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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 |
An image used in this article,
File:Hezbollah flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
It currently says in the lead and infobox that the war took place in Lebanon, Israel and Israeli-occupied territories. But the only part of the IOT that the war took place is in the Golan heights. So there is no need to say "Israeli-occupied territories" which also includes West Bank and Gaza Strip where the war didn't take place, so we should be more specific and only say GH. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Funny how all images of destruction in Lebanon suddenly disappeared! Seems I'll have to add them back, current article looks extremely biased. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why do images keep disappearing? I need to access this site to cover this for a Political Science class at a high school ever semester and because the firewall blocks most sites I rely on Wiki for my students if they want to refer to what we spoke about in class or view "safe" image content. How can images be disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.111.163 ( talk) 04:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
What about victory estimates by objective analysts? The victory claim makes it appear that if a person thinks Hezbollah won they are on the side of Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. If a person thinks Israel won they are on the side of the United States and Israel. And the United States is being included with Israel when there are differing opinions in the United States. There are even differing opinions in Israel.
I call it a draw. With a slight edge to Hezbollah given that they performed better than expected, and the impact that their tactical skills and rocket force now has on the psychology of their opponents. In terms of casualties and damage Hezbollah lost, but that is more tactical rather than a long term strategic effect. Azeh ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this is flawed. The article lists multiple IDF officials that thought the war was a loss (some of them very prominent). Why are their opinions not listed in the "results" section?
Qogir ( talk) 13:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever Israel's intentions were, they failed to take over any part of Lebanon let alone kill a enough soldiers to be awarded a victory.Besides, who knows what the actual figures are?-- 84.13.173.159 ( talk) 21:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to offer my own opinion on victory, but the phrasing is absolutely awful. It sets up a dichotomy that leaves out so many important opinions. It is rather ludicrous to suggest that only supporters of Hezbollah saw them as the victors (as the wording suggests). Is the Economist pro-Hezbollah? No, clearly not. It is also inaccurate to claim that "Israel" viewed their performance as a victory, when the Winograd Commission said otherwise. At the very least, the "victory" section should be expanded to include all those who felt the war was indecisive (Winograd) or an Israeli failure (several Israeli failures). I would like to discuss it here before taking any action.
Qogir ( talk) 8:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Qogir ( talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 18:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Qogir ( talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
are you kidding me in accordance with un resolution?! no. it was in accordance of israel freeing hundreds of murderers, and thats a fact because i dont really know what else to call people who stabbed others to death. this is so bias, and so anti-israel. this has to be revised, and i propose mentioning how israel had to give up convicted felons to bring those two soldiers home, along with the mention that what hezzbollah did was against international law. than if you want you can state their was also a un resolution condemning the act, but it is incorrect to state that hezbollah, a terrorist organization, listened ly good children to the un.-- 129.98.209.203 ( talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't refer to Hezbollah as good children whatsoever and if you read the wiki on the exchange many think it is biased "pro-israel". At any rate your proposal for edit seems very biased and not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.111.163 ( talk) 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone cite any reference or source for the claim made in the infobox that "Israeli military victory according to Israel, the United States, European Union, and Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah." Now I everyone knows Israel declared victory and US decalred it was an Israeli victory, and that anti-Hezbollah parties say Hezbollah lost the war. But has the European Union ever declared Israel won this war? I don't think this true at all. Kermanshahi ( talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the sources given for this claim [1] [2] or [3] mentions anything about the European Union claiming Israeli military victory. So where does this claim come from? Kermanshahi ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this source, that claims that "about 15 Merkava tanks" were destroyed ( mission kill) in a battle in al-Hujeir valley near Litani River in late July. I cannot find any reference to these events in any of the related articles ( Military operations, Timeline).
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Kidnapping is a criminal offense and here we are discussing an armed conflict. Clearly using this term in this context is violating neutral language. The argument that Hezbollah forces are not part of the Lebanese army is arguable and beside the point.
Anyway Olmert said at the time: "The murderous attack that took place this morning,...is not a terrorist act. It is a military act by a country, Lebanon, against the State of Israel, on its sovereign territory. The Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the results of its actions."
Lebanese President Emil Lahoud: "Hezbollah is the national resistance force, which complements the power of the Lebanese Army"
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora: "The Lebanese resistance is a faithful and natural expression of the right of the Lebanese people to defend its land and its honor in light of Israeli belligerence, threats and aspirations"
Former Lebanese defense minister Abdul Rahim Mourad: "Considering Lebanon's meager resources, reinforcing the resistance is the desirable method for reinforcing the country's military strength"
Lebanese Chief of Staff Michel Suleiman: "Reinforcing the resistance is one of the central principles of the Lebanese military doctrine"
All quotations from: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pows-or-illegal-combatants-1.216710
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Clearly "kidnapping" is not a neutral term, and either way it is an incorrect term as and such terms are not used in military conflicts where both parties are active duty armed members of opposing forces. Dictionary says Capture = to take by force or stratagem; take prisoner; seize. Kidnapping on the other hand is a criminal act which overwhelmingly involves non combatants and demands of ransom Gangamstyle ( talk) 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The article should not state that the two soldiers were dead or mortally wounded in the initial attack. The national-religious and settler-affiliated Arutz 7 is not a reliable source. If its claim is true this info must be found in more reliable mainstream media. The fate of the two soldiers was not known at the time. Quite the contrary if was generally assumed in Israel that they were alive. The claim is still questionable. Lebanese sources claim that they were killed much later by an Israeli air strike. Anyway Israel's bombardment of the air port cannot be justified if the soldiers were already dead. Shimon Peres assurances to the families that both were "alive and well" also appear cynical. Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 20:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any serious source supporting the claim that the 2006 war was an “Israeli military victory according to Israel, the United States and Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah.”
People making this claim consist of little more than a lunatic fringe in the real world. Unfortunately it still seems to be a dominant trend inside Wikipedia. No serious source would describe the war as a “military victory” for Israel and in fact none of the supplied sources does make this claim. At most they claim that in spite of the IDF military failures, the war also produced some positive outcome for Israel, such as the reinforcement of UNIFIL, which Israel initially opposed. It changed position only after being unable to defeat Hizbullah in the battle field.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-backs-down-unifil-stays-1.194495
IDF was decisively defeated in Battle of Bint Jbeil and Battle of Ayta ash-Shab as well as in the final Operation Change of Direction 11. Apparently all those responsible for the war agree that the IDF failure to win the early ground battles were the root cause of Israel’s failure in the war:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3398316,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3291214,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=156140
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/worse-than-the-partial-report-1.238380
The Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee findings from its investigation into the conduct of the 2006 Second Lebanon War:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/excerpts-from-knesset-panel-findings-on-second-lebanon-war-1.236261
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3383151,00.html
Similarly “the United States” did not consider the war as an “Israeli military victory”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11722375
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040502235.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3354734,00.html
Special:Contributions/EzA+lSeb Nnakari has also violated the 1RR rule. Unless he self-revert I will report him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_Lebanon_War&diff=525919062&oldid=525915106
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_Lebanon_War&diff=525934217&oldid=525929046
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 12:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No decisive battles, no clear winners, no clear losers.... massive IO victory [for Hezbollah].
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 17 (
help)
Italic text===Intended use from Template:Infobox military conflict===
*result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Therefore, parameter should read "Inconclusive" or should read " See: Reviews of the conflict" ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
David Hirst's book Beware of small states is attributed as the source for this paragraph:
According to Israel, the strikes focused on Hezbollah bases, command centers, rocket launching positions, long-range rocket stockpiles, arms storages, vehicles, and Lebanese military bases, which were often hidden inside civilian areas. The strikes caused significant casualties among Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army, and destroyed most of Hezbollah's long-range missiles on the ground, along with a portion of its unguided short-range rockets. The Israelis launched several successful commando operations throughout the war, which inflicted significant losses on Hezbollah, and resulted in the capture of military equipment. The IDF's main ground attacks focused on Hezbollah-occupied areas in South Lebanon, and engagements often took place in urban areas. During clashes, Hezbollah losses were greater than those of the Israelis.
I can't find any of these numerous claims in Hirst's book. Those who insist on keeping the paragraph should supply the page number. Or, preferable, supply more adequate sources. I don't see why we need David Hirst as a witness on what "Israel" claims. Israel is not a monolith that can make claims like those above. Attribution to such claims should be more specific, such as Olmert, the IDF, the Winograd commission, etc.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently added the civilian casualty figures for the conflict citing Daniel Rothbart 2011. Rothbart is a professor of conflict analysis at George Mason University, the cited work was published by University of Michigan Press. I regard this to be a "gold standard" source for the information in question. The reasons for my edit, as explained in the summary, were twofold: First the previous sources were largely journalism, which may be appropriate for current events, but as time passes and the event is discussed by academics scholars published by academic presses we should update the article (for source guidelines for history articles see WP:HISTRS). Secondly combatant casualties are already covered in the table, so a source that specifies civilians (such as Rothbart) is more suitable for use here.
Editor Stumink deleted the academic source and replaced it with four lower quality sources:-
Sturmik also makes a claim in his edit summary "The source you added takes it's casualty estimate directly from amnesty international", which is not true. The source cites (Amnesty 2007) for the Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure, not the casualty figures. Dlv999 ( talk) 10:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The sources I added are reliable and should stay. Lebanon - Amnesty International Report 2007 states 1,191 people were killed in total and nearly all figures for this war seem to originate or just cite the Lebanese government. The vast majority of sources give similar figure for all Lebanese dead too. Your source is not higher quality regarding civilian casualties considering it cites amnesty international for it's casualties which says the figure is for all Lebanese and AI cite the government as well. Regarding attribution all the sources I added and the one you added originate from the Lebanese authorities and your source's figure is not even different from mine considering they source amnesty and they are either being dishonest or it is an over site by not mentioning that the figure includes all Lebanese deaths. Stumink ( talk) 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
On page 13 of your source it states "1,183 fatalities, one third of them children, and 4,054 injuries (Amnesty International 2007)." and it also says on page 76, "Amnesty International (2007) confirmed 1,183 fatalities". They are citing amnesty international. You are referring to page 92, where it does not clearly give a reference for fatalities. The vast majority of sources say around 1,200 total deaths including the four I added and the four you deleted. These figures are all in line with the Lebanese government figure and some including AI cite the Lebanese government as there source. Stumink ( talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
They may say the overwhelming majority of them civilians' that but they do not give a specific number and they use Lebanese government statistics who themselves say that about 500 of the 1,200 killed were Hezbollah, so maybe AI and HRW are being biased or over the top when they say vast majority. AI and HRW claims should still not be treated as fact. These casualty figures are not fact, just the most reliable estimates. AI's figures are straight from the Lebanese government and HRW's might be. Regarding your proposal to say "overwhelming majority civilian". This would be incorrect because reliable estimates for combatant deaths range from 500-800 so even with the with low estimate it would be pushing to say vast majority. I added a note stating that it was widely reported that most of the dead were civilians. Stumink ( talk) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can re add your academic source even though it wrongly cites AI but you have no justification to remove my sources. They are more reliable on the Lebanon war for casualties considering your source cites them. What is wrong with the note I added. There is no need to say the vast majority are civilians because we have a total figure and numerous combatant figures which contradict. Let the reader decide whose combatant figure they beleive. You full well know your sources figure should include combatants because they cite AI. Why would you only have your source even when you just previously agreed to have my sources which claim well under your source. The problem with saying the vast majority, is that this term is ill defined considering at least 500 of the 1,200 were combatants. I never said my sources were unreliable, all I said is that they were not fact and considering they all have slightly different figures, this is a given. They can't all be fact. That is why you have a range of estimates. Not one definitive figure. If AI is unreliable for casualty figures then so is your source becuase your source's figure is AI. I have compromised by adding a note which clarifies that most say the majority were civilians. A range of sources for casualty estimates is better. Stumink ( talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's good as it is and if the quotes are removed, you could add a note at the bottom of the info box instaed. Anyway AI, HRW and the Lebanese gov figures should stay and they don't differentiate, so having there total estimates is fine. If AI and HRW really believe 1,000 civilians were killed, they would also believe that under 200 Hezbollah fighters were killed which is far below the UN and the Lebanon government's estimates and even below Hezbollah's own claim. The 1,000-1,200 figure is not really compatible with AI and HRW figures. Who knows exactly what they mean by overwhelming and the 1,200 civilian figure is even higher than there total figure. There are also plenty of reliable estimates which use the 1,200 figure as a total figure as well. Stumink ( talk) 21:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That material is the only info on Lebanese civilians killed in the infobox. The Israeli dead is broken out, but for some reason an editor insists on not including in the counts provided the estimates on civilian deaths. Can somebody explain to me why we should explicitly give counts for Israeli civilian casualties but not any estimates for Lebanese civilians? nableezy - 04:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I was arguing against replacing the total estimate with just a civilian count, but having both is fine. Stumink ( talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
This image was removed because it is supposedly "Propaganda with founded source not linked with image". [4] The source proves that the events that the image depicts took place, and is sufficient for the inclusion of the image. Furthermore, calling an image contributed to our encyclopedia "propaganda" is a gross assumption of bad faith and is utterly unacceptable. The image must be restored to the article. Rami R 07:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not consider American talk shows, however entertaining, as Reliable Sources for a Wikipedia article on the Lebanon war. Not even if such a talk show had been factually correct in its premises, which it wasn't in this case.
The IDF certainly did not succeed in creating a 29 kilometre buffer zone in south Lebanon in 2006, as claimed by the Young Turks. Apart from the 4,5 hour night time raid on Baalbek no IDF force ever reached 29 km into Lebanon during the entire war. But Hizbullah managed to beat back repeated Israeli attempts to conquer the towns of Ayta ash-Shab and Bint Jbeil, only 1 km and 3 km from the Israeli border.
I have rewritten the section. The previous version gave undue emphasis to less reliable sources (such as anonymous sources talking to the Telegraph, never confirmed by any other source). It also had a highly misleading time-line. Such as starting with the Hizbullah estimate of 250 dead (made in December), then quoting sources from August, questioning Hizbullah numbers (which were then understood to be 70). Also I don't think we should give much weight to sources that didn't carry out own investigations and only relied on inflated Israeli numbers released during the war, which Israel later backed down from.
I think we can safely assume that the true number was somewhere between the estimate of Hizbullah (250) and IDF (600). HRW carried out a proper investigation (completely ignored by the previous version) and concluded the number to have been 250 combatants. I also added some other neglected sources, such as Yedioth Ahronoth pointing out that the main reason why Lebanese and Israeli sources differed was because Israel included civilian members of HA while Lebanon only included combatants.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I am reverting recent disruptive edits made by Avaya1 ( talk) on this and several other Wikipedia articles.
Avaya1 made 5 massive changes in 7 minutes to 2006 Lebanon War, then spent 2 minutes making changes on Operation Change of Direction 11, 1 minute on Battle of Bint Jbeil and a further 2 minutes on Battle of Ayta ash-Shab.
The changes were whole-sale deletions of all the additions made after a particular date, selected for unclear reasons. Some of the changes he deleted had been agreed upon by other editors in talk page discussions. A lot of well-sourced material has been deleted. In the case of Battle of Bint Jbeil meticulously added references has been deleted and replaced with citation needed. None of the changes were explained in summaries or in talkpages. Avaya1 has previously made intermittent contributions to 2006 Lebanon War but has not previously been involved in the editing of the other articles.
Any well-sourced addition to this article is welcome as are deletions if they are clearly explained in the talkpage. I return the page to where it was before Avaya1's deletions.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 21:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Avaya1 deleted the total number of IDF wounded (1,244), as supplied by Winograd commission, and only a partial list (628) from Northern Command medical census was retained. In addition, all nine references in the box to the number of killed Lebanese civilians were deleted, as was both references to the wounded Lebanese civilians. This, is spite of this subject having been discussed at length in the talk page.
Israel’s official estimate (by Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin) of 600 HA war dead (from an AP article) was deleted and replaced by Cordesman’s reference to 600-800. I do consider Cordesman a reliable source, but I fail see what he can add to this subject. The only source he gives for his numbers (600-800) is the very same AP article that Avaya1 had deleted in the first place (see Cordesman’s footnote 9). And the original source is very clear: “Israel initially said 800 Hezbollah fighters died but later lowered that estimate to 600.” I see no reason use the higher figure. But Cordesman was not only concerned with the determination of the actual number of killed but also with a discussion of reliability of Israeli wartime pronouncements.
Avaya1 also deleted the paragraph of US Military analyst Mathews and Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (Haaretz) expressing doubts wrt Israel official number of HA dead. He also deleted the paragraph on the Yedioth Achronoth’s claim that Israel casualty numbers included civilian HA members and not only combatants, and that this explains most of the discrepancy between Israeli and Lebanese numbers.
Avaya1 completely deleted all references to the only attempt made by an independent body to investigate the number and status of Lebanese war dead that I am aware of: The Human Rights Watch, which estimated that 250 HA were killed in the war.
Avaya1 also reintroduced the false timeline discussed above in this talkpage: Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#Killed_Hizbullah_combatants
I had myself tried to make the section more balanced. More than 2/3 of the section consisted of conservative pro-Israeli sources that put too much credence on exaggerated early Israeli claims, claims that Israel itself later backed away from. I did not delete these sources but I reduced the - in my mind undue - emphasis on the two Telegraph’s articles giving numbers of HA dead (both 500) since they were both unconfirmed and had anonymous sources (unnamed “Lebanese officials” and a ”UN official”). The Telegraph in general and Con Coughlin are certainly not famous (as Avaya1 seems to think) for their trustworthyness on these issues. On the contrary. Check the Wikipedia article on Couglin for details or this article from the [ British Journalism Review]. He seems to have specialized in providing messenger services for Intelligence leaks.
I had deleted the reference to Professor Keegan, who wrote that “perhaps as many as 1,000 killed”. Yes, perhaps so. But Keegan didn’t carry out any independent investigations and did not supply any sources fort his speculation. (I did however keep the quote from Keegan in the Review section.)
Avaya1 also reintroduced as a key source one to me completely unknown person called Ben Moores, who is or was writing for what appears to be a rather anonymous blog called defense-aerospace.com. Neither of them is found on Wikipedia. When I google “Defense analyst Ben Moores" I come up with 28 hits, all of them spin-offs from this very Wikipedia article.
I reduced the coverage of supposedly Dead Iranians since I doubted the reliability of the sources, NY Sun and WND. The character of WorldNetDaily can be contemplated in its Wikipedia-article. Not what I would consider Reliable Source. The fact that Israeli daily Yedioth decided to republish this article as an op-ed does not change this fact.
I checked more reliable sources on the Lebanon war for confirmation that the IDF had killed members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the war: Cordesman, Exum, Farquhar, Harel & Issacharoff, Kober, Mathews, Rapaport, Arkin, Biddle & Friedman and Eiland, and a few others. They all discuss Iranian support for HA (political, financial, training, equipment, weapons, etc.) in some detail. But none of them mentions that Iranians fighting and dying in the war.
I don't deny that I may have made some mistakes in my edits. I do believe there is plenty room for improvements. Avaya1:s edits, however, has been an giant step in the wrong way.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The section Casualties and losses in the infobox is excessive. I propose to leave the details in the related section of the article and only mention lowest and highest estimates in the infobox. The infobox can have a reference-link to the article. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we cut out the entire section 2006_Lebanon_War#Timeline_of_the_conflict and dump it in the talk page of one of the many remaining timeline articles of this war. Any interested editor could then scavenge these data for any useful bits of information. My rough estimate is that a quarter of the “facts” presented in these articles is totally faked and have never had any credible source in the real world. Another quarter of the links are dead and are not retrievable. A further quarter do have actual or retrievable links but the facts they present are disproved or at least not confirmed by subsequently published more reliable information. Thus only a quarter of the material is usable. At the same time most of the most important events are not covered at all or only in a very partial way. Apart from the timeline in the mother article: 2006_Lebanon_War#Timeline_of_the_conflict We also have these timeline articles:
Then we have this one:
Finally we have this one (which is little more than a timeline):
I believe that a timeline was mostly useful as the events unfolded in the summer of 2006. In the end we could merge and improve these articles but this takes a lot of work even if we assume that the work will not be systematically sabotaged by user:AndresHerutJaim and his likeminded friends. Sooner or later I think we should consider deleting them all. In the meantime I don’t think that the mother article on the war should have links to any of these clearly substandard articles.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 19:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a paragraph about 720 Somalis travelling to Lebanon to fight alongside Hizbullah. 2006_Lebanon_War#Hezbollah_action The organizer is said to have been Aden Hashi Farah, the future founder of the al-Shabaab movement. Why would an Sunni Salafist al-Qaeda militant from Somalia fight side by side with Hizbullah? As if he didn't have more pressing problems at home. And why would Shiite Hizbullah agree to such support? And how was it possible for 720 Somalis to sneak out of Somalia, travel the seas and sneak into Lebanon without anybody seeing or suspecting anything. Not the Israelis and not the Lebanese. Or anybody else.
The story is so silly. Nobody believes it. It is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia.
Will anybody object if I just delete it?
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hezbollah Claim is only 38 causalities There is the Source from Official Hezbollah News Agency http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/catpage.php?frid=46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.237.102 ( talk) 07:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the only official claim from Hezbollah http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/catpage.php?frid=46 Come from only official No exist place when said Hezbollah said they lost 250, so you talk about "Hezbollah Claim" who no exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.218.162 ( talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a Interview with one from the Soldiers who was captured by HA and was released http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the video from the captured of these IDF soldiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo and this news agency from Israel is a interview by one of two soldiers who were captured alive by HA inside the Military vehicle http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The interview from this Soldier in 2012 http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel is the same person who got the attack by HA in the video attack from 2006 on border, I think the confusion is from 4 guys inside the military vehicle - 2 soldiers got killed but 2 were captured and at least one was released HA Just take the bodies from others two.
The Report from Israel TV News Said "One of the soldiers who survived the attack and Wash The video" He mean this video( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo )
It's not enough evidence at least one from the two was released ?
I'm not 100% sure anyway I just provide you the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The infobox currently reads "Several hundreds" for Hezbollah Strength. Seems dubious, also considering previously the article mentioned thousands. The references are a random unnotable news article that doesn't say much anyway, and a book that's inaccessible online. Anyone has better references or info? 217.132.221.42 ( talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Wlglunight93: Again, you repeat this behaviour. I have asked you before to discuss first instead of multiple rapid-fire edits without regard to 1RR. Please revert your edit and discuss here first to find an acceptable solution. This disregard for process is very annoying. Your dislike of some source does not make it automatically not WP:RS. It always depends on context. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Jonathan Cook, the Winograd Committee leaked a testimony from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggesting that Olmert "had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hezbullah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006."
I'd prefer to avoid an edit war, so I suggest any changes in the infobox should pass the discussion page before being made. For example, IP's keep adding "Israeli invasion repulsed" although the article explicitly states otherwise (the IDF withdrew following the ceasefire). I suggest we stick to the pre-edit war version:
Is this something we can agree upon? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a dangerours POV in the Infobox data regarding Israeli Losses, I am Citing all the sources and enumerating details. I dont like the Heavily BIASED edits made by a User i dont remember his name. Whatever. This entry is just to record what i have found. Mr.User200 ( talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's remove all so-called "supporters" from the infobox. This was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, and if we are to include everyone who somehow contributed to the war, we would have dozens of small militias on the Lebanese side. Let's keep it simple and correct. Anyone agree/disagree? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made some radical changes to the info box. I removed a lot of crap and simplified it. For example, there is no reason to include initial official Israeli estimates of Hizbullah casualties of 800 if Israel subsequently revised it to 600. Maybe it shouldn't be in the article even? Also I threw out all the "supporters" of Hizbullah. (I would prefer to throw out Iran and USA as well.) They are simply not important enough to be mentioned in the box. And I condensed the information generally. Please let me know what you think of my changes. And please don't just revert the whole thing, without discussing it. Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please state any objections to "Proclaimed Strategic victory by Hezbollah" here.
Sourced by: <ref name=CNN_800/><ref name="theguardian20k"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/news/hizbullah-declares-strategic-victory-over-israel-1.793932|title=Hizbullah declares 'strategic' victory over Israel|date=14 August 2006|work=The Irish Times}}</ref>sourced by Discussions most welcome.. Lr0^^k's signature was not added due to misformed closing tag
As such, it is pretty consistent to include victory claim, part of military history. Perhaps a WP:RFC should be created by those who support removing victory claims from result info box for this page and site-wide battles and wars.. Gizmocorot ( talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
These ref links are dead (I think):
Unfortunately the refs contain so little information, without working links I think these refs should be deleted because there is no way to find the source offline. Any thoughts? -- Green C 15:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoever inserted George Bush, Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad as commanders - don't do it again. Thank you. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 17:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Forestfire
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 |
An image used in this article,
File:Hezbollah flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
It currently says in the lead and infobox that the war took place in Lebanon, Israel and Israeli-occupied territories. But the only part of the IOT that the war took place is in the Golan heights. So there is no need to say "Israeli-occupied territories" which also includes West Bank and Gaza Strip where the war didn't take place, so we should be more specific and only say GH. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Funny how all images of destruction in Lebanon suddenly disappeared! Seems I'll have to add them back, current article looks extremely biased. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why do images keep disappearing? I need to access this site to cover this for a Political Science class at a high school ever semester and because the firewall blocks most sites I rely on Wiki for my students if they want to refer to what we spoke about in class or view "safe" image content. How can images be disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.111.163 ( talk) 04:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
What about victory estimates by objective analysts? The victory claim makes it appear that if a person thinks Hezbollah won they are on the side of Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. If a person thinks Israel won they are on the side of the United States and Israel. And the United States is being included with Israel when there are differing opinions in the United States. There are even differing opinions in Israel.
I call it a draw. With a slight edge to Hezbollah given that they performed better than expected, and the impact that their tactical skills and rocket force now has on the psychology of their opponents. In terms of casualties and damage Hezbollah lost, but that is more tactical rather than a long term strategic effect. Azeh ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this is flawed. The article lists multiple IDF officials that thought the war was a loss (some of them very prominent). Why are their opinions not listed in the "results" section?
Qogir ( talk) 13:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever Israel's intentions were, they failed to take over any part of Lebanon let alone kill a enough soldiers to be awarded a victory.Besides, who knows what the actual figures are?-- 84.13.173.159 ( talk) 21:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to offer my own opinion on victory, but the phrasing is absolutely awful. It sets up a dichotomy that leaves out so many important opinions. It is rather ludicrous to suggest that only supporters of Hezbollah saw them as the victors (as the wording suggests). Is the Economist pro-Hezbollah? No, clearly not. It is also inaccurate to claim that "Israel" viewed their performance as a victory, when the Winograd Commission said otherwise. At the very least, the "victory" section should be expanded to include all those who felt the war was indecisive (Winograd) or an Israeli failure (several Israeli failures). I would like to discuss it here before taking any action.
Qogir ( talk) 8:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Qogir ( talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 18:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Qogir ( talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
are you kidding me in accordance with un resolution?! no. it was in accordance of israel freeing hundreds of murderers, and thats a fact because i dont really know what else to call people who stabbed others to death. this is so bias, and so anti-israel. this has to be revised, and i propose mentioning how israel had to give up convicted felons to bring those two soldiers home, along with the mention that what hezzbollah did was against international law. than if you want you can state their was also a un resolution condemning the act, but it is incorrect to state that hezbollah, a terrorist organization, listened ly good children to the un.-- 129.98.209.203 ( talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't refer to Hezbollah as good children whatsoever and if you read the wiki on the exchange many think it is biased "pro-israel". At any rate your proposal for edit seems very biased and not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.111.163 ( talk) 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone cite any reference or source for the claim made in the infobox that "Israeli military victory according to Israel, the United States, European Union, and Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah." Now I everyone knows Israel declared victory and US decalred it was an Israeli victory, and that anti-Hezbollah parties say Hezbollah lost the war. But has the European Union ever declared Israel won this war? I don't think this true at all. Kermanshahi ( talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the sources given for this claim [1] [2] or [3] mentions anything about the European Union claiming Israeli military victory. So where does this claim come from? Kermanshahi ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this source, that claims that "about 15 Merkava tanks" were destroyed ( mission kill) in a battle in al-Hujeir valley near Litani River in late July. I cannot find any reference to these events in any of the related articles ( Military operations, Timeline).
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Kidnapping is a criminal offense and here we are discussing an armed conflict. Clearly using this term in this context is violating neutral language. The argument that Hezbollah forces are not part of the Lebanese army is arguable and beside the point.
Anyway Olmert said at the time: "The murderous attack that took place this morning,...is not a terrorist act. It is a military act by a country, Lebanon, against the State of Israel, on its sovereign territory. The Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the results of its actions."
Lebanese President Emil Lahoud: "Hezbollah is the national resistance force, which complements the power of the Lebanese Army"
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora: "The Lebanese resistance is a faithful and natural expression of the right of the Lebanese people to defend its land and its honor in light of Israeli belligerence, threats and aspirations"
Former Lebanese defense minister Abdul Rahim Mourad: "Considering Lebanon's meager resources, reinforcing the resistance is the desirable method for reinforcing the country's military strength"
Lebanese Chief of Staff Michel Suleiman: "Reinforcing the resistance is one of the central principles of the Lebanese military doctrine"
All quotations from: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pows-or-illegal-combatants-1.216710
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Clearly "kidnapping" is not a neutral term, and either way it is an incorrect term as and such terms are not used in military conflicts where both parties are active duty armed members of opposing forces. Dictionary says Capture = to take by force or stratagem; take prisoner; seize. Kidnapping on the other hand is a criminal act which overwhelmingly involves non combatants and demands of ransom Gangamstyle ( talk) 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The article should not state that the two soldiers were dead or mortally wounded in the initial attack. The national-religious and settler-affiliated Arutz 7 is not a reliable source. If its claim is true this info must be found in more reliable mainstream media. The fate of the two soldiers was not known at the time. Quite the contrary if was generally assumed in Israel that they were alive. The claim is still questionable. Lebanese sources claim that they were killed much later by an Israeli air strike. Anyway Israel's bombardment of the air port cannot be justified if the soldiers were already dead. Shimon Peres assurances to the families that both were "alive and well" also appear cynical. Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 20:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any serious source supporting the claim that the 2006 war was an “Israeli military victory according to Israel, the United States and Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah.”
People making this claim consist of little more than a lunatic fringe in the real world. Unfortunately it still seems to be a dominant trend inside Wikipedia. No serious source would describe the war as a “military victory” for Israel and in fact none of the supplied sources does make this claim. At most they claim that in spite of the IDF military failures, the war also produced some positive outcome for Israel, such as the reinforcement of UNIFIL, which Israel initially opposed. It changed position only after being unable to defeat Hizbullah in the battle field.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-backs-down-unifil-stays-1.194495
IDF was decisively defeated in Battle of Bint Jbeil and Battle of Ayta ash-Shab as well as in the final Operation Change of Direction 11. Apparently all those responsible for the war agree that the IDF failure to win the early ground battles were the root cause of Israel’s failure in the war:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3398316,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3291214,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=156140
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/worse-than-the-partial-report-1.238380
The Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee findings from its investigation into the conduct of the 2006 Second Lebanon War:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/excerpts-from-knesset-panel-findings-on-second-lebanon-war-1.236261
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3383151,00.html
Similarly “the United States” did not consider the war as an “Israeli military victory”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11722375
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040502235.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3354734,00.html
Special:Contributions/EzA+lSeb Nnakari has also violated the 1RR rule. Unless he self-revert I will report him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_Lebanon_War&diff=525919062&oldid=525915106
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_Lebanon_War&diff=525934217&oldid=525929046
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 12:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No decisive battles, no clear winners, no clear losers.... massive IO victory [for Hezbollah].
{{
cite book}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 17 (
help)
Italic text===Intended use from Template:Infobox military conflict===
*result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Therefore, parameter should read "Inconclusive" or should read " See: Reviews of the conflict" ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
David Hirst's book Beware of small states is attributed as the source for this paragraph:
According to Israel, the strikes focused on Hezbollah bases, command centers, rocket launching positions, long-range rocket stockpiles, arms storages, vehicles, and Lebanese military bases, which were often hidden inside civilian areas. The strikes caused significant casualties among Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army, and destroyed most of Hezbollah's long-range missiles on the ground, along with a portion of its unguided short-range rockets. The Israelis launched several successful commando operations throughout the war, which inflicted significant losses on Hezbollah, and resulted in the capture of military equipment. The IDF's main ground attacks focused on Hezbollah-occupied areas in South Lebanon, and engagements often took place in urban areas. During clashes, Hezbollah losses were greater than those of the Israelis.
I can't find any of these numerous claims in Hirst's book. Those who insist on keeping the paragraph should supply the page number. Or, preferable, supply more adequate sources. I don't see why we need David Hirst as a witness on what "Israel" claims. Israel is not a monolith that can make claims like those above. Attribution to such claims should be more specific, such as Olmert, the IDF, the Winograd commission, etc.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently added the civilian casualty figures for the conflict citing Daniel Rothbart 2011. Rothbart is a professor of conflict analysis at George Mason University, the cited work was published by University of Michigan Press. I regard this to be a "gold standard" source for the information in question. The reasons for my edit, as explained in the summary, were twofold: First the previous sources were largely journalism, which may be appropriate for current events, but as time passes and the event is discussed by academics scholars published by academic presses we should update the article (for source guidelines for history articles see WP:HISTRS). Secondly combatant casualties are already covered in the table, so a source that specifies civilians (such as Rothbart) is more suitable for use here.
Editor Stumink deleted the academic source and replaced it with four lower quality sources:-
Sturmik also makes a claim in his edit summary "The source you added takes it's casualty estimate directly from amnesty international", which is not true. The source cites (Amnesty 2007) for the Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure, not the casualty figures. Dlv999 ( talk) 10:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The sources I added are reliable and should stay. Lebanon - Amnesty International Report 2007 states 1,191 people were killed in total and nearly all figures for this war seem to originate or just cite the Lebanese government. The vast majority of sources give similar figure for all Lebanese dead too. Your source is not higher quality regarding civilian casualties considering it cites amnesty international for it's casualties which says the figure is for all Lebanese and AI cite the government as well. Regarding attribution all the sources I added and the one you added originate from the Lebanese authorities and your source's figure is not even different from mine considering they source amnesty and they are either being dishonest or it is an over site by not mentioning that the figure includes all Lebanese deaths. Stumink ( talk) 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
On page 13 of your source it states "1,183 fatalities, one third of them children, and 4,054 injuries (Amnesty International 2007)." and it also says on page 76, "Amnesty International (2007) confirmed 1,183 fatalities". They are citing amnesty international. You are referring to page 92, where it does not clearly give a reference for fatalities. The vast majority of sources say around 1,200 total deaths including the four I added and the four you deleted. These figures are all in line with the Lebanese government figure and some including AI cite the Lebanese government as there source. Stumink ( talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
They may say the overwhelming majority of them civilians' that but they do not give a specific number and they use Lebanese government statistics who themselves say that about 500 of the 1,200 killed were Hezbollah, so maybe AI and HRW are being biased or over the top when they say vast majority. AI and HRW claims should still not be treated as fact. These casualty figures are not fact, just the most reliable estimates. AI's figures are straight from the Lebanese government and HRW's might be. Regarding your proposal to say "overwhelming majority civilian". This would be incorrect because reliable estimates for combatant deaths range from 500-800 so even with the with low estimate it would be pushing to say vast majority. I added a note stating that it was widely reported that most of the dead were civilians. Stumink ( talk) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can re add your academic source even though it wrongly cites AI but you have no justification to remove my sources. They are more reliable on the Lebanon war for casualties considering your source cites them. What is wrong with the note I added. There is no need to say the vast majority are civilians because we have a total figure and numerous combatant figures which contradict. Let the reader decide whose combatant figure they beleive. You full well know your sources figure should include combatants because they cite AI. Why would you only have your source even when you just previously agreed to have my sources which claim well under your source. The problem with saying the vast majority, is that this term is ill defined considering at least 500 of the 1,200 were combatants. I never said my sources were unreliable, all I said is that they were not fact and considering they all have slightly different figures, this is a given. They can't all be fact. That is why you have a range of estimates. Not one definitive figure. If AI is unreliable for casualty figures then so is your source becuase your source's figure is AI. I have compromised by adding a note which clarifies that most say the majority were civilians. A range of sources for casualty estimates is better. Stumink ( talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's good as it is and if the quotes are removed, you could add a note at the bottom of the info box instaed. Anyway AI, HRW and the Lebanese gov figures should stay and they don't differentiate, so having there total estimates is fine. If AI and HRW really believe 1,000 civilians were killed, they would also believe that under 200 Hezbollah fighters were killed which is far below the UN and the Lebanon government's estimates and even below Hezbollah's own claim. The 1,000-1,200 figure is not really compatible with AI and HRW figures. Who knows exactly what they mean by overwhelming and the 1,200 civilian figure is even higher than there total figure. There are also plenty of reliable estimates which use the 1,200 figure as a total figure as well. Stumink ( talk) 21:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That material is the only info on Lebanese civilians killed in the infobox. The Israeli dead is broken out, but for some reason an editor insists on not including in the counts provided the estimates on civilian deaths. Can somebody explain to me why we should explicitly give counts for Israeli civilian casualties but not any estimates for Lebanese civilians? nableezy - 04:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I was arguing against replacing the total estimate with just a civilian count, but having both is fine. Stumink ( talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
This image was removed because it is supposedly "Propaganda with founded source not linked with image". [4] The source proves that the events that the image depicts took place, and is sufficient for the inclusion of the image. Furthermore, calling an image contributed to our encyclopedia "propaganda" is a gross assumption of bad faith and is utterly unacceptable. The image must be restored to the article. Rami R 07:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not consider American talk shows, however entertaining, as Reliable Sources for a Wikipedia article on the Lebanon war. Not even if such a talk show had been factually correct in its premises, which it wasn't in this case.
The IDF certainly did not succeed in creating a 29 kilometre buffer zone in south Lebanon in 2006, as claimed by the Young Turks. Apart from the 4,5 hour night time raid on Baalbek no IDF force ever reached 29 km into Lebanon during the entire war. But Hizbullah managed to beat back repeated Israeli attempts to conquer the towns of Ayta ash-Shab and Bint Jbeil, only 1 km and 3 km from the Israeli border.
I have rewritten the section. The previous version gave undue emphasis to less reliable sources (such as anonymous sources talking to the Telegraph, never confirmed by any other source). It also had a highly misleading time-line. Such as starting with the Hizbullah estimate of 250 dead (made in December), then quoting sources from August, questioning Hizbullah numbers (which were then understood to be 70). Also I don't think we should give much weight to sources that didn't carry out own investigations and only relied on inflated Israeli numbers released during the war, which Israel later backed down from.
I think we can safely assume that the true number was somewhere between the estimate of Hizbullah (250) and IDF (600). HRW carried out a proper investigation (completely ignored by the previous version) and concluded the number to have been 250 combatants. I also added some other neglected sources, such as Yedioth Ahronoth pointing out that the main reason why Lebanese and Israeli sources differed was because Israel included civilian members of HA while Lebanon only included combatants.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I am reverting recent disruptive edits made by Avaya1 ( talk) on this and several other Wikipedia articles.
Avaya1 made 5 massive changes in 7 minutes to 2006 Lebanon War, then spent 2 minutes making changes on Operation Change of Direction 11, 1 minute on Battle of Bint Jbeil and a further 2 minutes on Battle of Ayta ash-Shab.
The changes were whole-sale deletions of all the additions made after a particular date, selected for unclear reasons. Some of the changes he deleted had been agreed upon by other editors in talk page discussions. A lot of well-sourced material has been deleted. In the case of Battle of Bint Jbeil meticulously added references has been deleted and replaced with citation needed. None of the changes were explained in summaries or in talkpages. Avaya1 has previously made intermittent contributions to 2006 Lebanon War but has not previously been involved in the editing of the other articles.
Any well-sourced addition to this article is welcome as are deletions if they are clearly explained in the talkpage. I return the page to where it was before Avaya1's deletions.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 21:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Avaya1 deleted the total number of IDF wounded (1,244), as supplied by Winograd commission, and only a partial list (628) from Northern Command medical census was retained. In addition, all nine references in the box to the number of killed Lebanese civilians were deleted, as was both references to the wounded Lebanese civilians. This, is spite of this subject having been discussed at length in the talk page.
Israel’s official estimate (by Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin) of 600 HA war dead (from an AP article) was deleted and replaced by Cordesman’s reference to 600-800. I do consider Cordesman a reliable source, but I fail see what he can add to this subject. The only source he gives for his numbers (600-800) is the very same AP article that Avaya1 had deleted in the first place (see Cordesman’s footnote 9). And the original source is very clear: “Israel initially said 800 Hezbollah fighters died but later lowered that estimate to 600.” I see no reason use the higher figure. But Cordesman was not only concerned with the determination of the actual number of killed but also with a discussion of reliability of Israeli wartime pronouncements.
Avaya1 also deleted the paragraph of US Military analyst Mathews and Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (Haaretz) expressing doubts wrt Israel official number of HA dead. He also deleted the paragraph on the Yedioth Achronoth’s claim that Israel casualty numbers included civilian HA members and not only combatants, and that this explains most of the discrepancy between Israeli and Lebanese numbers.
Avaya1 completely deleted all references to the only attempt made by an independent body to investigate the number and status of Lebanese war dead that I am aware of: The Human Rights Watch, which estimated that 250 HA were killed in the war.
Avaya1 also reintroduced the false timeline discussed above in this talkpage: Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#Killed_Hizbullah_combatants
I had myself tried to make the section more balanced. More than 2/3 of the section consisted of conservative pro-Israeli sources that put too much credence on exaggerated early Israeli claims, claims that Israel itself later backed away from. I did not delete these sources but I reduced the - in my mind undue - emphasis on the two Telegraph’s articles giving numbers of HA dead (both 500) since they were both unconfirmed and had anonymous sources (unnamed “Lebanese officials” and a ”UN official”). The Telegraph in general and Con Coughlin are certainly not famous (as Avaya1 seems to think) for their trustworthyness on these issues. On the contrary. Check the Wikipedia article on Couglin for details or this article from the [ British Journalism Review]. He seems to have specialized in providing messenger services for Intelligence leaks.
I had deleted the reference to Professor Keegan, who wrote that “perhaps as many as 1,000 killed”. Yes, perhaps so. But Keegan didn’t carry out any independent investigations and did not supply any sources fort his speculation. (I did however keep the quote from Keegan in the Review section.)
Avaya1 also reintroduced as a key source one to me completely unknown person called Ben Moores, who is or was writing for what appears to be a rather anonymous blog called defense-aerospace.com. Neither of them is found on Wikipedia. When I google “Defense analyst Ben Moores" I come up with 28 hits, all of them spin-offs from this very Wikipedia article.
I reduced the coverage of supposedly Dead Iranians since I doubted the reliability of the sources, NY Sun and WND. The character of WorldNetDaily can be contemplated in its Wikipedia-article. Not what I would consider Reliable Source. The fact that Israeli daily Yedioth decided to republish this article as an op-ed does not change this fact.
I checked more reliable sources on the Lebanon war for confirmation that the IDF had killed members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the war: Cordesman, Exum, Farquhar, Harel & Issacharoff, Kober, Mathews, Rapaport, Arkin, Biddle & Friedman and Eiland, and a few others. They all discuss Iranian support for HA (political, financial, training, equipment, weapons, etc.) in some detail. But none of them mentions that Iranians fighting and dying in the war.
I don't deny that I may have made some mistakes in my edits. I do believe there is plenty room for improvements. Avaya1:s edits, however, has been an giant step in the wrong way.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The section Casualties and losses in the infobox is excessive. I propose to leave the details in the related section of the article and only mention lowest and highest estimates in the infobox. The infobox can have a reference-link to the article. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we cut out the entire section 2006_Lebanon_War#Timeline_of_the_conflict and dump it in the talk page of one of the many remaining timeline articles of this war. Any interested editor could then scavenge these data for any useful bits of information. My rough estimate is that a quarter of the “facts” presented in these articles is totally faked and have never had any credible source in the real world. Another quarter of the links are dead and are not retrievable. A further quarter do have actual or retrievable links but the facts they present are disproved or at least not confirmed by subsequently published more reliable information. Thus only a quarter of the material is usable. At the same time most of the most important events are not covered at all or only in a very partial way. Apart from the timeline in the mother article: 2006_Lebanon_War#Timeline_of_the_conflict We also have these timeline articles:
Then we have this one:
Finally we have this one (which is little more than a timeline):
I believe that a timeline was mostly useful as the events unfolded in the summer of 2006. In the end we could merge and improve these articles but this takes a lot of work even if we assume that the work will not be systematically sabotaged by user:AndresHerutJaim and his likeminded friends. Sooner or later I think we should consider deleting them all. In the meantime I don’t think that the mother article on the war should have links to any of these clearly substandard articles.
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 19:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a paragraph about 720 Somalis travelling to Lebanon to fight alongside Hizbullah. 2006_Lebanon_War#Hezbollah_action The organizer is said to have been Aden Hashi Farah, the future founder of the al-Shabaab movement. Why would an Sunni Salafist al-Qaeda militant from Somalia fight side by side with Hizbullah? As if he didn't have more pressing problems at home. And why would Shiite Hizbullah agree to such support? And how was it possible for 720 Somalis to sneak out of Somalia, travel the seas and sneak into Lebanon without anybody seeing or suspecting anything. Not the Israelis and not the Lebanese. Or anybody else.
The story is so silly. Nobody believes it. It is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia.
Will anybody object if I just delete it?
Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hezbollah Claim is only 38 causalities There is the Source from Official Hezbollah News Agency http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/catpage.php?frid=46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.237.102 ( talk) 07:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the only official claim from Hezbollah http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/catpage.php?frid=46 Come from only official No exist place when said Hezbollah said they lost 250, so you talk about "Hezbollah Claim" who no exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.218.162 ( talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a Interview with one from the Soldiers who was captured by HA and was released http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the video from the captured of these IDF soldiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo and this news agency from Israel is a interview by one of two soldiers who were captured alive by HA inside the Military vehicle http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The interview from this Soldier in 2012 http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel is the same person who got the attack by HA in the video attack from 2006 on border, I think the confusion is from 4 guys inside the military vehicle - 2 soldiers got killed but 2 were captured and at least one was released HA Just take the bodies from others two.
The Report from Israel TV News Said "One of the soldiers who survived the attack and Wash The video" He mean this video( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo )
It's not enough evidence at least one from the two was released ?
I'm not 100% sure anyway I just provide you the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The infobox currently reads "Several hundreds" for Hezbollah Strength. Seems dubious, also considering previously the article mentioned thousands. The references are a random unnotable news article that doesn't say much anyway, and a book that's inaccessible online. Anyone has better references or info? 217.132.221.42 ( talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Wlglunight93: Again, you repeat this behaviour. I have asked you before to discuss first instead of multiple rapid-fire edits without regard to 1RR. Please revert your edit and discuss here first to find an acceptable solution. This disregard for process is very annoying. Your dislike of some source does not make it automatically not WP:RS. It always depends on context. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Jonathan Cook, the Winograd Committee leaked a testimony from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggesting that Olmert "had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hezbullah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006."
I'd prefer to avoid an edit war, so I suggest any changes in the infobox should pass the discussion page before being made. For example, IP's keep adding "Israeli invasion repulsed" although the article explicitly states otherwise (the IDF withdrew following the ceasefire). I suggest we stick to the pre-edit war version:
Is this something we can agree upon? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a dangerours POV in the Infobox data regarding Israeli Losses, I am Citing all the sources and enumerating details. I dont like the Heavily BIASED edits made by a User i dont remember his name. Whatever. This entry is just to record what i have found. Mr.User200 ( talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's remove all so-called "supporters" from the infobox. This was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, and if we are to include everyone who somehow contributed to the war, we would have dozens of small militias on the Lebanese side. Let's keep it simple and correct. Anyone agree/disagree? -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made some radical changes to the info box. I removed a lot of crap and simplified it. For example, there is no reason to include initial official Israeli estimates of Hizbullah casualties of 800 if Israel subsequently revised it to 600. Maybe it shouldn't be in the article even? Also I threw out all the "supporters" of Hizbullah. (I would prefer to throw out Iran and USA as well.) They are simply not important enough to be mentioned in the box. And I condensed the information generally. Please let me know what you think of my changes. And please don't just revert the whole thing, without discussing it. Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please state any objections to "Proclaimed Strategic victory by Hezbollah" here.
Sourced by: <ref name=CNN_800/><ref name="theguardian20k"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/news/hizbullah-declares-strategic-victory-over-israel-1.793932|title=Hizbullah declares 'strategic' victory over Israel|date=14 August 2006|work=The Irish Times}}</ref>sourced by Discussions most welcome.. Lr0^^k's signature was not added due to misformed closing tag
As such, it is pretty consistent to include victory claim, part of military history. Perhaps a WP:RFC should be created by those who support removing victory claims from result info box for this page and site-wide battles and wars.. Gizmocorot ( talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
These ref links are dead (I think):
Unfortunately the refs contain so little information, without working links I think these refs should be deleted because there is no way to find the source offline. Any thoughts? -- Green C 15:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoever inserted George Bush, Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad as commanders - don't do it again. Thank you. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 17:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Forestfire
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).