Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Untitled

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive30#General Discussion
  • Earlier Discussion
  • IDF control to the Litani, Stating Israel's actions is not POV, NPOV editing, Editing comments, Beginning of Conflict, Question, "War" or "Conflict"?, Number of Israeli tanks hit/destroyed?, Debatus.com, Katyusha?, "strongly suggested" etc

Palestinian Exodus in background

I've been going back and forth with User:Tewfik on this for a while, and we've come a long way towards a compromise. I believe, however, that the Palestinian exodus should be mentioned in the background because it did contribute the the demographic shift in Lebanon, and it explains one of the main reasons why the Palestinian refugees would be calling for Israel's destruction. The background as it currently stands makes it sound like the Palestians are refugees from Jordan, and not Israel, and is therefore completely misleading for a reader unfamiliar with the history of the region. Tewfik seems fixated on the idea that the PLO arriving in Lebanon was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War but I can't figure out where he gets that idea from the civil war article. -- Kendrick7 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue that the PLO's arrival was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War, as there were demographic tensions in Lebanon from its founding, predating the arrival of any Palestinians. What I do contend is that to the extent that the Palestinian presence in Lebanon was one of several factors, it only became such after the arrival of those expelled from Jordan in the Black September, including many PLO. These points are also made in the Wikipedia articles on the Civil War and Black September, which make almost no mention of the 1948 refugees (I say "almost" because though I did not find any reference, I may have missed a minor point). Again, while I don't dispute that the '48 refugees may have played some role, quoting them in the first line attributes a direct role not asserted elsewhere, and can generally open the door to quoting every indirectly relevant event. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would concede, but you have left me with a gloss that is inaccurate. But this can be remedied by cutting the background back from '48 to a farther year in the past since then. -- Kendrick7 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow - what is innacurate? In terms of the argument, are you saying that the '48 refugees are as directly effective of the Civil War as the Black September ones? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A note to Kosmopolis: please don't refer to edits you disagree with as censorship. There is a well-reasoned discussion on the inclusion of those specific details right here, and cool input would be much more effective at getting across your position. Tewfik^Talk 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of the discussion here. All I saw was Gabi S.'s edit comment [1] "Removed nonsense" (which, in itself, is nonsense), so I restored the passage. Regarding the issue, I also support including the reference to the exodus article. The Palestinians were already refugees by the time they arrived in Jordan, so we should not arbitrarily break the chain of causality. Kosmopolis 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So we would then include relevant history ad infinitum - none of the articles attribute the instability to '48 refugees, but rather to the Black September events. The Black September events wouldn't have happened without the '48 events, but that goes for many other issues as well. Tewfik^Talk 02:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the 1948 Palestinian refugees from the background, as no source has been presented to show that they were somehow more of a factor in the instability than any other group in what was/is a fractious ethnic spectrum (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Druze - not to mention secular and religious); this as opposed to the refugees that arrived after Black September.[2] Additionally, I reviewed the relevant articles and researching and could find no mention of 100,000s of Palestinians in Southern Lebanon (only 3 of the 12 camps are located there), while that article specifically notes that "Southern Lebanon is known for its large Shia Muslim population, and a considerable Christian minority" (Palestinians are generally Sunni). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(n.b. the discussion continued at Talk:Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Palestinian_Exodus_in_background)

Fulfillment of Request

Action regarding Grammar has been taken place as requested. Please check for accuracy and completeness as well as any typos introduced by word processing software. Neutralaccounting 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah number

why do we put "5,000-20,000 militiamen" as the hezbollah number?

• the range was so wide that it isnt informative
• It is cited from a TV, not a good source to determine strength of a guerila group in a war. The previous source was IISS, a research institute which is better Nielswik 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is due to the ambiguity of the source that you are presenting. While we know how many Hezbollah active, available, and reserve fighters there are, we do not know how many participated in the hostilities, since Hezbollah has not published any such numbers. Perhaps we can find a way of relaying this ambiguity in the article without choosing a specific number (unless of course we do find a source of that nature)? Tewfik^Talk 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

THERE are several layers of combatants that are being identified as HA. 1) the core HA and 2) the civlian meta-Army. The short answer to the question is HA forces less than five thousand in every single source I"ve seen. The confusion is counting the meta-Army as HA. You know the right of the ordinary citizens to bear arms in defense of their country. Just like if Israel was attacked there would be a lot more that the IDF resisting. Even though almost the whole country is part of the IDF in the reserves. in case of attack the old folks would grab their hunting rifles and become part of the resistance. This is what happened in Lebanon. The following makes it clear: " Not just Hezbollah? Indeed a 3 August NYT article reported:

For the past week, the Israeli Army has thrown everything at Kfar Kila. ...so far the defenders, local fighters with Hezbollah and allied factions, have held on.

"How could you stay silent when you see your land burn and your children get killed?" said Yahia, who said he was a platoon commander with the local defense force. "The whole population here is resisting."

He is part of the Amal movement...

Pat Lang wrote on 10 August:

"Even I have been surprised at the tenacity of these groups fighting in the villages," Timur Goksel, who served with UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon from 1979 to 2003, said. "They have fought far beyond my expectations and they haven't even committed all their fully experienced troops yet." " London Times

I hear that the Israelis have been engaged so far with "village reserves," and that they have not yet met the standing forces of HA. This echeloning of categories of forces sounds a lot like the Viet Minh/NVA/VC politico-military set up.

From a Washington Post article:

Some residents said it was not Hezbollah that fired on the Israeli troops in Marjayoun, but operatives of a secular, leftist party whose posters still adorn the sides of buildings and telephone poles across the region.

Angry Arab also reports that Lebanese communists were into the fight too. He also writes:

the right to resist Israeli occupation. This is the factor that allowed leftists and Arab nationalists in Lebanon--people who don't share the ideology of Hizbullah--to support its resistance in South Lebanon...

This connects to the last article to quote, a detailed account of the siege of Aita al-Shaab. This town is right at the border with Israel, the Hezbollah commando that kidnapped the two IDF soldiers crossed the border nearby. Over 30 days, the IDF launched three major attacks on the town but failed to take it (but didn't fail to reduce 80% of it to rubble). The passages summarizing the essential point:

The vast majority of the fighters were locals, backed by highly trained and well armed guerrillas drawn from across the country.

Across the south the Israelis discovered that instead of facing a few thousand Hizbollah fighters, they were confronted by tens of thousands of armed men.

This was a popular resistance organised in cooperation with Hizbollah or under its leadership. Locals defended villages, freeing up Hizbollah fighters to take the offensive against the invading Israeli troops.

As other Lebanese organisations declared for the resistance, Hizbollah was able to draw on resources well beyond their ranks...

"The Israelis lost the battle because we all became the resistance," said Ahmed. "The left, the Arab nationalists and the locals all worked under the leadership of Hizbollah for the defence of our town."

So it wasn't a small militia vs. a large army. Hezbollah led a meta-army, which beyond their best-trained troops that used the most potent weapons, involved local militias and people from other political directions. (This is in line with how Hezbollah originally organised itself, binding all levels and branches of Shi'a society regardless of strength of religious conviction.) And apparently all of these forces weren't just deployed in a coordinated way, but got tactical training:

"During the final assault, the Hizbollah fighters took up positions around the community centre while we attempted to tie down the Israelis around Moscow Square. We ducked from house to house, firing then changing position," he said.

"For us it was a last stand - we feared they would trap us in a few houses and then call in bombs on us. " The above was taken from. Be careful Israeli apologists, exposure to the clear headed analysis there may cause cognitive dissonance. There is also a very excellent battle map at that site. Best Wishes Will314159 09:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Will, I appreciate your efforts, but I wish that you would not call editors names - while you probably don't mean to, this type of attitude sours the working environment, and doesn't actually serve to improve the article. In any event, this still doesn't solve the problem of which numbers to use, though we have already made note of the fact that there was Amal and LCP participation. Tewfik^Talk 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

THE remark was not toward editors. The discussion page can be read by anybody. The warning was directed at whom it was denominated, present company excepted Tewfik. The number to use for HA is the generally excepted number that Moshe Arens, former defense minister uses, 5,000. You cannot count everybody that resisted in the meta army as HA. Best Wishes. Will314159 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"ON 12 September, former defense minister Moshe Arens spoke of "the defeat of Israel" in calling for a state committee of inquiry. Asked what questions he thought should be addressed, he said that Israel had lost "

• to a very small group of people, 5000 Hezbullah fighters

, which should have been no match at all for the IDF." He stated that the conflict could have "some very fateful consequences for the future." Best Wishes Will314159 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)EDIT Of course Arens is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance, IDF did not lose to HA, it lost to the Lebanese People acting as a whole defending their country even those that despise HA. Take Care Will314159 15:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue about this - as cutting and entertaining as you might think your remark was, it will only make this a more combative atmosphere; just keep comments limited to edits and not editors. We must be especially vigilant in a text-only atmosphere where the lack of other expression can skew the interpretation of such comments. In terms of Arens, that is fine, but it is still not a definitive number that will settle the issue, and the fact that you don't even accept half of his statement doesn't help its stature. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

EDITED the 5000 in and before the ink was dry Silverburg reverted w/o discussion as is his wont and habit. Not trying to be cutting and entertaining Tewfik. Just tring to tell the truth. HA numbers are 5,000. Israel was not defeated by the 5,000 but by the Leb people led by the 5,000. Some of the Leb people that fought the Israeli invasion have no use for HA. Why you think this is cutting and entertaining is beyond me. One day you will understand these facts. I have laid out a factual basis for you above that if you were to read and comprehend instead of sparring with your fellow editors, that in time you would be able to internalize it. Cheers. Will314159 18:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it entertaining, but I thought you were saying that you meant it sarcastically. If you were totally serious, then what I said before applies - please don't call other editors names, but rather deal with the edits. And I'm not sure of what factual basis you have laid out, but like every other number in this page, it must be sourced to an RS. I'm sorry that you view this insistence to be "sparring with [my] fellow editors," as it seems key to preserving neutrality. Good day, Tewfik^Talk 05:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand these edits...

Kosmopolis, the edits you are making still have the same problems that I pointed out before. The assertions in the background are still unsourced, meaning that sync with main article as you say in your edit summary, is wholly out of place, and leads me to believe that perhaps you missed my comments above as well as the citation requests that I earlier placed. And though it is sometimes legitimate to remove from the See also links that are already referenced in the main article, I'm not sure why so many relevant links that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article were removed. While I appreciate that you've not readded the line on proportionality, I'm still unsure why you feel we need to double the size of the Amnesty report passage to include what is essentially a restatement - I again point to the fact that allocating more room than is necessary to one claim has the effect, if not necessarily the intent, of promoting its POV over other, more succinctly positions. I also don't understand why you would remove this line again. While in the past you seemed to object based on not seeing it sourced (though I have since presented an explicit source - above), you now seem to accept it, but say that it is repeated above. You might be confusing it with the Egeland quote, but this claim is not repeated elsewhere. I also appreciate what seems to be an attempt at compromise in the Media controversy section, but I don't really understand the purpose of your changes, in which the reporter's qualification of civilian damage is now included, but not in a position that qualifies that claim, and where a less precise description of the explosions causing the minder's anxiety is given. Please let me know, Tewfik^Talk 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should we have two differing background sections? I removed the link clutter because those are all prominently referenced in their respective main articles. The Amnesty quote is not "doubling" the section, it's 30% more content, comprised of the main claims of the report and correcting paraphrasing such as Israel "attacking the Lebanese government". I don't get your POV bla. Like I said in my edit comments, "desire to maximize harm" is mentioned above, while "maximizing casualties" is your own interpretation, maybe *you* mixed those up? See Talk above. Your paraphrasing "despite his minder's anxiety about explosions in the area, it was clear that Hezbollah [...]" is wrong. There is no "despite", and there is no "minder". Our understanding of "less precise" and "more precise" seems to differ somewhat. Like you mentioned, qualification of civilian damage is now included, that's correct. Kosmopolis 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You reverted the background so there wouldn't be two different versions? I've repeatedly asked that the claims about the 1948 Palestinians' be referenced - please don't restore it until you can source their relevance to the background of this conflict. Referring to my civil discussion on Talk as "POV bla" (ibid) hardly seems like you are actually assuming good faith on my part - at least pretend you think I am not maliciously pushing a POV. I have presented a source which clearly presents an argument for Hezbollah maximising casualties - perhaps you could address the point instead of continually deleting that phrase, as well as the assertion of numerous journalists also discussing human shield usage by Hezbollah, which you seem to not dispute. As for the Robertson passage, if you would rather refer to the Hezbollah "minder" by a different descriptive noun, please do, but as I said above, the qualification about the civilian damage must be next to the line about the civilian damage - quoting it a line before takes it out of Robertson's context. And the line about "explosions" is extremely faithful to the transcript, while your mention of airstrikes is an original interpretation of the events. As some of the sections have been considerably shortened, their discussion is really moot here. Tewfik^Talk 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am simply copying the main background to avoid having two versions. The "maximizing" interpretation is yours, the sources do not make this claim, while "human shields" is widely reported. I reread Robertson's interview, your "civilian nature of the properties" is way out. He just does not say that, so I restored the passage to what he says, and removed the airstrike reference. Kosmopolis (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So you will simply continue to revert without sourcing your claims? If the other one is also unsourced, feel free to change it, but please stop reverting to this unsourced version, especially since you did then actually edit that section. In terms of maximising, you apparently didn't even look at my edit where despite the fact that that is sourced, I altered a word to make it unquestionably in line with the sources - I would appreciate, after asking half-a-dozen times, if you would actually explain why you think my understanding is wrong. My reading of Robertson is hardly "off," I paraphrased his quotes - though I'm glad you at least concede that he says nothing about airstrikes. You also again removed certain links from See also for being "clutter," including the Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which you repeatedly removed previously due to your claim that it was somehow nonneutral, and the May 17 Agreement, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and being the closest thing to an Israel-Lebanon peace agreement, is not clutter.

The fact that you also took the time to do things like creating sections focused on one side, including multiple quotes against one side and none on the other (for example an Egeland quote criticising Israel, but no mention of his far more famous anti-Hezbollah "cowardly" quote), changing the sourced 10 billion to 15 billion. Many of the "shortenings" only lop off a few words, but end up confusing the context or removing important details, such as the "military jargon" aspect of Mackenzie's quote, or taking out mention of the fact that the forest fires were burning Israel's "few" greenlands, and that 9,000 was a lot, while no such move was made to remove reference to the Valdez spill for example, and going so far as to remove the repeated reference to "fire". The same is true for the trimming of Bush's quotes as well as that of an Israeli officer, which serves to dull their meaning and remove context (especially the 5,000 - what is the point of the number then). You also somehow felt the need to replace the "false or misleading" claim with "improper" - I fail to see how this qualifies as copy-editing. And some of the copy-edits actually introduce misspellings or improper English [3],[4]. Its great that you've put so much time into editing the article, but it is not appreciated that you've used the opportunity to insert so many nonneutral edits, especially as you didn't even make note of them in either the edit-summaries or Talk, so that other users must hunt through the diffs and must treat the whole bloc of edits as suspicious. Please address content issues on Talk in the future - this is not the way to go about making such changes, all the more so if you feel that your edits are correct. Tewfik^Talk 17:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the intro because I copied two sentences too much (the last two sentences of the background referred to this conflict). Please refrain from forking. The place to discuss the background is in the main article. Regarding maximizing, there is no mentioning whatsoever of that claim in any of your sources. The only thing mentioned is that human shield tactics lead to higher casualties, that's all. I consider a link to a 23 year old agreement from the Civil War which hasn't even been implemented as clutter, yes. This information belongs to the Israel-Lebanon conflict, not to this one, similar to the Arab-Israeli sub-articles, which belong the Arab-Israeli article, not here. I separated critique towards Israel and Hezbollah. The Egeland quote was not there before I edited, why didn't you just add it? The 15 billion is mentioned above in the article by UNDP. Environment and military jargon is fine by me, wanted to shorten. "Improper" in media comes from main article. You may correct my typos, but due to your indiscriminate reversal, you also re-introduced typos which I had corrected. In fact your diffs show earlier typos from temporary reversions which I removed later. This is misleading and unfair. Kosmopolis (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You reverted the intro several times, despite my pointing out each time that you were adding unsourced claims. I haven't a clue as to what you mean by forking, but I again request that you do not revert it without supporting the unsourced claims - saying that you are synchronising with the Israel-Lebanon conflict is not legitimate, as it just means you are ignoring the problem; I pointed out that you edited part of the paragraph to highlight your unwillingness to deal with the first part. That human shield tactics lead to higher casualties is exactly what "maximise civilian casualties" means, but even if you did dispute this, there is no reason to continually remove the mention of journalists' reporting the tactic, and making it sound as if the IDF is the only source making the claim - you've done this half-a-dozen times without even addressing the point. Well I feel that the 23 year old agreement which was the closest thing to a peace agreement between the two sides is extremely relevant - the point of "See also" is to present related links that wouldn't necessarily appear in the body, not to just restate the same information again. You didn't just separate the critiques, you added many details to exclusively one side. I didn't add the quote because the whole section was just shortened a few days ago - the solution isn't to expand the whole thing again, but to represent both sides in equal detail. The 15 billion is mentioned above, but it isn't mentioned in that source, which I why I commented. I had no indiscriminate reversals, but tried my best to limit the reversions to the sections I mentioned above - while a mistake is possible, I attempted to fix your errors, and you are correct that you did fix one of them - I fixed the other. The bottom line is that you cannot edit content under the umbrella of copy-editing - that is misleading, and whether you meant it to be or not, it is unfair to the rest of us who must now sort through so many diffs. Tewfik^Talk 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have again reverted all the problematic edits, and you have justified none. Your claims of "forking" are ridiculous - please stop, as this is getting extremely tenditious. Tewfik^Talk 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You dispute that the Palestinian exodus in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinian militants from Jordan in 1971 after the events of Black September made Lebanon the home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Did I get this right? You try to establish a version of the background which is not synced with the main article, that's a fork. Regarding maximizing: how on earth can you claim that it was Hezbollah's desire to maximize civilians? Human shield tactics lead to higher casualties, that's all there is. There is no maximizing, and there is no desire. Cluster bombs in residential areas leave to higher casualties. Do you say using them also suggest a desire to maximize casualties? And while you certainly know that I reversed it n times, you are not even thinking about the possibility that a compromise would be to leave it to just the sourced statements. You know that I endorse your edits if they are accurately sourced. Regarding May 17 as an agreement between "the two sides", you forget that Lebanon is *not* a combatant in this conflict. I am worried because you failed to make the distinction between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government on an earlier occasion. Hezbollah didn't even exist in 1983. I did not "add many details to the critiques". I pulled together cluster bomb statistics that were dispersed in the post-ceasefire events section. Btw, seealso does go on top. It is used for small sets of see also information at the head of article sections according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Kosmopolis (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not get it right. As I've said numerous times on both this page and on the Israel-Lebanon conflict, there is no sourcing that that is directly relevant to this conflict - there are numerous facts that could also be added, but which are not directly part of the background. And while it is refreshing to actually see you address the issue, which I have been doing with Kendrick for quite some time now, your numerous reverts to "sync" the versions were totally out of place since they ignored every one of my explicit requests for sourcing. And just because I refrained from reverting Kendrick on that page does not make this a "fork," as it is still just as unsourced, and it is by no means bound to be synchronised with the Israel-Lebanon conflict page in any event. Had you read my edit summaries carefully instead of mass-reverting, you would have seen that I stopped including "desire" several reversions ago in the interests of compromise - that human shields "maximize casualties" is not disputed, nor is the fact that several non IDF reports exist documenting it, so why do you continue to remove this (over half-a-dozen times)? This all leads me to believe that accurate sourcing is by no means a guarantee of my edits remaining. Regarding the May 17 Agreement, whether Lebanon is a combatant in this conflict is irrelevant (though that has hardly been established in either direction on this page), as it would have the same status as it did in 1982 (sub PLO for Hezbollah), and in any event, it is still the closest thing to a peace agreement between the two sides and thus extremely relevant - I don't know what you are talking about in terms of the Lebanon vs Hezbollah, but I think its sufficiently clear that none of that matters. And again, your new version of the "Targeting" does add much more to one side that wasn't there before, and nothing to the other; the ideal should be adding nothing to either. By the way, the "see also" referred to in the link is the one at the top of a page for an alternate subject with a similar name, not for article sections. Take a look at some other articles please. Tewfik^Talk 20:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No one questions that there are Palestinians in Lebanon from 1948-9. The latter source certainly doesn't assert that they were a key factor in the conflict with Israel, and certianly not part of the background to this conflict (which I outlined in greater detail at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict). No one has proved that the 1948-9 Palestinian refugees (as opposed to the PLO militants, most of whom arrived in the late 60s and 70s) were a central part of the background to this conflict, so please do not revert without such sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer regarding background is in main. You say that human shields "maximize casualties" is not disputed? Wrong. "Maximizing" is your interpretation. "The ideal should be adding nothing to either" - that is nonsense. Your May 17 analogy is a crude simplification, at best. Quoting Template:Seealso: used for small sets of see also information at the head of article sections according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout. What do you want? Kosmopolis (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you are going to continue reverting that section while ignoring requests for sourcing (and the point you sourced is not the one I've challenged - I've invited you several times to participate in or at least view the discussion at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict, though I also summarised my argument on this page) just because a similar [though not exact] copy exists on a different page? That is ridiculous, calling my requests for sourcing "forking" is improper, and both can be said for your labeling another user's revert of those [among other edits] as vandalism. Please source the contention that the 1948 Palestinian refugees were a key factor in the background to this conflict, or stop reverting. I don't know what other positions there may be on the effects of human shields on the shielding population, but I have sourced an article that reflects a significant increase in their casualties when the tactic is employed - unless you dispute that "significantly increase casualties" means "maximise casualties." I'm glad that you think that we should be adding lots of detail to both claims, but as we are trying to keep the article short, and you in any event only added to one side, there is no reason not to maintain the shorter, neutral version. Calling my argument a "crude simplification" is hardly helpful, especially in the absence of a counter-argument. If you really believe that the closest thing to a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon is irrelevant to the latest conflict and only "clutters" up the "See also" section, please explain why, or at least disprove my logic for inclusion. And on the topic, there are at least three items referred to as "See also" - the one whose policy you are quoting is used "...to link to an article about another meaning of the word, or in the case of a link that many readers are likely to follow instead of reading the article...," and does not refer to the "see also"s that are included in article sections. While I'm not aware of a policy covering their usage, a quick browse through some popular pages (like World War I) will demonstrate the popular, if not legislated usage.

While I am aware of how frustrating the process of reconciling two different groups of edits can be, I assure you that dropping the sarcasm and instead focusing on cogent, germane arguments will better serve both of our aims - which should be to improve this project Tewfik^Talk 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tewfik, look what I have found! Here are your exact statements, courtesy of Mr. Alan Dershovitz: [5]. Isn't it amazing that this guy is actually quoting *you*? Congratulations! Ok, he might have been called "apologist for the Israel lobby" by his fellow scholars, and he compared Lebanon to Austria under the Nazis, but at least we both know that he is unbiased and totally NPOV, just like you. This must be quite the honour! Kosmopolis (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You really need to calm down and maybe have a little bit of restraint. I don't see anything that warrants such uncivil and inappropriate behavior.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It would suit you well to contemplate about civility the next time you're busy mass-reverting without a single comment and without engaging in the discussion, again. [6] [7] Kosmopolis (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so I am clear, you are equating my reversion of something you have written with the sarcastic and accusatory message above?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think your mass-reversions of *numerous* editors' contributions without comment or discussion weigh much heavier. Kosmopolis (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a mention, the Palestian refugees have been mentioned in the background section of this article at least as far back as July 27, and I simply haven't crawled back any further (if that seems like 10,000 edits ago, you are probably right); and I've tried to distill a background somewhat more succinct. And with Tewfik's helpful prodding, I believe the main article sub-stection is now fairly well sourced, and makes the relevancy clear. -- Kendrick7 06:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cluster bombs

This AFP article from september 15 says "In the first 15 days after the August 14 ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah war, 52 Lebanese civilians were killed by unexploded cluster bombs, according to the United Nations." Our article says "By 27 September, 14 Lebanese civilians were killed and around 90 wounded in post-ceasefire cluster bomb explosions." Vints 09:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems the reference that says 15 is out of date. could someone change it please?Nielswik 09:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also moved the statistics from the "events" section up to the "targets" section. Kosmopolis (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections

I've done a little reordering:

1. Background
2. Beginning of conflict
3. Israeli action
4. Hezbollah action
5. Position of Lebanon
6. Targets in civilian areas
7. Environmental damage
8. International action and reaction
9. Ceasefire
10. Reviews of the conflict
11. Media controversy
12. Post-ceasefire events

I've merged ceasefire attempts etc. to one section. I've also found it more logical to have Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon in a row, since the article is still called "Israel-Lebanon conflict" and readers might want to know what Lebanon had to do with it, after all; previously, Lebanon had been buried quite below. Then civilians and environment (the fourth and fifth entities in this conflict), and the bystanders, i.e. international community, as an outside entity. After that, the ceasefire (follows up well to international (re)action) and reviews, the media controversy as a side issue during the conflict, and finally post-ceasefire events, since they're chronologically the last and round up the conflict. I'd like to hear your opinion on that. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Maybe post-ceasefire events after ceasefire, though? Iorek85 07:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli withdrawl

CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/01/lebanon.withdrawal/index.html) is saying troops are still in Lebanon...maybe the last post-ceasefire bullet should be changed (saying all troops withdrew)? The wikipedia main page is all saying the withdrawl is complete, but maybe this isn't for definite? TJ0513 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I weaved in the UNIFIL statements. Kosmopolis (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Targets in civilian areas

I have made an honest attempt to reduce the quotation chaos in the targeting section. [8] The edit reduces the section size from 3500 to 3000 Bytes. Both sides are presented equally (ok, Israel has 8% more text, some 100 characters). As far as I can see, all major claims by relevant parties are included, as well as defending claims by the warring parties. Please, stop the edit-war. Let's get on with the article, instead. Your comments are very welcome. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Siniora plan in Lebanon's position

Tewfik has deleted the description of the Siniora plan from Lebanon's position. Since it is *the* core document of the Lebanese position, this seems non-sensical to me. Your comments are very welcome. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosmopolis edits

It's reassuring that edits at least are referenced properly now, but lots of references does not excuse anyone from making a sincere effort to write a neutral article. Kosmopolis, I kindly suggest that you put your considerable energy toward crafting edits that don't prompt edit wars. If there's one thing I've learned from editing articles within this topic, it's that POV campaigns never succeed and only waste everyone's time. Good luck.--Leifern 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

why is that POV? i didnt see anything wrong Nielswik 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielswik, thank you very much. Leifern, have you even looked into what I have done? If you would, it would occur to you that for the most part, *I haven't changed the content of the article*, and btw, you have now mass-reverted the article into a state that Tewfik would surely object. I strongly suggest that you take the time and read my last revision before acting like a child and hastily reverting all of my fixes, corrections, conversions of links to references, reordering of sections to ensure clarity etc. [9]. Also, I suggest that you look into the two new sections I added to this talk before *starting* an edit-war. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I see a series of edits that cumulatively add up to a heavily biased presentation of a complex topic. I realize it's hard to write the final account of something that isn't clarified. My goal is not to please you or Tefwik or anyone else; it's to encourage a more sincere effort at making this an unassailable article in a media space that is characterized by polarized points of view. I certainly see that many of your edits to that, but you also have a tendency to include points of view in these, and I'll return your insult with a compliment by saying that I think you know better. --Leifern 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Like I said, for the most part, I haven't even changed the content of the article. Given that you haven't contributed in a while, I am not sure if you have an overview of the pending disputes. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am in favour of your systematic reversion to edits which I have called problematic numerous times, but to be clear, I object in the strongest terms. I also don't understand how you could ask that I withdraw the report of your 3RR violation while at the same time accusing me of defamation and harassment in that very report. If you are sincerely interested in compromise, you can start by not again reverting the edits to which I have objected to numerous times, and by instead addressing the problems which I have pointed out just as many times above. Tewfik^Talk 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are only two minor issues, left, by now. The infamous Robertson paragraph (which I have not reverted, but *edited*), and the links to the Arab-Israeli subs. I prepared a discussion for the targeting section (which I carefully balanced, and where I introduced the Egeland "cowardly" quote after you have mentioned it). The Siniora plan is a new issue, there is also discussion prepared for that. Please acknowledge that I am, for example, not pushing the old background section or trying to enforce any of the old issues we had. So, the most productive and reasonable thing would be to clear up Robertson and the links and discuss the targeting and the Siniora plan. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some examples:

• The idea that Lebanon has long failed to control militancy along its borders, when the "militancy" (euphemism to begin with) has taken place alongside only one side of its border

I haven't introduced that. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting the point that Hizballah rockets were aimed to civilian areas

"Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes by deliberately and indiscriminately killing civilians by firing rockets into populated areas." Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reduced specificity about the extent of the damage on Lebanese civilian infrastructure

No changes. What do you mean? Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Selective quote of Jan Egeland, who also complained about the Hizballah role in the war

"Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending [...] among women and children" and using the civilian population as human shields." I introduced that. There was *no* Egeland quote, before. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion of the Amnesty report that civilians were used as human shields.

There was none of that sort, before. I did not delete anything. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Similarly, deletion of Israeli claims of such tactics

Go ahead and introduce it. But I think, the accusation by the United Nations that such tactics were enforced, has much more weight, don't you think? Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

--Leifern 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My answers are above. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There aren't only two issues left, and I think the volumes of Talk will attest to them not being minor, or at least makes clear that you cannot responsibly treat them as such:

• Targeting Civilians: The amount of time it took to get you to include the 2nd Egeland quote aside, the reason that both quotes were removed was to provide a clearer picture of the different critiques in a minimum of words. While I understand your goal may be to achieve clarity by parsing all of the text into 'pro' and 'con' groups, splicing statements from different passages together denies them the context of the original passage (for example HRW's carefully worded critique of cluster-bombs and ball-bearing rockets). If you believe some part of the original phrasing is nonneutral please explain what it is, but as they say in the US, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
• Robertson quote: your 'reduction' changes what he is saying, as the only significant removal is the line where he explicitly qualifies his previous mention of what seemed to be civilian damage as not being verifiable. You've removed this line a dozen times in every iteration of the paragraph, despite my repeatedly pointing out that that is objectionable. If you can provide a good argument as to why the readers should not know that he had his doubts about the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings I would be happy to hear it, but you have not directly discussed this point as of yet.
• See Also: continuing to call the May 17 Agreement "clutter" doesn't make it so; I have invited you several times to explain why you think that this is so insignificant and bothersome. The same goes for the Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which you had previously removed several times under the claim that it was somehow POV. These links seem like an extremely good entrance into the complex discussion surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict for an uninitiated reader. If you can present an argument disputing that, then we could perhaps find a resolution.
• Siniora Plan: I don't think the plan is unimportant, and when you added it in, I specifically wrote in the fact that it was a key influence on the initial SC proposal, including an inline wikilink to the plan. However I don't think including all seven points in the body of the paragraph is helpful to the reader looking for a quick scan.
• Background: I still object to highlighting the 1948 Palestinians from among all of the other ethnic/religious groups that were involved in the Lebanese instability. First it was argued that their arrival helped precipitate instability, but the first 20 years they were there they played no remarkable role, and the role they began to play in 69 onwards was a result of the PLO moving in. Then it was argued that they were relevant because the reader should know who helped supply the PLO with food, clothes, shelter etc. - assuming this could even be sourced, I fail to see how that is more important than mentioning the suppliers of arms or the suppliers of backing in the Arab world or half-a-dozen other indirect supporters. Then it was argued they should be included because they became (after the arrival of the PLO of course) a source of recruits. Why not detail the recruits of other groups? The significance of the Palestinians on the past conflicts between Israel and Lebanon, and thus on this, relates to their activity from the arrival of the PLO until the expulsion of the PLO. They played no other unique role, and including various details in what should be a concise background merely clouds the issue.

If you disagree with any of these points in whole or in part, please present an argument, and I would be (and have been) more than willing to engage in civil discussion. Tewfik^Talk 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Nic Robertson's comments, I think the entire "media controversy" section is overwrought. I don't understand why these trivial pieces of information are so important to detail in the main article, and I think this section could mislead to reader into thinking that there was some major controversy or that the international press coverage of the war is suspect – there wasn’t and there isn't. A link to the specialized story in the "See also" section would be quite sufficient in my opinion. As for Nic Robertson's quote, can somebody explain to me what he is actually saying that is new or significant for this article or even somehow related to "media controversy", except maybe the bit that he “couldn't verify the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings”? Tens of thousands of buildings were destroyed in Lebanon - does he think the Hezbollah people would take him visit precisely those sites under which evidence of terrorist activity was buried? Or maybe he suggests that he should be given a shovel to dig under the rubble and see if there were such evidence to be found there? I don't quite understand why the hugely relevant quote by Israel's Vice PM and member of its Security Cabinet Eli Yishai is removed from the "Targets in Civilan Areas" section alleging space reasons, while Robertson's immaterial and opaque quote remains. Is this the neutral editing Wikipedia expects from us? Is this how we serve the reader’s quest for relevant information? Dianelos 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To Isarig, why do you keep reverting my edit

Israel had violated Lebanese airspace several times, but you seem trying to hide this. We can cite from hezbollah side, as we can cite israeli media freely. I dont know whether al-manar is forbidden in europe, but wikipedia is international encyclopedia, not european Nielswik 04:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not hiding anything. If you want to include the claim that Israel has violated Lebanese airspace several times - find a WP:RS that says this. It shouldn't be hard. If Hezbollah has a WP:RS, fine. But a TV station that has been banned in Europe for inciting racial hatered, and has been designated a terrorist organization in the US is not a WP:RS. Isarig 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Hezbollah terrorists or whatever, is a _political opinion_ by US and few (5) other countries. It does not make them a non reliable source. Even an unknown eye witness can be considered reliable. Anyway I don't think you are in position to decide for all Wikipedia readers on your own what is reliable and what is not. Better cite the Hezbollah claim, precising it's just a claim unverified by another independant source (if it is the case), and cite the opposite side's response, precizing it's a response unverified by another independant source. That way the reader can clearly have all the facts, and decide whether to beleive one side or another. 196.206.66.9 06:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand either. If Haaretz is considered reliable for this conflict, any web-transcript from al-Manar should be too. -- Kendrick7 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Haaretz is clearly a free newspaper that expounds the ideas of many writers and there are many articles that criticize the Israeli government. al-Manar expounds one line, namely Hezbollah's. In any case it's a fact that Israel violated Lebanon's airspace almost daily; I have a Unifil statement about this which I will gladly contribute. Dianelos 09:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying, if Al-Manar occasionally critized Hezbollah, you'd consider it "free" too? LOL, I guess they could fool you pretty easily, then. "This just in: Nasrallah throws like a girl. Now, on to our next story...." -- Kendrick7 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I seriously don't know what would be worse - that you actually don't understand the difference between the free press of a democracy, which produces a liberal leaning, government-opposing critical newspaper that is the equal (in terms of journalistic quality) of any source cited on WP such as the New York Times, and the self-professed non-neutral propaganda organ of an organization designated as terrorist by many countries, which is itself described as terrorist by the US, and whose broadcasts are banned in Western European democracies becuase they incite racial hatered, or that you do understand the distinction, but are ignoring it in order to push a certian POV. Isarig 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to use questionable sources. Israel does have a free and high quality press and there is really little of any significance about this war that an editor will not find documented there. Add to this the UN site, the major US and European news outlets, the various EU sites, even the US Department of State site - there are many sources that satisfy WP:RS. Using sources from Hezbollah or from the IDF is not really necessary; these are direct participants and part of what they do (and are supposed to be doing) is propaganda. As for the "Israeli jet planes conducted mock exercises over Southern Lebanon" bit, my personal opinion is that this information is still not well referenced. I don't even understand how "mock exercises" look like compared to photo-reconnaissance flights. In any case it's not a terribly significant piece of information, even if it is true. Dianelos 07:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW I tend to disagree with 196.206.66.9's argument. When one active party in a conflict claims something self-serving that is not verified by another independent source then it should not be considered reliable as per WP:RS. Here is an example: The article now states "IDF claimed that Hezbollah had blocked village exits to prevent residents from leaving the warzone", but I have not found any independent source confirming this claim. Also this claim does not sound credible to me - it is well known that Hezbollah was quite successful in winning the Lebanese peoples minds and hearts, and this does not square well with "The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg)" which is the extremely short article which is given as the source here. I wonder what other editors think about this. Dianelos 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• A key part of the statement is "IDF claimed." If a report somehow was part of the Hezbollah position and was prefaced by something like 'Hezbollah claimed,' then we would treat it differently, as we can rely on a source to be an RS for itself to an extent, and thus Al-Manar would be in part a good source of the Hezbollah position. Tewfik^Talk 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have unifil statement about that, please type it down, as those pro-israeli guys keep deleting al-manar statement. Nielswik 14:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To Isarig, if you reject hezbollah's media just because some governments call them terrorist, Israel is also called terrorist by Iran, Venezuela, and other countries. And I guess Haaretz is banned in Iran and other muslim countries.Nielswik 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If the events actually happened then there is no reason not to use an RS. But Al-Manar is clearly not one, and there is no equasion between it and papers like Haaretz, which as Dianelos explains are open and willing to express multiple viewpoints, and thus are journalistically objective. Tewfik^Talk 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I reject Al-Manar becuase it is not a WP:RS. Please read the relevant policy and see for yourself. Isarig 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Why do people climb mountains?" B/C they are there. Why does Isarig reject relevant material that undercuts his POV. B/C it's there. Strike that b/c it's WP:RS. his interpretation of it, of course. Every news report I've seen has said that HA's credibility and reputation for truthfullness is way up. In fact they have announced the IDF casualties, with names, ahead of the IDF. Will Isarig keep reverting? of course. Will he keep doing 3RR notices even when he's 3RR'd himself on the same day? of course. Best Wishes Will314159 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(EC) Will, Isarig rejects Al-Manar because the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy says: Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.

Even if some country considered Haaretz or Yediot to be terrorist organisations (and none do as far as I know), they would still not be widely acknowledged as such. However you may feel about their reporting skills, Hezbollah and Al-Manar are.

There are only a few countries that have labelled Hezbollah a terrorist group, and opinion within those countries is hardly monolithic. I hope you source for this claim that they are widely regarded as a terrorist group isn't from Haaretz! -- Kendrick7 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this line from the WP article should settle the issue: According to Al Manar's news director, Hassan Fadlallah, Al Manar does not aim to be neutral in its broadcasting, "Neutrality like that of Al Jazeera is out of the question for us," Fadlallah said. "We cover only the victim, not the aggressor. CNN is the Zionist news network, Al Jazeera is neutral, and Al Manar takes the side of the Palestinians...He said Al Manar's opposition to neutrality means that, unlike Al Jazeera, his station would never feature interviews or comments by Israeli officials. "We're not looking to interview Sharon," Fadlallah said. "We want to get close to him in order to kill him.[14] " - Tewfik^Talk 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's a New Yorker article. Nice to know you are a now a fan of the magazine -- can those Seymour Hersh quotes go back in? Anyway, he is simply stating he feels his media role is to provide balance to what he perceives as a more common pro-Israeli viewpoint, and he doesn't feel the Israeli government is a reliable source. It's amusingly over the top, but at least he is blatantly honest. No "fair and balanced" mumbo-jumbo. -- Kendrick7 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

When a news organisation proclaims their desire to murder their subject, they are not an RS, nor are they amusing. I don't understand what your point is with the New Yorker. Tewfik^Talk 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

They just seem to get remarkable scoops time and again. First, the revelation that this entire conflict was planned ahead of time by Israel. Now the revelation that the head of Al-Manar wants to kill the Prime Minister of Israel. What do they do -- get their subjects drunk before the interview?? The New Yorker is getting close to being off my RS list themselves. They seem a little too sensationalist. -- Kendrick7 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, while I'm flattered to have made it online, it is extremely inappropriate to see that you are recruiting meatpuppets for this discussion. Tewfik^Talk 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I added news report from KUNA and The Daily Star about this violation. Don't try to say they are terrorists as wellNielswik 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is really no need to take a hostile approach. Al-Manar was disqualified as an RS because of its widely acknowledged terrorist links. At the same time, we asked that an RS instead be supplied. You have done so, and that is great. If you cool down a bit you'll see that no one is out to persecute your viewpoint, but that we are all just trying to create to most neutral and factual resource possible. Tewfik^Talk 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielswik you can find the unifil document here, and I quote from the section that covers the 2001 period: "Of equal concern, stated the Secretary-General, were Israeli air violations of the Blue Line, which continued on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. These incursions were not justified and caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas. The air violations were ongoing, although dιmarches to the Israeli authorities, calling on them to cease the overflights and to fully respect the Blue Line, had been made repeatedly by the United Nations, including by the Secretary-General, and a number of interested governments." As I recall it in later years the violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel continued but became less frequent.

Tewfik I know the article clearly states that this is an IDF claim. The point is whether IDF in this case (a clearly self-serving statement with no independent confirmation months after the end of hostilities) can be judged to satisfy WP:RS. Again, even though the article says that this is an IDF claim I don't think it would be good for the article's quality if editors started inserting statements like "Hezbollah claimed this", "X claimed that", and so on. As editors we are supposed to do some minimal research to validate clearly self-serving claims I think. And that particular claim by IDF does not seem credible to me and I did not find any other mention of it - and if the alleged events had really taken place there should be hundreds of witnesses of them including UN personnel who, according to the IDF, were not allowed by Hezbollah to bring help to the Lebanese villages. I could be wrong, but until we discover some independent confirmation I think that that IDF statement should be considered propaganda and should be deleted from the article. Dianelos 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, you guys had rejected at least 2 al-manar reports. The first is about cluster bombs that killed Lebanese children, and the second is about this airspace violation. And then we found that Al-manar reports is really actual and credible, and can be justified by other media. So why do you keep rejecting Al-manar? Nielswik 07:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Contentious edits by 4.237.227.253

Checking recent changes of this article, I've spotted a series of particularly contentious edits by 4.237.227.253 IP. While I don't want to immediately assert them as pure POV pushing, no relevant sources were presented and all edits were overtly biased towards certain POV. On one article he was already spotted misquoting his own source.

I suggest everyone concerned with the topic to check his edits (all are related to this conflict) and repair changes where they are unverifiable or POV, and stay aware of this user in the future. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethics and Organisational Effects

Hello,

Could i have some feeback and any knowledge with regards to the above subject headline. I would apprecaite any information and feelings or information about this subject. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.35.63 (talk • contribs).

Could you possibly elaborate as to what you mean? Tewfik^Talk 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon comment

Do you really consider this; Analysis: Hezbollah's recovery timetable", UPI. a reliable source. You got to be kidding me.

Why on earth do you let these so called links to pro-Israel/zionism allow to be a source. It's just Propaganda, pure and simple.

But this section is runned by a Jew, Avraham. there goes the Objetivity. - 62.234.48.231

Take your anti-Semitism elsewhere. We are not Muslims and hence do not care for your jihadophile propaganda. Cerebral Warrior 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And takes your anti-Islamism elsewhere Nielswik_(talk) 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

background

The version of the background I have re-installed is far more balanced than the blatantly pro-Israeli alternative people keep reverting to. It should remain unless an equally NPOV version is agreed on the talk pages, please don't keep reverting it anyone, you're simply making the article biased by doing so.Nwe 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Labelling something "blatantly pro-Israeli" is hardly fair considering that I've left detailed responses above adressing the one specific point of contention (inclusion of the 1948 Palestinians in the background of this Lebanese conflict), and you haven't pointed to any other part as being biased (nor has anyone else, especially being that Kendrick7 is the author of almost all of it). Tewfik^Talk 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, this article seems blatantly pro-Moslem. Like I said, the title itself is flawed. Hezbollah made the first move, so the title should read "2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict", especially since "Lebanon" wasn't actually involved. Cerebral Warrior 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to the tens of thousands of Lebanese (Christian and Muslim) civilians who were killed, displaced or lost everything in the systematic destruction of their country in this conflict. Just because the Lebanese army knew it did not stand a chance in the face of this aggression and did little to defend its country, it doesnt mean Lebanon wasnt (at least passively) involved in the conflict. If you dislike "muslims", Cerebral Warrior, try expressing it in your personal weblog rather than on wikipedia. I also think that your user page should be modified. The koran may incite violence, but no more than the Torah, which repeatedly calls for mass genocide throughout its pages. I am not religious but I dont feel that you should express your xenophobia for any group on wikipedia. --Burgas00 08:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to kid me. Islamofascists have been terrorising innocent Israelis for decades. The Hezbollah were warned to disband their mercenaries and give up violence, but they refused to do so, which was why Israel had to take steps to ensure that the Islamo-Nazis who want to "kill all Jews" were disarmed so that peace could be restored in the Middle East. My point is that the jihadists were the ones who started the conflict by kidnapping innocent Israelis, hence the title should be changed to "Hezbollah-Israel conflict". As for my userpage, let me me remind you that I am a free citizen, not a dhimmi, and hence do not have to worry about appeasing Moslems. I am also not Jewish, so insulting the Torah does not affect me. However I would think that the Torah is atleast better than the Coran which states that everyone who doesn't believe in 786 should be massacred, that women should be subjugated and forced to wear hoods and that animals should be made to suffer while being killed.

Getting back on topic, from a fresh viewpoint, I think the intro does tend to read like Israel has done nothing wrong in the entire history of the conflict. Lebanon has "long failed" to control militancy, the PLO was conducting cross border raids (with no mention of Israeli response), Israels invasion failed to stem attacks (like it was a dissapointment), and Hezbollah kept attacking after Israel retreated. I'm not passing judgement on whether this is a fair summary of what actually happened, since I've not that detailed knowledge, but from a passing read POV, it seems that people in Lebanon is totally to blame, Lebanon has been a helpless victim of other groups, and Israel is an innocent country trying to defend itself from the evil attacks of Hezbollah. This may or may not be true, but that's what it reads like. Iorek85 09:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The major point of contention (as I understand it) is the relevance of the 1948 Palestinian refugees to this article's background. The phrasings that you mentioned, if not authored by Kendrick7 (which I believe some/all were), were certainly not the object of dispute. If the other aspects of the background are nonneutral, then they should be corrected, and I would be glad to see legitimate and neutral additions if they are deemed necessary. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I've nothing to debate on that specific front. I can't find the orginal version that Kendrick authored, but I'm not trying to accuse you of making the intro pro-Israeli at all. I think people with a more specific knowledge of the history of clonflict between the two nations (and you and Kendrick seem to have that) should decide if it's accurate or not. Iorek85 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel is an innocent country trying to defend itself from evil Islamofascists. That's a fact, not a POV. Cerebral Warrior 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Expressing racism and xenophobia publicly is a criminal offence in most Western democracies, Cerebral Warrior. I see little difference between you and these "Islamo-fascists" you hate so much. Please seriously consider refraining from editing wikipedia articles. You are not neutral and you are a shame to the wikipedia project and to your country (I can only assume you are American).

I would like to see what the reaction of your fellow citizens would be if Mexico invaded the US and kicked its citizens out to refugee camps in Canada and Puerto Rico. Would they be "Protestafascists"? --Burgas00 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an American, so your rant does not affect me. However my country has suffered much because of Islamofascists and it is my right to express my feelings about Islam. Israel has the right to exist peacefully and should not have to do so in fear of "Palestinian" Islamo-Nazis who thirst for the blood of innocent Jews. I suggest you stop sympathising with Islamofascists and think about all the innocent lives that have been lost to militant Islam. It is only when ones friends/loved ones are blown limb from limb on a train/bus/in their office by some Islamosupremacist that one realises the pain that Islamomurderers inflict on innocent people whose only "crime" is that they do not worship 786. Cerebral Warrior 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's really offensive remarks from cerebral. Isn't there any wikipedia rule regulate this? Nielswik_(talk) 12:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00: You said: (I can only assume you are American). Why did you make this assumption? Valtam 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am quite sure there are. I will contact an administrator, see what can be done. Critizing Islamists or militant organizations is ok with me. However, this user is clearly expressing his racism and xenophobia (as well as his ignorance) in a way which is contrary to wikipedia rules and basic principles of democracy which he is yet to grasp. His user page should also be modified. There is no point in engaging in discussions with him, I think there is a rule which is "dont feed the troll". I encourage users to revert his edits on this and other articles where he is expressing similar views. --Burgas00 12:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have copy-edited numerous articles. Do you want to revert that too? By the way, refering to me as a xenpphobe is a personal attack against me. Cerebral Warrior 13:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00: do you grasp the "basic principle of democracy" that citizens in a democracy are free to express their beliefs? Or is free speech not one of your "basic principles of democracy"? Valtam 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Valtam, I assumed he was American because Americans tend to be, on average, much more ignorant than contributors from other countries. Most are just plain stupid. I dont really know the sociological explanation for this fact, but Im sure there is one. But please, explain to me how claiming or publishing that Jews, Muslims or blacks are an evil, inferior people which are out to take over the world or our country is perfectly permissible in a democracy. Its free speech right?

Wikipedia is not a place for hate mongering. --Burgas00 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00: If Wikipedia is not a place for hate mongering, then why are you mongering hate with your statement: Americans tend to be, on average, much more ignorant than contributors from other countries. Most are just plain stupid.?

Also, you stereotype an entire group of people, and then in your next sentence condemn such stereotyping, at least when it is applied to different groups of people. Why is it OK in one case, but not the other?

Finally, in a democracy, free speech is perfectly permissible, even if you don't agree with the speech. If democracies were to censor their citizens, they would cease to be democracies.

Valtam 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But Cerebral's offensive userbox obviously have to be deleted. By the way, Burgas, if you want to know cerebral's nationality, i guess he is from southern asian country as nobody but southern asians associate islam with 786. To Cerebral:Muslims don't worship number Nielswik_(talk) 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right Valtam, Im sorry for offending you.I guess I got a bit carried away. In any case this is no place to discuss the limits on freedom of speech which should be imposed in democratic societies. Im glad we agree on Cerebral's user page. --Burgas00 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem Burgas00. I got a bit carried away too - I shouldn't have been as offended. Thanks, Valtam 16:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00, your anti-American bigotry is highly offensive and I suggest you stop. I have a right to voice my opinion of Islamofascists, since I am free citizen and not a dhimmi. Many Moslem groups have expressed a desire to "spread Islam by the sword" and that is a fact that can be ascertained here. As for my userpage, there are parts of the Coran that encourage violence, and it is my right to oppose those verses. If you believe that violence is to be encouraged, go ahead and change my userpage. Nielswik, 786 stands for bismillah ur rahim ur rahman, which means "in the name of "allah" most "merciful" and "compassionate"". Thus, 786 stands for allah, whom I believe Moslems worship. Correct me if I am wrong. Cerebral Warrior 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral: I guess this is what you meant by 786. 786 is sum of numerical values of arabic letters in Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. it has no special meaning for muslim elsewhere beside Southern asia. Anyway, your anti-islamic remarks is very offensive and should be stopped. You can't even give a citation about Quranic verses encouraging violence that you claim in your userpage. I wonder why did no admin block you. If you are interested, i found Torah verses encouraging violences, and Israel seems to be so obedience to this verse

"Destroy all of the land; beat down their pillars and break their statues and waste all of their high places, cleansing the land and dwelling in it, for I have given it to you for a possession" Numbers 33:52,53

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city both men and women, young and old and ox and sheep and ass with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

then why don't oppose this highly violence-encouraging religion? Nielswik_(talk) 08:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And I guess this discussion is going to wrong way, perhaps we can continue this in your user talk Nielswik_(talk) 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Verse 9:29 of the Coran states Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued., and is followed by And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!, then muhammad says kill any Jew who falls into your power. So please, stop criticising other faiths when your own religion is widely regarded as highly fundamental. Anyway, as I have mentioned, I am not Jewish so ranting against the Torah won't affect me. It will, however, make you look like a Nazi and reinforce the belief that Moslems (and remember you are one) are racist and genocidal. Cerebral Warrior 09:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, can we just get back on topic now? From the header; This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.. It's also not the place to discuss who is or isn't racist. Take it to your usertalk pages. Iorek85 09:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The topic right now is a racist who is disrupting the talk page in this article. He considers it ok to insult muslims and their religion because of certain versicles in the Quran and accuses those who negate his moronic and offensive arguments, by showing that other religions have similar (or worse) versicles, of being Nazis. I suggest he is banned at least temporaliry. --Burgas00 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK you are the one insulting the Torah, and I'm the racist here? If you insult the Jewish people you can't expect better than to be called an anti-Semite or a Nazi. Cerebral Warrior 18:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral, I have removed xenophobic material from your user page. Please do not restore it.--Burgas00 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)