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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Hello there,
I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia page for the conflict and I am not an active contributor to the English one. I was reading this article to see how English Wikipedia has choosen to write it. I see a lot of POW problems with this English article. The unimaginable damage inflicted on Lebanon is not properly described in this article. Plus the figures for the dead and the wounded are several days old and needs to be updated. I fear that the contributors of this article has taken a pro-Israeli stance. I hope this will be corrected. -- 85.104.143.135 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the actual complaint, I agree. The NPOV lovers have reduced the article a bit, making it more of a 50:50 either side than pointing out the vast majority of the damage is in Lebanon. Iorek85 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Although the vast majority of damage has been inflicted by Isreal we must look at the principul, Isreal has a far more powerful military force and so logically in its hunt for Hezbollah will inflict more damage than Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah is deliberatly aiming at Isreali civilians with small, unaccuart rockets. Now just imagen if the roles were reversed... P.S. the Iranian president has called for Isreal to be wiped off the map, just putting the Isreali campain in prospective. -- Jedi18 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important for us to express the disproportionality of the damage. We should express it in whatever amount of space it takes to express it properly. This means that if it takes a long, 12 paragraph article to express all the damage in Lebanon, we take 12 paragraphs. If it takes 2 paragraphs, we take 2 paragraphs. The same for Israel. I agree with Ben in that I think that we don't need an exhaustive list on this page, but I do think that it is important to have a list of all the facts we can get, whatever they may be, on some sort of side page. It's quite relevant to express as much as we can somewhere on Wikipedia, because, as someone who used Wikipedia a great deal before I began editing, I think it's a great starting point for more specific research. If someone wants to examine all the damage in the conflict, both Israeli and Lebanese, they should be able to see as many things as possible here, which will give them an adequate starting point. Jedi18, Wikipedia is not the place to decide the principle of this matter, because trust me, there's a lot more to this matter than what's happened in the last four weeks, and it we would never be able to reach a consensus as to whose principles are most justifiable. Anyway, my main point is that we should be reporting whatever facts we know, because even if that means writing more about one side than the other, that doesn't compromise the NPOVness (ok, that's not a word but still) of the article. In fact, it prevents the possibility of POV because solid facts, expressed in a neutral tone, can't have POV. That's my opinion at least.-- Nibblesnbits 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we all forget about the words abducted, captured and kidnapped and simply use POW which stands for prisoner of war for those of you not familiar with it. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at a "state of war" before this 2006 conflict started so we can all just use the neutral term "POW" to determine prisoners from both sides. Fedayee 17:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition of kidnap implies illegality, the group operates illegally under UN Res 1559, the act was illegal as they crossed an international border, it was during the course of a cease fire, the soldiers were captured to force a prisoner swap (ie ransom) also illegal under geneva convention, they are being held for more then a week without a neutral international organization being made aware of their location adn status, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have not been able to contact their kin after 1 week of capture, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have had their lives threatened, also illegal under geneva convention. Stating captured is highly POV because it labels the actions to be legal as capturing soldiers is legal, however kidnapping implies ransom and illegality. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruth this is an important part of the article to show to readers that it was illegal. No where in the article does it say these actions where illegal. Thus these key words would show it. -- Zonerocks 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This whole talk section is full of POV and original research. People, regardless of what we thinka are the facts, we aruled by something called WP:NPOV. That means we cannot simply take one POV and push it. That means we must, like it or not, consider "apologists for Hezbollah" whoa re editors as part of the community: the language and hatred expressed to them here is disheartening. Basically, any editors who so much as mentions a belief in the illegality of Hezbollah's action is choosing a side in the POV and cannot claim to be part of writing an NPOV article. Please keep that in mind.
We can, I say we must, mention who considers Hezbollah's actions legal and illegal, and when and if the UN expresses any proper declaration in this respect include that. But this article cannot have an NPOV presentation and tone and at the same time say any actions by any side where illegal as a statement of facts. We must klimit ourselves to show facts and let the readers reach their own conclusions, as easy as that. That my friends is NPOV.-- Cerejota 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, legality or illegality is problematic because it implies that an act is condoned or proscribed by some law. The issue of what law to use will usually result in a POV one way or another. I think where no law applies, it could be said to be "alegal". Another issue is that words like "captured" or "kidnapped" may be viewed a little differently, in terms of their connotations, in different English-speaking cultures. 71.123.31.93 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
With all respect cerejota, you are sadly wrong. Look How can you say on this talk board and basically say " Hey let's misrepresent the facts to be fair to those that support Hezbollah, or the NPOV people, or the Im against the conflict period." It's unfair to our readers to misrepresent the facts, and by keeping the word 'Captured' your misrepresenting it. So by putting 'kidnapped' we are being very fair, because the fact is, these guys were kidnapped. --
Zonerocks 06:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not aware of Hezbollah actually making that claim. Even if they did, it is not balanced to present both claims merely because two claims have been made. The claim is presented as the extreme minority position that it is in world consensus. How we should characterise that is certainly up to (this) discussion. And there is no reason to fear any edit wars. If we reach a new consensus, we will behave towards it the same as we have towards previous ones. Tewfik Talk 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Er... for those quoting resolution 1559 as evidence that Hezbollah was 'acting illegally', what about the 40 that Israel is currently in violation of? Doesn't that mean that the IDF was 'acting illegally' too? Cynical 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody point to a peace treaty which would make Hezbollah's initial attack illegal? Israel and Hezbollah were at war all along, there was only a cease-fire and breaking cease-fires is not illegal. If it was, we would have to call every Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory in last 6 years illegal. 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling resulting in death of eight and capture of two IDF soldiers"
We already discussed this, you must be new to this talk page, we earlier decided to keep that. Because there are other news report where they where 8 where kiled at the same time. -- Zonerocks 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Even the article states that three were killed during the raid and the rest were killed trying to rescue the kidnapped soldiers. Coolintro 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We already agreed on this cool. Because it doesn't matter, Ehud Olmert gave his reasons for it, and that is mentioned. -- Zonerocks 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We havent agreed on anything. I mean, most editors here would either make this a Hezbollah propganda page or an IDF recruitment page. I learned recently that calling consensus in this page is impossible. All we have is lulls between edit wars. And of course, that upsurge when the megaphone rings...-- Cerejota 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't "Casus belli" mean "cause of war'? This is a conflict, so it is the wrong word -- Kendrick7 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I guess it is the infobox layout itself that is misleading... -- Kendrick7 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
8 is important. I believe the rescue happened before the larger scale operation, so additional 5 deads may have contributed to the escalation. Also, "cross-border raid and shelling" suggests shelling in direct relation to the kidnapping, while in fact it was also on civilian areas. Again, that contributed. ehudshapira 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What do events in March have to do with this, especially unfounded allegations? Perhaps we can go back to the 1982 invasion? The direct cause was the Hezbollah action. There is a millenium of internecine battles and strife in the Levant; it is out-of-scope for this article.
The above post was not tested on the words kidnapping or capture, and can be enjoyed without guilt
-- Avi 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is specific to the recent conflict, not all of 2006. The events that led up to the July/August 2006 conflict could be correctly argue to have begun 1000 years ago. This article is about this conflict, not all of 2006. -- Avi 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but I think that it is eminently reasonable to treat this conflict as beginnning with the world-wide accepted cause of Hezbollah's actions, and not allow the pre-history to crep in, becuase there is no limit once that starts. -- Avi 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I am REALLY MAD, How distorted is that section. That is pure biased bull. It should be automactically deleted. Did anyone here actually check the links? I went to the leaders page and that the refernce or the link is from may 26 2005. That's right may 26 2005. This should be automatically deleted. This is unbelieveable. Are there any objections. I will leave objections open for two hours. -- Zonerocks 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on, now, Kendrick, everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Let's try and keep even the semblance of WP:NPA out of this, as hard as I agree that may be (I love sardonic cutting wit as much as anyone >:) ). We have enough emotion riding here as it is 8-D -- Avi 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Kendrick (regarding the relevance of the events leading up to the current crisis). Events such as rocket exchange between the two sides ARE important to getting full story. There was also mention of kidnappings of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, as cited by BBC that seemed creditable but have since been deleted- apparently without discussion. Considering the write up by Seymour Hersh [2] (discussed above), the issue of the beginning of this conflict should include an entry about events leading up to it. Otherwise, it's as if those events never took place, which is incorrect. Niaz 03:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph is confusing now that it mentions this previous cease-fire. I understand that there was such a cease-fire, but it belongs elsewhere, in historical context, not in the intro paragraph. Claymoney 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across a number of articles on Google News related to this [4] article in The New Yorker. I've placed a reference to it in the section on the Israeli response to the initial attack, but I'm not sure that is the right place for it. Can anybody suggest something better? Damburger 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa - your addition focused on the claims of what may happen in the future, which is why I discussed that aspect. Nonetheless, what I said above holds true. Many noncontroversial and mainstream passages have been removed to subarticles; assuming that this is even something that could be included, it is unlikely to go in the main article, and certainly not more than the slightest mention.
Now for the sake of clarity, what specific point to you want to include? Tewfik Talk 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article should be changed to the past tense and the word "ongoing" removed. If this isn't in fact the end of the conlflict, and it fighting resumes, we can simply change things back. Nwe 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is ungoing, the end of the conflict will be the day israel leaves, they claim in 10 days, once they are gone, it's over, there will be some more casualties. Also, is there one good administrator here who will watch out for removal of important site, too much bias. what is victory? Israel's goal was to destroy Hezbolla militia, did they do it, not at all, except destroy Lebanon and people who have nothing to do with this war, including Christian areas. Hezbolla on average fired 150 rockets daily, on Sunday, last day of conflict 260+rockets, if this is victory, then I do not know what defeat it, let's remember the moral arguments, the descturcion of hospitals, infrastructure, homes and bridges (like warsaw 39 and 44), all those places had nothing to do with hezbolla but served mostly general public, therefore this argument is self evident and others can contradict it in their world only. As far as the ceasefire goes, it was broken by israel when they bombed hezbolla claiming they were in danger, that needs to be marked, so far 9 hezbolla fighters killed, i think one israeli, sending bombs in south lebanon, not across border is not provocation.When will hezbola disarm ? They will not, except they will not have arms in the south from the Litany river, that does not mean they will not be there, like rebuilding homes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.0.137 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC).
Why don't we describe the cessation neutrally, without alluding to whether "the conflict" continues or not, and then decribe any future hostilities based on our persepective when they happen. Tewfik Talk 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Because it didnt begin then? The conflict described in this article began on July 12th when Hezbollah launched its raid. Its still ongoing, ceasefire doesnt mean the conflict it is over. Please read the article on ceasefire. It means a "temporary" halt in fighting, not a permanant end to the conflict. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the current status of the conflict, it is impossible to know whether the first sentence should say "is" or "was". I have therefore changed it to a grammatical middle ground, "has been". Grammatically correct? Probably not. Could we just leave it that way as a compromise anyway, for a little while? Please? The tagged word "is" looks really bad. 6SJ7 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my grammar is off, but does is necessarily have to mean that the conflict is ongoing? Isn't it possible for the sentence to be phrased in present-tense without applying that tense to the subject? In any event, like Rangeley, I'm not sure that the tag actually adds anything. Tewfik Talk 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Thank God, no one in a leadership position has been martyred…even though we hope to be martyrs one day," said Sheik Naim Kassem, Hezbollah's deputy leader.
— Naim Kassem, [6]
Isn't that a contradiction? Unless they wish to choose the time and place of their martydom, I guess. -- Avi 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention that this is still enforced by Israel
Loathe am I to add yet another discussion to the already overloaded talk page, but the constant addition of an unneeded disclaimer to the this comment in the intro of the argument needs to be settled.
"The conflict has killed hundreds of people, mostly Lebanese people (with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians), damaged infrastructure across Lebanon, displaced more than a million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel."
Some people have been arguing it's POV without the disclaimer.
Even if you include Israel's highest estimates of Hezbollah dead, and the lowest estimates of Lebanese civilian dead, the statement still holds true. I can't revert it back, but it'd be nice if someone would. It's rubbish to deny the fact that Lebanese civilians have been hit the most in this conflict - whether you want to blame Hezbollah or Israel for that is up to you, but "with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians" is patent rubbish, since we have the figures right there. Iorek85 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not a fact.
It's your subjective opinion.
There were over a million Israelis who were bombarded with thousands of rockets for over a month, and hundreds of thousands of them who became essentially internal refugees because of the reckless violence of Hezbollah.
The fact that more Lebanese died does not mean that they were hit "harder," only that the infrastructure of Israel is more robust and advanced than that of Southern Lebanon, which sustained almost all of the major structural damage and loss of life during this conflict.
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That Lebanese civilians were the biggest losers should be made clear, though I appreciate Kendrick's point. Is there perhaps a less crass way of getting the point across than "killed hundreds, mostly Lebanese" ? Maybe thats the only way... Tewfik Talk 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and introductions aren't place for editorializing. This is why I removed the following passage: "But key conditions for a lasting ceasefire may be difficult to meet. For example, two Hezbollah members have said that their militia would not disarm south of the Litani River, according to a senior member of the Lebanese cabinet while Israel has said it will stop withdrawing from South Lebanon if Lebanese troops aren't deployed there within days"
Whether it belongs in lead or not is a matter for discussion, but it belongs in the article, sans any editorializing, of course. I have slightly re-written the paragraph to be factual without opinions (I hope) and placed it in the "fragile" section, where it would belong if we have a consensus that it is not proper in the lead. -- Avi 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if Wiki is not a "crystal ball", this is a "current event". Speculations and predictions are made throughout the news and media. Why not mention some of the more supported "crystal ball predictions" with references? -- 71.200.61.10 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Has Syria been cleared of this crime? Will Syria ever be investigated now that the UN wants Syria to support the international peace keeping force? Many have stated that Iran wanted this conflict to deflect attention from its problems with the UN over its nuclear program. Could Syria also benefit in that the UN investigation of Syria will also be deflected? Let's debate... user:mnw2000 15:07, 18 August 2006 (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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Hello there,
I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia page for the conflict and I am not an active contributor to the English one. I was reading this article to see how English Wikipedia has choosen to write it. I see a lot of POW problems with this English article. The unimaginable damage inflicted on Lebanon is not properly described in this article. Plus the figures for the dead and the wounded are several days old and needs to be updated. I fear that the contributors of this article has taken a pro-Israeli stance. I hope this will be corrected. -- 85.104.143.135 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the actual complaint, I agree. The NPOV lovers have reduced the article a bit, making it more of a 50:50 either side than pointing out the vast majority of the damage is in Lebanon. Iorek85 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Although the vast majority of damage has been inflicted by Isreal we must look at the principul, Isreal has a far more powerful military force and so logically in its hunt for Hezbollah will inflict more damage than Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah is deliberatly aiming at Isreali civilians with small, unaccuart rockets. Now just imagen if the roles were reversed... P.S. the Iranian president has called for Isreal to be wiped off the map, just putting the Isreali campain in prospective. -- Jedi18 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important for us to express the disproportionality of the damage. We should express it in whatever amount of space it takes to express it properly. This means that if it takes a long, 12 paragraph article to express all the damage in Lebanon, we take 12 paragraphs. If it takes 2 paragraphs, we take 2 paragraphs. The same for Israel. I agree with Ben in that I think that we don't need an exhaustive list on this page, but I do think that it is important to have a list of all the facts we can get, whatever they may be, on some sort of side page. It's quite relevant to express as much as we can somewhere on Wikipedia, because, as someone who used Wikipedia a great deal before I began editing, I think it's a great starting point for more specific research. If someone wants to examine all the damage in the conflict, both Israeli and Lebanese, they should be able to see as many things as possible here, which will give them an adequate starting point. Jedi18, Wikipedia is not the place to decide the principle of this matter, because trust me, there's a lot more to this matter than what's happened in the last four weeks, and it we would never be able to reach a consensus as to whose principles are most justifiable. Anyway, my main point is that we should be reporting whatever facts we know, because even if that means writing more about one side than the other, that doesn't compromise the NPOVness (ok, that's not a word but still) of the article. In fact, it prevents the possibility of POV because solid facts, expressed in a neutral tone, can't have POV. That's my opinion at least.-- Nibblesnbits 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we all forget about the words abducted, captured and kidnapped and simply use POW which stands for prisoner of war for those of you not familiar with it. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at a "state of war" before this 2006 conflict started so we can all just use the neutral term "POW" to determine prisoners from both sides. Fedayee 17:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition of kidnap implies illegality, the group operates illegally under UN Res 1559, the act was illegal as they crossed an international border, it was during the course of a cease fire, the soldiers were captured to force a prisoner swap (ie ransom) also illegal under geneva convention, they are being held for more then a week without a neutral international organization being made aware of their location adn status, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have not been able to contact their kin after 1 week of capture, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have had their lives threatened, also illegal under geneva convention. Stating captured is highly POV because it labels the actions to be legal as capturing soldiers is legal, however kidnapping implies ransom and illegality. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruth this is an important part of the article to show to readers that it was illegal. No where in the article does it say these actions where illegal. Thus these key words would show it. -- Zonerocks 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This whole talk section is full of POV and original research. People, regardless of what we thinka are the facts, we aruled by something called WP:NPOV. That means we cannot simply take one POV and push it. That means we must, like it or not, consider "apologists for Hezbollah" whoa re editors as part of the community: the language and hatred expressed to them here is disheartening. Basically, any editors who so much as mentions a belief in the illegality of Hezbollah's action is choosing a side in the POV and cannot claim to be part of writing an NPOV article. Please keep that in mind.
We can, I say we must, mention who considers Hezbollah's actions legal and illegal, and when and if the UN expresses any proper declaration in this respect include that. But this article cannot have an NPOV presentation and tone and at the same time say any actions by any side where illegal as a statement of facts. We must klimit ourselves to show facts and let the readers reach their own conclusions, as easy as that. That my friends is NPOV.-- Cerejota 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, legality or illegality is problematic because it implies that an act is condoned or proscribed by some law. The issue of what law to use will usually result in a POV one way or another. I think where no law applies, it could be said to be "alegal". Another issue is that words like "captured" or "kidnapped" may be viewed a little differently, in terms of their connotations, in different English-speaking cultures. 71.123.31.93 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
With all respect cerejota, you are sadly wrong. Look How can you say on this talk board and basically say " Hey let's misrepresent the facts to be fair to those that support Hezbollah, or the NPOV people, or the Im against the conflict period." It's unfair to our readers to misrepresent the facts, and by keeping the word 'Captured' your misrepresenting it. So by putting 'kidnapped' we are being very fair, because the fact is, these guys were kidnapped. --
Zonerocks 06:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not aware of Hezbollah actually making that claim. Even if they did, it is not balanced to present both claims merely because two claims have been made. The claim is presented as the extreme minority position that it is in world consensus. How we should characterise that is certainly up to (this) discussion. And there is no reason to fear any edit wars. If we reach a new consensus, we will behave towards it the same as we have towards previous ones. Tewfik Talk 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Er... for those quoting resolution 1559 as evidence that Hezbollah was 'acting illegally', what about the 40 that Israel is currently in violation of? Doesn't that mean that the IDF was 'acting illegally' too? Cynical 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody point to a peace treaty which would make Hezbollah's initial attack illegal? Israel and Hezbollah were at war all along, there was only a cease-fire and breaking cease-fires is not illegal. If it was, we would have to call every Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory in last 6 years illegal. 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling resulting in death of eight and capture of two IDF soldiers"
We already discussed this, you must be new to this talk page, we earlier decided to keep that. Because there are other news report where they where 8 where kiled at the same time. -- Zonerocks 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Even the article states that three were killed during the raid and the rest were killed trying to rescue the kidnapped soldiers. Coolintro 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We already agreed on this cool. Because it doesn't matter, Ehud Olmert gave his reasons for it, and that is mentioned. -- Zonerocks 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We havent agreed on anything. I mean, most editors here would either make this a Hezbollah propganda page or an IDF recruitment page. I learned recently that calling consensus in this page is impossible. All we have is lulls between edit wars. And of course, that upsurge when the megaphone rings...-- Cerejota 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't "Casus belli" mean "cause of war'? This is a conflict, so it is the wrong word -- Kendrick7 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I guess it is the infobox layout itself that is misleading... -- Kendrick7 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
8 is important. I believe the rescue happened before the larger scale operation, so additional 5 deads may have contributed to the escalation. Also, "cross-border raid and shelling" suggests shelling in direct relation to the kidnapping, while in fact it was also on civilian areas. Again, that contributed. ehudshapira 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What do events in March have to do with this, especially unfounded allegations? Perhaps we can go back to the 1982 invasion? The direct cause was the Hezbollah action. There is a millenium of internecine battles and strife in the Levant; it is out-of-scope for this article.
The above post was not tested on the words kidnapping or capture, and can be enjoyed without guilt
-- Avi 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is specific to the recent conflict, not all of 2006. The events that led up to the July/August 2006 conflict could be correctly argue to have begun 1000 years ago. This article is about this conflict, not all of 2006. -- Avi 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but I think that it is eminently reasonable to treat this conflict as beginnning with the world-wide accepted cause of Hezbollah's actions, and not allow the pre-history to crep in, becuase there is no limit once that starts. -- Avi 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I am REALLY MAD, How distorted is that section. That is pure biased bull. It should be automactically deleted. Did anyone here actually check the links? I went to the leaders page and that the refernce or the link is from may 26 2005. That's right may 26 2005. This should be automatically deleted. This is unbelieveable. Are there any objections. I will leave objections open for two hours. -- Zonerocks 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on, now, Kendrick, everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Let's try and keep even the semblance of WP:NPA out of this, as hard as I agree that may be (I love sardonic cutting wit as much as anyone >:) ). We have enough emotion riding here as it is 8-D -- Avi 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Kendrick (regarding the relevance of the events leading up to the current crisis). Events such as rocket exchange between the two sides ARE important to getting full story. There was also mention of kidnappings of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, as cited by BBC that seemed creditable but have since been deleted- apparently without discussion. Considering the write up by Seymour Hersh [2] (discussed above), the issue of the beginning of this conflict should include an entry about events leading up to it. Otherwise, it's as if those events never took place, which is incorrect. Niaz 03:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph is confusing now that it mentions this previous cease-fire. I understand that there was such a cease-fire, but it belongs elsewhere, in historical context, not in the intro paragraph. Claymoney 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across a number of articles on Google News related to this [4] article in The New Yorker. I've placed a reference to it in the section on the Israeli response to the initial attack, but I'm not sure that is the right place for it. Can anybody suggest something better? Damburger 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa - your addition focused on the claims of what may happen in the future, which is why I discussed that aspect. Nonetheless, what I said above holds true. Many noncontroversial and mainstream passages have been removed to subarticles; assuming that this is even something that could be included, it is unlikely to go in the main article, and certainly not more than the slightest mention.
Now for the sake of clarity, what specific point to you want to include? Tewfik Talk 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article should be changed to the past tense and the word "ongoing" removed. If this isn't in fact the end of the conlflict, and it fighting resumes, we can simply change things back. Nwe 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is ungoing, the end of the conflict will be the day israel leaves, they claim in 10 days, once they are gone, it's over, there will be some more casualties. Also, is there one good administrator here who will watch out for removal of important site, too much bias. what is victory? Israel's goal was to destroy Hezbolla militia, did they do it, not at all, except destroy Lebanon and people who have nothing to do with this war, including Christian areas. Hezbolla on average fired 150 rockets daily, on Sunday, last day of conflict 260+rockets, if this is victory, then I do not know what defeat it, let's remember the moral arguments, the descturcion of hospitals, infrastructure, homes and bridges (like warsaw 39 and 44), all those places had nothing to do with hezbolla but served mostly general public, therefore this argument is self evident and others can contradict it in their world only. As far as the ceasefire goes, it was broken by israel when they bombed hezbolla claiming they were in danger, that needs to be marked, so far 9 hezbolla fighters killed, i think one israeli, sending bombs in south lebanon, not across border is not provocation.When will hezbola disarm ? They will not, except they will not have arms in the south from the Litany river, that does not mean they will not be there, like rebuilding homes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.0.137 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC).
Why don't we describe the cessation neutrally, without alluding to whether "the conflict" continues or not, and then decribe any future hostilities based on our persepective when they happen. Tewfik Talk 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Because it didnt begin then? The conflict described in this article began on July 12th when Hezbollah launched its raid. Its still ongoing, ceasefire doesnt mean the conflict it is over. Please read the article on ceasefire. It means a "temporary" halt in fighting, not a permanant end to the conflict. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the current status of the conflict, it is impossible to know whether the first sentence should say "is" or "was". I have therefore changed it to a grammatical middle ground, "has been". Grammatically correct? Probably not. Could we just leave it that way as a compromise anyway, for a little while? Please? The tagged word "is" looks really bad. 6SJ7 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my grammar is off, but does is necessarily have to mean that the conflict is ongoing? Isn't it possible for the sentence to be phrased in present-tense without applying that tense to the subject? In any event, like Rangeley, I'm not sure that the tag actually adds anything. Tewfik Talk 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Thank God, no one in a leadership position has been martyred…even though we hope to be martyrs one day," said Sheik Naim Kassem, Hezbollah's deputy leader.
— Naim Kassem, [6]
Isn't that a contradiction? Unless they wish to choose the time and place of their martydom, I guess. -- Avi 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention that this is still enforced by Israel
Loathe am I to add yet another discussion to the already overloaded talk page, but the constant addition of an unneeded disclaimer to the this comment in the intro of the argument needs to be settled.
"The conflict has killed hundreds of people, mostly Lebanese people (with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians), damaged infrastructure across Lebanon, displaced more than a million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel."
Some people have been arguing it's POV without the disclaimer.
Even if you include Israel's highest estimates of Hezbollah dead, and the lowest estimates of Lebanese civilian dead, the statement still holds true. I can't revert it back, but it'd be nice if someone would. It's rubbish to deny the fact that Lebanese civilians have been hit the most in this conflict - whether you want to blame Hezbollah or Israel for that is up to you, but "with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians" is patent rubbish, since we have the figures right there. Iorek85 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not a fact.
It's your subjective opinion.
There were over a million Israelis who were bombarded with thousands of rockets for over a month, and hundreds of thousands of them who became essentially internal refugees because of the reckless violence of Hezbollah.
The fact that more Lebanese died does not mean that they were hit "harder," only that the infrastructure of Israel is more robust and advanced than that of Southern Lebanon, which sustained almost all of the major structural damage and loss of life during this conflict.
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That Lebanese civilians were the biggest losers should be made clear, though I appreciate Kendrick's point. Is there perhaps a less crass way of getting the point across than "killed hundreds, mostly Lebanese" ? Maybe thats the only way... Tewfik Talk 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and introductions aren't place for editorializing. This is why I removed the following passage: "But key conditions for a lasting ceasefire may be difficult to meet. For example, two Hezbollah members have said that their militia would not disarm south of the Litani River, according to a senior member of the Lebanese cabinet while Israel has said it will stop withdrawing from South Lebanon if Lebanese troops aren't deployed there within days"
Whether it belongs in lead or not is a matter for discussion, but it belongs in the article, sans any editorializing, of course. I have slightly re-written the paragraph to be factual without opinions (I hope) and placed it in the "fragile" section, where it would belong if we have a consensus that it is not proper in the lead. -- Avi 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if Wiki is not a "crystal ball", this is a "current event". Speculations and predictions are made throughout the news and media. Why not mention some of the more supported "crystal ball predictions" with references? -- 71.200.61.10 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Has Syria been cleared of this crime? Will Syria ever be investigated now that the UN wants Syria to support the international peace keeping force? Many have stated that Iran wanted this conflict to deflect attention from its problems with the UN over its nuclear program. Could Syria also benefit in that the UN investigation of Syria will also be deflected? Let's debate... user:mnw2000 15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)