Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Lebanon War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Jihad Watch: Iranian Revolutionary Guards killed in Lebanon, flown back to Iran via Syria http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php

One of the most notable features of this conflict so far has been the speed with which complex geopolitical theories to explain the situation have appeared in the mass media. Nobody can prove that Iran and Syria are or are not involved in the conflict at this stage, and wikipedia should certainly not attempt to "determine the truth" of those claims. What is undeniable however is that a multitude of US commentators and politicians have been promoting the idea that Iran and Syria are the true villains of the piece. That point is not currently being made in the article, and I think it's a serious oversight. — JEREMY 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that the U.N. troops on the group are being targeted, they are part of this conflict. Since they are supposed to stay neutral, I think the only option is to add a fourth combatant column in the info box. Thanks. Logicaldisaster 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea. The infobox is already too wide.--JyriL ^talk 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Put the Hezbollah and Lebanon in one box,after all even if Lebanon is doing only anti-aircraft warfare they are still helping the Hezbollah this way or another,so then you will have room for the U.N. forces.They should be distinguesed from Israel and Lebanon.

Maybe nother seperate box for casualties of international organizes that can include UN and the Red Cross..?--Paraphelion 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

UN forces can get shot at and blown up more so but unless they are taking potshots at Israeli planes/troops, they are not combatants. List the UN casualties as you would any other people not directly involved - by country. At least until it is cited/proved that Israel is targeting UN folks on the ground in Lebanon. Ranieldule 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The UN observers should not be listed as Lebanese casualties. Geedubber 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It has become increasingly clear, as the conflict moves on, that the UN presence in Lebanon is engaging in military actions at a level similar to Lebanon itself, and that they are developing casualties, that latest four dead, but a number of wounded, some seriously.

Someone put these casualties under "Lebanon", but I think this is wrong because they are not Lebanese, they are UN, regardless of their nationality of origin.

I am removing these casualties form lebanon in the infobox, and are opening debate and opening a straw poll on including them as combatants in the encyclopedic entry. This means putting them in the infobox, and giving them a category of combatants in all sections, and having to include them for NPOV etc etc. This is not a light decision but one we must make to further article quality.

If you oppose, please suggest an alternative to dealing with the UN involvement in combat. I dont feel the article is approaching this in a correct, structured way, that hightens article quality.--Cerejota 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~), and put two "**", under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Follow my example in structure (althought, of course, NPOV requires I dont ask you to follow my lead in vote :P)--Cerejota 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support

• • Cerejota - I think the level and intensity of the involvement requires it.
  • Doom777 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hypnosadist 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) - We Should create a UN and NGO combatant box but Mark this as NON-COMBATANT
  • --Paraphelion 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC) - weak support. if it's going to be there NGO could work to cover any red cross killings. Israel may say the UN deaths were an accident, whereas with Lebanese civilians they are tragic necessities or whatever euphamism of the day is used. However the red cross workers may fall into the latter category. This may be a good measure to determine what should go there - accident vs acceptable loss/collateral damage.--Paraphelion 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose

• • Without a doubt no, unless the security counsel approves a resolution under chapter 7 of the charter, no UN force command may be considered as a combattant. With the current run of events, this looks very unlikely to change as the US has a veto in the Sec. Con. and has made clear they only want a cessation of hostilities after IDF military objectives have been met.. e.g. Hezbollah disarmed/dismantled. Hurkummer 12:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmm. No. --TheFEARgod 18:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What, are you fucking crazy? No. This is exactly the "POV" desired by the ultraright in Israel, that the U.N. is a collaborator with Hezbollah. Stands the whole concept of international law on its head.

Doesn't the UN considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization?--Paraphelion 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Great question, the whole world uses the words terrorist organization yet no-one has a clear definition, least of all the United Nations, either in the general Assembly or the Sec.Con. But what is of importance in determining the UN stand is resolutions passed and statements from the Secretary General/Spokesperson. In the latter it is clear that the UN has passed resolutions calling for the disarming of the armed wing militia of Hezbollah, the lack of political will on the part of the Sec Con. is probably what has landed the region in the current situation IMHO as since 2000 the UN Sec Con could have taken action to proceed with the "integration/civilianisation" (read de-militarization) of partizan militias left over from the previous Israeli occupation.

• To be a bit more useful: Mediators are generally not to be confused with combatants in a war. While it can be argued how effective or even evenhanded the U.N. is in this situation, it doesn't change the basic fact that their role is one of a nominally neutral third party. The fact that they've become combat victims also doesn't change their role to one of combatant either. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No. UNFIL are unarmed observers and some lightly-armed infantry, aiming to avoid armed confrontration. Hardly combatant material. Rwendland 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No Reasons are in the discuss --Narson 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No Hanging out, occupying, stationed - whatever you call it, it's not being engaged in violent conflict. Ranieldule 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, NO!
  • No per above, the separate section for UN casualties as it is now is perfectly clear. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC) - They are there in an observer role.
  • Per above given reasons. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course not Geedubber 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • premature. Tewfik^Talk 02:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. per above reasons. Take care --Xasf 10:35, 27 July 2006 (GMT+3)
  • Strong Oppose - Four deaths does not make a combatant. --Iorek85 09:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose They are neutral noncombatants, so by definition they are not combatants. "Victims" would be an appropriate term. You need to be shooting, bombing, firing rockets to be combatants. If you are entirely on the receiving end you are victims. So far Israel is attacking Hezbollah combatants and Lebanese military and civilian noncombatants. Hezbollah is attacking Israeli military and civilians. The Lebanese military is not reported to have fired back at Israel forces. Israel has bombed the Lebanese army as punishment for them not fighting Hezbollah. Why they have bombed the UN post is an open question, but they continued for many hours despite numerous phone calls from the UNEdison 15:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should do this for the same reasons we included Lebanon: the conflict is mainly between Hezbollah and Israel, but Lebanese civilians and troops have been engaged and developed casualties. So has the UN. I don't see any difference, but perhaps I am not considering something. As such I see no reason why not to do this.--Cerejota 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely do not think we should include the United Nations as a combatant, they are not involved in the conflict at all. Similarly, the Canadian citizens that have died would not mean that Canada was a combatant. However, despite what I or anyone else thinks doesn't particularly matter. It's only if the United Nations is declared a combatatant that it should be added. MLA 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no one has declared Lebanon a combatant, which is my point: we are making an encyclopedia article, so we can strucutre the conflict as we see it.

The situation with canadians dying in different than the UN. UN troops are armed for comabt operations, and control territory by military means.

As to the comment of the UN allied to Hezbollah, well, that then makes them a combatant at the Level of Lebanon, doesnt it? I see no reason why we should include Lebanon while excluding the UN. Its exactlly the same situation.--Cerejota 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm. Lebanon is in because Lebanon is the 'host nation' so to speak for the conflict, the UN is neither an active participant nor is this taking place inside the UN buildings in Geneva or New York or anything like that. Neither UN nor Lebanese troops have been given orders to engage Israeli troops in Lebanon. (And before you mention the AA, trying to down planes violating your airspace has been common space and never labelled you as partaking in a conflict) --Narson 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we just keep "combatant" simple? Combat , armed conflict, not being under a bomb when it drops. Can we wait to put the UN in their own "Combatant" box until they do more than 1) unfortunately become killed and 2) accuse Israel of doing it on purpose. More, like say, particpating in combat.Ranieldule 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very modern war with lots of sides, the international bodies that are on the ground are part of the conflict even if they are not shooting people and especially when they are dying in the combat. Ranieldule's arguement that you are only a combatant if you manage to kill someone is not the way the Geneva Convention sees it.Hypnosadist 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think your explanation fits either. The UN is not a combatant because they are not being targetted, nor are they targetting anything. THey are there in an observer role. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to clarify - you don't have to kill to be a combatant, merely attack another or defend oneself from attack (Lebanese AA fire makes me feel they are combatants). I don't even feel being targetted is enough. I agree though that this new "war" needs constant reappraisal of terms like these - although it does not (yet) make the UN a combatant. Observers, like the world press, even after being killed in the midst of violent conflict, are not engaged in combat. Ranieldule 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi zero, i'm not saying they are fighting in this war, but the UN are participating in it hence why i think they should have a box but it be marked Non-combatants (ie not shooting people people).Hypnosadist 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A fine idea - although I would hate to lose that fine combatant infobox. Ranieldule 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with a non-combatant, however this vote is for combatant status only and so I vote oppose. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okey I think the straw poll is clear that this is not wanted, but perhaps a fourth box on "UN and other non-combatants" or whatever name might be in order? I mean, is not like any one convinced me of my main contention, that including Lebanon as a combatant but not the UN is incongrous, but the proposal does solve the other issue, a more critical one to article quality, which is where to place non-combatant casualties that are neither civilian, nor lebanese.--Cerejota 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I was thinking that too, since their probably will be more non-combatant deaths. It may sound POV, but we could change the Lebanon box to Non-combantances box and put the Lebanon flag and the UN flag next to each number of casulties--Rayc 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really a shame this whole article can't be revised on those terms - as in, changing the name to Israel-Hezbollah conflict, listing Lebanese, UN and (as they become involved) other non-combatant, not strictly civilian casualties. I'm beginning to see that if the UN gets the noncombatant status it's time for a dramatic, radical reappraisal of Lebanon's. Ranieldule 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there could be a box for "Others" An Egyptian ship was reportedly hit by a missile from Lebanon possibly intended for an Israeli navy ship. Persons killed would be "Other." If Red Cross workers, UN observers, Doctors Without Borders, reporters, foreign nationals trying to evacuate, foreign military trying to evacuate same, foreign diplomats, are killed, in Lebanon or Israel, they could go in this box with a list for each subcategory, possibly divided as to whether killed by Hezbollah rockets or Israeli attacks.since obviously they are not interchangeable. The US ship Liberty was attacked by Israel in a prior war, either by accident because the IDF planes did not recognize a large US flag, or because they did not want radio monitoring of what they were doing to Arab prisoners. In this war, perhaps the IDF did not want UN witnesses to their actions in Lebanon. Now will the UN observers be replaced, or are the witnesses going to be gone from now on?Edison 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a notes section to the infobox and moved the UNIFIL deaths there. That way the UN deaths aren't associated with any one combatant. I hope that was okay. Geedubber 19:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel 12,000 troops on border Troops involved in incursions: Golani Bgde, Paratroop Bgde Merkava IV tanks 80 Armoured D-9 Bulldozers 1,500+ Air attack sorties Apache attack helicopters

Hezbullah 6,000+ Elite fighters 20,000+ Trained fighters 15,000+ Katyusha rockets Sagger anti-tank missiles Rocket- propelled grenades

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.227.171 (talk • contribs).

Amal should be together with the Hezbolla column in the battle box. How could Ammal recieve casualties in combat alongside with hezbolla without beiing a combatant. Miguel

Currently the Lebanese civilian casualty count in our article is 306. The MSNBC article cited says "At least 306 people have been killed in Lebanon since Israel’s campaign began, according to Lebanese officials. At least 29 Israelis have been killed, including 14 soldiers." Is there some reason that we are assuming that all 306 are civilians? I'm going to change it to an admittedly inferior formulation lacking the civilian qualifier. Tewfik^Talk 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've subtracted the 24 soldiers from the 306 total number given, though the sources cited for Lebanese military casualties weren't clear. Tewfik^Talk 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties Info Box. The civilians/military deaths listed in the casualties info box needs to be reordered to be consistent across all 3 sections. Ugh, also, why is the 'civilians' section in Lebanon continually being renamed to 'Other:'? What do you think they are?

Nevermind, I see the info posted in the changelist; I still don't think 'Other' is an appropriate term though.. would be nice to get some better figures.

Accuracy is more important than consistency. We should not say that all the casualties in Lebanon were civilians, it simply isn't true. Surely some of Israel's airstrikes have hit Hizbollah members, after all most of them are directed at that organization. In fact, the cited article and several others that I have read do not specify that all the casualties were civilians, they say the total number of casualties and note that many or the majority were civilians. GabrielF 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously biased as an Israeli GabrielF. All your changes are based on your own assumptions. The media talks of civilians, soldiers (as in Lebanese soldiers) or Hezbollah militants. We will keep it like that. ArmanJan 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not an Israeli and you need to keep in mind WP:NPA, second, please read the source before you assume you know what it says. This is what the source actually says: "As the death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon as well as at least 31 Israelis," - 330 TOTAL casualties is not the same as 330 CIVILIAN casualties. This is from the BBC: "The nine-day offensive has killed at least 306 people and displaced an estimated 500,000 in Lebanon. There are increasing concerns for displaced Lebanese civilians. The fighting has left 31 Israelis dead, including 15 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel." Again, referring to total casualties, not civilian casualties. NOBODY knows the total number of civilian casualties. GabrielF 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

However there are numerous reports regarding how many of these numbers are civilians, which you of course know, but that does not fit your agenda.--Paraphelion 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the "at least 355" is a very good method of approaching the Lebanese civilian death count, but none of the cited sources ([2], [3], [4]) say that. I am regretfully removing the "civilians" qualification until such time as we either have a documented minimal number and/or list the total and documented civilian numbers separately. Sorry, Tewfik^Talk 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"The civilians/military deaths listed in the casualties info box needs to be reordered to be consistent across all 3 sections."--I think this is a very important point. The info box is rarely in sync with what is said later in the article. It would be one thing to have the info box say something like "varied reports between x number and y number of casualties" and then to elaborate on that in the casualties section, but more often than not the info box shows one figure and then the casualties section shows a completely different figure. This is really confusing and needs to be changed.--172.145.122.194 06:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If warship is a casualty, the why wodn't you wright there every single israely tank and Hezbollah's rocket launcher?

Got it. El_C 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We have already agreed that it should be listed per wikiconvention; please see the "warship" section of the archive. Tewfik^Talk 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the warship should be removed from the casualty list,if not at least take in to consideration to include the two Israeli tanks and an armored bulldozer that were destroyed,two Apache helicopters that were lost and one more tank that was damaged.Alright? Top gun 5:17, 24 july 2006

Tewfik, where we draw the line? Artillery batteries? Katyusha launchsites? Also, could you link for me the wikiconventions bit? Thanks. El_C 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc.. The discussion notes that this is a conventional practice on conflict articles, and applies just to naval vessels. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to catch up on it soon. El_C 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I read Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc and I still think that the warship should be removed from the casualties list, but another info box should be added in which the tanks, helicopters and warship should be put under a name like Israeli military equipment loses, c'mon a warship is not a casualty.Top gun 6:44, 24 july 2006

I think we are being dogmatic in the approach to conventions, as most of the wars that do list warships as casualties where wars where naval battles where fought, which is not the case in this conflict. (Nevertheless, the user above is wrong, Warships are traditionally counted as casualties of war, as are other forms of hardware as tanks, planes, and artillery pieces.)

I think it should be removed for this reason: I doubt we will see any major naval engagements in this conflict, and the ship was not sunken. It is basically a footnote and not really relevant.--Cerejota 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota has just said what I have been saying, remove the warship,but OK if you do not want to,at least add the two helicopters,even maybe a third as I hear today that another crashed, and also the two tanks and the bulldozer that were destroyed, and the tank that was damaged. Top gun 12:55, 24 july 2006

Two more IDF ***************terrorists************** died today, along with two ****************Terror************* IAF pilots;

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280804,00.html

How come AL-Jazeera knew this already in the morning and Israeli news agencies are confirming the dead just minutes ago ?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280804,00.html

WTF??!?!?!? ISraeli terrorist is that something new?!?!?!?!

YNET says 1,300 people have visisted hospitals, but the bulk are for shock. Since the information on injuries from Lebanon only mentions injured by direct trauma (the traditional definition of casualty), perhaps we should be careful when citing the number who visited hospitals as the "injured" figure. I will edit accordingly, substracting the number of people treated for shock to come up with the true number of reported injured.

This is NOT a POV issue but one of balance: you cannot compare apples and oranges, and since no figures are available for people trated for shock in Lebanon, including then for the israeli side gives the impression they are the same type of injured, when sources in fact say they are not. If we can find a source listing the Lebanese treated for shock, then we can included the Israeli too.--Cerejota 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what the Lebanese numbers count (We are not even clear on what the fatality numbers mean)? This sounds like it could easily become WP:OR. Tewfik^Talk 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And just FYI, Ynet is an extremely biased source, so taking grains of NaCl is advised. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to me to even mention the 875 israelis having been treated for shock, since no such data is mentioned for the Lebanese. PJ 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is likely that the Lebanese casualty figures include people treated for shock as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at foreigners killed only, we find an initial statistical ratio of 20 to 1 between Lebanon and Israel. This ratio is corrobated by the claimed number of civilians killed (353/17 ~= 20/1) Then there is an odd discrepancy in the number of civilian casualties: Israel claims their ratio between wounded/dead to be about 24 to 1, whereas Lebanon only claims a ratio of 3 to 1. I would believe that, given the cruel but unbiased properties of a bomb-blast, the 3:1 figure is likely to be serious casualties (hospitalized, missing legs etc) and the 24:1 figure includes lighter wounds (scrubs, broken arms etc). In any case it is very unlikely that the Lebanese casualties includes treatments for shock!

Moving on to displaced persons, the relation of 20 to 1 can be restored if we assume that the "tens of thousinds" is supposed to mean around 40000 ...

MX44 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concede that we cannot rule out the possibility that the Lebanese casuality figure does not include people being treated for shock. However, given the present situation, I take it to be quite unlikely that the hospitals treat people for mere shock. But again, until we have relevant info, I concede the point. PJ 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem either way including the shock figure or not. It is a report by a news source and is part of what is going on. As for what kind of bias it shows, I think that can go either way. Some people may look at the Lebanese side and wonder think things are biased because nobody bother to count shock on that side. Some may look at the shock figure and think, "gee they're really hamming it up for all its worth".--Paraphelion 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I am one of the writers in the German version of this topic. I saw two inaccuracies concerning the casualities of other nations. The statement, that the four members of the Mönchengladbach family dies is wrong. The 11yo. son survived, the 14yo. daughter, teh 30 yo. pregant wife and the father died. Source: Westdeutsche Zeitung Online: Tödlicher Urlaub im Libanon, 15. July 2006. --213.155.224.232 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it as it is for the moment (including "shock"). Since we have no information on how Lebanon counts their casualties. Either that or add the "shock" number into total injured. I prefer the former. --Bingman06 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: The number of displaced is listed as tens of thousands. Is there a solid number or estimation we can use? I have read reports that hundreds of thousands are in bomb shelters (somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000). Is that considered displacement? Thanks. --Bingman06 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of us in the U.S.A. are severely shocked every time we turn on the TV and see more killing and destruction, with billions of our tax dollars furnishing the bombs used by one side.Edison 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times is reporting that the casualties being reported by the Lebanese government do not distinguish between civilian and Hezbollah. The New York Times article stated, "The deaths brought the toll to at least 380, Lebanese authorities said. Lebanon does not differentiate between civilian deaths and the deaths of Hezbollah fighters. The Israeli military says it has killed more than 100 Hezbollah fighters." This seems to make the previous issue on Lebanese casualties a little clearer and hopefully brings us closer to an accurate and acceptable solution. Icarus 9:10, July 24 2006 (UTC)

Right now the figure of 353 on the page is not even in the cited article. I had cited one source that indicated that over 300 "people" have been killed and indicated 300 were civilians. This NYT article makes it more important now to have something accurate in the infobox, though I still think it would be unacceptable to omit any mention of civilians there. A good temporary solution now might be to include many citations, and last I checked most said something along the lines of "3XX killed, mostly civilians" or "almost all civilians" or "mainly civilians". If we do that, stating something like "~250" under the civilians heading seems acceptable to me, perhaps followed by "~100 of unconfirmed status" or something like that.--Paraphelion 07:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts in light of the volatility of the casualty figures from source to source. I'm also not sure of the make up between civilian and militant casualties. On one hand the focus of the military campaign seems to be Hexbollah, however there is certainly a significant level of collateral damage incurred. Hezbollah, which does not release their losses, has only confirmed 3 casualties but various media and military sources have put their losses as high as over 100. Perhaps for the time being we should describe the casualty figure as "Lebanese civilian and militant" rather than relying on our own speculation. -- Icarus 11:51, July 25 2006 (UTC)

I made the hezbollah and IDF attacks on UNIFIL section but someone removed the hezbollah attack that was reported by al-jazeera [5]

How will the UN peacekeeper casulaties be incorperated into the infobox? – Zntrip 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought there were 2 dead and 2 missing UNIFIL. Has this been updated to 4 dead? Fcyoss 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not too clear.. a quick search showed that most recent (<1 hour) stories are saying 4 dead.--Paraphelion 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This answers the question - [6] --Paraphelion 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks.Fcyoss 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed all the UNIFIL casualties which were reported except for the 4 killed on 25 July. I guess wounded dont count in the 'casualties' section :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.227.171 (talk • contribs).

It got moved and I didnt notice- sorry. Added in detail on the dead UN staff member the IDF killed on 17th July- they recovered his body along with his wife's body on 26th July —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.227.171 (talk • contribs).

There was one development that I noticed so far, a retired Canadian General claims in a radio broadcast that he has email from the dead canadian UN saying that Hezbullah were using the UN post for a base. Or at least that is what his comments have been interpreted as saying- they are sort of obtuse. Here is a link [7] but on searching to see if it is being picked up by major outlets [8] I notice he delivered keynote speech at pro-israel canada rally yesterday and said: "Some people look at this as Lebanon versus Israel, when in fact it's Israel versus terrorism, an extremely vile form of terrorism, so I'm happy to support their cause," Unsure where that belongs if at all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.227.171 (talk • contribs).

Someone added it in, but it was misquoted, and stated that McKenzie was original receipient of email. Cited original email/article (even if it has since been updated), indicated that McKenzie was privy to the letter after publication and that it was his interpretation of the email. Also added comments from the UN observer widow where she indicates there is information also relating to the frequency of IDF/hezbollah attacks on the outpost in her posession. There was also a wrong date in there- changed 8th to 18th. 82.29.227.171 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

It should be noted that Olmert apologized for UN observers’ death but also criticized Annan for his statement that Israel deliberately attacks UN posts. Also, Danny Gillerman, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, said he was shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement by the secretary general insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted the UN post at Khiam and surprised at these premature and erroneous assertions.

Link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3281510,00.html

P.S. The comment was supposed to be posted here and not below.

Vinyl Driver 10:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Usually when I read/hear about statements made by diplomats regarding the Middle East, I note that the language used is quite precise to indicate what is ment, though at times can also be very ambiguous. In the case of Secretary Annan's comments regarding the bombing of the UNFIL post (on the 25th of July, 2006), I think it is important to explicitly state that the secretary called it "apparently deliberate" (see Israel to Occupy Area of Lebanon as Security Zone). It may be a slight difference, but it is clear that he as only made an observation (or perhaps an assessment of information available to him) rather than an outright accusal.

Does anyone else agree? --Silverpen 05:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right Silverpen- this article puts it so:

According to a western diplomat in New York, Gen Pellegrini "believed he had been given assurances [from Israel] that the shelling would stop". That belief was crucial in prompting Mr Annan to say the killings were "apparently deliberate".

Believe I also read that the Irish UN observer was told during his conversations with IDF that the shelling would stop. So far as I know no statement about the intent of the bomb dropped on the home of UN observer and his wife both killed 17th July has been made- that may come in next few days too.

If a modern army is firing at you with artillery and dropping precision guided bombs over a period of hours and despite numerous phone conversations of the UN with their commanders, one might be led to assume that the subsequent bombing deaths of the four UN observers was intentional, perhaps to avoid having credible neutral witnesses of what was going on. This is comparable to the IDF bombing and strafing of the U.S military ship Liberty , flying a U.S. flag, during a previous war.Edison 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Al-Jazira reported from Israeli military officials and from Hizbullah that several Israeli tanks were destroyed in the last ground operations made by Israeli ground forces. I don't know the exact number though, but it should be checked and included. Sherif9282

Dear Friends,

It should be noted that Olmert apologized for UN observers’ death but also criticized Annan for his statement that Israel deliberately attacks UN posts. Also, Danny Gillerman, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, said he was shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement by the secretary general insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted the UN post at Khiam and surprised at these premature and erroneous assertions.

Link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3281510,00.html in finnish: [9]

Vinyl Driver 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is an Israeli Jew; Avraham; in control of this topic on Wikipedia ?

Now I know this is going to be changed everytime by Israeli when I add it to the article so I am also posting it here: [10] 13 Israeli soldiers killed. Also I would like to not that the Hezbollah site (if you count the casualties) amounts to 13 and not "27", it seems people just add to it without reason. ArmanJan 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Israeli's would remove the added dead soldiers. Now there are even more dead [11] Just remember that no matter what you do, the outcome of this fight will not change by you lying on this article. ArmanJan 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So the petty hatred has spread to wikipedia.. perhaps Jimbo should close this show down, it looks like humanity isn't ready for the true information society, we'r to busy throwing sticks and stones at each other.

Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• the intro looked fine to me, why did you remove the fact that "Samir kuntar" is a murderer? and instead trying to relegate this fact to some dark corner of the article? as it is 90% of the people in the world have no idea of what this whole war is about... most of them think that this guy that hezbollocks wants freed is a nice friendly neighbourhood ice-cream man? this guy killed a 4-year old by smashing her head with a rifle butt against a rock. FYI Shakespeare Monkey 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some wrather POV manipulation of facts going on in some main stream media about the ignighting incident. Isreal would claim that H. invaded isreal and 'kidnapped' the soldiers. H. would argue they 'arrested' two soldiers occupying Lebenon. Just like wikipedia uses 'capture' to try to remain NPOV, the description of the location should also attempt to remain NPOV. As it stands, the intro paragraph describes the action as a 'cross border raid' which, while true, misleads the reader into thinking that hesbolah crossed into isreali territory, as opposed to disputed syrian territory which isreal controlls. The intro paragraph should explain this in a little more detail.

Actually the raid took place in undisputed territory (relatively) far from the Syrian frontier (and not the Shebaa Farms area). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What are your sources for the location? What about the reports by the Lebanese police that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Aitaa al-Chaab? 213.79.34.59 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I separated the report from Lebanese police/hezbollah of an infiltration into Aitaa al-Chaab from the rest of the paragraph- this makes it clear that the facts of the initial capture is disputed. A timeline of the claims made would probably help.

And someone just removed it all. Snowjob.

Please look up where the ISraeli soilders were captured...it was in South Lebanon. Check

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24913&hd=0&size=1&l=e

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060720&articleId=2767

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FRA20060725&articleId=2813

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hezbollah_soldiers.html

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html

http://uruknet.info/?p=m25034&hd=0&size=1&l=e

http://www.voltairenet.org/article142056.html

I also want you to note that the Israeli media has proven to be censored and used for propaganda purposes...all their reports of advancement into Lebanon have turned out to be bogus, plus their claims of a Saudi fatwa against Hezbollah.

Thank you...please change the article. 69.196.164.190

We'll get right on that. Our rate is $150/hr. Or you can do it yourself.

The forbes link, which would be the most credible source in that list, does not say anything about the soldiers being captured in South Lebanon.--Paraphelion 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually two of those sites are world famous for their work, by leading experts and adacemics. Two of those links also had other links on them, plus one of the verifications is The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times.

69.196.164.190

Is the AFP article where it says "fr.news.yahoo 7/12/06]", because that link seems to be bad. If it's the french one, then I apologize, I don't read French that well, but it doesn't attribute the article to AFP. Also The Hindustan Times link from "whatreallyhappened" does not appear to be good anymore - "http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1742306,00050004.htm". While global research may do some good research, the articles seem more op-ed, no?--Paraphelion 07:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note this entry does make mention of this account, see "According to Lebanon".--Paraphelion 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me 69.196.164.190, but you are wrong. The identity of the soldiers who were captured puts the lie to all those articles, as they are reservists and not members of any elite unit. Cymruisrael 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Global Research is a blog, its a self published website by Michael Chov(whatever) and therefore fails WP:RS. Furthermore he is not a journalist nor expert in the field, his expertise is economics. Urukunet? What really happened? seems like forbes is the only realistic link you have up there. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times is quoting a (now archived) IANS story (go here and search for "Nabatiyeh" within the last 30 days to see the intro) which seems to have come originally from dpa. Here's another version. — JEREMY 08:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I've just noticed it's already referenced in the article: #29. — JEREMY 08:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I was the one who added that reference, actually.--Paraphelion 08:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

These sources are horrible, and are not to be trusted. You cannot expect "whatreallyhappened.com" to be a credible source for anything. Here are some other sources.

• "TURMOIL IN THE MIDEAST: ESCALATION; Clashes Spread to Lebanon as Hezbollah Raids Israel". NYTimes. 2006-07-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Middle East". 2006-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Lebanon divided over Hezbollah raid". Al Jazeera. 2006-07-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "U.N. chief calls for immediate cease-fire". CNN. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Hezbollah warns Israel over raids". BBC. 2006-07-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

BBC+CNN+Al Jazeera+G8+NYTimes >>> a blogger, a proffessor, and "whatreallyhappened.com" --Doom777 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it me or couldn't someone just publish a map showing where they were captured?

As it stands this section is very one-sided. What factual base do these claims have, if any? Has Israel responded to these serious allegations at all? If so, what'd it say? If not so, then why? If we were to include any single claim made by this side about the other without any need for it to be substantiated, the article would very soon become bloated with psychological warfare and propaganda. --AceMyth 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The President of Lebanon is a pretty important (though I'm not going to say reliable) source. Thats enough to get it mentioned. I'll see if I can find the Israeli comment, but I can guess what it's going to say already.--Iorek85 02:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the sentence "President Lahoud's claims remain unverified" to the article to help with NPOV. Hopefully that will help. OldSkoolGeek 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

White phosphorus is a very common incendiary (not chemical) weapon, and its use is not illegal. The only international agreement which regulates it is the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons", 1980. Protocol III of that covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons." In short, you can't use incendiaries to attack civilians, or military targets in the middle of a concentration of civilians such as an inhabited city or refugee camp (unless you have a reasonable expectation that the military target can be hit without hitting the civilian concentration). Israel has not signed that treaty (neither have Lebanon or Syria for example), but I believe they are essentially complying with its terms. ObsidianOrder 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's got about as much factual base as most of the other claims by government officials in the article. You're right that it could get bloated. It think these kinds of claims should be limited to high ranking officials on both sides. The possibility that Israel is using these weapons and had bad luck with targeting is not that far fetched. That they intentionally used them on civilians seems much less likely, but consider that nearly all conflicts of this size or larger have atrocities of this kind which get found out years later. It shouldn't be anymore surprising if it turns out to be intentional than it was to learn of the atrocities committed in Vietnam or Iraq by US forces. Of course these statements could turn out to discredit the Lebanese government, and if so, so be it. --Paraphelion 03:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the words "claim" and "allege" are used to have a cynical effect on stating facts, meaning that one side "claims" it, but it is not corrobarated with any other sources. So it is a cynical way of stating facts in the first place, lol! --Terrancommander 04:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG ROFL!!!! OBVIOUZORS INVADED!!! SOMEONE SET US UP THE NPOV!! +10 wiki points to Terrancommander's POV!!! TAKE OFF EVERY ^{[citation needed]}!!--Paraphelion 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of weaponized white phosphorus does count as a chemical weapon. I'd be surprised if Israel had actually done that (well, not that surprised, the U.S. used it against Fallujah, maybe they're just getting the idea form us). Anyway, I'd like to see a less biased source than the leader of the nation being attacked. Remember the Iraqi Information Minister saying how they were totally winning the fight while in actuality Iraq was being overrun by American forces? It's the same for any leader of the country. It's their job to say whatever is necessary to continue to bolster strength and garner international support. Because he has everything to lose. --Cyde↔Weys 04:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I'm not entirely sure what makes you think that WP counts as a chemical weapon. Have you ever handled the stuff? It is extremely flammable, but the fumes are not more noxious than the fumes of many other burning substances, like tires or common plastics. And it has been used both as an obscurant and incendiary in mass quantities ever since WW2. Was it "chemical weapons" back then? ObsidianOrder 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. there is no such thing as "weaponised" WP - WP is just WP. The use of the word in this case is clearly intended to draw a parallel between WP and chem/bio weapons which are commonly described as "weaponised". That's completely bogus, don't fall for it. ObsidianOrder 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Article 2, prohibits incendiary weapons OTHER THAN THOSE DELIVERED BY AIR, which the Israeli WP undoubtedly is. Sneaky, that. Khaighle 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

might want to read again :

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
2. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Yes, sneaky that Zer0faults omitted the first part. [12]--Paraphelion 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant that the text of the treaty itself was sneaky, in that the states concerned had exempted themselves from sanction when fire-bombing civilians from the air, but I now gather that's not the case. My bad. --Khaighle 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to read it literally three times to understand that part. And I'm not completely sure - what it means is that when the incendiary weapons are not air-delivered, then it is ok, but so long as a lot of precautions are taken, right? I imagine the idea being that by air, such precautions are not as reliable, but on the ground they are, so they allow use?--Paraphelion 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a quick-and-dirty translation from legalese would be "don't set things on fire, unless 1) you do it from the ground 2) they're military targets and 3) you're super-careful not to set any civilian things on fire at the same time." And yes, the logic would be that it's much more difficult to avoid "collateral damage" when bombing from the air.--Khaighle 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming they're not deliberately targeting civilians, which they are. That's quite illegal in itself. --Tothebarricades 07:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have any citations that can prove your statement beyond doubt, please share them.--Paraphelion 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the extensive discussion of US aid to Israel as it either is not directly relevant to this conflict, or is repeated elsewhere. The only passage which should probably stay is the following, though I'm not sure where/how to include it:

Although it has not been publicly announced, "[t]he Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hizbollah targets in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Saturday [July 22, 2006]." <ref name="Reu 2006-07-22">{{cite news |url= http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-22T050649Z_01_N21268027_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-BUSH-WEAPONS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-2 |publisher=Reuters |title=Headlines for July 19, 2006 |date=July 19, 2006}}</ref>

Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik: it as relevant to this article as having a special section on the Hizbollah rocket response to Israeli attacks, or discussing Hezbollah's funding by Iran. The funding of Israel on the part of the US is required for balance. The paragraph is well sourced, and presented in an NPOV voice.

Now, I do object its inclusion on the same grounds I object the Iran funding of Hezbollah. It is discussed in other background articles, and it predates the current conflict. THis article is meant to be an introduction to the current conflict, and its related subpages. Not an in depth discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict at large, for which there is not only a page, but a pretty through template with links to most major actors and events.

The quality of this page has been reduced, and its NPOV compromised because of efforts by POV editors, such as yourself, who fail to understand what makes a good wikipedia article as per Wikipedia:PERFECT as a guide. Rather than being bold in editing most people are being rude and not discussing or raising issues. Furthermore it is obvious the article hasn't been NPOV for a few days yet you an others continue to remove the tag.

This article is now in general from a good example of a manageable article to a mish mash of POV, a total lack of logical organization, an unmanageable lenght and total disregard for the existence of relevant subarticles.

You allege to not want these things but by pushing your POV you are indeed engaging in its destruction. Only thing you have going on for you is that you have the courage and decency to use the talk pages. And that except for an initial attempt at harrasment, you have been civil.-- Cerejota 11:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would cease your unfounded claims of my supposed harassment, and that you would stop making broad statements about my supposed POV edits. Especially as in this case, it seems you don't actually disagree with my edit. I again say that if you have a problem with any specific edit I make, then provide a dif and we can deal with it. Again, please stop. Tewfik^Talk 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My God Cerejota! Calm the F--- down. What makes you the supreme master of NPOV anyhow?

The whole US bombs and arms sales to israel is an issue in britain, I noted statements im aware of on the international reactions main page under british section

There is yet another US bombs story that has broke in the UK concerning the movement 5000 pound bombs through a civilian airport (prestwick in scotland) without the proper safety proceedures and without prior clearence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5218036.stm hope this helps people.Hypnosadist 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a listing of the military capabiliities of IDF, Hezbollah, and Lebanese Armed Forces: Numbers of regulars and reserves, number of tanks, planes, ships, and artillery, type of automatic weapons used, type of rifles and sidearms used, type of antitank, antiaircraft, rockets, etc. In any conflict this is very important, along with training and motivation, anas well as quality of command and control.Jane's Defence Weekly and allied publications tabulate such info, so it's not all a deep dark defense secret. Edison 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/le.html says:

For Lebanon: Population: 3,874,050 (July 2006 est.). Lebanon's military expenditures are $540.6 million per year(2004) at 3.1% (2004) of GDP. Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 821,762,females age 18-49: 865,770 (2005 est.) No info on size of military or equipment.

.

For Israel, the figures are Population: 6,352,117; Military expenditures: $9.45 billion (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 7.7% (2005 est.); Manpower fit for military service: males age 17-49: :1,255,902, females age 17-49: 1,212,394 (2005 est.) No info on size of military or equipment

No Hezbollah info.Edison 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IDF page seems to have a pretty satisfactory summary of equipment used by Israel. In the interest of keeping size down, it probably doesn't pay to repeat it here. Infinitenoodles 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See the main article Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict for the subsection "Military resources of Hezbollah, Israel, and Lebanon." Originally there was no link from this article or from that one to either the Lebanese military page or the IDF page, and the IDF page lacked any totals on their active military, only their population of military age. At that point in the coverage, it seemed necessary to elaborate on the military resources available to the parties to the conflict. The appropriate level of coverage is to provide a summary of the force strengths there, and links to the pages for each army. The pages for each army are rather bloated with their history, their philosophy, their marching song etc, and the reader about the conflict would not want to wade through that, but if one is reading about a conflict it is crucial to be able to appraise quickly the relative strengths of the combatants, and that has been done with recent info from reputable sources. Edison 15:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Would discussion of Hezbollah's motivation for the original attack be appropriate in the body of the article? There has been widespread speculation that Iran orchestrated the Hezbollah action to divert international (G8 and UN) attention or effect international action concerning its nuclear programme. [13] Fishhead64 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be, as would a discussion of the motivation for what the UN has called Israel's disproportionate use of force. Included in such discussions should also be both sides' self proclaimed reason or motivation, as well as cited speculations.--Axgoss 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "Beginning of conflict" article into two sections, "According to Lebanon" and "According to Israel" that should solve our disputes (for all the reasonable people), and stop the constant changing. ArmanJan 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit summaries. Is this picture POV because that is where the soldiers were only according to Hezbollah? If so, that is not clear.--Paraphelion 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That is where Lebanon says the Israeli soldiers were when two of them got arrested and another eight were killed. ArmanJan 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I disagree completely. It is unprecedented to have two different sections showing different views. Especially since the material in both of them is largely the same. I refactored Beginning of conflict in order to have one version, but in the parts where they actually differ (where the conflict began) I put both versions in the same paragraph. This way its not wasteful, and keeps the alreday gigantic article smaller --Doom777 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself, there will be disputes about this until the year 2060. The reason I split up the article is because the edits of it are going so fast you cant get a grip on it. This way you clearly can distinguish which side said what, and if someone changes something (at the rate we are going now) you can see what was changed easilly. This page is small compared to many other war articles. Expect it to get way larger in time. ArmanJan 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The war is not even over yet, and its already gigantic. And you cannot split an article in two just because there is a lot of editing being done; an article must always have a presentable appearance--Doom777 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

However the effect and aim was to marginalize one view, labeling the views as "some Arab and Iranian" when they are based on quotes from Hezbollah cited from an Indian source. Equally absurd would be labeling Israeli PM's statements as view of "some Israelis".--Paraphelion 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I don't like your change, is ArmanJan will say its POV for Israel, and revert back to his dual, data-redundant version.--Doom777 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely unprecedented to show two views regarding the start of a two week old conflict that is part of a wider conflict that has not been resolved for 1,000 years? Don't worry, you'll get your one view when the victor writes the history books.--Paraphelion 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Having two sections in Wikipedia for a 2 week conflict is unprecedented. I am strongly pushing my version as NPOV and non-data-redundant. And if you are going to go back in history, then Israel was fighting Filistians back during King David times. --Doom777 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says you may not split an section? Take a good look at some of the other war pages. When the section is put into one you suddenly have many Israeli's editting everything to the following, "This is how it happened.... blah blah blah... and the terrorist group hezbollah claimed..." that is not Wikipedia:NPOV. Each side must be given an equal value of space to tell their side of the event. I do not see why so many Israeli's insist on having their view enforced upon everyone else, it will change nothing in the outcome of this war. It however does enforce what Noam Chomsky once said: (in my own words) You can not sit down with an Israeli and reach a compromise. They want what they want, and that is the end of it. ArmanJan 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am all for NPOV too. My version included both Hizballah version that Israelis were already inside Lebanon, and Israeli version. However that is the only difference between the two versions, and you have a lot of useless redundancy in everything else. I don;t see why you need to make two entirely different sections, if they are mostly just copies of each other.--Doom777 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it that in your version that includes Hezbollah's view, you did not attribute that view to Hezbollah, but rather to "some Arab and Iranian sources" - [14]--Paraphelion 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I was refactoring ArmanJan version, and his version said that that the soldiers were captured on Lebanon soil, was from Some Arab and Iranian sources. If you can prove it was from Hizbollah instead, feel free to modify it.--Doom777 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove it how? The source says Hezbollah said this. When I read other sources about what Israel, UN, or the US says, there's practically never any actual proof that they said it.--Paraphelion 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So if you think that that's justifiable enough to edit it: by all means, edit it.--Doom777 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already changed it once or twice. That is why I am discussing it here. If no one else agrees, fine.--Paraphelion 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ArmanJan doesn't agree. (S)He insists on having two almost same versions. Nonetheless, he is cluttering up the article. I think that mine, or ign's versions are best.--Doom777 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"I don;t see why you need to make two entirely different sections", because there are two entirely different views on the event. The Israeli article starts with, 'on 09:05' says who? Haaretz? it then continues, the "the Lebanese Islamist militant group Hezbollah initiated" says who? Israeli sources that were used to make articles? Do you see my point here? ArmanJan 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But factually, they only disagree on where the soldiers were kidnapped. Replace militants with some NPOV word, but both locations for the kidnapping/arrest, and it will work fine. You just keep cluttering up the page.--Doom777 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is in consensus and a known fact that Hezbollah attacked an ordinary Israeli border patrol on Israeli ground (in fact, I think Hezbollah admitted to it). I will ask anyone to refrain from changing the article in a manner which states otherwise. Concerning the claim made by the Lebanses police that the soldiers were "arrested" inside Lebanese territory - I will ask to regard this as a bogus claim, as there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Tweekerd 10:50, 24 July 2006

I added your sign, you should not leave your text unsigned. As for your claim. Lebanon from the beginning said they were attacked in Chaab, Israel claims otherwise. What both say should be shown for NPOV. ArmanJan 11:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to succumb to people posting blatant lies on Wikipedia. It has been reported on all major news agencies and there is recorded footage proof that Hezbollah attacked an ordinary Israeli border patrol. Posting all kinds of Lebanese propoganda which has already been disproved as a part of so-called "Lebanese Side" in this encyclopedia article, is only harming the Truthfulness and neutrality of the article. May I also add that only one person consistently insists on putting it there, while there is an obvious consensus that the attack was on israeli soil. I wonder why nobody debated this for 12 days, and suddenly someone comes up with some Bahrain news that claims the opposite of the truth. I suggest removal of the "Beginning of conflict" part which states "Lebanese Side". It is obviously a lie and propoganda. Tweekerd 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not discriminate Bahraini's, so that is all okay. There are also links to Yahoo news (AP) and some other sources. I would have added Lebanese sources if the site was not taken down by hackers everytime. Casus is split in two for Wikipedia:NPOV. ArmanJan 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it just is really sad to see how a few people care more about posting propoganda and lies than trying to make this a good article. I have tried in the last 12 days to help make this article as truthful and unbiased as possible, but it seems that the pro-Arab/anti-Israeli bloc is too strong and has got too much spare time on their hands for me to fight it alone. It is this sort of things that Israel has to face all the time. A few million Israelis against some hundreds of millions of Muslims and Arabs, and two dozen Arab/Muslim countries in the world, who do you think is gonna win the propoganda war? We are powerless to fight you. You have done well on the world terrorism front, and are doing very well on the world media and propoganda front. Hooray to you. I give up on trying to make this article worth anything. Maybe after it's all over and nobody comes to mess it up anymore, I'll come back and fix it. Until this is over, you can put an article about frogs' bladders here and it will be more truthful and insightful to this matter than the current article. This has been more than enough. Sad, because I really liked Wikipedia.... Tweekerd 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tweekerd: don't give up on the truth. take your time. Find good sources. Zeq 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I really want to, but with Persian anti-Israeli Jew-haters like ArmanJan, I find it very difficult. Tweekerd 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is indeed recorded footage proof that Hezbollah attacked an ordinary Israeli border patrol, a link to this would help resolve this issue, or if there is a source saying that Hizbollah has confirmed that the soldiers were captured in Israel, as was said recently by someone. Another thing: someone, maybe ArmanJan, said that Israeli soldiers often have crossed the border to Lebanon (even after Israel left Lebanon in 2000). Is there any sources for this claim? That would make the "Lebanon version" more likely. --Battra 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the Cassus Belli remain as it is? According to Lebanon? Look at the sources - it's nonsense anti-Israeli propoganda. It is well-known and widely accepted that the initiative action of the war was an unprecedented attack on an Israeli border patrol by Hezbollah, killing 8 and capturing 2. It's an aggressive act of war, simple as that. This isn't a matter of point of view. It's a matter of truth versus propoganda and lies. --Monotreme, 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tweek, but it's hard to be sympathetic to someone who just insinuated an editor is a Terrorist. It's quite clear where your POV lies. As for the actual discussion topic, I agree the truth should be represented. We're not here to present 50/50 airtime to both sides - I very much doubt the article on the Sun has half of its length dedicated to the theory it is Cheese. The sun is hot, the sky is blue, and, if you can find an overwhelming majority of evidence that the soldiers were in Israel when they were kidnapped, then we don't need to present arguments to the contrary. But while there is debate (and there seems to be more than one source) then both should stand. --Iorek85 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is indeed the official Lebanon and/or Hezbollah statement that the soldiers were captured in Lebanon, then it ought to be mentioned here in some way, even if it is very unlikely that it is true. It doesn't seem that likely to me that Israel would send two humwees, partly manned by reservists, on a dangerous mission into enemy territory. But somebody said earlier something about it being common that Israel soldiers entered Lebanon. If it can really be confirmed by some sources that it is routine for Israeli Humwees to patrol on the Lebanon side of the border, then it wouldn't be that easy to take this for pure propaganda. --Battra 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you lorek85, the guy has been deleting the work of many people all over the article and he accuses me of being a "anti-Israeli Jew-hater". As for Monotreme wanting proof for what I previously said, [15] thats just one example. They have been doing it a thousand times before this conflict. PS: It is also in Hezbollah's official statement (by leader) that they were captured in south-lebanon. ArmanJan 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me if you think that that article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/231406.stm) can form any kind of precedent to a proposed argument regarding an incursion into Lebanon. Besides, your statement 'They have been doing it a thousand times before this conflict' gives me the impression you are far more personally tied to this issue than any encyclopaedic editor should be. Take a time out. Cuomo11.

I'm sorry mate, but I think it's very difficult to consider lying and propoganda "work". I have added a few things myself and have constantly tried to keep POV and speculations out of the article. I really don't care what you say, because it is obvious that you care more about showing your POV than actually making this a better article. And yes, Iorek, I am an Israeli with a POV, but I have not been adding Israeli right-wing propoganda just because I think it's true, and believe me, there is much of it. I tried to make this more into an encyclopedia article, while some people find this a great medium for propoganda. Obviously, many people read the Wikipedia, and unfortunately, most of them believe it. So did I, until I saw how full of s**t the editing on this article has been so far. If there's anything I've learned from this whole ordeal, is that an encyclopedia you can let anyone write will informative in the best case, a lot of crap in the worst case, and probably extremely biased towards one side or the other in contoversial cases. And that's despite my efforts. I can't fight for the truth by myself, so I guess I won't. And on another note, I truly have a serious problem believeing someone who is constantly editing this article to be more and more POV, especially when he is from a country which is funding the Hezbollah terrorists and has called for the destruction of Israel (as well as USA, etc.) for the last 27 years, and is now threatening the world with its ever advancing nuclear capabilities, and has probably been the instigator of this entire conflict with its desperate need to draw the world's attention away from its nuclear program. Ungrateful as well, because Iran has forgotten Israel's help and the great relations the two countries had before the Iranian revolution in 1979, when Iran was going forward instead of backwards. If this goes on, unfortunately, as they said in "Spaceballs" - "There goes the planet..." Tweekerd 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof: Thus far, the only claims I have been able to find which merely suggest that Israeli troops were beyond the blue line when attacked are based on the same, unnamed "Lebanese Police Sources". The overwhelming majority of journalists, the UN, the EU, even Saudi Arabia, not to mention various countries have condemned Hezbollah for their "cross-border raid". While it is not outside of the realm of possibility that Israeli troops were in Lebanon when captured, the overwhelming amount of credible sources and world governments say that Hezbollah crossed the border. If somebody wants to put forth an alternative theory, they should produce something stronger than "Unnamed Lebanese Police" sources to back up the claim before putting it in the article, plain and simple. This isn't POV, it's simply about citing sources and verifiability. Asserting something with such lacking citations should be cleared in talk before being added to the page, not after. Bring your sources and let's talk. Idangazit 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it's reasonable to state Hezbollah's side of the story. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, it's simply what Hezbollah is saying, and should be noted as such. As long as the status of the claim is made clear, I believe it has a place in the article. On another note, could we please keep this discussion more on the issue, and less on accusations of bias? Infinitenoodles 15:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV. So far I have been unable to find that Hezbollah has made this claim. The sole source cited by the few news organizations carrying the story is unnamed "Lebanese Police". Common sense -- WP should not include every claim by every crackpot in the universe, there should be a minimal amount of newsworthy backing. This isn't about POV. The claim isn't even backed by the people in whose name it was made. Produce a single source which doesn't rely on "Lebanese Police" that even Siniora doesn't seem to know about. Idangazit 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be eaiser to find the claim if you did not remove the source yourself - [[16]].--Paraphelion 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion: No edit I make is a "nice job". I did the work and came up with a list of cites. I am removing all references to Israeli soldiers being in Lebanon as a claim because the claim is unsubstantiated, not because I think the claim is false. Bring credible sources and I will be happy to reword it to something like "Most international bodies, including the US, the EU, the UN, and prominent news organizations share a consensus that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Israel, however an anonymously quoted Lebanese Policeman said that they were actually in Southern Lebanon". In the meantime, it is not NPOV nor does it follow WP guidelines to leave such a weakly-cited assertion in the article, regardless of what the assertion is. Here's my list:

The UN

The EU

Al Jazeera

The Arab Times

CNN

FOX, although I have mixed feelings on the journalistic credibility of this one.

the Washington Post

the BBC

MSNBC

the Associated Press

I won't even bother to cite sources about the US, I think we can all stipulate to their position on the matter. Idangazit 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the source gives Hezbollah's statement, it's not merely anonymous policemen. --Paraphelion 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that these sources say exactly what Israel has said. We all know that none of these journalists were there when it happened, so we can conclude that they took someone's side while writing all their articles. The Lebanese government (even the Lebanese President on CNN TV) said they were captured on Lebanese territory (Chaab). Hezbollah also announced they were captured in "south-Lebanon". So this leaves us with two version, on the one hand you have Lebanon saying it was in Chaab, on the other hand you have Israeli's saying it was in North-israel. ArmanJan 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Idangazit has a good point. This needs a better source. Paraphelion, which source cites Hezbollah? Infinitenoodles 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[[17]], which is IANS (through yahoo news), which I think is India based. I mentioned this in the edit summaries, but of course was ignored by Idangazit because he rather focus on anonymous policemen. Here is the edit in which he removes this source - [18]. Later on Doom777 restores the text without the citation, despite having previously edited this section specifically, maintaining the citation. Good one.--Paraphelion 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, regarding the position of the UN, on International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#United Nations, it says "Kofi Annan referred to the Hezbollah attack as having occurred in southern Lebanon." The references didn't support that though, and if he really said that he probably have changed his mind by now. --Battra 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe the person who wrote this thought about the Annan quote from another reference: “I condemn without reservations the attack in southern Lebanon, and demand that Israeli troops be released immediately,” [19]--Battra 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion: I don't prefer to ignore anything. I prefer to play by Wikipedias rules, specifically WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, or even more specifically Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. This is no different than the Phosphorus Bombs debate, and yet nobody is putting up a map that says "Phosphorus bombs dropped here", no matter what the caption of the map says. There is overwhelming characterization in the media as this being a cross border raid, and I've cited all of these sources and then some in the article. I have been unable to find official Hezbollah press release text saying anything about having captured soldiers in southern lebanon, despite the IANA quote. The sources I quote clearly say that it is cross-border. I could even tell you that my cousin was at the attacked IDF post, but that is meaningless in WP rules, so I'm not making my case that way. These claims are, bottom line, about as well-supported as the phosphorus bomb claims, and while it may anger me to see such blatant lies in wikipedia, I am keeping my cool and sticking to the policies outlined to make the case. The edits you support are not balanced and NPOV, they include a map which says "Soldiers kidnapped here" -- and a caption does not make up for that. I think the formulation I have edited should be clear enough. Paraphelion, specifically, if you want to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, then resolve it with me in talk. In the interests of good faith I have actually left the claim in the article, opposed by the links I have cited above, while we ascertain the burden of proof necessary to make such a claim in talk -- right now the only source is still the Lebanese Police, by all means please provide some fulltext of a Hezbollah statement indicating that they kidnapped the soldier from Lebanon and not Israel. Idangazit 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: the BBC cites Hezbollah as capturing Israeli soldiers "at the border", not "inside lebanon", or "near the border", or "at Ayta al-Sha`b". The seemingly-referenced quote by nasrallah from the video at 05:33 says that the attack was "carried out by the lebanese resistance in southern lebanon", not that the soldiers were in lebanon and captured. I can argue semantics back and forth but it seems far more clear that the grouping is "[carried out by] (lebanese resistance in southern lebanon)' rather than "(lebanese resistance) [carried out] (in southern lebanon)". If IDF soldiers were on Lebanese soil, Nasrallah would have certainly cited that as a casus belli in big bold letters. I truly, truly fail to see why this is even being debated, resting on the shoulders of Lebanese Police (who have not been heared from before or since) and some shakily-interpreted quotes from Nasrallah's speech. Link to BBC article text here (scroll to bottom), link to video here. Idangazit 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're ever going to know for sure unless some kind of investigation is conducted or someone finds satellite photos. It is in each party's interest to claim it was on their side of the border. Are there official Hezbollah press releases for anything? All the quotes I've seen that are supposedy by Hezbollah are just quotes in articles not saying how they obtained them. If we're going to pick and choose which Hezbollah claims based on whether or not they are just crazy threats or do not contradict the Israeli story, why quote Hezbollah at all?--Paraphelion 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ayta al-Sha`b is at the border, where did you think it is? Did you think Israeli soldiers walked their way to the capital city Beirut? South Lebanon means the same as what "South-Canada" would mean. It means the south of Canada... this is getting ridiculous. ArmanJan 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Please indent otherwise it is not clear.--Paraphelion 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to "Idangazit". :-) ArmanJan 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there official Hezbollah press releases for anything? According to the article on Hizbollah, their official site is this: [20] Maybe someone can find something there (it's a mess)? I have no idea how official it really is though. --Battra 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ArmanJan, I think that the claim that the IDF was in southern lebanon is ridiculous, so I agree that this is getting ridiculous, and I know precisely where Ayta al Sha'b is. However, I've backed up my claims with citations and pointed at the relevant WP policies governing what should and shouldn't make the cut for mentioning in articles. If you want to go a step further, in line with WP guidelines, I propose a survey on the issue. Until then, I propose the following points as an agreed basis:

big NPOV, uncited graphics saying "soldiers captured here" inside lebanon should definitely not have a place in the article unless there are substantial claims to this effect. The image is clearly extremely contentious, and text with citations does a better job right now of conveying that "POV".

Since the text does have citations (however poor) that should "hold the fort" until we reach a consensus. It irks me to see the claim even presented given the weakness of the supporting evidence, but if you truly believe it is worth including in WP, if you truly think that there is some basis to this claim, then my paragraph on the matter makes your case using the citations you have alongside the citations I have. Idangazit

I agree that the image and caption both need to specify that this is merely a Hezbolla claim. I think there is a slim possibility there is some basis for the claim, however I do think Hezbolla would have claimed this regardless.--Paraphelion 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So? That I have first-degree knowledge of where the action took place doesn't matter, but if you are interested in displaying the truth on WP, then play by WP's rules, not by big NPOV images. This conflict should have nothing to do with the conflict we are writing about. Idangazit 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ArmanJan: I've laid out reasons on the article's talk page, I've brought citations. I've made an edit which still has the very flimsy claim in it, despite the fact that I think it has no place in wikipedia (not because it is false, but because it is poorly sourced and cited). The claim is false, and presenting it as a competitor to Israeli claims is not NPOV -- it is an extraordinary claim given the amount of citation to the contrary, and I urge you to read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence, which explicitly lays out WP's approach to such claims. In the meantime, it is sheer POV and bias to include a graphic displaying a big "soldiers captured here" when there is so little to support the claim. The image itself, alone, is POV because it has red lettering laying out what is not even cited as hezbollah's position on the matter, while giving zero display to the claims of pretty much the rest of the world. Although it personally makes me feel like taking a shower, I am talking to you and trying to resolve this in the Wikipedia Way. Stop making reasonless reverts, read the talk page where I have laid out a course of action, and participate instead of bias editing. Idangazit 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This ins't as simple as we'd like. While yes, there is an overwhelming number of sources supporting the 'In Israel' POV, they all, I would assume, take this story from the Israeli government. There are much fewer sources supporting Hezbollah and Lebanon, and especially not enough to support Idangazits correct argument of exceptional evidence. However, it does really end up with Israeli govt vs Lebanon. Both of them would claim what they claim, and I think they're about as trustworthy as each other.

I would propose, then, as a comprimise, that the majority of the article, and the infobox, be dedicated to the 'In Israel' argument, while a small couple of sentences in the 'start of conflict' (and without a map) list the Hezbollah and Lebanon POV, primarily for completeness. If more evidence can be found to support Lebanon, then it could beat the threshold required by exceptional evidence. Until then, though, I think the international consensus lies with 'In Israel'. --Iorek85 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Iorek85, that was very... satisfying to read. I agree about skepticism of one side or the other -- and I've been phoning around to see if there are official media photos of the attacked hummvees. I remember seeing them both in Israeli and Global media on the first day of the conflict, sitting on an Israeli road, charred and black. Hopefully if I can track that down and include it this should lay this issue to rest. But most importantly, thank you for taking the time to read exceptional evidence. :) Idangazit 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, people. This gets a lot of discussion. But why in the world is Lebanon listed as a combatant? The Israelis would not agree with that, nor would Hezbollah, nor any observer. That just seems non-controversial. -Kmaguir1 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think mainly because they are taking casualties? Correct me if I am wrong, but some Lebanese military sites have been hit that have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Lebanon has also used AA to defend itself. If Lebanon is to be removed as a combatant, I think it would be unfair if their casualties appeared less prominently than those taken by other sides.--Paraphelion 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

due to continued vandalism, I put sprotected. Please do not remove, and if removed, replace. Already the page is no longer NPOV, and its quality has decreased significantly (I mean, removal of news sources???) because of what amounts to vandalic activity by anonymous user(s).--Cerejota 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What specific vandalism are you talking about? Bibigon 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he didn't like my edit (@05:36) and suffered a massive over-reaction. What ever happened to Not biting the newcomers? --84.193.50.72 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, I did not remove any news source whatsoever. Just removed a bit of indeed a very long quote. --84.193.50.72 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mention you, if you feel bitten, I apologize. I haven't given a detailed list, but I did give one example, and if it doesnt apply to you, I dont understand how do you feel aluded to? --Cerejota

~

To elaborate, I did not remove any news source whatsoever. Just removed a bit of indeed a very long quote. --84.193.50.72 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No you didn't, but you did move this thread without reason leading me to belive it was deleted as I was replying. Bad form.--Cerejota 06:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put 3 comment in this page about Israeli casualties and all of them were removed.--Sa.vakilian 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go again... erasing things from the talk page. Only the most insecure and small are unable to deal with criticism - but that's what I've come to expect from some the administrators on this page. All hail censorship!

Tag was gone... Tag is back ;) --Deenoe 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be some misunderstanding here ... only admins can protect pages. Cerejota and Deenoe, neither of you are admins. Putting the tag on the page just displays the tag, it doesn't actually change the protection status. I hope this explains everything. --Cyde↔Weys 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I explained on your talk page, I know that. I thought the page was sprotected and that he was talking : if the tag is removed, put it back. --Deenoe 03:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You can always check the protection log to see the current protection status. --Cyde↔Weys 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should Sprotected right now due to recent immature vandalism. --Deenoe 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs more than semi protection...... the image in the infobox is being changed constantly..... Ryanuk 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but inevitably if a version of a page will be protected it will be The Wrong Version. --AceMyth 22:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Section editing is messed up. There are some reference errors that keep slipping in, and are hard to fix. Can't spot any now, but it was a pain to locate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that footnote #8 is messed up, it should be about evacuation of Isreali cities, but is instead about the Lebaneese evacuation, can anyone find a proper source for this? FireCrack 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should be locked. There is too much debate over so many small things. We don't want to get into a World war of edit battles! I urge the admins overlooking this to please lock it! Thank you. WikieZach| talk 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate is good, shows other viewpoints and comments. But, if it is vandalism, then it isn't. So far, I've not come across any blatant vandalism here though. --Terrancommander 04:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some vandalism today and there is a pending request for this page to be semi-protected. Whether or not that will happen, I'm not sure. I certainly did put a note in favor of semi-protection. Davidpdx 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The war of words rages just as the war on the ground does. Not surprised here. ObsidianOrder 05:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection is needed here. There are many vandals as well as users like lorek85 who pretend to be neautral, but don't seem to respond to the claims of lack of neutrality. the main image in this article right now is POV as long as there isn't a corresponding image, or a half-split image showing damage from the other side of the conflict. --Dberliner 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The current image is not POV. You dont need a split image to be neutral, look at Six Day War or Yom Kippur War. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At least they dont pose to be wikipedia administrators like certain other individuals (rolleyes). ArmanJan 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ArmanJan, I'm afraid I can not, nor an admin, ever cure your bitterness which I'm afraid will last for a while longer, because we know that your edits won't really change the works of the world, maybe just waste 2 seconds of a true Wikipedian's time. as for FightCancer's comment below, I know this is quite extreme in the Wikipedia community, but this page has become a battleground of war, it is not serving its purpose as a medium of knowledge. This has to be done IMO until the situtation calms down. --Dberliner 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Locking the article would abolish everything Wiki stands for, IMO. FightCancer 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you don't Dberliner, but before you continue calling me anymore names and what not, take a good look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ArmanJan 17:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You really have no shame, ha? You claimed I'm posing as an admin (although very ingeniously without mentioning my nick), and now you refer me to the personal attacks page. Well, I can use that very particular incident as a very good example of a microcosm to the whole occurrences of the events unfolding, but i'll refrain from that and keep my dignity. Dberliner

I think that semi-protection should be restored due to vandalism. I already added my request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29. Hello32020 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)