![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
We should stop doing this in that way. There was a majority for renaming to war. Therefore we should brainstorm possible new names for this article. Requesting several moves won't lead to anything. Also it's actually not very helpful to change an already posted request during voting (requested move I). So far the following names have emerged during the discussion:
-- Attraho 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
These polls will close at 12noon on the 11th of August, UTC.
Voting for the header above
Tewfik is right, we are being completely unproductive. We have to devide this into too main branches one on "War v Conflict" and another on "Israel-Hezbollah v Israel-Lebanon v Israel-Leabonon-Hezbollah".
We are making asses out of ourselves by this childish display of pseudodemocratic anarchy, IMHO :D
-- Cerejota 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Tazmaniacs 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I vote for Israel-Hizbollah War of 2006. I have heard US President George Bush call this "conflict" a war. I have heard Israel's Prime Minister Olmert call this a war. I have also heard the Lebanoneese Prime Minister call this "conflict" many things including a war. I have heard militant leaders of Hizbollah, in Syria and in Iran call this a war. So why does Wikipedia still debate whether this is a war? The only question is Israel-Lebanon or Israel-Hizbollah?
When the dust settles, history will show that this war was started by an organization called Hizbollah. It may also be learned that while members of the Lebanon government was aware of the actions of Hizbollah in acquiring weapons from Syria and Iran, most did not want a shooting war with Israel. Also, history will also show that Hizbollah was used as a proxy by Iran and Syria who wanted the Israeli destruction of Lebanon to further its own aims. This may also just be one battle in a more global world war. But for now, this is a war between Hizbollah and Israel that is taking place in Lebanon and Israel.
I just took a look at World War II and noticed that the invasion of Poland was a section of that article. However, there was also an article titled "Polish September Campaign" and under a redirect of "Polish-German War of 1939". Something to ponder.
News article: (IsraelNN.com) Speaking to members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee in the Defense Ministry on Monday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz stated the current military situation “is a war, not a military operation.” Case closed. -- user:mnw2000 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As User:Mnw2000 has noted, the case is closed. Lebanon call it a war, Hezbollah call it a war, Olmert (Israeli Prime minister) calls it a war, Amir Peretz (Ministry of War) calls it a war. Wikipedia still doesn't call it a war. Now Wikipedia does follow media & will call it a war. If you disagree with this, please provide reference demonstrating people who don't call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
since nobody can get the name right, I am now proposing using the new dod terminology to classify the current events. -- Stephenzhu 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should include another link with the exact number of israeli military equipment losses.By my calculations the Israeli military has suffered since August 09:
HMMWV vehicles:2 destroyed
Merkava tanks:8 destroyed, 6 damaged
Armoured personnel carriers:1 destroyed
Apache helicopter gunships:3 lost
Battleships:1 damaged
Armored bulldozers:1 destroyed
What are your opinions?
Tewfik, I'm sorry, but if Lebanon claims 1 000 dead including 1/3 children, then the box can't just say 500 dead and bypass that. Tazmaniacs 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It doesn't bypass that, but rather gives range of reliable media estimates. I suggest you look at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC. Not that its completely relevant, but one of the reasons we do this is to prevent repeating a blunder that even PM Siniora made (40 casualties became 1). The news generally say what they can verify, but still preserve the context of the greater numbers. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(2nd Edit conflict):I agreed to 400 when it was the case. Whether and how we should include official Lebanese numbers should be discussed above, but we last decided not to include them in light of the lack of distinction of combatants and general lack of clarity surrounding their numbers. Cheers Tewfik Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying "we decided and that's it," but I am saying that what was decided shouldn't be ignored. Take part in the discussion, a case could be made for including the Lebanese position to some degree (though as it stands now, I oppose that =D). However totally replacing the sourced range isn't appropriate. See you there, Tewfik Talk 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"is no evidence that this is official Israeli policy, only action of WUJS" Really? [3] So when Director of ' Hasbara', Amir Gissin, aka Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promotes it hes working freelance? Check the article on Megaphone software or the email sent out by Gissin [4]. Quotes Gissin as saying: "Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc. We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters. Do it now. For Israel." Why is this now changed to make it appear like WUJS are the source of megaphone? 82.29.227.171 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The current formulation stating that the Times reported that Gissin made those comments, and assigning responsibility for the software to WUJS, is the best way to discuss this in an NPOV matter at the moment. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy.
— 82.29.227.171
That is WP:OR. -- Avi 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
the original beginning is like this,
According to Haaretz at 9:05 AM local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians[18].
it has a defective citing and also I think using the Haaretz alone cannot be considered npov (it probably just cite idf sources). same can be said of using lebanon newspapers/al manar.
I change it to npov vesion.
-- Stephenzhu 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If both Ha'aretz AND Al-Jazeerah call it cross border, I think it is no longer reasonable to consider still in dispute. -- Avi 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am only using a neutral sense here. I am not subscribing either version of the story yet. As I said, if AP and AFP explicitly repudiate their earlier reports and the Lebanon source repudiated it as well, we can consider it not in dispute. Al-Jazeerah doesn't really count since they don't have people witnessing the causing events. -- Stephenzhu 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
They don't need to explicitly repudiate, as they have not repeated the claims. And none of the agencies had people watching the event; as an extreme defining its limit, Al Jazeera is absolutely credible in this instance. Tewfik Talk 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are missing my point. The practice of medias like AP and AFP is that they will post a correction if the original report is wrong. You see that all the time. I am not saying the current Al Jazeera is not credible in general, only saying that they don't have the first person reporting on that event so the specific reporting on the causing event has no weight in this issue. It seems only two sources are relevent here, IDF and Lebanon/Hezballah sources. Everbody else gets their info from them.-- Stephenzhu 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
12th of July is not the "beginning of conflict." 12th of July is the beginning of the regime in Beirut to have a real world problem (with Hezbollah/Israel.) MX44 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
at this point nor the article Rafic Hariri International Airport nor this article provide a reason for bombing that airport. I know that this is a controversial topic but it could be done in an objective way by providing Hezbollah's and Olmert's explanation for instance.
Thanks.
Evilbu 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, well (but there is a lock now) that is something we could add. Evilbu 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Eye-wittnesses have said that it looked like some boored out IAF crew having a local competition between themselves? MX44 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Relating to this last edit, could you explain it here? Please adress important casualties problem above. See also discussions concerning term "war": everybody calls it a war, we should follow use. Please do not claim your POV is "consensus", it's a war, "consensus" is not the correct term to use when you revert 1 000 dead to 500 and change "war" by "conflict". Peace brother, Tazmaniacs 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This edit has nothing to do with the "war" issue; I only removed a redundant source due to space issues and changed the characterisation of "all" to a more encyclopedic and verifiable "most."
In terms of the "war" issue though, we should only make a change once the entire procedure finishes. This has nothing to do with POV - as can be evidenced by supporters for competeing titles on both sides of the spectrum. There's just no rush. When we change the page title, we should change the internal reference, but to call it war when the consensus has not arrived at it is pointless. I do hope you understand. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right that it matters a great deal, that is reflected in the ongoing discussion about the name. There aren't two separate discussions; if its a war, than it is one in both the title and the content, and if not, likewise. We don't call things by one name in their title and another in their body. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Another intresting article. this information needs to be added to ensure NPOV. It echoes Galloways information. -- Striver 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We have 2 edition for some part of lead:
I think the first one is more suitable.-- Accessible 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't propose to answer the question of whether it is or isn't proven, but "alleged" (implying they might not have done it) seems inconsistent with "initiated" (implying they did it).-- 82.69.133.230 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This part is removed frequently.:
"I tell the Lebanese that no one among you should be afraid of the victory of the resistance.. I assert that the victory will be for all of Lebanon, for every Arab, Muslim and honorable Christian, who stood with Lebanon and defended it." [11]
I think the reason should be written.-- Accessible 09:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Because we are trying to keep the article short. That section is a summary of the main article, where this information is (or if it isn't, should be) included already. July 25 was two weeks ago, and his comments are old, and also irrelivent - his actions speak for themselves. Details of his speeches are not needed in a summary. July 30 was over a week ago, and it is already mentioned that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets into Israel - the specfic number fired on one day is of no concern here. Please, remember this is a summary - and all of the main info in there (that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets on northern towns, and that they have reached quite far south) is already in the section. -- Iorek85 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Where should it be mentioned that the Israel's Security Cabinet approved the widing of the war? Israel Security Council OKs Wider Ground Offensive in Lebanon Red1530 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
BUTTTTTT Israel said it would widen the war if and only if diplomacy at the UN doesn't work. It's not an immediate green light to widen the war. -- 68.1.182.215 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This belongs in Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where you will find corroborating evidence on NSA sharing SIGINT with the IDF- check the Salon.com article cited there 82.29.227.171 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The merging of Hezbollah's ball-bearing use into a section with other critiques of Hezbollah while creating a section just for claims against Israeli cluster-bomb use creates a skewed presentation of facts, and minimises Hezbollah's problems while highlighting problems with Israel. This is especially true in this case where Human Rights Watch feels that the two issues are related and deals with both under one subheading. While I'm sure this wasn't the intent, the outcome is an extremely POV section. Please address, Tewfik Talk 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? Isn't it old Fadlallah? 89.1.208.97 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed the subsection Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields. i have put it back in.
Please explain why the criticisms of the allegations should not be present in the article. The allegations are disputed, so WP:NPOV means we have to present the arguments for and against. i don't understand how someone can remove this, unless s/he is attempting to present only one POV in this section.
Thanks. Boud 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove it, but I'm about to vastly shorten both sections. That section is a summary of the sub article, where the larger quotes and details can be found. The article is currently far too long. Iorek85 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote in the article that says not using human shields would be "like standing in an open field waiting to be shot" is absurd. Hezbollah could build bunkers, tunnels, etc., in which to hide, they don't need to hide behind women and children. That is, of course, not true if their real goal is to maximize Lebanese civilian casualties to try to elicit world sympathy and/or to excuse their own killing of Israeli civilians. StuRat 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
We should stop doing this in that way. There was a majority for renaming to war. Therefore we should brainstorm possible new names for this article. Requesting several moves won't lead to anything. Also it's actually not very helpful to change an already posted request during voting (requested move I). So far the following names have emerged during the discussion:
-- Attraho 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
These polls will close at 12noon on the 11th of August, UTC.
Voting for the header above
Tewfik is right, we are being completely unproductive. We have to devide this into too main branches one on "War v Conflict" and another on "Israel-Hezbollah v Israel-Lebanon v Israel-Leabonon-Hezbollah".
We are making asses out of ourselves by this childish display of pseudodemocratic anarchy, IMHO :D
-- Cerejota 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Tazmaniacs 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I vote for Israel-Hizbollah War of 2006. I have heard US President George Bush call this "conflict" a war. I have heard Israel's Prime Minister Olmert call this a war. I have also heard the Lebanoneese Prime Minister call this "conflict" many things including a war. I have heard militant leaders of Hizbollah, in Syria and in Iran call this a war. So why does Wikipedia still debate whether this is a war? The only question is Israel-Lebanon or Israel-Hizbollah?
When the dust settles, history will show that this war was started by an organization called Hizbollah. It may also be learned that while members of the Lebanon government was aware of the actions of Hizbollah in acquiring weapons from Syria and Iran, most did not want a shooting war with Israel. Also, history will also show that Hizbollah was used as a proxy by Iran and Syria who wanted the Israeli destruction of Lebanon to further its own aims. This may also just be one battle in a more global world war. But for now, this is a war between Hizbollah and Israel that is taking place in Lebanon and Israel.
I just took a look at World War II and noticed that the invasion of Poland was a section of that article. However, there was also an article titled "Polish September Campaign" and under a redirect of "Polish-German War of 1939". Something to ponder.
News article: (IsraelNN.com) Speaking to members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee in the Defense Ministry on Monday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz stated the current military situation “is a war, not a military operation.” Case closed. -- user:mnw2000 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As User:Mnw2000 has noted, the case is closed. Lebanon call it a war, Hezbollah call it a war, Olmert (Israeli Prime minister) calls it a war, Amir Peretz (Ministry of War) calls it a war. Wikipedia still doesn't call it a war. Now Wikipedia does follow media & will call it a war. If you disagree with this, please provide reference demonstrating people who don't call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
since nobody can get the name right, I am now proposing using the new dod terminology to classify the current events. -- Stephenzhu 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should include another link with the exact number of israeli military equipment losses.By my calculations the Israeli military has suffered since August 09:
HMMWV vehicles:2 destroyed
Merkava tanks:8 destroyed, 6 damaged
Armoured personnel carriers:1 destroyed
Apache helicopter gunships:3 lost
Battleships:1 damaged
Armored bulldozers:1 destroyed
What are your opinions?
Tewfik, I'm sorry, but if Lebanon claims 1 000 dead including 1/3 children, then the box can't just say 500 dead and bypass that. Tazmaniacs 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It doesn't bypass that, but rather gives range of reliable media estimates. I suggest you look at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC. Not that its completely relevant, but one of the reasons we do this is to prevent repeating a blunder that even PM Siniora made (40 casualties became 1). The news generally say what they can verify, but still preserve the context of the greater numbers. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(2nd Edit conflict):I agreed to 400 when it was the case. Whether and how we should include official Lebanese numbers should be discussed above, but we last decided not to include them in light of the lack of distinction of combatants and general lack of clarity surrounding their numbers. Cheers Tewfik Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying "we decided and that's it," but I am saying that what was decided shouldn't be ignored. Take part in the discussion, a case could be made for including the Lebanese position to some degree (though as it stands now, I oppose that =D). However totally replacing the sourced range isn't appropriate. See you there, Tewfik Talk 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"is no evidence that this is official Israeli policy, only action of WUJS" Really? [3] So when Director of ' Hasbara', Amir Gissin, aka Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promotes it hes working freelance? Check the article on Megaphone software or the email sent out by Gissin [4]. Quotes Gissin as saying: "Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc. We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters. Do it now. For Israel." Why is this now changed to make it appear like WUJS are the source of megaphone? 82.29.227.171 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The current formulation stating that the Times reported that Gissin made those comments, and assigning responsibility for the software to WUJS, is the best way to discuss this in an NPOV matter at the moment. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy.
— 82.29.227.171
That is WP:OR. -- Avi 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
the original beginning is like this,
According to Haaretz at 9:05 AM local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians[18].
it has a defective citing and also I think using the Haaretz alone cannot be considered npov (it probably just cite idf sources). same can be said of using lebanon newspapers/al manar.
I change it to npov vesion.
-- Stephenzhu 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If both Ha'aretz AND Al-Jazeerah call it cross border, I think it is no longer reasonable to consider still in dispute. -- Avi 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am only using a neutral sense here. I am not subscribing either version of the story yet. As I said, if AP and AFP explicitly repudiate their earlier reports and the Lebanon source repudiated it as well, we can consider it not in dispute. Al-Jazeerah doesn't really count since they don't have people witnessing the causing events. -- Stephenzhu 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
They don't need to explicitly repudiate, as they have not repeated the claims. And none of the agencies had people watching the event; as an extreme defining its limit, Al Jazeera is absolutely credible in this instance. Tewfik Talk 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are missing my point. The practice of medias like AP and AFP is that they will post a correction if the original report is wrong. You see that all the time. I am not saying the current Al Jazeera is not credible in general, only saying that they don't have the first person reporting on that event so the specific reporting on the causing event has no weight in this issue. It seems only two sources are relevent here, IDF and Lebanon/Hezballah sources. Everbody else gets their info from them.-- Stephenzhu 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
12th of July is not the "beginning of conflict." 12th of July is the beginning of the regime in Beirut to have a real world problem (with Hezbollah/Israel.) MX44 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
at this point nor the article Rafic Hariri International Airport nor this article provide a reason for bombing that airport. I know that this is a controversial topic but it could be done in an objective way by providing Hezbollah's and Olmert's explanation for instance.
Thanks.
Evilbu 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, well (but there is a lock now) that is something we could add. Evilbu 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Eye-wittnesses have said that it looked like some boored out IAF crew having a local competition between themselves? MX44 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Relating to this last edit, could you explain it here? Please adress important casualties problem above. See also discussions concerning term "war": everybody calls it a war, we should follow use. Please do not claim your POV is "consensus", it's a war, "consensus" is not the correct term to use when you revert 1 000 dead to 500 and change "war" by "conflict". Peace brother, Tazmaniacs 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This edit has nothing to do with the "war" issue; I only removed a redundant source due to space issues and changed the characterisation of "all" to a more encyclopedic and verifiable "most."
In terms of the "war" issue though, we should only make a change once the entire procedure finishes. This has nothing to do with POV - as can be evidenced by supporters for competeing titles on both sides of the spectrum. There's just no rush. When we change the page title, we should change the internal reference, but to call it war when the consensus has not arrived at it is pointless. I do hope you understand. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right that it matters a great deal, that is reflected in the ongoing discussion about the name. There aren't two separate discussions; if its a war, than it is one in both the title and the content, and if not, likewise. We don't call things by one name in their title and another in their body. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Another intresting article. this information needs to be added to ensure NPOV. It echoes Galloways information. -- Striver 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We have 2 edition for some part of lead:
I think the first one is more suitable.-- Accessible 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't propose to answer the question of whether it is or isn't proven, but "alleged" (implying they might not have done it) seems inconsistent with "initiated" (implying they did it).-- 82.69.133.230 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This part is removed frequently.:
"I tell the Lebanese that no one among you should be afraid of the victory of the resistance.. I assert that the victory will be for all of Lebanon, for every Arab, Muslim and honorable Christian, who stood with Lebanon and defended it." [11]
I think the reason should be written.-- Accessible 09:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Because we are trying to keep the article short. That section is a summary of the main article, where this information is (or if it isn't, should be) included already. July 25 was two weeks ago, and his comments are old, and also irrelivent - his actions speak for themselves. Details of his speeches are not needed in a summary. July 30 was over a week ago, and it is already mentioned that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets into Israel - the specfic number fired on one day is of no concern here. Please, remember this is a summary - and all of the main info in there (that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets on northern towns, and that they have reached quite far south) is already in the section. -- Iorek85 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Where should it be mentioned that the Israel's Security Cabinet approved the widing of the war? Israel Security Council OKs Wider Ground Offensive in Lebanon Red1530 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
BUTTTTTT Israel said it would widen the war if and only if diplomacy at the UN doesn't work. It's not an immediate green light to widen the war. -- 68.1.182.215 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This belongs in Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where you will find corroborating evidence on NSA sharing SIGINT with the IDF- check the Salon.com article cited there 82.29.227.171 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The merging of Hezbollah's ball-bearing use into a section with other critiques of Hezbollah while creating a section just for claims against Israeli cluster-bomb use creates a skewed presentation of facts, and minimises Hezbollah's problems while highlighting problems with Israel. This is especially true in this case where Human Rights Watch feels that the two issues are related and deals with both under one subheading. While I'm sure this wasn't the intent, the outcome is an extremely POV section. Please address, Tewfik Talk 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? Isn't it old Fadlallah? 89.1.208.97 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed the subsection Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields. i have put it back in.
Please explain why the criticisms of the allegations should not be present in the article. The allegations are disputed, so WP:NPOV means we have to present the arguments for and against. i don't understand how someone can remove this, unless s/he is attempting to present only one POV in this section.
Thanks. Boud 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove it, but I'm about to vastly shorten both sections. That section is a summary of the sub article, where the larger quotes and details can be found. The article is currently far too long. Iorek85 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote in the article that says not using human shields would be "like standing in an open field waiting to be shot" is absurd. Hezbollah could build bunkers, tunnels, etc., in which to hide, they don't need to hide behind women and children. That is, of course, not true if their real goal is to maximize Lebanese civilian casualties to try to elicit world sympathy and/or to excuse their own killing of Israeli civilians. StuRat 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)