianst any agressors or threats, i feel it has crossed the line from self-defense to aggression by the indescriminate killing of Hezbollah terrorists and civilians trying to flee the renewed chaos. Israel needs to show restraint if it wishes to maintain the respect and credibility to the world that it needs. Greece has already condemned Israel's actions of unrequired strength and shows-of-force in the christian neighbourhoods of Beirut, and much of the world is disgusted from Israel's actions, as well as Hezbollah's. The kidnapping of two troops in Northern Israel IS justification to bomb known Hezbollah hideouts, but not to attack civilians. I do not pick sides in this, and i am trying to remain as neutral as possible.

However, i welcome opposing viewpoints and opinions. Let me hear from you on this. (Sources: WDIV, CBC Newsworld, NBC News, BBC News.) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

72h Ultimatum

We need a better source than for that statement, especially when it's mentioned in the lead paragraph. The current source is (1) Ynet that reports about a news message of the (2) Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat that in turn has unreleased information of the (3) Pentagon that in turn gained information from (4) Israel. Quite some interpretations, translations and uncertainities accumulated. Sijo Ripa 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Its very important news. Yes, the source could be better, but its definately worth mentioning in the lead. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find a source for the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??

~Rangeley (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not much of a source for that information - it's second hand. But, with help from users in our Arabic IRC channel, I found the report Al-Hayat story that Ynet is qouting. Here's a Google translation. In short, the relevant part says "the source refused to confirm or deny rumors of an ultimatum". Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also kindly provided with a better translation of the first two paragraphs:

An authorized source in the US Defence Ministery warned yesterday that if Arab and international efforts failed to persuade Syria to put pressure on Hizbollah to release the two israeli soldiers and end the current escalation, that it would push Israel to strike vital goals in the Syrian territories.

The source refused to deny or confirm rumours in Washington yesterday saying that Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to accept what Israel requied to stop the activity of Hezbollah on the Israeli borders and to obtian release of the two israeli soldiers , or it will face serious consequences.

Hope that helps. Zocky | picture popups 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim of an ultimatum has been removed from the lead, but it's now in a lower section, referencing the second-hand Ynet story, which makes the claim soumd much more credible than the original Al-Hayat story. We can change the reference to go directly to the Al-Hayat story, but since that is in Arabic, we should probably provide a more accurate citation than we have now. Zocky | picture popups 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now done this. Zocky | picture popups 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation of Expatriates and Tourists

With the ongoing operations by countries to get their citizens out of Lebanon, I feel we should either put in this article or write a seperate one about each countries efforts. I don't know if this is happening or has happened as I'm new to the talk pages on wikipedia. Njjones 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It should perhaps be mentioned somewhere, since the UK are sending warships to the area for a possible evacuation (source for this = BBC News 24), as to where it should be mentioned I have no idea... Cryomaniac 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the US is considering an airborne operation out of Larnaca,Cyrpus using helos or planes. The closest carrier with helos (USS Iwo Jima) is in the Red Sea and days away due to Marines off shore in Jordan. I know some governments are moving their citizens from Beirut to Damascus and will fly them out from there, such as Spain. I doubt this would be allowed for the US due to harsh rhetoric being tossed around by both countries. Njjones 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that could be written in a section where something is written about refugees in general? I read that about 60,000 refugees from southern Lebanon hs came to Beirut. And at the same time the evacuation of foreigners is proceeding of course, for example yesterday 800 swedes arrived in Aleppo with a convoy of buses carrying citizens of various EU countries. --Battra 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created an article about the ship that has been hired to evacuate U.S. citizens, the Orient Queen. A link to this could be included in a section discussing the evacuation. Rest 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now there is a section about Evacuation under "International reactions". I also added a section on Sweden. Though I feel that maybe this section is taking too much space. The evacuation is of course one of the things that our newspapers write a lot about, though I'm not that sure if it is relevant to this article to describe the evacuation with so much details. --Battra 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the section; I hoped it would be expanded and always expected it would be broken out at the appropriate point. Do keep in mind that this is notable, as in my memory there has been no similar situation where ~250,000 foreign nationals have been trapped in a blockaded war zone with no way out. (And bombs don't check passports, as Canada found.) For people with a friend or relative in the region, this is the most important aspect, which is why it's in the headlines. --Dhartung | Talk 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A section called "Foreign Nationals in Lebanon" has started to grow, though I feel it is redundant when we have another section about evacuation. --Battra 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran attempting to distract?

People in the media keep saying that Iran is directly responsible for starting this recent mess in order to create a distraction from its nuclear ambitions. Is this true? Or is it pure speculation? Where are they getting this from? Is there anything about it in the article? If so, please point me to it. If not, somebody put it in there. -Amit 67.22.216.150 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More like Israel is interested in conflict. Jews populace wants militaristic pose leaders like Sharon was, so the current Olmert-duo, who have almost nil military background (and consequently considered second class authority in Israel), want to show muscle power to gain domestic support. To meet the initial militants' demands and prisoner swap free the 300 women and 100 children younger than 15 years old, long held in israeli prisons without charge or trial, would have been easy and so the current conflict wouldn't even start. It has been done before several times to prisoner swap just a few jewish soldiers and spies for hundreds of imprisoned arabs. Why this way was not implemented now by Israel?

Foreigners cannot understand how much hatred the arabs and muslims have for the jews because of the palestinian prisoner problem. Besides the above mentioned females and youngsters, there are circa 8500 arab and muslim males long held in Israel without any charge or trial. Some of them have been held for 15 to 20 (twenty!) years now without any rights. The arabs want their many many prisoners back just as bad as jews want their 3 captured soldiers back.

Considering this, you need no Syria or Iran to explain why palestinians and other arabs are fighting. However, Israel has declared intention to make unilateral border drawing, so they hope to benefit from this war due to their huge us-funded military might. But they should know the only way to remove popular support for Hezbollah is to return to the pre-1967 borders and let the refugees come back. Current bombing only recruits more people to hezbollah. Even the moderate Lebanese PM Seinora is now calling on TV for ordinary arab people to become suicide bombers and never surrender!

It would be worth noting a great many people think that Iran is using this as a distraction. The fact that this began on the very same day that the deadline on Iran occured that the UNSC gave them does lend credence to the idea, and the fact that Iranian weaponry is being used, and 100 Iranian troops are said to be in South Lebanon only helps that out. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also we now know from the overheard Bush/Blair conversation that Tony thinks this is Iran.Hypnosadist 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Threat on Central Israel

Israeli Home Front Command says that cities southern then Haifa (for example Tel Aviv) should be ready for an attack. Máfiàg 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to AP, Rockets are landing farther south of Haifa, in the town of Atlit, which is 35 miles inland. Frinkahedr0n 13:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First abduction by Israel?

I was reading the interview with Noam Chomsky, and he said the following: "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately." Is there any validity to Chomsky's claim? I haven't read anything at all about this doctor and his brother. Erik 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I haven't heard of this and Noam Chomsky's credibility has been questioned many times, but in any event, it would belong on Operation Summer Rains, and not here. Cheers, Tewfik 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas I agree this is not the place. Yet while Noam Chomsky's credibility has been called into question, so has that of his critics. You see, one person's freedom fighter is the other's terrorist.--Cerejota 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, and it is in Operation Summer Rains. The source is http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1805354,00.html --Jobrahms 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah responsibility for Haifa attacks

The article currently says that Hezbollah denied responsibility for the attacks on Haifa. However several sources are now reporting (e.g. ) that Hezbollah broadcast statements on their station, Al-Manar, claiming responsibility for rocket attacks on Haifa and threatening more. What's unclear is whether these are the same attacks they denied responsibility for initially, or if they still deny responsibility for those but now claim resonsibility for new ones. --Delirium 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo News is not a source

Pleas enotice that Yahoo just publishes news from other sources, but is not a source itself. So please when using an article from Yahoo News, look who is the source first, usually AP or Reuters. --Cerejota 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did.--Jerluvsthecubs 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response from Lebanese Army?

Is there any response of the attakes on Lebanon? There was a report of an air raid on army baraks. In an Interview with a German person in Lebanon it was stated that their is anti aircraft artillery is firing in Beirut. Self defence would be legal against bombing the capital. The army and the non existing air force are not good against the by far strongest army in the region, but small AA fire is easy to do.--Stone 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to the Israeli attacks."(BBC ). given this and the absense of any source reporting retaliatory action by lebanese troops, the listing of lebanon as a combatant in the infobox must be removed. Doldrums 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

but also "However, the only action Lebanon's army has taken during seven days of Israeli strikes has been to fire anti-aircraft guns at Israeli warplanes attacking infrastructure targets."(Lebanon's Daily Star, ) Doldrums 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

and "The Lebanese army has largely stayed out of the fighting, confining itself to firing anti-aircraft guns at Israeli planes. But Israeli jets have struck Lebanese army positions." (AP on SF chronicle, )

More news reporting on TV

We will wait for more reporting on the web and confirmation BUT
MSNBC reports that witnesses in Tel Aviv saw an Israeli soilder forced into a suspicious vehicle
FOX NEWS reports Israeli Radio says that a car bomb exploded near Tel Aviv after the Israelis gave a bomber is on the lose warning
FOX NEWS reports that special forces for the IDF are in Lebanon and two Israeli soilders were killed in combat bringing the Israeli death toll to 27.--Jerluvsthecubs 10:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Use Citations + Disclaimer

1. If you update the number of casualties, please add citations, as diffrent sources report different numbers, and the number changes as the time passes. Also, can anyone confirm the 10 children noted on the page? Even arab Al-Jazeera isn't reporting that. --darkskyz 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
2. also should point out that in the infobox, (lebanese government account) appears at the bottom of the list of lebanese and hezbollah casaulties, but no such disclaimer is placed under the israeli list of casualties. this is actually a significant trend in both corporate and 'independent' media when using official sourcing. 'our' official sources, or those friendly to us ('us' being western, 'democratic', global north industrialized capitalist nation states or their client states e.g. israel) are assumed to tell the truth in casualty reporting, while 'their' official sources ('them' being 'non-democratic', global south developing/thirdworld nation states) are assumed to have motive to lie or be otherwise unable to give an accurate casualty report. the reason for this seems to hearken back in a cultural sense to the identity of the 'other' as suspicious and untrustworthy, and in a socio-economic sense to the need to see those nations as 'rogue states', while in reality many are only classified as such because their rebellion against their subjugation to the hegemony of Euro-American Empire is seen as unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

In this case, the Lebanese government can't possibly tell the truth in casualty reporting because the information just isn't available to them--or to anyone else. Recognizing that obvious fact isn't bias. There's simply nobody who can communicate with all of the hospitals and rescue workers in Lebanon, much less the untracked refugees, after the Israeli attacks. So the best anyone can offer is an estimate. It has nothing to do with "us" vs. "other". Falcotron 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Children Killed?

There seems to be an edit war going on about noting that "several tens of children" were killed. Should this be noted? Are the sources even reliable enough? --darkskyz 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

is reuters/bbc reliable enough? I'd say so.--Jadelith 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "children" should be cited separately at all as I don't think there is a reasonable line on what "children" should mean. For example, what age separates "children" from "civilian"? Is "children", who is a member of Hezbollah, a "militant", "civilian", or "children"? Is unborn baby a "children", "civilian" or something else entirely? You can artificially inflate number of "children" by setting age high (like 20) and even including young enough militants. Claiming a large number of "Children" killed will be a great propaganda tool but an unverifiable POV.--Revth 09:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud children should be included seperatelly. I think its a long held, humanity convention that children are listed seperatelly as victims of violence, sexual, psychological or physical. I can not on earth imagine why children, which by most law is people under the age of 16, should not be listed separately.

the thing is, its possible to get the # of children killed in many other war articles, which shows the extent of damage done by the aggressor. I think it is fit to add that here as well, the major problem in this assault being Israel's bombs killing people who probably didn't even support hezbollah. we always hear the number of children killed in other wars, why not here? but I do understand that its hard to specify what is meant by children. I still think its safe to add them if we have sources.--Jadelith 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By which laws is childhood defined as ending at 16? The age of majority in almost every country is somewhere between 18 and 21. There are often exceptions for sex, marriage, or driving at around 16, but even in such jurisdictions 16-year-olds are still minors with a few adult privileges. Or maybe you're referring to ], but that's usually somewhere between 8 and 14. This may sound like a nit-picking triviality, but it points out that Revth's point can't be dismissed that easily; there is no universally-recognized cutoff for "children." --Falcotron 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the phrase that said "...and killed 110 people, many of them civilians who were women and children" to just "many of whom were civilians. tacking on "women and children" makes it seem that much worse. They were civilians and not military, so I think we should keep it out. --Crucible Guardian 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BS nr's of dead children should not ever be hidden or restricted. However more are to come. Civilian casualties implies: civilians staying at military locations, that is wrong. I dont care about a dead children count, but not wanting to show the nr is not NPOV and is pro-israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

I think its clear on what the aggresors and apologetics are driving to achieve by down-playing civilian deaths particularly women and children by grouping them under a vague, unclear heading of mere civilians. We must all reflect on what the "Current" israeli barbaric, disproportionate, and genocidal response is doing to lebanon. The massacres from this government is well documented. No matter how direct or Indirect, God's chosen people are displaying what exactly they were chosen to do in this world. Even Jesus did not survive their terror.! Lets' face it, no matter how secular you approach this, it matters how the warring parties see this destruction deep down from their own religious perspective!!.

___ Quite frankly, the above comment should not be considered whatsoever when talking about this issue. It is absolutely anti-Israel and anti-Jewish even. Jesus's death has nothing to do with this topic, it is just a common cry of anti-semites. Discussing whether or not the attack is justified or "genocidal" (which would insinuate that they are in fact trying to eradicate the Lebanese people) is irrelevent to this topic. It is about whether or not listing children killed should be allowed, as it may lead to over-dramatizing, for lack of a better word, of the situation. Please keep it on topic and keep the insults to a minimum on this highly-inflammatory article. Sterkarm 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Adding Children is a clear POV that children are more important than any other death. That is like breaking down the death of race, gender, religion, creed or what not. STOP the POV, it is disgraceful...it isn't genocide or what not where there is only a paticular race or what not being targeted...so stop the agenda to make the lives of children worth more. Not everyone feels that way.--Jerluvsthecubs 10:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

2 killed Arab children is listed under "Foreigner", I´m convinced though living in Nazareth that they actually are Israeli citizens, anyone can clarify this? Thanks Alexmcfire

deaths in conflict

If there is, as one person stated, no way to tell the difference between a militant and a soldier, then they should definately not be combined under one category entitled "militants and civilians". This clearly distorts that level of civilians who may have been civilians. Since no such categorisation is added to the Israeli side (nor should there be), it should not be on the Lebanese section. I am removing this categorisation and reverting back to "1 militant" and 55 civilians killed. I assume someone found a reference when they put the original claim of one militant killed. There is no justification to label 55 civilians as possible militants. Do we label civilians in israel who may be a member of the IDF (due conscription and reserves) a soldier? No, of course not.

Israel separately counts casualties of civilians and military personnel. Since Hezbollah hides its deathtoll, it is clear that it's included in the Lebanese deathtoll. In simple words, if you write that 55 civilians were killed, you have to source it. Otherwise, it's 55 Lebanese killed. --Lior 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should err on the side of caution and presume they are civilians unless shown otherwise. Andrew Riddles 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

civilian casualties: Lebanese govt numbers??

about the infobox: sorry guys, but I really don't see the point of doubting their numbers if reuters believes it here. and this is yesterday's numbers, not counting last night's two deaths. obviously, israeli casualties are israeli govt numbers, and lebanese casualties are lebanese govt nmbers. there is no need to be belligerent here. if reuters believes lebanese numbers enough to mention in their reports, I really don't see the point of doubting them here. So I'm deleting that comment.

if you don't believe the lebanese govt numbers because they're terrorists, than maybe we should delete the word "civilian"? you know, since they're born with ak47's attached to their bodies.. --Jadelith 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I doubt the Lebanese government's account is simple, because they have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties. The 52 number has seperately been reported as coming from the Lebanese government, not as a result of some sort of independent count. Given that there is both means and motive to mislead about the number of casualties, I think it is wise to note that in the infobox. This is the established precedent in other articles where death totals are coming from sources which are not perfect Misplaced Pages reliable source. I am going to put the note about the source of the numbers back in for the time being. It can be removed in the future once their is an independent count available. Bibigon 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources are sources. This is not a place to judge sources (let people do that for themselves). Because I have a good reason to say "my car runs well" when I'm selling my car, doesn't mean it doesn't run well. Because Israel has good reason to inflate the number of Israeli civilians killed, doesn't mean they did. (while I would be less likely to trust the lebanese number, if its the only source, then thats what we have to work with.) If you can find a source that calls into question Lebanon's tally (preferably with some evidence that they are inflated numbers), then by all means include it. But if your just speculating, then its OR if you include any such speculations in the article. 72.129.2.117 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as having to do with whether we "believe" Lebanon or not; as encyclopedia editors that's not our job. It's pretty standard in our articles to label official numbers as such if the sole source is an involved party and there's no independent confirmation. See, for example, Operation Dewey Canyon, part of the Vietnam War, where we label the official US Marine Corps numbers as such. I don't see why official Lebanese-government numbers should be treated differently. --Delirium 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, simple logic seems to be escaping most of our writers here. Lebanon is getting attacking by a Callous government, so folks carrying a Ak's should be carrying it regardless of whether they are Hezbollah adherents or not. They rather carry that to protect their families against what is seemingly an irrational, over-amplified response from a belicouse israeli government. Israeli as usual, is shamelessly justifying killing civilians by scapegoating Hezbollahs. What's next-- attack Pakistan or Iran because dissents have safe haven there.

I'm new to wiki so I don't know whether wiki has a set of reliable sources and a set of unreliable sources, but I read most of the tutorials etc and I believe I understand the philosophy behind wiki. AFAIK, the Israeli casualties are also counted by the Israeli officials, and they also have a "good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties". I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here, but you saying that Israel govt is trustable and Lebanese not is definetely not helping here :/ --Jadelith 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutrality and your nice response. I was sorry to read Bibigon's comments. CG 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are doubting the lebanese, we must also doubt the Israeli. I believe it looks a LOT better when both comments are gone, but if some people don't believe the lebanese, we should also do the same for the israeli numbers. I believe you will understand this. --Jadelith 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If one thinks that the Lebanese "have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties", then one could certainly make the arguement that the Israelis have an equally good reason to do the same. While I don't think the comment is needed under either nation, if we include it for one, it needs to be included for both.

I never denied that the Israelis might also mislead regarding the number of casualties. Please read WP:RS. There's simply no reason for the Lebanese government to be considered a reliable source simply by virtue of being a government. We doubt what governments say with regularity. Bibigon 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are using a classic case of diversion, intentionally, by judging a source while remaining silent on the flip side of the case. Again logic should tell you, 3 sides are at war here, scrutinizing one side, will first wholly discredit them, and remaining silent over the other parties perspective will implicitly create this false impression of their reliabitiy and accuracy.

In the casualties section some information was manipulated from prior updates. As well as removing the number of Injured civilians in Lebanon and more. Why is that? Please who ever is responsible for this should change it back to the correct information. Hiding facts isn't going to be in the good of anybody. Otherwise, can anybody clarify please. -- Omernos 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem is both of them would have reasons to either up or downgrade the nr of victims. My estimate is the lebanese undercount, iafap because they don't want to be cause to an arab outcry.( Since we don't like israel that much anyhow as a souvereign entity) Israel has the typical agressionist reason to hide their real casualty nr's, they don't want to distract or disencourage their population and armed forces.If i wanted to guess the more objective nr's i would stick to the ones given in gaza. onix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

I am trying to update the casulaties list for Lebanese civilians, I have a source from Al-Jazeera, which the last time I checked, was a credible news agency. Someone keeps reverting the figure from the updated 130, to the previous 90. This childish data manipulation only undermines Misplaced Pages's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.72.251 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006

• How many of the Lebanese casualties are innocent civilians, and how many are Hezbollah men? Anthony Appleyard 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • An article from today's Al-Jazeera suggests that all but 14 are civilians. The 14 are presumably military. The article doesn't state Hezbollah casualties which is understandable as Hezbollah is not releasing casualty figures. It seems eminently reasonable to assume that the majority, if not the overwhelming majority, are unarmed civilian casualties. This article keeps being removed by POV vandals.

"Damaged warship" in infobox (at least as long as it isn't considered a war)

In most (if not all) Misplaced Pages battle and military operation articles damaged and sunk warships are mentioned (of course only when sufficient information about such casualties is available). Just check for instance: Battle of Taranto and Attack on Pearl Harbor. War articles however do not always mention such casualties, see for instance: World War II or Falklands War. Nevertheless do even some war articles report about damaged/destroyed tanks, planes and ships, such as: Yom Kippur War. As this is still considered a battle/operation article, damaged warships should be mentioned. It's open for discussion once it's considered a war. (I actually think they are seldom mentioned in war articles, simply because information is not available or reliable) Sijo Ripa 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more helpful to have the equipment losses seperate from casualties? It seems more appropriate to count as casualties those individuals wounded/killed not various pieces of equipment. Personally, I've never seen a warship counted as a casualty before in any media account or historical record. For example, in every media account I've seen of the incident in this particular conflict you are referring to, the INS Hanit is never referred to as a "casualty"--it is referred to as an Israeli Navy ship damaged by a missile. The casualties mentioned are those sailors who were killed, not the ship. As such I'll be changing the info box to reflect the generally accepted principle of counting equipment as equipment and casualties as casualties.Publicus 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. (1) most of the times accurate information is not available, which explains why such casualties are not always mentioned. (2)The argument of navy battles (which you used on my talk page) is not appropriate either as the Yum Kippur war was mostly a ground war. (3) equipment losses are in conflicts and wars often more significant than human casualties as such (in tactical/startegic terms). I don't object a separate listing in the infobox, but please do not remove it from the infobox itself. Sijo Ripa 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with removing equipment losses from the infobox. This is not a conventional war, the tank and warship were attacked by militants, not soldiers. It is a misleading 'tally' because the war is asymmetric and not all sides are utilising these weapons systems.

16:30 18 July 2006 (BA)

Sijo Ripa, I think your suggestion is a good solution-keep "warship/tank" in the info-box, but under an different heading titled "Equipment losses". That works for me, since they are important to track, but I just didn't think they should be with the civilian/soldiers numbers. To the other comment on this, as far as whether to track the losses because militants did this vs. soldiers--I don't think who destroyed them is relevant. The fact that they were destroyed as a result of the conflict is important as Sijo has mentioned, so they should be in there somewhere. 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Civilians"

Important : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html

While on the Israeli side the distinction is clear: 8 soldiers dies, 2 soldiers kidnapped, 4 missing and several were wounded. The numbers on Civilians casulaties are: 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

On the labneese side all casulaties are described as"civilians" . - How is that possible ? 60 civilians death and not one Hizbulla militia person injured or killed ? - Is Israel so bad at targeting ? Zeq 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics