Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Discussion about the status of the article

Fix

A new user added some edits here, [1] - I'm not sure if I was able to fix it correctly or not...could someone take a look? --HappyCamper 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, stopping it

Anyone have an idea of how to stop all the vandalism going on? There seem to be many (apparent) Israeli's keeping the casualty numbers from being changed, adding (without reason) to Hezbollah casualties, and deleting whole paragraphs or even sections at a time.
One of the recent vandals: 82.117.208.71
ArmanJan 21:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

These two have also been busy Tewfik and GabrielF.

ArmanJan 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

These two both have isreali pov and try to enforce it on Wikipedia.Yousaf465

Discussion about POV

Are Hezbollah members/activists/terrorists/fighters also 'guerrillas'?

For me 'guerrilla' is more a modus operandi than a individual person. It means 'small war' in Spanish. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrillas. In the box at the right, however, we see: Hezbollah>Casualties>3 guerrillas.

We could change it for 'activists' (is it neutral enough?). Mr.K. 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the armed elements of Hezbollah should simply be called "Hezbollah fighters" as this implies military as opposed to political action. SimonATL 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did the google test - "Hezbollah guerillas" vs. "Hezbollah militants" vs. "Hezbollah terrorists" vs. "Hezbollah fighters". Results: 107k to 624k to 95k to 165k. Thus, I will be bold and go change to militants. -Preposterous 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the use of militants for political members (ie civilians) but preffer figthers or militias for the military wing. As to the use of "guerillas" it is commonly used to refer to individuals, not only groups or tactics.

Nevertheless, while some of the tactics of Hezbollah are those of guerillas, others are more like regular forces (ie long range strategic rocket bombardment etc). While Hezbollah's armed wing is not a state army but a private militia, this doesnt make it automatically a guerilla.

For example, security contractors in Iraq constitute private militias, but they are not guerillas or for the most part engage in guerilla tactics. So I would be weary of descirbing them as such.--Cerejota 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So...What are you suggesting? -Preposterous 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah fighter. Probably oth sides agree that they fight. And the readers will understand what you mind.Mr.K. 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps

New Suggestion

New suggestion

I thought the previous one was pretty good, but I used it as a reference using lower number of colors. Vector Illustration -- Full view for details. Please give feedback and discuss whether you like to use it or not. Hope it's useful. -- Omernos 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Best map so far in my mind. I recommend using it. In fact, in the name of being bold, I'm going to sub it in. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(EC) That's fine. I don't prefer either one. If we do use it, would it be possible to move the city names slightly offshore so as not to obscure the details of the map, which (I think) add to its visual appeal? Also, I still believe that "Safed" may be an appropriate notation, but I'll leave that up to you and others to decide. Good job, Tewfik^Talk 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That new one is excellent, good job. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They're all very good. I impressed with everyone who made those maps. --Elliskev 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the one up right now. Do we know where the Israili warship that got hit was located? That would be a good addition to the map. Also, a spot showing where the two israeli soldiers were originally captured would be good too.--Crucible Guardian 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Change map ASAP. The map put is totally wrong. Beirut is not where it is shown, that's Sidon (Saida) instead. Beirut is more to the north, right on the cape on the top of the picture! Fix this immediately. Ad vitam aeternam 09:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

15th of July version - Beirut's location fixed

>>I have changed and uploaded a new version, but I need to discuss the matter before uploading a newer version to the same file with you guys. So if you'd like please take a look at Image:Lebmap02.jpg -- Unfortunately, I had used a previous map as a reference and I fell into this geographical mistake. Please consider using the second (if somebody has the permission to upload a newer version to the first one) as I followed up to people who noted the right position of Beirut. Any modification is possible to the original illustration. Anything for Wikipedia ;) -- Omernos 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The map put is totally wrong. Beirut is not where it is shown, that's Sidon (Saida) instead. Beirut is more to the north, right on the cape! Fix this immediately

This user's right. Junes 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But I have changed the location, and I checked with the map it's not in Sidon's position any more. Why this hostility? As said I fixed it. Check the new smaller thumb under the image. Image:Lebmap02.jpg. Just check the NEW one and I'll fix it. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave at the moment so I need an instant reply. -- Omernos 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your new map is accurate. All the previous maps were wrong, so this was understandable. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The area of conflict map that is shown on the main wikipedia page should now include Tiberias. I know the map isn't perfectly accurate and is meant to give a general idea. But I believe Tiberias is farther south on Lake Kineret and the shaded region should be changed accordingly. I know there is a map of Israeli cities affected but it is not featured on the main page. Njjones 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created an SVG version (using CIA's maps). I'll probably swap this in after not too long, any suggestions? I would like to add the road.. but would really like to have an idea of where the road goes first (as opposed to drawing a straight line).— Mobius 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The new map should have the "area of conflict" expand to the northern tip of the West Bank, and then stay along it, running to the southwest. The "area of conflict" should diverge from the West Bank border when it turns south; it should diverge at a 90 degree angle, heading west to the sea. I can supply a rough sketch (including the Beirut-Damascus Hwy) if the mapmaker needs geographic guidelines. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please update the map

As you know The war spreads and Map of conflict as of July 14, 2006 is very old.--Sa.vakilian 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I requested an update ( I would've done it myself but I can't seem to get the crosshatched area of conflict to do anything nice in Photoshop) since the rockets were fired into Tiberius which was late on the 14th early 15th. By the 18th now nothing. Now with Atlit and the Jezreel Valley being hit the map will only expand in conflict. Also now with an attack from the Palestinians in the West Bank, I'm not sure if this has been touched on but I've heard it on CNN and Fox News today, as well as on Yahoo News via AP, I wonder whether that would fall into this (probably not) or Operation Summer Rains (again that's just Gaza) or if some other article would best suit it. Njjones 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a good SVG editor, but I would suggest adding crosshatching and a line for the road to Damascus, since the Israeli airforce has been bombing that highway to seal the borders. UltraNurd 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're on this topic (and before I upload a *newer* map), what should this red region look like anybody care to submit rough outlines for where abouts it should be? Now that there is an expanding number of rocket landings in Israel, and a number of bombings across Lebanon. So how exactly should those be represented? as little explosion icons, or included in a shaded region? — Mobius 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC has the following map. Might be helpful in updating? --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The current map is also wrong because it shades the Golan Heights, this occupied area of land is in the wider conflict between Syria and Israel but has not been subject to either Hezbollah rockets or Israeli reprisal attacks. The Golan area should not be shaded. 21:35, 18 July 2006 (GMT)

Also, Israel has bombed sights across Lebanon, including Tripoli in the North, not just Beirut and the South. 22:53 18 July 2006

The BBC map doesn't show all the far southern attack Hezbollah has made on Israel. They've reached 8km south of Haifa to the town of Atlit and east and South at Tiberius (Teverya) nad down into the Jezreel valley south of the Sea of Galilee. But it is true that there has been no reports of attacks in the Golan Heights area and nothing in the UN adminsitered area to the east of it. I've also hear reports of a few rockets getting as far south as Nazareth, but talk of drawing the line just north of the West Bank is far-fetched Njjones 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Collective Punishment

- Should there be mention in the article of claims by various persons and organizations that the airstrikes constitute collective punishment of the Lebanese civilian population for action by armed guerillas along the border? See http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/219430/1/.html where the Lebanese Prime Minister"..denounced Israel's "immoral collective punishment," on the fourth day of relentless air and sea attacks on the country that have left around 80 people dead and scores more injured. "What is happening goes beyond the alleged issue of a prisoners' exchange," he said, blaming Israel for the "economic and humanitarian catastrophe" inflicted on Lebanon and appealing for international help." and said "The government has declared openly that it was not informed and did not condone the capture operation." - - Also see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19israel.html where it says "The cold [casualty]figures, combined with Israeli air attacks on civilian infrastructure like power plants, electricity transformers, airports, bridges, highways and government buildings, have led to accusations by France and the presidency of the European Union, echoed by some nongovernmental organizations like Human Rights Watch, that Israel may be guilty of "disproportionate use of force" in Gaza and Lebanon and of "collective punishment" of the civilian population." Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said '"Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists.” Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.“When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.”' But the Christian population has not been known for hiding terorists and their missiles under their beds, yet they are equally punished by the destruction of essential infrastructure, or by bombing, as are residebnts of Beirut who are not in southern Lebanon. No bombs are smart enough to inspect for missiles under beds before detonating. This issue is not simply an anti-Israel code word. It would apply equally if the US had a border incident with drug smugglers attacking border guards and had to decide whether to bomb Mexico City, or if IRA terrorists struck London and the British cabinet had to decide whether to launch missiles against Ireland. It was an issue in World War 2, leading to its proscription in the Geneva Conventions.Edison 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) The above discussion was restored.Edison 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)