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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Israel obliterated southern Leb but couldn't stop the rocket attacks(much to their chagrin)so who won. What's the general conseses internationaly and within Leb and Israel?
I am really bothered by the title "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" First of all Israel did not fight Lebanon at all, it was all about Hezbola. The titel is just wrong and misleading. It should be changed!
Isn't there a rule about keeping a cool head? You should probably think about doing that, Erik. Also: "Israel's goal seemed to be to bomb the heck out of Southern Lebanon and make it uninhabitable for years." Don't say foolish things like that. It gets us nowhere. Read the article before you comment. Jeztah 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing Erik the Red 2. Please refrain from using personal attacks, whether or not you are talking to that person or just about them. Saying that Bush made some ridiculous comment and that he isn't a reliable resource was unneeded and failed to keep this project moving. Insults will not fix the problem. Ephant 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a more accurate title of this conflict be "Israel-Hezbollah Conflict 2006"? Since Lebanese military forces were not engaged nor was a declaration of war made by Israel to Lebanon, this isn't technically a war between Lebanon and Israel. Yes, Lebanonese civilians were killed but that does not in of itself define it as a war involving Lebanon. Yes, I realize this is a fine line but I thought I would offer these thoughts. Jtpaladin 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute over precisely how to word the mention of the Israeli Cabinet's decision of July 12, 2006, which now appears in the "Background" section as referenced from a CNN article. I m dude2002
On 12 July, the Israeli cabinet declared: "Hizbullah, a terrorist organization operating inside Lebanon, initiated and perpetrated today’s action; Israel will act against it in a manner required by its actions."
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet declared that "Hizbullah, a terrorist organization operating inside Lebanon, initiated and perpetrated today’s action; Israel will act against it in a manner required by its actions." They declared their view that the "Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil," and promised to "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action."
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet declared Hezbollah's attack to be "the product of those who perpetrate terrorism and those who give it shelter." They declared their view that the "Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil," identified Hezbollah as having "initiated and perpetrated today’s action," and promised to "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action."
CNN reported that the Israeli Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon, however the English translation of a communique put out by the cabinet itself only stated that Israel would "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action."
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would "respond aggressively and harshly" to the attack on its northern border.
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action".
Just from a fresh point of view, I like the second option the best. It does differentiate between Hezbollah (those who "carried out" the action) and Lebanon, (those who "are responsible for"). It presents what the cabinet said, and such, isn't POV. It's better than what stands, as it explains in more detail what was said, giving greater context. I don't like the second to last source as it is too vague. The last option is slightly better, but it still doesn't identify those responsible. As for using the CNN source, I don't think we need to. Not that it is unreliable, but that the communique itself is the ultimate source. Iorek85 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is a question of which statement is the vaguest and most neutral, the next to last one wins hands down. Big brother is always watching 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the goal is to choose which statement is the most accurate and neutral, not which is the most vague, and to decide which to replace the line in the current article with. With regards to vagueness, I still believe the statement we choose should be as vague as the communique itself – no more, no less. — George Saliba [ talk 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not very experienced with the process of RfC. I know this is not a vote. But since the RfC has been up for about a week, and there hasn't been much argument, does this mean that we ought to consider this as a concensus? The one major hinderance here is that, although there is a concensus that the CNN article should not be used as a source, there is disagreement as to which wording ought to be in the article. Of course, lorek85 seems to have left the dispute, and he was the only editor who disagreed with what would otherwise be a concensus. I m dude2002 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
To open this discussion back up, LimerickLimerickson and Big brother is always watching have been deemed to be sock puppets, and subsequently banned. As such, we should consider their contributions above to be those of I m dude2002. Unfortunately, this leaves Iorek85 as the only party not involved in the previous discussion to weigh in on this RfC so far. If any other editors have a chance, please review the suggestions above and voice your opionions. — George Saliba [ talk 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[1] How is it POV pushing to report what the source [2] actually says -- 1,489 physically injured; 2,920 mentally injured. I don't think injury numbers for military conflicts traditionally take into account people who have anxiety attacks, and it seem odd to want to gloss over the distinction when we have better data. -- Kendrick7 talk 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It is quite clearly POV-pushing, becuase you are not reporting what the source said, but rather selectively cherry-picking certain aspects of it. The source said, (as I quoted in my edit summary which reverted your change made with a misleading edit summary) "4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries". You omit that, and in an apparent attempt to minimize or downplay the Israeli civilian casualties, reduce the number to those "physically injured". This topic has been discussed extensively previously, and the consensus was to include the nummber of shock/anxiety/PTSD victims in the "injured" figures. Please don't renew this edit war to push a POV. If you must, you can provide the breakdown in the "casualties" subsection, but don't change the infobox. Isarig 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should provide the most specific data available. If there are breakdowns for Israelis but not Lebanese, then we should present all the data we have. Also, lumping all the Israeli injuries into on category makes the number of Israeli injured much higher than the number of Lebanese injured. I don't think this is accurate. The Lebanese numbers mostly likely contain few, if any, "mental injuries." Presenting Israeli numbers which include mental injuries with Lebanese numbers which do not is not misleading.-- Bkwillwm 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We also have the ability to provide context in the body of the article (the fact that we have no breakdown of Lebanese casualty figures) thus negating accusations of POV. As it stands, people could argue one was put there and not the other on purpose. And Italiavivi- be careful with your edit summary accusations. You need a consensus to add the information, not remove it. The text wasn't there before. You also don't have a consensus (in fact, I count about 2 for and 4 against). So please, how about leaving it out until we can come to a decision? Iorek85 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the very specific wording used by both Israel and Lebanon in reporting their casualties, there may be a different solution. Before everyone start tossing around accusations of POV-pushing, please hear me out. Israel uses the term "injured" when referring to the 4,262 civilians, but uses the term "wounded" when referring to the subset of those who were physically injured. [3] They specifically do not use the term wounded when referring to those who were mentally injured. Furthermore, from the article on wounds and the definition of wounded, it seems quite evident that wounded has a distinct physical connotation, while the article on injury and the definition of injured specifically includes both physical and mental injuries. Okay, this gives us some English definitions we can work with: "wounded" means physical, "injured" means physical or mental. Now, the Lebanon High Relief Council (the government group in charge of tallying these figures) also uses the term wounded [4] when referring to the 4,409 civilians who were injured. This indicates that this figure does not include mental injuries, as the term "wounded" would be inappropriate (since the use of wounded indicates physical injury). Therefore, my suggestion is that we change the Lebanon figure to 4,409 wounded and change the Israel figure to 1,489 wounded. I favor this for two reasons. First, it seems more neutral, as we would be listing physical injuries for both sides (in lieu of not having mental injury information on the Lebanese civilians). Second, it is still summarized, as an infobox should be, with the breakdown laid out later in the document. — George Saliba [ talk 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I could see, there is no obvious reason to think that this IP edit 16 hours after Isarig stopped editing here is him socking. Lets all take a deep breath. On a side note, its great that we are vetting the article, but going through it I noticed a lot of new citation requests. Pretty much every bit of information in here underwent scrutiny by a dozen discriminating editors, so there is a good chances that the sources are in the history. Another possibility is that the sources exist in the subarticles, in which case we probably shouldn't repeat them here, but rather focus our energy on maintaining the subs. In general, we should probably stay away from adding new information to this entry, and direct them to the subarticles as well. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a pity the page is getting so incestuous - there's only 4 or so regular, and 3 more occasional editors, so it's hard to get anything going. While I think you might be right, George, I have to say the wounded/injured rationale isn't watertight. It's an assumption. I tried to find more recent figures with a breakdown of Lebanese casualties (as that would solve the problem) but no luck. I couldn't find the Lebanese government page which listed casualties, which could help. But without this, I'm still at my original position - leave the total in the summary, and break it down in the body. I certainly think that if we have the information we should use it - but that doesn't mean we have to use it in the infobox. My second preference would be to leave the breakdown in the infobox. Iorek85 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"cluster munitions are not currently covered by any specific international legal instrument." From wikipedia's article on cluster bombs.
Yet on this article they are under "use of illegal weapons"
I really hope someone corrects this mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 ( talk) 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Other editors apparently disagreed with my revert of a series of anon edits to the 2006 Lebanon War, which I'd like to discuss:
I'm reverting these changes yet again. If people feel that certain of these changes belong, I'm entirely open to discussing them. — George Saliba [ talk 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wkilayerying with simple facts. Please don't. The article was much clearer and more accurate before your last revert. I suggest somweone would revert your changes. I don't want to get into an edit war over such nonsense such as removing of the word civilian (which is one word but critical enough) Zeq 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see these IP edits as constructive or factual, and don't want to see them in this entry. Tewfik Talk 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We finally achieved consensus on adding the statement "On July 12 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would 'respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action'" to the article. I would like to follow this up with an additional statement, citing the same source, stating "They declared their view that the 'Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil.'" I suspect, given the heated dispute over the first statement, that this may be controversial, so I'd like to discuss it here first. Do any editors feel that this statement is inaccurate, badly worded, or not neutral? Are there other suggestions on how to word this statement? — George Saliba [ talk 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted a version with a different wording, in part to test if there is consensus for it. — George Saliba [ talk 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We have already had a discussion over this issue which spanned a month and two weeks (and about 10 pages), and an RfC which was by far not a flash. The inclusion of this wording was proposed as part of that discussion. The compromise plan which included the current wording was adopted. This suggestion was part of various propositions which were thoroughly discussed. This addition was rejected as part of the terms for accepting the current wording. We had established consensus. I m dude2002 18:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The infobox indicates that the PFLP and LCP participated in the war, while there's no reference to this in the article. The PFLP-GC, on the other hand, did participate in the war, so I assume PFLP-GC was substituted with PFLP by mistake. If I'm correct and there's no objections, I'll drop the LCP and replace the PFLP with PFLP-GC.-- Doron 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I raised this issue in the past, and got no reference back then either. I'm removing the LCP flag and correcting PFLP to PFLP-GC. The infobox should reflect what's written in the article, so if information about LCP's participation is added to the article or a link is added, we can restore the infovox flag.-- Doron 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Doron 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This topic recently came up over at the Hezbollah article talk page, where consensus was formed around the term "capture" as being preferrable to the other two. I'd just like to paraphrase my reasoning here regarding why I favor the term "capture":
The word kidnap has a connotation of "child-stealing" literally, while abduct is often used when referring to the kidnapping of women (per Black's Law Dictionary), or alien abduction. Hezbollah is a large organization, and kidnap is more commonly used when the kidnapping party is an individual or small group (versus a government or political organization). They crossed an international border to do take the soldiers, in an open assault that included diversionary rocket attacks – that is to say, it was an apparent military maneuver. Most importantly, those who were taken were soldiers, not civilians. They would likely have been armed, and at some point they had to have been surrounded, or thrown down their weapons, or been caught offguard, which definitely sounds more like being captured than kidnapped to me.
The discussion there revolved more around which was more appropriate between capture and kidnap, though abduct was also mentioned. I know it's been discussed here before as well, with little resolution, but just thought I'd kick off the discussion with the last discussion on the subject I'm aware of. — George Saliba [ talk 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually initially introduced the term "abducted" in the hopes of coming up with a less POV word than either "captured" or "kidnapped". I'm still not sure that captured alone is POV (without any POV adverbs, etc.), and I'm worried that we might run into other POV discusssions with taken/took prisoner - were they prisoners, were they POWs, were they hostages, etc. I do agree that it would be great if we could find a single, very neutral statement. Out of curiosity, why do people find capture to be POV? Arguments about whether they are POWs or not aside, captured seems relatively NPOV to me as long as it isn't associated with weasel words - swiftly captured, valiantly captured, slyly captured, etc. See below for my more in depth thoughts on the matter. — George Saliba [talk] 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The word kidnap was decided on because Hezbollah used the term. Al Jazeera uses the term for what Hezbollah did in 2000: "In October 2000 Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers." [5] There seems to be no difference whether they are soldiers or not, as BBC uses a few terms, including kidnap. [6] [7] Hezbollah is also apparently not afraid to use the word "kidnap" in regards to what they did to the Israeli soldiers. [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 25 April 2007.
I haven't found the original Hezbollah statement, though I'm not sure if it's necessary. — George Saliba [ talk 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"Hezbollah said it captured the two Israeli soldiers... The group says it has captured the soldiers to secure the release of detainees held in Israeli prisons. 'Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine,' the Hezbollah statement said."
Excellent. I'd support the 'intent to capture' to make it clear it wasn't incidental, and then capture in the article. Iorek85 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any of the original statements yet. An interesting bit from Human Rights Watch, however: [9]
Was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful?
The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However, captured combatants must in all circumstances be treated humanely.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah has stated that the captured soldiers will be used to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both Common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime.
Interesting that they use the term "capture," they associate the term with Nasrallah, they identify the reason for the "capture" (the prison exchange – hence, the act wasn't incidental), and they state that the capture may have been illegal since it constitutes hostage taking (seeking to exchange prisoners). They also use the phrase "hostage-taking," which I prefer to "kidnapping" as it is accurate without implying the same "child-stealing" meaning. — George Saliba [ talk 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In a news broadcast today about the Israeli report on the war, the BBC said that Hezbollah had "captured" Israeli soldiers. Joeldl 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, the 800 is perfectly fine in the body of the article, but is misleading in the info box. Nowhere does the LA times estimate the death toll at 800; it clearly states 'at least 800 were killed', not that they estimate 800 were killed. Putting it in the info box gives this impression. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't. The estimates range from at least 800, not that they range from 800. If I were to say I had at least $100 in my bank account, that would be very different from having $200 in my bank account. I can't see the encarta reference, but if you can find the reliable sources who estimate the death toll at 800, then I'd be happy to put that in. Otherwise, the LA Times and IHT are just ranges, just like ours is. Iorek85 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Shamir, they aren't. "At least" is a weasel word for when you don't have the accurate figure. As George showed, the AP tally is 1,035, but it doesn't matter anyway. I left the encarta reference and figure (850) in because it explicitly states that estimates start at 850, which is all I was asking for. I'd still prefer if we had the source of this estimate, but it'll do for now. Iorek85 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, George. Primary over secondary sources. I'd feel much more comfortable reporting the person who said 850 (I've a sneaking suspicion it might be the early AP estimate) but I don't feel terribly strongly about this, so I'll leave 850 to give Shamir time to find the reliable source that states it. Iorek85 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I ran a search to find the missing article, and found that the 700,000 was sourced to UNHCR. While the further BBC chart only uses the government number (900,000), it seems that UNHCR still uses the 700,000 number, and as a total, not as the 'after 200,000 returned'. I'm not 100% sure, so you may want to dig deeper, but it seems that the number had basis. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I didn't see the "180,000" number. I suppose that means that BBC misread UNHCR in the the number they listed as sourced to it... (Lebanon displaced: 700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)) Tewfik Talk 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's getting rather long, 122kb at last count, and roughly 8,600 words. Any ideas for shortening it? The post conflict events section seems to be a little long. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see we're back to "injury" speculation in the infobox again, despite a strong consensus on using "wounded" figures from several of this page's editors. Italiavivi 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would favour either George's last version, or Kendrick's, since the current version (if I recall correctly) is based on George's shaky semantic analysis (no offence =D), and is thus the least attributable to our current sourcing. Tewfik Talk 06:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me, but some issues that should be looked at. In the interim, I'll put the article on hold.
Good luck! JRP 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Lol @ 'quite well cited' - there's 255 references - how many would be 'very well cited?' :). I'd like to address the image problem, though. We did have a neutral image of three separate (IIRC) pictures, a mix of free and fair use. Then Angr deleted it (he seems to be one of those people who goes around deleting fair use images) citing that it was replaceable, without taking into account the neutrality of the image. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the previous image. We'll either need to make a new one, or if someone has the old one, we can re-upload it. I agree with the post ceasefire sentiments, too. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Iorek85 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I summarised the post-ceasefire section and moved the detailed version to Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War. I left in the references (I might have removed one set for information not included), but for the sake of clarity (and yes, so that I have less to format) I would like to remove all of the superfluous citations, since they are all preserved on the "Timeline" page anyway. Let me know about that or any other corrections that need to be made. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, these brand new articles will give us some up to date information, and maybe help solve the problems regarding the naming, death tolls, injuries and the capture/kidnap/abduct debate. When I've finished my university essay, I'll take a more detailed look.
For example, the first article by the guardian calls it "war in Lebanon" (no caps), uses the word "capture" in relation to the hezbollah action, and says "more than 1,000 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed." Hooray for fresh sources!
In addition, where should the main topic of the articles go? Reviews of the conflict seems the obvious place, but Israeli response and post conflict events warrant a chance. Iorek85 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This reports one of Olmert's ministers has stepped down. (Also that 900 civilians, 1200 Lebanese in total, were killed.) Iorek85 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is cool. News sources have not shown a single decided figure, and the Australian article (which is notable) seems to be subtracting the amount that Hezbollah has acknowledged. What do you guys think about uploading the cover of the Winograd?
A side note: You guys have been pretty good about this, but I know there is still going to be some talkback anyway; try to concentrate more on the information you can gather from organization sources (i.e. AI, HRW), rather than what they have to say about it. This is not their discussion of the conflict. Once again, we have been pretty good about it anyway, but I wanted to make sure we dont run into much. -- Shamir1 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Israel obliterated southern Leb but couldn't stop the rocket attacks(much to their chagrin)so who won. What's the general conseses internationaly and within Leb and Israel?
I am really bothered by the title "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" First of all Israel did not fight Lebanon at all, it was all about Hezbola. The titel is just wrong and misleading. It should be changed!
Isn't there a rule about keeping a cool head? You should probably think about doing that, Erik. Also: "Israel's goal seemed to be to bomb the heck out of Southern Lebanon and make it uninhabitable for years." Don't say foolish things like that. It gets us nowhere. Read the article before you comment. Jeztah 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing Erik the Red 2. Please refrain from using personal attacks, whether or not you are talking to that person or just about them. Saying that Bush made some ridiculous comment and that he isn't a reliable resource was unneeded and failed to keep this project moving. Insults will not fix the problem. Ephant 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a more accurate title of this conflict be "Israel-Hezbollah Conflict 2006"? Since Lebanese military forces were not engaged nor was a declaration of war made by Israel to Lebanon, this isn't technically a war between Lebanon and Israel. Yes, Lebanonese civilians were killed but that does not in of itself define it as a war involving Lebanon. Yes, I realize this is a fine line but I thought I would offer these thoughts. Jtpaladin 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute over precisely how to word the mention of the Israeli Cabinet's decision of July 12, 2006, which now appears in the "Background" section as referenced from a CNN article. I m dude2002
On 12 July, the Israeli cabinet declared: "Hizbullah, a terrorist organization operating inside Lebanon, initiated and perpetrated today’s action; Israel will act against it in a manner required by its actions."
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet declared that "Hizbullah, a terrorist organization operating inside Lebanon, initiated and perpetrated today’s action; Israel will act against it in a manner required by its actions." They declared their view that the "Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil," and promised to "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action."
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet declared Hezbollah's attack to be "the product of those who perpetrate terrorism and those who give it shelter." They declared their view that the "Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil," identified Hezbollah as having "initiated and perpetrated today’s action," and promised to "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action."
CNN reported that the Israeli Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon, however the English translation of a communique put out by the cabinet itself only stated that Israel would "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action."
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would "respond aggressively and harshly" to the attack on its northern border.
On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action".
Just from a fresh point of view, I like the second option the best. It does differentiate between Hezbollah (those who "carried out" the action) and Lebanon, (those who "are responsible for"). It presents what the cabinet said, and such, isn't POV. It's better than what stands, as it explains in more detail what was said, giving greater context. I don't like the second to last source as it is too vague. The last option is slightly better, but it still doesn't identify those responsible. As for using the CNN source, I don't think we need to. Not that it is unreliable, but that the communique itself is the ultimate source. Iorek85 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is a question of which statement is the vaguest and most neutral, the next to last one wins hands down. Big brother is always watching 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the goal is to choose which statement is the most accurate and neutral, not which is the most vague, and to decide which to replace the line in the current article with. With regards to vagueness, I still believe the statement we choose should be as vague as the communique itself – no more, no less. — George Saliba [ talk 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not very experienced with the process of RfC. I know this is not a vote. But since the RfC has been up for about a week, and there hasn't been much argument, does this mean that we ought to consider this as a concensus? The one major hinderance here is that, although there is a concensus that the CNN article should not be used as a source, there is disagreement as to which wording ought to be in the article. Of course, lorek85 seems to have left the dispute, and he was the only editor who disagreed with what would otherwise be a concensus. I m dude2002 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
To open this discussion back up, LimerickLimerickson and Big brother is always watching have been deemed to be sock puppets, and subsequently banned. As such, we should consider their contributions above to be those of I m dude2002. Unfortunately, this leaves Iorek85 as the only party not involved in the previous discussion to weigh in on this RfC so far. If any other editors have a chance, please review the suggestions above and voice your opionions. — George Saliba [ talk 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[1] How is it POV pushing to report what the source [2] actually says -- 1,489 physically injured; 2,920 mentally injured. I don't think injury numbers for military conflicts traditionally take into account people who have anxiety attacks, and it seem odd to want to gloss over the distinction when we have better data. -- Kendrick7 talk 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It is quite clearly POV-pushing, becuase you are not reporting what the source said, but rather selectively cherry-picking certain aspects of it. The source said, (as I quoted in my edit summary which reverted your change made with a misleading edit summary) "4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries". You omit that, and in an apparent attempt to minimize or downplay the Israeli civilian casualties, reduce the number to those "physically injured". This topic has been discussed extensively previously, and the consensus was to include the nummber of shock/anxiety/PTSD victims in the "injured" figures. Please don't renew this edit war to push a POV. If you must, you can provide the breakdown in the "casualties" subsection, but don't change the infobox. Isarig 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should provide the most specific data available. If there are breakdowns for Israelis but not Lebanese, then we should present all the data we have. Also, lumping all the Israeli injuries into on category makes the number of Israeli injured much higher than the number of Lebanese injured. I don't think this is accurate. The Lebanese numbers mostly likely contain few, if any, "mental injuries." Presenting Israeli numbers which include mental injuries with Lebanese numbers which do not is not misleading.-- Bkwillwm 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We also have the ability to provide context in the body of the article (the fact that we have no breakdown of Lebanese casualty figures) thus negating accusations of POV. As it stands, people could argue one was put there and not the other on purpose. And Italiavivi- be careful with your edit summary accusations. You need a consensus to add the information, not remove it. The text wasn't there before. You also don't have a consensus (in fact, I count about 2 for and 4 against). So please, how about leaving it out until we can come to a decision? Iorek85 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the very specific wording used by both Israel and Lebanon in reporting their casualties, there may be a different solution. Before everyone start tossing around accusations of POV-pushing, please hear me out. Israel uses the term "injured" when referring to the 4,262 civilians, but uses the term "wounded" when referring to the subset of those who were physically injured. [3] They specifically do not use the term wounded when referring to those who were mentally injured. Furthermore, from the article on wounds and the definition of wounded, it seems quite evident that wounded has a distinct physical connotation, while the article on injury and the definition of injured specifically includes both physical and mental injuries. Okay, this gives us some English definitions we can work with: "wounded" means physical, "injured" means physical or mental. Now, the Lebanon High Relief Council (the government group in charge of tallying these figures) also uses the term wounded [4] when referring to the 4,409 civilians who were injured. This indicates that this figure does not include mental injuries, as the term "wounded" would be inappropriate (since the use of wounded indicates physical injury). Therefore, my suggestion is that we change the Lebanon figure to 4,409 wounded and change the Israel figure to 1,489 wounded. I favor this for two reasons. First, it seems more neutral, as we would be listing physical injuries for both sides (in lieu of not having mental injury information on the Lebanese civilians). Second, it is still summarized, as an infobox should be, with the breakdown laid out later in the document. — George Saliba [ talk 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I could see, there is no obvious reason to think that this IP edit 16 hours after Isarig stopped editing here is him socking. Lets all take a deep breath. On a side note, its great that we are vetting the article, but going through it I noticed a lot of new citation requests. Pretty much every bit of information in here underwent scrutiny by a dozen discriminating editors, so there is a good chances that the sources are in the history. Another possibility is that the sources exist in the subarticles, in which case we probably shouldn't repeat them here, but rather focus our energy on maintaining the subs. In general, we should probably stay away from adding new information to this entry, and direct them to the subarticles as well. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a pity the page is getting so incestuous - there's only 4 or so regular, and 3 more occasional editors, so it's hard to get anything going. While I think you might be right, George, I have to say the wounded/injured rationale isn't watertight. It's an assumption. I tried to find more recent figures with a breakdown of Lebanese casualties (as that would solve the problem) but no luck. I couldn't find the Lebanese government page which listed casualties, which could help. But without this, I'm still at my original position - leave the total in the summary, and break it down in the body. I certainly think that if we have the information we should use it - but that doesn't mean we have to use it in the infobox. My second preference would be to leave the breakdown in the infobox. Iorek85 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"cluster munitions are not currently covered by any specific international legal instrument." From wikipedia's article on cluster bombs.
Yet on this article they are under "use of illegal weapons"
I really hope someone corrects this mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 ( talk) 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Other editors apparently disagreed with my revert of a series of anon edits to the 2006 Lebanon War, which I'd like to discuss:
I'm reverting these changes yet again. If people feel that certain of these changes belong, I'm entirely open to discussing them. — George Saliba [ talk 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wkilayerying with simple facts. Please don't. The article was much clearer and more accurate before your last revert. I suggest somweone would revert your changes. I don't want to get into an edit war over such nonsense such as removing of the word civilian (which is one word but critical enough) Zeq 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see these IP edits as constructive or factual, and don't want to see them in this entry. Tewfik Talk 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We finally achieved consensus on adding the statement "On July 12 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would 'respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action'" to the article. I would like to follow this up with an additional statement, citing the same source, stating "They declared their view that the 'Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil.'" I suspect, given the heated dispute over the first statement, that this may be controversial, so I'd like to discuss it here first. Do any editors feel that this statement is inaccurate, badly worded, or not neutral? Are there other suggestions on how to word this statement? — George Saliba [ talk 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted a version with a different wording, in part to test if there is consensus for it. — George Saliba [ talk 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We have already had a discussion over this issue which spanned a month and two weeks (and about 10 pages), and an RfC which was by far not a flash. The inclusion of this wording was proposed as part of that discussion. The compromise plan which included the current wording was adopted. This suggestion was part of various propositions which were thoroughly discussed. This addition was rejected as part of the terms for accepting the current wording. We had established consensus. I m dude2002 18:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The infobox indicates that the PFLP and LCP participated in the war, while there's no reference to this in the article. The PFLP-GC, on the other hand, did participate in the war, so I assume PFLP-GC was substituted with PFLP by mistake. If I'm correct and there's no objections, I'll drop the LCP and replace the PFLP with PFLP-GC.-- Doron 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I raised this issue in the past, and got no reference back then either. I'm removing the LCP flag and correcting PFLP to PFLP-GC. The infobox should reflect what's written in the article, so if information about LCP's participation is added to the article or a link is added, we can restore the infovox flag.-- Doron 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Doron 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This topic recently came up over at the Hezbollah article talk page, where consensus was formed around the term "capture" as being preferrable to the other two. I'd just like to paraphrase my reasoning here regarding why I favor the term "capture":
The word kidnap has a connotation of "child-stealing" literally, while abduct is often used when referring to the kidnapping of women (per Black's Law Dictionary), or alien abduction. Hezbollah is a large organization, and kidnap is more commonly used when the kidnapping party is an individual or small group (versus a government or political organization). They crossed an international border to do take the soldiers, in an open assault that included diversionary rocket attacks – that is to say, it was an apparent military maneuver. Most importantly, those who were taken were soldiers, not civilians. They would likely have been armed, and at some point they had to have been surrounded, or thrown down their weapons, or been caught offguard, which definitely sounds more like being captured than kidnapped to me.
The discussion there revolved more around which was more appropriate between capture and kidnap, though abduct was also mentioned. I know it's been discussed here before as well, with little resolution, but just thought I'd kick off the discussion with the last discussion on the subject I'm aware of. — George Saliba [ talk 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually initially introduced the term "abducted" in the hopes of coming up with a less POV word than either "captured" or "kidnapped". I'm still not sure that captured alone is POV (without any POV adverbs, etc.), and I'm worried that we might run into other POV discusssions with taken/took prisoner - were they prisoners, were they POWs, were they hostages, etc. I do agree that it would be great if we could find a single, very neutral statement. Out of curiosity, why do people find capture to be POV? Arguments about whether they are POWs or not aside, captured seems relatively NPOV to me as long as it isn't associated with weasel words - swiftly captured, valiantly captured, slyly captured, etc. See below for my more in depth thoughts on the matter. — George Saliba [talk] 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The word kidnap was decided on because Hezbollah used the term. Al Jazeera uses the term for what Hezbollah did in 2000: "In October 2000 Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers." [5] There seems to be no difference whether they are soldiers or not, as BBC uses a few terms, including kidnap. [6] [7] Hezbollah is also apparently not afraid to use the word "kidnap" in regards to what they did to the Israeli soldiers. [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 25 April 2007.
I haven't found the original Hezbollah statement, though I'm not sure if it's necessary. — George Saliba [ talk 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"Hezbollah said it captured the two Israeli soldiers... The group says it has captured the soldiers to secure the release of detainees held in Israeli prisons. 'Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine,' the Hezbollah statement said."
Excellent. I'd support the 'intent to capture' to make it clear it wasn't incidental, and then capture in the article. Iorek85 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any of the original statements yet. An interesting bit from Human Rights Watch, however: [9]
Was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful?
The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However, captured combatants must in all circumstances be treated humanely.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah has stated that the captured soldiers will be used to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both Common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime.
Interesting that they use the term "capture," they associate the term with Nasrallah, they identify the reason for the "capture" (the prison exchange – hence, the act wasn't incidental), and they state that the capture may have been illegal since it constitutes hostage taking (seeking to exchange prisoners). They also use the phrase "hostage-taking," which I prefer to "kidnapping" as it is accurate without implying the same "child-stealing" meaning. — George Saliba [ talk 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In a news broadcast today about the Israeli report on the war, the BBC said that Hezbollah had "captured" Israeli soldiers. Joeldl 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, the 800 is perfectly fine in the body of the article, but is misleading in the info box. Nowhere does the LA times estimate the death toll at 800; it clearly states 'at least 800 were killed', not that they estimate 800 were killed. Putting it in the info box gives this impression. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't. The estimates range from at least 800, not that they range from 800. If I were to say I had at least $100 in my bank account, that would be very different from having $200 in my bank account. I can't see the encarta reference, but if you can find the reliable sources who estimate the death toll at 800, then I'd be happy to put that in. Otherwise, the LA Times and IHT are just ranges, just like ours is. Iorek85 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Shamir, they aren't. "At least" is a weasel word for when you don't have the accurate figure. As George showed, the AP tally is 1,035, but it doesn't matter anyway. I left the encarta reference and figure (850) in because it explicitly states that estimates start at 850, which is all I was asking for. I'd still prefer if we had the source of this estimate, but it'll do for now. Iorek85 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, George. Primary over secondary sources. I'd feel much more comfortable reporting the person who said 850 (I've a sneaking suspicion it might be the early AP estimate) but I don't feel terribly strongly about this, so I'll leave 850 to give Shamir time to find the reliable source that states it. Iorek85 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I ran a search to find the missing article, and found that the 700,000 was sourced to UNHCR. While the further BBC chart only uses the government number (900,000), it seems that UNHCR still uses the 700,000 number, and as a total, not as the 'after 200,000 returned'. I'm not 100% sure, so you may want to dig deeper, but it seems that the number had basis. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I didn't see the "180,000" number. I suppose that means that BBC misread UNHCR in the the number they listed as sourced to it... (Lebanon displaced: 700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)) Tewfik Talk 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's getting rather long, 122kb at last count, and roughly 8,600 words. Any ideas for shortening it? The post conflict events section seems to be a little long. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see we're back to "injury" speculation in the infobox again, despite a strong consensus on using "wounded" figures from several of this page's editors. Italiavivi 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would favour either George's last version, or Kendrick's, since the current version (if I recall correctly) is based on George's shaky semantic analysis (no offence =D), and is thus the least attributable to our current sourcing. Tewfik Talk 06:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me, but some issues that should be looked at. In the interim, I'll put the article on hold.
Good luck! JRP 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Lol @ 'quite well cited' - there's 255 references - how many would be 'very well cited?' :). I'd like to address the image problem, though. We did have a neutral image of three separate (IIRC) pictures, a mix of free and fair use. Then Angr deleted it (he seems to be one of those people who goes around deleting fair use images) citing that it was replaceable, without taking into account the neutrality of the image. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the previous image. We'll either need to make a new one, or if someone has the old one, we can re-upload it. I agree with the post ceasefire sentiments, too. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Iorek85 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I summarised the post-ceasefire section and moved the detailed version to Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War. I left in the references (I might have removed one set for information not included), but for the sake of clarity (and yes, so that I have less to format) I would like to remove all of the superfluous citations, since they are all preserved on the "Timeline" page anyway. Let me know about that or any other corrections that need to be made. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, these brand new articles will give us some up to date information, and maybe help solve the problems regarding the naming, death tolls, injuries and the capture/kidnap/abduct debate. When I've finished my university essay, I'll take a more detailed look.
For example, the first article by the guardian calls it "war in Lebanon" (no caps), uses the word "capture" in relation to the hezbollah action, and says "more than 1,000 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed." Hooray for fresh sources!
In addition, where should the main topic of the articles go? Reviews of the conflict seems the obvious place, but Israeli response and post conflict events warrant a chance. Iorek85 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This reports one of Olmert's ministers has stepped down. (Also that 900 civilians, 1200 Lebanese in total, were killed.) Iorek85 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is cool. News sources have not shown a single decided figure, and the Australian article (which is notable) seems to be subtracting the amount that Hezbollah has acknowledged. What do you guys think about uploading the cover of the Winograd?
A side note: You guys have been pretty good about this, but I know there is still going to be some talkback anyway; try to concentrate more on the information you can gather from organization sources (i.e. AI, HRW), rather than what they have to say about it. This is not their discussion of the conflict. Once again, we have been pretty good about it anyway, but I wanted to make sure we dont run into much. -- Shamir1 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)