Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Previous Discussion

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive37
• Results of the previous Straw Poll on naming of the article
• Summer war
• War not Between Israel and Lebanon
• "Sources in Lebanon" are not necessarily Lebanese.
• Initiation of Hostilities: Israeli Soldiers were abducted inside -Lebanese- territory

Hezballah used civilians as shields and later as trophies, while continuing to murder Israelis.

I really think these two paragraphs should be included since they illustrate the Hezi terrorists' strategy of using civilians as shields and later as trophies when the civilians are killed:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article695826.ece

""Take the Israeli killing of four UN soldiers last week, condemned by Kofi Annan as “deliberate”. On July 18 one of the doomed officers e-mailed home to say that Israeli ordnance was landing nearby and that, “this has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity”. A retired Canadian general interpreted this for Canadian television. “What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favourite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields, knowing that they can’t be punished for it.”

Reporters from Qana said that, the day after the Israeli attack, “there was little evidence of fighters”. But the Israelis have released footage claiming to show rockets being fired at Israel from within the village. Other aerial sequences clearly depict rocket launchers being fired from behind apartment blocks and launcher trucks being driven to hiding places in garages and under houses. It was this kind of action that prompted Jan Egelund, of the UN, to call upon Hezbollah to stop this “cowardly blending . . . among women and children”. He added: “I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.” "" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe most of this is already covered in this article, as well as the targeting of civilian areas sub-article (which goes into more depth on the "human shield" tactics). I'm not sure what "trophies" you're refering to, as I don't see that mentioned in your article, but you should also be aware the source you're citing is a commentary piece, not a news article. — George Saliba ^[talk] 12:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlocked

Okay guys, I've unlocked the article for editing, as it was locked for over a month. I am going to be keeping my eye on it though. Please remember to keep WP:NPOV in mind when editing, and rather than revert-warring, come here to the talk page to discuss. --Cyde Weys 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers, terms, etc.

Hi all. This is the explanation for my edits:

1. The >700 means over 700. I kept the plus because it says "over 700 guerrillas and many more to go". The plus means the "and many more".
2. I switched "Lebanese officials est." to "est. by Lebanese officials". This is because it should be distinguished from a Lebanese official estimate, as rather it was estimated by a Lebanese official. Same with UN official.
3. "Only gives a citizen number" was changed because that does not mean much. It's as if: Okay, they only give a citizen number..as opposed to what? That is why it was changed to "does not distinguish between civilian and combatant, which is similar to what the source says.
4. 43 Israeli civilians were killed. The Israeli MFA explains that 4 were killed because of heart attack experienced from the rocket attack (written on the top). That may explain why the AP wrote 39.

Not my edits, but seems to now be affected:

1. "Since the war's end, the Government of Lebanon Higher Relief Council had increased the Lebanese death toll from 1,110 to 1,183 to a final toll of 1,191 Lebanese deaths." This is true. The estimates rose from time to time. For most of the while it was at 1,183, a figure which several other organizations took and still use (and source the hrc). All it is is a clarification of their estimates, since some sources quote them but say the earlier number.
2. "but to Israel the report may affirm that Hezbollah operates within civilian population centers and neighborhoods." This was written on the news site http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/109828, which seems to have since expired.

--Shamir1 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me changing your bullets to numbered bullets, so we can discuss them point by point.

1. Using >700+ would be extremely uncommon to write, ever. The >700 is redundant with the +. It's not a major point, but changing this to >700+ simply degrades the quality of the English in the article.
2. Again, this is a very odd way to write things. If it is a single official, use "UN official's est.". If it is multiple officials, use the plural "Lebanese officials est." The letter 's' at the end denotes that it is not an official estimate, but a possessive, "officials" estimate. Again, it's just a matter of English quality.
3. I don't think I reverted this portion of your edit. I just made it match the source more closesly.
4. This is an issue I've been discussing with Tewfik. In some cases, we cite older, primary sources (such as the 43 civilians), and in other cases we cite newer, secondary sources (which say 39). I have no idea why there is a difference of 4, but Tewfik seemed to prefer using the newer, secondary sources for the Hezbollah figures (600 from newer, secondary sources, versus 530 from older, primary sources), so in the interest of neutrality I'm trying to make sure we keep consistent with our citations. Selectively choosing sources is highly prone to POV problems.

1. I agree that it's true, but I don't see the relevance. Death tolls were revised by all sides, throughout the conflict, and after. I don't know that the process of counting bodies is noteworthy to the conflict.
2. If this is the case, move the source back. Also, please try to find a working reference to back it up. It's not necessary, but it's nice to have.

Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As a quick follow up, I'm pretty sure you can easily find even newer secondary sources which cite the 43 figure, which you could then re-insert as the Israeli civilian death tool. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It's not a big deal, I was just saying my reasons for keeping the +.
2. I dont think its odd at all, I actually think it looks more clear and will be easier for people to understand. Putting it in the order I suggested would make it clear that it is an estimate by a UN official, not a UN official estimate or an official UN estimate.
3. Similar to the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs, I found this from the Jerusalem Post [1], which also mentions that 4 were killed of heart attack during rocket barrages. Amnesty Internatl writes 43 [2], and so does BBC[3]. --Shamir1 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources look good. Feel free to change the figure back to 43, citing one of these newer secondary sources (or multiple, your call). — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Others to discuss:

1. I happen to be an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia. That is why I believe that estimates should be provided with the source.
2. Claim vs. estimate. So far, all are estimates except for Hezbollah's and the IDF's. Hezbollah's claim is a claim because they presumably know the answer. The IDF on the other hand, is an estimate just as the others are an estimate for the same reasons. Since it is Hezbollah's death toll, the word estimate is used if it comes from a non-Hezbollah source. --Shamir1 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm also generally an inclusionist, and I fully support including these estimates in the article. However, what I'm not an inclusionist on is including every single estimate in the infobox, which is just a summary of the conflict. If you'd like to move these other estimates into the body of the article, rather than the summary (which I think should be shorter and more concise), I would fully support that. Heck, I wouldn't mind moving all of them to the body of the article, and just leaving the figures given by the parties involved.
2. Personally, I think they should both be listed as claims. Hezbollah's for the reason you gave, and Israel's as they claim to have identified a significant portion of the 600 (532 or so is what I last saw, though that was several months ago). — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the amount identified should be written as a claim. However, any non-Hezbollah body that gives a number, a regular number of the dead, is an estimate. The 600 is not how many were identified. But if that were written it should surely be written as a claim. --Shamir1 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keegan Again (and some others).

I don't think it is appropriate for us to list every estimate by every 'reliable' source. I'm especially concerned by the use of 'up to' and 'at least'. I think these should be avoided when more accurate, explicit figures are given. Sure, the L.A times article says at least 800, but that could mean the total of 1,191 is entirely correct. What it looks like, however, is that the death toll figures range from 800 to 1,191. The same goes for Keegan, but in reverse. (I have to point out that his figure is 200 more than the total given by the L.A times.) Just because a figure comes from a reliable source, it doesn't mean it has to be right; it also doesn't mean we must add it, and it especially doesn't mean we must leave it in when a more specific figure is given.

If I were to state a bucket held 'at least 30' apples, and then someone who helped me fill the bucket said there were exactly 45 apples, it would be better to use that figure because it is more specific. It would especially be better to use it when that figure more closely matches up with other estimates made by other reliable sources.

I would like to see in the totals -

Hezbollah Militia dead:

• ~250 (Hezbollah claim
• ~500 (UN officials est.)
• ~600 (IDF claim)

Lebanese dead:

• 1,035 (this is the lowest fixed estimate, that of the AP) - 1,191 (the highest fixed estimate, that of the Lebanese govt.)

'More than' and 'less than' are really meaningless, and especially when we have better figures on which to rely. Iorek85 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this suggestion; these figures are really getting out of hand, and piling on more and more data doesn't do much for the reader. As I said before, I'd prefer having one claim from each party involved in the conflict, and then one from an independent, NGO third party (UN, AP, etc. - in this case UN). Although I must admit that I had a small chuckle at the possibility of -200 Lebanese civilians killed (i.e., 200 civilians created) in the conflict according to the current articles figures. Yeah. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support this suggestion. The "Sources in Lebanon" figure is completely anonymous, with no specific attribution whatsoever. Figures from the involved parties (IDF, Lebanon, UN, and Hezbollah) are sufficient; the reliability of the "Sources in Lebanon" claim can't even be verified, and Keegan's estimate is wildly off from other (directly involved) reliable sources. Italiavivi 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of the "Sources in Lebanon" claim is easily verified - go to the Kuwait Times article, and see they made this claim. It is just as verifiable as The Telegraph claim. Sources in Lebanon is no less specific than anonymous 'Hezbollah leaders" - in both cases - we don't know who made that claim. Isarig 19:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah leaders are identified by organization, "Sources in Lebanon" are not. You understand this distinction good and well, Isarig. That the Kuwait Times repeated an unattributed claim does not make it reliable, no more than Insight Magazine and Fox News made reliable the unattributed claims of Barack Obama being a Muslim. Why are you so desperate to include a completely unattributed figure? Why is using the following - IDF, UN, Lebanon, and Hez - not adequate? Italiavivi 19:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns with some of these figures before, but I just wanted to touch on some of these points:

1. "Sources in Lebanon" is extremely more vague than "Hezbollah leaders". The first group is a subset of 4 million people, while the second is a subset of a few hundred of people at most.
2. I'm also curious why only citing the "major players" isn't sufficient. I mean, I guess it's possible that John Keegan has some magic 8-ball that is more accurate than the Israeli and Lebanese governments, and the United Nations, but... well yeah.
3. The Kuwait Times reprinting the Stratfor piece does give it more weight as far as being a reliable source, although not much. It doesn't guarantee that Stratfor is a reliable source by any means however.

It would be really helpful if someone could find a major news outlet citing Stratfor, such as Reuters, the AP, or the AFP. My guess is that they don't, since (as I've stated before), Stratfor is a strategic analysis organization, and not a news agency. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed. There's more than a hint of POV pushing, when the two highest figures are removed. Also, analysis along the lines of 'Source A's figures are irreconcilable with source B's figures, thus source A is unrelaible and must go' is original research that we can't engage in. Isarig 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why these figures will likely never be removed, no matter how bad the sources get, until some nut reliable source publishes extreme figures on the other side. It's too bad that the weakest sources weren't also the lowest figures, just so we could suggest removing them without having to get into these arguments. Oh well. I'm not strictly opposed to the inclusion of the 800 figure by the way. I don't think it's the most accurate estimate (unless the L.A. Times has more people on the ground in Lebanon than the Lebanese government, the UN, or the AP of course), and it's definitely not the most recent estimate, but it was definitely published at one point. I saw an AFP article published earlier today citing 1,200, though I'm sure that some editors will (again) reach the conclusion that they must have gotten their figures from the Lebanese government, even if they didn't cite it. What if we change the Lebanese citizen death toll to a Lebanese civilian death toll, but list the range as -200–950? :) Don't worry, just kidding (though only half kidding). — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not POV pushing (though I would note the highest hezbollah tolls and lowest Lebanese tolls were added by the same person.) While you could consider it unfortunate, one could also consider it telling that the highest totals are the least specific. I've no problem with the L.A times, it's just that in the context it is in, it makes it look like estimates range from 800 to 1,191, which is not accurate at all. If you look up WP:OR, you'll see that simple mathematics is perfectly allowable. Both of them cannot be correct. (Unless, of course, you argue that less than 1000 and more than 800 are fine, in which case the numbers are so vague as to be meaningless, which is my point.) Surely you can see that the Keegan figure is well beyond anyone else (and for me, most tellingly, the IDF themselves. If the IDF is considered completely accurate in it's own figures, why not in it's Hezbollah figures?). Iorek85 08:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look up WP:OR, it explictly says that simple math is allowed ONLY ON THE SAME SOURCE. What you are doing is using figures from one source to discrddit the figures of another source - which is explictly disallowed OR. Isarig 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my stance (as other editors seem to be citing it in their edit summaries), I don't like the >700 and <1000 figures mostly from an article cleanliness perspective (I'd like to stick with solid estimates, no matter how high or low they are), and I have some issues with Stratfor as a reliable source. However, they are generally attributable, so until/unless we have a full discussion on the reliability of the sources, which we probably should, or the exceptional nature of the claims (both of which would be grounds for removal), I personally won't remove either. The same goes for the figure of 800 from the L.A. Times for the total citizens killed. We would have to discuss whether this constitutes an exceptional claim to remove it, as it can be attributed (and I'm guessing the author and the L.A. Times is a reliable source). I don't think that their removal is necessarily POV-pushing, if it's on the grounds of Wikipedia policy, and I'm extremely leary of throwing that term around at any rate, as it implies that I can read the intentions of others. However, if people are just removing them because they are higher estimates than they like, that would be POV-pushing. Likewise, if people are just including them because they are high estimates, that would too be POV-pushing on the other side. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up, do people think that the more weakly source >700 figure from "sources in Lebanon" is worth keeping in lieu of the addition of the 500 figure from "Lebanese officials"? If the "source in Lebanon" don't match with the "Lebanese officials" estimates, that tends to make me question who these "sources" are more stringently. Also, why cite some anonymous person in Lebanon, when we have an attributable claim from a more precise source? — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:George.Saliba wrote: "Also, why cite some anonymous person in Lebanon, when we have an attributable claim from a more precise source?" I couldn't agree more, Saliba. Italiavivi 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem attributing the >700 number to Stratfor instead of "sources in Lebanon", but I strongly feel that we shouldn't be paring down the sources for the Hezbollah count when those numbers have so much controversy surrounding them. On the other hand, I'm not such a fan of the LA Times' 800, since most of the other numbers are within a much tighter range. I suppose we should allow it to stay, based on how new it is, at least until other numbers come out which can neutralise it. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But again, why do we need the poorly attributed "Sources in Lebanon" when we have a far more reliable source (from Lebanese government officials) already present? I suppose we should get rid of it, due to poor attribution and more reliable Lebanese information. Iorek's proposal (plus the addition of Lebanese official estimates, that is) is an excellent consensus-aimed compromise. Italiavivi 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We disagree that it is poorly sourced. It is sourced to the Kuwait Times, a reliable source, which quotes Stratfor, yet another reliable source, which cites anonymous sources (just as the daily Telegraph, a reliabale source, cites anonymous "hezbollah leaders"). We also disagree that the Lebanese government officials officials are 'far more reliable' - in fact, the opposite is likely true: the Lebanese government official are a party to this conflict, and have a vested interest in downplaying the number of Hezbollah deaths vs. the number of civilian deaths, whereas Stratfor is entirely neutral. But the bottom line is that it is not our job as editors to evaluate which number is more likely correct - that would be OR - we only report what reliable sources say. Until there is an external consensus on what the "right" number is - we should report all figures. Isarig 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah's leadership is Hezbollah's leadership, identified by organization. Attributed to a specific organization (one of the conflict's major participants), it is not anonymous, unlike "sources in Lebanon." Italiavivi 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :) I think the Kuwait Times is likely a fairly reliable source. However, the Kuwait Times doesn't quote the Stratfor piece, it reprints the article in it's entirety, which to me indicates that it may not have gone through the same editorial oversight that, say, an article written by one of their journalists would have. We'll also likely have to agree to disagree about Stratfor being a reliable source, as I don't think they're often cited by reliable sources, and I think their editorial oversight, if it even exists, is questionable. Not to sound like a broken record, but Stratfor is a strategic analysis company. The difference is that a strategic analysis company's goal isn't to report to you what has happened in the past with absolute accuracy (as a journalist or news agency might), but to make informed predictions about what is going to happen in the future. I wouldn't say that the Lebanese government officials are "far more reliable", but I would say the quotation is far more attributable, since we narrowed down the number of possible people who said it from millions of people to a few thousand. Also, I'm not sure how the Lebanese officials would have more of a vested interest than a random source in Lebanon. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all. That indicates to me that you think the "sources in Lebanon" was not in the government, which makes them either a member of a militia, such as Hezbollah (which would have more of a vested interest), or just some random person (which would have no encyclopaedic value whatsoever). Also, I tend to disagree on Stratfor's neutrality, but it really doesn't matter, as the quote isn't attributed to them, it's attributed to the ubiquitous "sources in Lebanon". I don't speifically disagree with the inclusion of the figure, it's just not something I would do, since I prefer keeping the article both accurate and succinct. I doubt we'll ever see a consensus on a figure like this in the media, though I also doubt we'll ever find figures to back up some of these less sourced estimated. — George Saliba ^[talk] 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

let me point out few things: (1) you are equivocating above on the "source". when it is convenient for you (ie., in order to question its reliability), you refer to the source as "Stratfor", but when later the discussion shifts to neutrality, the source becomes "random Lebanese". You can't have it both ways. If you want to claim the source is "random Lebanese' - the entire discussion of Startfor's reliability is irrelevant, because the article appeared in the KT, quoting anonymous Lebanese ( and then we need to decide if its ok to quote relibale sources who use anonymous sources). If the source is Startfor, is is clearly more neutral than a party to the conflict. (2) As to Stratfor's reliability: it goes without saying that the reliability of a source does not depend on its being quoted regularly in the media. The most relaibele sources on WP are peer-reviewed academic journals, who are rarely, if ever, quoted in the mainstream press. That said, you are simply misinformed as to the regularity with which startfor is quoted by the media. Searching Google for "stratfor" and retures" yeilds more than 150,000 results, among them the first few are U.S. postal service warns financial firms of threats "The government action comes after Stratfor, a global intelligence firm, last week issued a warning ..." and a dozen similar ones from Reuters AlertNet - just from today. But I am happy to agree to disagree on this, so long as we have consensus not to remove this quote (or the Keegan 1000+ number) from the article. Isarig 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let me clarify. I question both Stratfor, and Stratfor's unknown source; I can entirely have it both ways. If Sam tells me that an anonymous person told him something, I can both question whether Sam reported what he was told accurately (especially when I can find nothing to corroborate what he reports), and also question who the anonymous person was. You're relying entirely too much on the Kuwait Times, as they didn't cite the Stratfor piece in one of their articles, and they didn't independently verify the source of the figure. They simply reprinted the entire report, word for word, and attributed the entire thing to Stratfor. Going back to my initial example, if Katie repeats, word for word, what Sam said about something an anonymous person told him, I can still question both Sam's accuracy, as well as who the anonymous source is, even if I trust Katie and she conveyed what Sam told her accurately. Now, maybe Katie believed Sam, but I need not necessarily agree with her trust in Sam. The source is not Stratfor, it's a "source in Lebanon". Stratfor is simply the party conveying the anonymous party's message.

Now, as for Stratfor's reliability, that's a whole 'nother issue. I view it as a questionable source, but I also don't rate the importance of the issue high enough to debate it at the moment. My agreeming to disagree isn't an indicator of consensus, as I am, after all, only one editor, but I don't plan to remove either of these figures myself right now. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I will re-insert them , then, and hop eno one will remove them claiming there is a consensus on talk to do so. Isarig 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Turning "my agreeing to disagree isn't an indicator of consensus" into a claim of consensus your part is an interesting take. Italiavivi 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The numbers were in the article before you appeared here and unilaterally removed them. If you want to remove them over the objections of other editors, you need consensus, which you do not have. Feel free to start an RfC or take this to DE, but don't use misleading edit summaries that claim that a consensus exists, or that editors who specifically said they don't support the removal of this number actually do support it. Isarig 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You, User:Isarig, first added that number on October 6th, 2006 (edit summary "updated Hez casualties from Kuwait Times") [4]. You even first described the article as "neutral 3rd parties" when listing it in the infobox, despite knowing nothing verifiable of the primary source; POV-pushing, much? Those numbers were not in the article prior to my participation on this article, which goes back to August, and the source (which you first inserted) was opposed in Archives many times. If anything's been "unilateral," it was your first adding of that poorly-attributed source and your constant re-inserting of it. Retract your false claim. Italiavivi 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of neutrality, and in the hopes of avoiding having another long, drawn-out discussion on this topic, what if we keep the Stratfor and Keegan estimates, but move them to the body of the article? I support their inclusion in the article in some form, but I don't think they're noteworthy to the point of belonging in the infobox. The infobox is, after all, just a summary of the conflict, so we don't need every estimate listed in it. I'd suggest only listing estimates by the parties involved in the infobox. That can be anything from only Hezbollah and Israel's estimates, to Hezbollah's, Israel's, Lebanon's, and the UN's (as they were all involved to varying degrees). That way we could keep the figures, without having them in the summary section of the article, which should be more concise and to the point. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George.Saliba (talk • contribs) 06:29, March 9, 2007.

I've gone ahead an implemented my suggestion, moving the Stratfor and Keegan figures down to the new "Casualties" section, where I discuss the various claims related to this death toll. This is the best way I can think of to keep this information in the article, while keeping the wording neutral and not mucking up the infobox (which is, after all, just a summary). I've also moved the details on the Hezbollah death toll out of the "Targetting of civilian areas" section and into this section. Hopefully this can put the edit wars to rest. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can support Saliba's compromise, as it allows greater clarification and context concerning the Keegan and Stratfor claims. Infobox casualty summaries are best left to the parties involved (IDF, Lebanon, UN, and Hezbollah). Italiavivi 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this suggestion. Isarig 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see it as mucking up the infobox, and I think it should be considered since it is the only civilian estimate. --Shamir1 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilian estimate? As opposed to military estimate? I consider the UN official's estimate to a decent estimate from a neutral party, if that's what you mean, plus it spans a much broader range of civilians than a signle historian does. At any rate, I'm going to consider the agreement of Isarig and Italiavivi, who were both involved in the discussion above, to be a consensus for the change, which I still view as more neutral and concise, so if we want to debate the matter further we can open an RfC or something. — George Saliba ^[talk] 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

By civilian I just meant the common person. Basically my argument is that I assume all parties to be neutral and just as worthy. --Shamir1 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree about everyone being neutral, I absolutely agree that most of these claims are worthy of inclusion of the article. The distinction I draw is what to include in the infobox summary versus what to include in the main body of the article. Generally I think that the summary should be succinct, while staying useful to the reader. I think listing the estimates made by the parties involved, or those made by large organizations that didn't have any vested interest in the conflict, is succinct and useful to readers (even if those estimates were the highest or lowest figures). Otherwise, I would only insert an individual's estimate if they were especially noteworthy – they personally counted bodies, they led a team that counted bodies – they had some special knowledge that other estimates couldn't match. To not draw some line for inclusion opens the possibility of this creeping into a larger and larger infobox, full of information that belongs in the body of the article, which would eventually be of little use to a reader. — George Saliba ^[talk] 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Screwed up the references page

Sorry, I made the last addition to the postwar bit and cited Haaretz but for some reason or another, although the code is still there, that section has disappeared. Can someone please fix that and teach me how to do it as well?

thx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thisisthepope (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for warning people, but what you should have done is revert the edit you made, as soon as you realised you had removed content from the page. But to answer your question, it seems that the error you made was this line where you didn't close the <ref> tag:

<ref>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834549.html<ref>

Which should have been like this instead:

<ref>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834549.html</ref>

Hope that helps you in the future. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Amal and LCP in infobox

Amal and LCP are indicated in the infobox as combatant parties to this conflict, though the article does not mention them at all. Is there a source that says they took part in the hostilities? If so, why isn't this fact mentioned?--Doron 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, some articles did mention them, though I don't know of any off the top of my head (I think they were relatively minor players). I agree that (a) they should be sourced, especially in the infobox, and (b) if they are significant, they should get a line or two in the article. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

amal and the LCP were not really engaged in the war. as such it is very misleading to group them as a allied combatant with Hezbollah. Rm uk 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IDF casualties

[[5]]

There are 119 names, so it is 119 - not 120.

Flayer 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this a bit in the new Casualties section. Basically figures range from 116 to 120, with the IDF using either 117 or 119, depending if they decide to count two soldiers who died after the ceasefire (one in a post-ceasefire raid into Lebanon, the other who died when he stepped on a mine). If you can find a recent source that uses 119 (the 120 was added to the infobox since it is a newer source), then feel free to change this back to 119. — George Saliba ^[talk] 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with this "recent source" policy. The mfa.gov.il is an official source, unlkie all the other sources that may appear as recent. So, we must notice that according to an official source it is 117/119 (pre-CF/post-CF), and according to whatever it is 120 or whatever. Flayer 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Those lesser figures usually excluding a number of soldiers killed during the initial attack. Thats why it is like that. As far as I know, it is 119. --Shamir1 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It is 119, that's why I hate the number 120. 89.0.152.119 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pre-planned?

I read an article today where Israel affirmed that it had been planning the conflict for over a year; this seems to be at odds with some earlier statements cited as fact in the article. I'm not sure of the veracity of said article nor do I have a link (googling that brought me here), but it's certainly something that if true would be worth adding, if anyone's up to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.86.83.196 (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

You misunderstood the article. This is why I hate media; news reports tend to report things to make them juicer. The report stated that Israel planned the strategy not the war. And this strategy had nothing to do with Hezbollah, it was simply a strategy considered for battle. --Shamir1 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of these stories seem to be sensationalist. Maybe they deserve a note in the article, but nothing major. Even if Israel had planned the war, specifically against Hezbollah, (1) I wouldn't blame them, cause I would do the same thing, and (2) Planning for possible events is not only wise, but common (war games, scenario planning, etc.). I'm sure the U.S. government, for instance, has all kinds of contingency scenarios laid out for attacks from Russia, attacks from China, terrorist attacks, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, etc. — George Saliba ^[talk] 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At least we're not the only ones who can't decide what to call it...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21376953-1702,00.html

"Israel seeks name for Lebanon war

From correspondents in Jerusalem March 13, 2007 08:46pm Article from: Reuters

ISRAEL'S Defence Minister Amir Peretz, who faces nationwide calls to resign over last year's war in Lebanon, has ordered aides to find a name for the conflict, widely perceived by Israelis as a failure.

The minister has commissioned two reserve generals and a law professor to drum up a name, his office said today." Iorek85 10:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone taking bets? "The push to defend freedom with strategic justice"? — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, im glad we're not alone. Hopefully that can help us though. --Shamir1 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It might help, but to be honest I wouldn't get my hopes up. These are usually friendly names full of positive words used for public relations purposes, such as Operation Accountability, Operation Defensive Shield, Operation Peace of the Galilee, and Operation Sharp and Smooth. Many groups do this for public relations, not just Israel. Hezbollah does it too, such as Operation Truthful Promise. Additionally, the Israeli government is very hesitant to call anything a war, regardless of how many other people use the term (such as in the 1982 Lebanon War). They use the term "operation" almost exclusively, and I'd be surprised if they call this something else, though I guess that only time will tell. — George Saliba ^[talk] 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear they've decided on the term "war" (see below) despite a declaration, but haven't yet decided on a specific name for it: "The Ministerial Committee for Symbols and Ceremonies has not yet chosen a name for the war, and proposals currently in place for the official name of the conflict include 'War of the North,' 'Northern Shield War' and 'The Second War in Lebanon.'" Stay tuned I guess. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like "Second Lebanon War" is the winner.[6] I'm actually a bit surprised, though I don't understand the intricacies of Israeli politics.

Does this have any bearing on the current article name? It seems that it should be changed to 2006 Israel-Lebanon war at the least, though other options would be 2006 Lebanon War (to match the 1982 Lebanon War article name), or Second Lebanon War to use the term the Israeli government decided on. Thoughts? — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What I have seen most is something like "last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon" or "the 34-day war betwee Israel and Hezbollah"... The use of the word between would mean the "-", so it should be 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. As for the current suggested name, that is how it is perceived in Israel, not internationally. --Shamir1 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

3-20-07: Israel officially declares conflict with Lebanon as a "war"

Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070319/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflict

Here's an excerpt.

JERUSALEM (AFP) - An Israeli ministerial commission on Monday decided to officially declare last year's conflict in Lebanon a "war," after the government had previously refused to use the term.

ADVERTISEMENT

Israel's committee responsible for official ceremonies chaired by cabinet minister Yaacov Ederi "decided that the campaign in Lebanon will be explicitly called a war," a statement said.

The link is now dead...

What edits would you like to see made to the wikipedia article in light of this news? I m dude2002 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name given. [7] Second Lebanon War. As the First Lebanon War here on Wikipedia is named 1982 Lebanon War then the Second should be named 2006 Lebanon War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Flayer 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support such a move. — George Saliba ^[talk] 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article from Reuters. Please note the bold, subjectively placed to emphasize my point through an untouched Reuters (usually unbiased) article.

Israel gives official name to Lebanon war

JERUSALEM: Israel’s government on Sunday officially named last year’s conflict with ::Hezbollah guerrillas “The Second Lebanon War”.

The cabinet approved the name after relatives of some of the 117 Israeli soldiers and 41 civilians killed during the fighting lobbied for the inscription of the word “war” on their headstones as a fitting tribute.

Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrilla group, which abducted two Israeli soldiers in a deadly border raid on July 12 sparking the 34-day conflict, calls the war “The Divine Victory”. Ordinary Lebanese generally refer to it as the “July War”.

About 1,200 people, most of them civilians, were killed in Lebanon, Lebanese officials have said.

Some 270 Hezbollah guerrillas, 15 other gunmen, 35 Lebanese soldiers and police and five UN peacekeepers were among the dead.

Israeli cabinet minister Yitzhak Cohen said the government chose “The Second Lebanon War” because the name “had sunk into the public consciousness” - although Israel never designated as a "war" its 1982 offensive in Lebanon. Reuters

--Yozef 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Finally, the closure we've been looking for. Keeping the '2006' fits both as a naming convention from the 1982 war, and separates us from accusations of anti Lebanese POV. Iorek85 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

how to implement now such amove, I need help. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably best off requesting a move. Moving this article would be quite involved, so it's probably best to request an admin do it. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM points to this section. For what it's worth, I concur. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the move template to the top of the page, per instructions on WP:RM. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would object to the rename. The reasoning behind not renaming 1982 Lebanon War to mention Israel was that those two contries were not the only combatants -- Syria especially was involved as well, and as the conflict among the parties took place primarily in Lebanon that name makes sense. Here renaming this to 2007 Lebanon War seems to just ignore Israel was a combatant here. This seems to just take Israel's POV into account. To a third party observer the current title makes perfect sense and is perfectly descriptive of the nature of the conflict, IMHO. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. No, if it should be Israel-something, it should be Israel-Hezbollah war. Lebanon is merely the primary battlefield. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government, and the two countries are technically at war still. I certainly believe the name should be Israel-something either way. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite for the statement that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government? But, if they are, then Israel has the right, under the UN charter, to attack military targets anywhere in Lebanon, even if co-located in civilian areas. I think, perhaps, the UN doesn't agree with that statement.

Let me rephrase. The political party is part of the Lebanese government. The paramilitary organization's actions are disavowed by the Lebanese government. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah, as with many political parties, has various wings. One such wing is a part of the Lebanese government, one such wing helps people, and one such wing is militant. As an aside, attacking military targets co-located to civilian areas is governed by international humanitarian law, and doesn't have so much to do with the UN charter or whether Hezbollah was a party to the government or not. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is disagreement as to whether Israel obeyed the conventions of international humanitarian law; but the UN GA asserted that they weren't attacking military targets. If Hezbollah was part of the Lebanese government, they would be (military targets) — hence we can safely assert (in a talk page, not in articles) that the UN doesn't believe that statement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. First, when did the UN assert that Israel wasn't attacking military targets? Are you referring to accusations that Israel attacked civilian targets? Second, I don't see how a civilian target becomes a military target, regardless of whether Hezbollah is a member of the government or not. Perhaps you're talking about the couple dozen Lebanese army soldiers who were killed, which is a very, very small percentage of the total deaths? — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Hezbollah is part of the government, than Hezbollah arms caches are pure military targets, even if in civilian facilities. (Obviously, a maximum effort to warn civilians that they're on a military target needs to be made, but there's no dispute that that occurred.) But none of this has to do with the move request. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review the policy on naming conventions for events. Bottom line, we favor common names over descriptive names, even if the common names imply POV. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but obviously there is no common name here -- per above Israel calls it one thing and Lebanon calls it something else. Deciding to call the conflict what Israel calls it seems to be picking sides, and I don't think a mishmosh works here (e.g. the Divine Victory July Lebanon War). -- Kendrick7^talk 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main point (at least in my eyes) of renaming this article is the changing from the term "conflict" to the term "war". Basically, through their recent decision, the Israeli government has elected to refer to this as a war, despite never declaring war. This is an important distinction, that was discussed ad nauseum here. Now, as to whether this should be the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War or the 2006 Lebanon War (to match the 1982 Lebanon War), I honestly don't have any preference, but I'd be totally open to you proposing the former as an alternative. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd object to moving the article and keeping "Israel-Lebanon". I'd prefer "Hezbollah-Israel" or perhaps "Hezbollah-Israel--Lebanon", but "Lebanon", by itself seems adequate. There had been consensus on changing "conflict" to "war" previously, but there was a serious dispute as to what list of combatants should be there, to the point that no consensus for any specific target could be obtained. "Lebanon" seems a feasible target to obtain overall concensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing to "war" seems more sensible now, though I'm left with knowing the name "Lebanon War" reflects neither the combants nor the entire theater of battle, and the name should either reflect one or the other I should think. It seems oddly disproportionate to want to name the war solely after the party doing the least amount of fighting, and just ignore the main two combatants entirely, even as a compromise. Though Lebanon was the theater of most of the fighting, this conflict/war is almost entirely unique in the history of the Israel-Lebanon conflict for so many attacks occuring inside Israel proper, so I don't think that's easy to dismiss either. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

attention, in the case of two sides mentioned, it should be 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War, in the adjective form. As the name "conflict" still appears, it implies to a long-running state of tension like the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Worse, it is euphemising it. I'm putting a POV tag as long as the name conflict persists.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think we should approach the renaming in two phases. In the first phase, we should just replace the term "conflict" with "war", as it seems almost everyone agrees with that change. In the second phase, we should put up 2006 Lebanon, 2006 Israel-Lebanon, 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah, and 2006 Israel-Hezbollah as alternatives (or others), discuss the merits of each, and see if we can achieve concensus on one. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Considering the number of redirects to this page, we should select a name which would last more than a few hours days weeks. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

We can try. In the past, these votes have almost always led no where, which is why I'd prefer to at least tackle what we can agree on first, but we can put the 4 or 5 alternatives to a vote at the same time I guess. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of moving it to 2006 Lebanon War. —Nightstallion (?) 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to 2006 Lebanon War as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Could someone handle the relinking of double redirects and the talk page archives? There are a lot of references, and a bot or other automated process might be helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

also the same problem with the affiliated articles --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)