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.

Shock and anxiety are now considered injuries? Because in that case, I believe many tens of thousands of injuries have been excluded from the Lebanese section of the article. What complete nonsense! Only added to trump up the number of injured Israelis. A fucking outrage!

Somebody added the shock and anxiety figures back in to the total Israeli civilian injuries after I removed them. DISCUSS IT FIRST, I will keep removing it until you give me a good reason why they should be included. It's completely ludicrous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.134.38 ( talk) 12:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before, check the archives. Lack of information for the Lebanese is not a legitimate reason to remove information regarding Israelis. Rami R 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should consider rewording this to: "In addition, 1,489 civilians were wounded – 33 seriously, 68 moderately, and 1,388 lightly – and 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety." The term "injured" can be used to discuss mental injuries, but it's uncommon to use it mixed with physical injuries, and a bit misleading in this case. The term "wounded" is more accurate, and only has one meaning: physical injury. And hopefully it would eliminate this discussion coming up every few months... ← George ^{[ talk} 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"In Syria, the war was met with intensified chest-thumping toward Israel. "

What is that supposed to mean? I find "chest thumping" to be of very poor taste. Perhaps to be replaced with "boasting" or something less derogatory in nature.( Medfreak ( talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, this wording was quite demeaning, as chest-thumping is something that gorillas do. I've replaced it with the word animosity: "In Syria, the war was met with intensified animosity toward Israel." ← George ^{[ talk} 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that does sound more fitting. ( Medfreak ( talk) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't mean the same thing. Animosity is an emotion, which can be hidden or overt. "Chest thumping" refers to Syria's declarations, which were along the lines of "We're strong, we're gonna kick your ass, you're going down!".

How about "fiery rhetoric", or something similar? okedem ( talk) 15:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does this view come from? The statement itself is unsourced, and the source for the next sentence is a single speech given by the President of Syria. While I think we can all probably agree that anger at Israel grew in Syria over the war (as it did throughout the Arab world), to state that the "fiery rhetoric" increased crosses some original research borders I'm not too comfortable with. What reliable source defines Assad's statement as fiery rhetoric? What reliable source decided that one speech by one person represents a change in Syria's views or actions at large? To make the case that the "fiery rhetoric" was increasing will require reliable sources, and more examples to back it up as a statement about a broader shift in Syrian rhetoric than one speech by one person. ← George ^{[ talk} 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of what I said is simple, and you completely disregarded it - by changing "chest thumping" to "animosity", you didn't just improve the phrasing. You changed the meaning of the sentence. The new sentence does not mean the same thing as the old sentence. The original referred to statements, threats, etc. The new one refers to emotions.

If you think the old sentence was wrong (there weren't war-like statements, or no more than usual), argue on those grounds. Don't change its meaning under the guise of better phrasing. In fact, where's your source for claiming "animosity" increased? And if you lack one, why did you write that?

Regarding statements and rhetoric - I remember Syria's threats during the war, and "fiery rhetoric" fits it well. However, I really don't care enough to go and find sources for that, and that whole sentence can go, as far as I'm concerned. okedem ( talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we're in agreement here. I purposely changed the meaning using the word animosity to eliminate the need for sources; I never claimed I was trying to change the phrasing without adjusting the meaning. I was aiming to change from an unsourced statement that needed sources to one which was non-contentious, and therefore would not need sources. I'm not saying you're wrong regarding the "fiery rhetoric," I'm just saying it's a contentious statement that would require sources. It would appear that you find the current wording regarding animosity, which I had thought all would agree, to also be contentious in its unsourced stated, so I'll just do as you suggest and remove the statement entirely. ← George ^{[ talk} 20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, if you change a sentence's meaning, please say so, don't just do it quietly when someone complains a phrasing doesn't sound good (I know you meant well, I'm not claiming you wanted to hide the change or anything).

Anyway, even the "animosity" phrasing is unsupported. For all we know, the Syrian people might have felt better about Israel because of the war (they do live under an oppressive totalitarian regime). Emotions are a tricky business, and we'd do well to avoid making claims about them. okedem ( talk) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "sabre rattling"? FlaviaR ( talk) 14:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• (chuckles) Rodomontade ( talk) 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement 'The conflict killed over a thousand people (mostly civilians)' contradicts what is stated under the casualties section. The most notable statements:

Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, with claims and estimates by different groups and individuals ranging from 250 to 1,000. Hezbollah's leadership claims that 250 of their fighters were killed in the conflict,[8] while Israel estimated that its forces had killed 600 Hezbollah fighters.[8][11] In addition, Israel claimed to have the names of 532 dead Hezbollah fighters.[144][dead links] A UN official estimated that 500 Hezbollah fighters had been killed,[10] and Lebanese government officials estimated that up to 500 had been killed.[9] A Stratfor report cited "sources in Lebanon" as estimating the Hezbollah death toll at "more than 700... with many more to go",[145] while British military historian John Keegan estimated the figure could be 'perhaps as many as 1,000' (although this figure isn't based on any solid evidence).[146] A burial count of strictly Shia-Hezbollah soldiers gave a possible death toll of 184.

The Lebanese civilian death toll is difficult to pinpoint as most published figures do not distinguish between civilians and Hezbollah combatants, including those released by the Lebanese government.[11] In addition, Hezbollah fighters can be difficult to identify as many do not wear military uniforms.[11]

Both statements say 'difficult to ascertain' and 'difficult to pinpoint'. 'Mostly civilians' as a statement at the beginning of the article is not conclusive? A change to 'The conflict killed over a thousand people (Hezbollah fighters and civilians)' seems appropriate as it does not lean towards either side of the conflict and respects the inconclusiveness to what the figures are estimated to be.

Again, the sources that are stated in the casualties section show that the numbers are inconclusive. Each source reports different estimates for civilian and fighters casualties. A neutral statement of 'Hezbollah fighters and civilians' would be a just and unbiased amendment to the article.

Hyp96er ( talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Hyp96er

Hmm, so Israel, a mysterious unnamed source in Lebanon, and John Keegan are the ones whose implied estimates for civilian casualties would fall below the definition of most? I'm leaning towards defining this a minority view point, but to avoid an edit war for now we can list who specifically states that most of those killed were civilians. If the number of sources gets to be quite large, as I suspect it will, then we can change to a more generic "It was widely reported that..." that we tend to use in these scenarios. Cheers. ← George ^{[ talk} 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the wording to reflect that it was "widely reported," rather than stating it as a blanket fact. Also added a handful of sources to support the statement (Amnesty International, Refugees International, Human Rights Watch, Associated Press, Reuters). Hopefully those are sufficient. ← George ^{[ talk} 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. I was wondering should the result of the war be altered to a win for the Hezb/Lebanese side? I'm only floating this across because even though the Vietnamese suffered huge casualties they won the war against the US. Likewise, Nasrallah got Kuntar (who was never going to be given away by the Israelis otherwise). In addition, all of Nasrallah's objectives were achieved, with no loss of territory. Israeli Haaretz, and jpost claims that Hezb has trippled its armoury. These are Israeli sites? Isn't it fair to change the outcome to a win.

Hezbollah caused areas of Lebanon to be decimated; hundreds of their people were killed. Lebanon's infrastructure was badly hurt, and their economy took a huge hit. Hezbollah, despite trying to claim they won, actually lost badly, and Lebanon even more badly. okedem ( talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of a loss or a win are variable. However, based on the goals of the war on both sides, Hezbollah met all of its goals and Israel met none of its goals going into the war. So in that sense, Hezbollah did have the favorable outcome. ( Medfreak ( talk) 11:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

No, as much as supposed "goals" are useful, Hezbollah ended up losing a hundreds of its people, lost its extensive bunker network, lost its long-range rockets, lost its "stronghold" in south Beirut, etc. Even if they don't define staying alive as a goal, they still lost. okedem ( talk) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping claims not backed by any proven facts. Based on your logic, the Vietnamese lost the war with the US, which historically is not considered the case. There is no unbiased estimate of the casualties of Hezbollah, the loss of their bunker network, and most definitely no evidence of a loss in their long range missile capabilities. In fact, on the last day during the 2006 war, Hezbollah managed to fire more missiles than on any other previous day during the war. Southern Beirut , if you ever visited Beirut recently was most definitely not lost. In fact the "Green flood" where Hezbollah managed to offer and pledged to rebuild southern Beirut and Lebanon is especially directed at that, and they managed to re-establish all their offices there. The fact of the matter is, Israel went into the war for 3 main goals. To free the captured soldiers, to destroy the Hezbollah military capability and to occupy Lebanon up to the Litany river. They failed at all three. Hezbollah on the other hand captured the two soldiers to complete a prisoner exchange, which they succeeded at. They then went into the war with the goal of preventing Israel from making any substantial ground gains, absorb any aerial attacks and still managed to retaliate aggressively, and maintain a military and political stronghold on Lebanon. All Hezbollah goals were met. Therefore, the war was clearly in Hezbollah's favor, which was declared a loss to Israel even in Israeli reports of the war.( Medfreak ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

While there are disagreements over the exact numbers, it is well known that hundreds of their men were killed. Their bunker networks in the south were destroyed, as Israel destroyed them, and controlled the area for a while. You misunderstand "long-range" - they had rockets able reach Tel Aviv, and many more with ranges to areas like Netanya. All those were destroyed in the very first stages of the war, mostly within the first hour of the aerial attacks. While Hezbollah may have rebuilt the damaged areas of source Beirut, the end-of-war state there was not pretty at all. Basically, you're saying that because their goals were to survive, and they did, they won. Nope. The finished the war significantly worse off than they entered it. okedem ( talk) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this, in part. I'm not arguing for or against the inclusion of a victor, but I do have some questions/comments. First, what is the source for stating that "their bunker networks in the south were destroyed"? It's entirely possible this is true, but I'm unaware of it. Second, it was recently reported that Hezbollah has already replaced the rockets it fired at Israel, and has in fact accumulated more than three times as many rockets as it had then. [1] These aren't complex missiles that takes years to develop, so destroying them has minimal impact, especially if they can be replaced three times over in two years, despite closer scrutiny supposedly stricter border security. Third, they recently achieved their initial aim or securing the release of several Lebanese prisoners in Israel, with Hezbollah's leader publicly declaring victory after their release. Lastly, and more importantly, I don't see any way - aside from the loss of life - that Hezbollah is worse off. Politically, it has made tremendous gains, now having both popular support and veto power in the Lebanese government, due, in part, to what was widely viewed as a victory. They gained more support in the country itself for "defeating" a seemingly superior force, and more support in the Arab world as a "resistance movement". Militarily, the impact on their rocket supply was obviously minimal (given their surge in rockets after the war), and I would almost guarantee that they've more than made up for the loss of 3-10% of their fighting force with support from new members following the war. There's little to indicate that any of their leadership or command structure was negatively impacted either. ← George ^{[ talk} 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said any of the effects were fatal, or long-term. But everything regarding Hezbollah rebuilding and rearming can be said for Israel, and becomes irrelevant for this discussion. The gist of it is - Hezbollah lost way more people than Israel; lost lots more equipment; never managed to enter Israel itself, not even Sheba farms, while the war ended with Israel deep within South Lebanon. It only gained one Lebanese prisoner (Kuntar), the others were Hezbollah men captured during the war. I don't have time to find a source regarding the bunkers point, I just remember it from the war.

While Hezbollah gained respect, it lost a lot of public support, with Nassarallah himself admitting their actions were a mistake (had they known Israel would react this way, they wouldn't have taken the soldiers). Speaking of the devil, this proud leader has been hiding in bunkers for two years now, terrified for his life. Not very impressive. Effectively, they lost in every military parameter, with the sole accomplishment of surviving (oh, and, after two years, releasing the murderer of a little girl - how honorable), an unfortunate side-effect of Israel's moral behavior during the war. okedem ( talk) 20:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just very quickly, losing people or equipment does not determine victory or defeat in war - one can lose more of both, and still win the war; this is the difference between a tactical victory and a strategic victory. Hezbollah's goal was not to invade Israel, and Israel's goal was not to occupy southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah's stated goal was to free some prisoners, especially Samir Kuntar. It recently accomplished this goal by freeing both Samir Kuntar and Nissim Nasser. Prior to that, I would agree that they had not achieved victory, as they had not achieved their stated goal. Israel's stated goal was to disarm Hezbollah, and end the threat to its borders and its people. I don't see how they can be considered successful in that regard, as Hezbollah has more arms and support now than it did before the war. ← George ^{[ talk} 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stated goals are one thing, but they're not everything. Yes, Hezbollah managed to free one prisoner (Nasser was released prior to any this deal, after his sentence was served), but at the cost of hundreds of lives of their own men, and many hundreds of civilians, not part of the original plan or goals. Objectively, this seems like a loss. I know Hezbollah aims very low, as to always claim victory, but this is nothing more than PR work, and doesn't prevent us from looking at all aspects of the war. okedem ( talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I tend to view it as a strategic victory for Hezbollah, while you seem to be describing a pyrrhic victory. We may have to agree to disagree on this point though. ← George ^{[ talk} 06:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't view it as any sort of victory. Their original goal wasn't simply to release prisoners. Their goal was a bit more complicated than that. The plan was to attack, take some soldiers hostage, count on Israel not doing anything (the way it happened in 2000), and then trade them for the prisoners. They severely miscalculated. They never counted on Israel's response, and never meant to lose hundreds of men and cause such extensive damage to Lebanon. They lost in that bet, and paid a much heavier price than they intended. They never intended to trade the lives of hundreds for one murderer. Even though they accomplished the goal of releasing Kuntar, they lost on everything else. Now they're trying to frame it as a complete victory, but that's nothing more than a PR stunt. Outcomes aren't dependent solely on the after-the-fact goal and statements. For example, what if Israel said its goal in the war was to take revenge? It certainly hurt Hezbollah and Lebanon, so would that have meant it was victorious, and Hezbollah lost? okedem ( talk) 11:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that we agree. If Israel had a stated goal, and met that goal, while Hezbollah had a stated goal, and had failed to meet that goal, I would indeed be more inclined to say that Israel had achieved victory. The point may be moot though. What do you think of using something like "Hezbollah claimed victory", assuming it's properly sourced? While we may not agree as to whether or not their was a victor, we can all probably agree that Hezbollah, right or wrong, has declared victory, and that is fairly easy to verify. ← George ^{[ talk} 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carry this line of reasoning a bit further, will you? Say both sides had stated goals, and as both aimed low, they both fully achieved those goals. Say Hezbollah's only goal was to release Kuntar, and Israel's goal was to kill 100 Hezbollah men. Would we say the outcome is: "Decisive victory for both sides"? okedem ( talk) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually had thought about that, and reasoned that it would be either a stalemate or "indecisive", depending on the severity of the damage each side suffered (which could have tipped the scaled in favor of either side in an otherwise even draw). However, since that's not the case here, and Hezbollah met their stated goal while Israel failed too, I didn't bring the issue up.

Though I'm still curious on your thoughts on a well-sourced statement that "Hezbollah claimed victory." This could be followed by a second statement that the claim was disputed, provided that that was equally well sourced. I believe both of these could be easily verified to meet Wikipedia's standards. ← George ^{[ talk} 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah met their stated after-the-fact goal. They failed miserably in their original intention, as admitted to by Nassrallah, of getting the soldiers, and exchanging them for prisoners, without an entire war and two years in between.

It seems to me that your criteria, basing victory or defeat on hype and PR is deeply flawed, and leads to absurdities.

Anyway, of course we can say that Hezbollah claimed victory, that's true and easily sourced, but where do we say that? It fits wonderfully in the article body, say "Aftermath" or something, after we describe the end result for both sides (damage, casualties, etc), and then say what the different sides said about the war ("It was a victory for us", "We failed to achieve our goals"). But not in the info box. Statements and PR shouldn't be given such an honour. That's the problem with infoboxes. They dumb down information, flattening reality. okedem ( talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, why shouldn't we have items sourced to individuals or groups in infoboxes? Almost all the casualty figures in the infobox are currently sourced in this manner. Labeling other people's statements as PR is just your personal opinion, and doesn't strike me as a valid reason to exclude them, provided that they are well sourced and verifiable. ← George ^{[ talk} 09:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

People's claims and PR aren't relevant enough for this. Even if Hezbollah claims victory (big surprise, they always claim victory, even when they lose badly. Must have learned that from neighboring Arab states), we shouldn't force that conclusion. Write what actually happened, and let the reader judge whether someone "won". One side's claim to victory isn't irrelevant, but it's in no way important enough to be cited as the outcome of the war. That's just falling for a propaganda machine, that tells you "we won", and expects everyone to ignore the havoc they caused and all the deaths they suffered and are responsible for. okedem ( talk) 11:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't initially too interested in the outcome of this, but after hearing the reasoning for the material's exclusion, I'm actually more inclined to see it included. Wikipedia values verifiability, while your statements lead me to believe you're only valuing truth. I'll look into filing a third opinion request or a request for comment on the issue in the coming days. ← George ^{[ talk} 02:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two matters here. Under "Outcome", we can list the notable facts of what happened. While Hezbollah did indeed claim victory (and that's verifiable), it's not notable enough. If there was a section there called "Responses", or "Outcome according to the belligerents", that would fit there. Otherwise, we should restrict ourselves to the facts (verifiable, of course), and not to statements. Similarly, we shouldn't add, under the outcomes, "Israel claimed diplomatic victory, says they scared the heck out of Arab states with strong response". The objective facts are that the war ended with a UN mediated cease-fire, with another UNSC resolution against Hezbollah, with a stronger international force right in their backyard, and with very serious losses on Hezbollah's side. Whether they spin that as victory or not, is another, minor, issue. We are, of course, committed to verifiability, but not every verifiable fact (like claiming victory) is notable enough for a certain place, and the fact that something is verifiable doesn't compel us to use it at all.

I say again, this is the direct outcome of the silliness of using info-boxes. In the text we can provide information with context and accurate phrasings, while in the info-box everything is dumbed down to boolean pieces. okedem ( talk) 09:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These are unnecessarily narrow requirements for inclusion in an infobox, and I believe that repeated, widely-published proclamations of victory, by either side, are notable enough to go in an infobox. By your restriction of leaving out statements, almost no war article infobox would ever include any information about a victor, as invariably almost everyone will claim victory to save face, and this very article would have almost no information about casualties, as they're all cited to different statements. If reliable sources can be found that support a statement like "Israel claimed diplomatic victory," then I support the inclusion of that in addition to Hezbollah's claims. This is how the infobox has been structured around casualties, and I see no reason to structure the outcome differently. Hopefully outside input from other editors will help us resolve this when I have a chance to get file one of the requests. ← George ^{[ talk} 10:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> There is a convincing argument for calling this a bad defeat for Israel (and a lesser case for calling it a victory for Hezbollah), though I'm not sure how to present it. As Norman Finkelstein says "Israel always depended on the fact that its adversaries were stupid, incompetent, blowhards and windbags, and hot air baloons", naming Nasser, Saddam and Arafat. Finkelstein goes on to say that Israelis "have more reason than anyone else to want to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Because now, I think, Israel is facing a very serious threat". Nasrallah is totally different from those other Arab leaders, both militarily and in popular style "the universe can blow up, the stars can crash, the planets can collide - you are not getting back those two prisoners. There's going to be a prisoner exchange, you'll not get them back unilaterally from us". His "Victory Parade" speech called for a "strong, capable, just, clean and proud state" and spoke of "reason, planning, organization and armament" as being the key to stop Israeli triggering another Civil War. "This is the secret of the victory we are today celebrating, brothers and sisters." Astoundingly, Israelis trusted Nasrallah more than they did Peretz according to a poll published by YnetNews! That's an earthquake in anyone's language. PR ^talk 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [2]. Cla68 ( talk) 03:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going on this page and saw the "allegations of war crimes" of war crime part. I checked my dictionary twice to make sure I wasn't going to say a nonsense and I clearly saw that an allegation was an assertion without factual proof. So here is my question, isn't wikipedia taking side by affirming the accusations against Israel are without factual basis? Amnesty International itself wrote a fairly nasty report toward the Israelite intervention didn't it? Isn't the term accusation more neutral because it only implies there are assertions without claiming there is no factual basis behind them (but at the same time without claiming there were war crimes either)? Matthieu ( talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "accusations and allegations" of war crimes would perhaps be better since in some cases the evidence isn't in dispute and in other cases it is strongly disputed. For example in August 2006 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, issued a strong condemnation of Israel in which he said “up to 100,000 deadly bomblets still lie unexploded across vast areas of southern Lebanon where they are maiming and killing people every day.” See: "Israel’s ‘immoral’ use of cluster bombs in Lebanon poses major threat – UN aid chief".

Israel doesn't deny this since the Israeli army apparently provided the tonnage of cluster munitions that they fired into South Lebanon. Also the cluster munitions which were fired were US-made, and apparently compared to the Israeli version had a higher number of bomblets that didn't explode on impact. Thus the cluster munitions were more lethal for civilians.-- 72.73.97.40 ( talk) 08:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm putting "Allegations, accusations and reports" because it includes pretty much all point of view and the reader should make up his one reading the section. Matthieu ( talk) 12:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The casualty list will always be in dispute since few will consider any source reliable, but the article uses an unreliable source when it states that Hezbollah's claims 250 of its soldiers where killed.

As a watcher of Arabic news, I personally remember the news article which mentioned the 70th soldier who died. He died slowly in hospital from injuries about a month after the end of the war. The story was on Al-Jazeera TV, and Al-Manar news.

The best internet reference i have found is from the Daily star, a Lebanese news paper which generally sides with Hezbollah's opposition. In their account of the history of the war, they make the following reference: "The Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah has announced the death in action of 74 combatants while the allied Amal movement lost 17 militants." ^[1]

The loss of 70 Hezbollah soldiers is the generally accepted figure among Lebanese people. The number is reasonable since Hezbollah soldiers are very rarely visible, and the group celebrates each "Martyrdom" with billboards and honorable burials. Hezbollah leaders have also been know for taking pride in their large number of fighting martyrs from the first Israeli war against Lebanon so their is no reason for the group to start hiding its death tolls at this stage. LebaneseView ( talk) 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

good point. Please obtain the needed sources that will help you with the edits. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

if the muslim world had learned that every second hisbolla terrorist was destroyed, that would be kinda disheartening. Keverich1 ( talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA claims otherwise, using media sources: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.100.180 ( talk) 11:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is how many of those ~1200 are civilians and not Hezbollah. The article used to state "Lebanese citizens" in order to avoid this issue, but this was changed w/o explanation [3]. I've restored the old wording. Rami R 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. It should be noted in the table in the article that it isn't known how many of these dead Lebanese citizens were civillians; the IDF claims that 700 of these dead citizens were Hizballah fighters and the Lebanese government claim 500. Or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.100.180 ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So how about this we put three estimates on the number of civilians .One if we take hezbullah's extimates (250 hezbullah dead and approximately 950 lebanese civilians dead ) , another if we take the IDF's estimates ( 600 by 600) and the last one the lebanese estimates(500 by 700) . So I think this way we could solve the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.167 ( talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says that IDF claims that 600 died while Hezbullah claims that 250 died . I would like to ask why in the columns does it say 250 to 700 when it should say 250 to 600 . I mean taking the statfor report into consideration is kind of unprofessional first considering how it is worded " 700 dead with many more to go" it shows that the report is hinting at the killing of more Hezbullah fighters. Second , there are tons of reports out there that would put the number of deaths in other numbers which is why I think we should only keep with the estimates of the two armies .

Another thing I want to say is that the columns only take Israel 's side of the story . What I mean is that it doesn't say how much Hezbullah estimates the IDF number of deaths are . Now you may find it funny but Hezbullah was part of the conflict and if you want to take IDF estimates of Hezbullahs deaths into consideration you should put in Hezbullah's estimate of the IDF's number of deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.167 ( talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure this has come up and been discussed at length before but does anyone know/remember the details of how it was decided that this war would be treated as part of the war on terrorism ? It's probably in the archives but there appear to be rather a lot of them. I'm interested in the decision procedure that is normally used to identify an event as being part of the war on terrorism. Are there guidelines for example, criteria that have to met in order for a particular conlict to get the 'part of' header. Is it a systematic-ish process or a consensus following discussion ? Any advice/pointers gratefully received. Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) isn't the war on terrorism a name that was invented by bushy boy . so i guess anything he says is part of is part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.255.177 ( talk) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the box. Imad marie ( talk) 07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Imad, that was easy. :) How about the 'part of' entry at the top and the box down at the bottom of the page ? I don't want to remove them myself not having worked on this page. For interest, the reason I've raised this is because I don't want to be confronted with a request to make the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict page part of the 'war on terrorism' unless I understand what the criteria are and how to challenge such a request. I guess it's probably just what the majority of RS say. Thanks. p,s. I like Amman too although it's easy to get lost or maybe that's just me... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like someone to reconsider placing Imad Mugniyeh as KIA. When reading this article, it gives the impressio he was killed during the 2006 Lebanon War while in fact he was killing almost two years later being assasinated. Any suggestions? He was not KIA during this war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.175.188 ( talk) 12:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't make sense. I've removed it. ← George ^{[ talk} 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has added some ridicules claims into the article, and distorted other sentences beyond recognition. All subsequent edits just formatted the text, but didn't deal with the factual problem, or the fact that a sentence made no sense anymore. Please revert this user's edits if they are not factual and properly sourced, and try to look at the substance of a user's edits, not just the bad formatting. Thanks, okedem ( talk) 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to revise the section stating that UNSCR 1701 calls for the GOL to disarm Hizballah. The wording is ambiguous at best and Hizballah has continually called itself a resistance and not a militia. This "resistance" tag is Hizballah and many GOL officials way of skirting the issue. Either put in the exact wording of UNSCR 1701 which would apply to many Sunni and Christian militias in Lebanon or explain the full context. Either way the statement that 1701 says to disarm Hizballah is a flase statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.19.50 ( talk) 18:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the removal of a small fact conflicting with the NPOV policy was reinstated twice, I'm putting it up for discussion. "So far, these have killed 29 people and wounded 215—90 of them children." The aforementioned line chooses to make special mentioning of the number of children killed. Despite being sourced, as the latest person to reinstate the fact mentioned, it fails to comply with the following 2 statements/policies found in WP:NPOVD:

• "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral."
• While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

The above line puts special attention and emphasis on the number of children killed in an attempt to stir up emotion, rather than provide information. I see no other reason to SPECIFICALLY mention the number of children killed among the casualties.

Key in point is the Afghanistan war article, one of the few modern war articles with no neutrality issues and is a former featured article candidate. The article doesn't make even a single mentioning of the number of children, or women, killed in the conflict.

Also, for those interested in specific casualty information or wishing to provide detailed information, there's the Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War page. Demetrius Phalereus of Wikipedius ( talk) 13:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fact intended to "stir up emotion", but instead something that is widely mentioned. There have been articles and reports specifically focusing on the impact of unexploded cluster mines on children. [4] [5] [6] To quote Amnesty International Executive Deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore:

"... [D]espite official requests from the United Nations, Israel has still not provided maps for the areas it targeted with cluster bombs. This failure is further endangering the lives of Lebanese civilians, particularly children." [7]

The attention given to this issue by media and non-governmental organizations alone is reason enough to include four words in this article. ← George ^{[ talk} 11:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted twice a remove by User:Okedem, concerning Noam Chomsky. His/her edit arguments change, and do not respond to my rv arguments. Also: User talk:Okedem shows repetitive edit wars. So I stop argumenting and reverting. - DePiep ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Okedem. This interview seems to be nothing more than an extremely biased opinion piece which doesn't present an actual analysis but rather Noam Chomsky's personal negative opinion of Israel. Claiming that the article serves as propaganda would be correct and you don't have to dig far into the interview to see that. To give one of several dozens of examples - "the day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can join innumerable other Palestinians". The names of those "kidnapped" were Osama and Mustafa Muamar. Their father is a local Hamas leader. Their family is known to be smuggling Iranian weapon shipments landing in Sudan to Gaza strip. Israel explained the arrest by stating those 2 are Hamas members which, given the facts at hands, is pretty obvious, despite Hamas's obvious denial. Still, Noam Chomsky chooses to ignore all that and mentions only how evil Israel decided to kidnap 2 civilians, one of them a doctor. Such an attitude and omission of facts perfectly correlates with the most basic principles of propaganda and thus have no room being on this page. Demetrius Phalereus of Wikipedius ( talk) 06:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if all the claims by Chomsky are true, he is not an expert in the field, not a journalist, not in any position of authority in this (a government official, military commander, etc, in a major power - like the US or France). This is just the opinion of one individual, with no credentials or expertise, no access to any special sources of information. The word propaganda is not the point here. We don't link to someone's claims just because they exist, and their veracity is not the main issue here, but their notability. We can find thousands of such interviews and opinion pieces all across the net, but we don't link to them.

My argument, in both times, is the same, despite your claim - this is just some non-expert's opinions. What you think you see in my talk page is irrelevant to this discussion, and I ask you to stay on topic. okedem ( talk) 09:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From the article on Noam Chomsky:

"According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–92 period, and was the eighth most-cited source."

Additionally, that article lists over 70 books and articles he has authored on the topic of Politics alone – that doesn't include his books on Linguistics. In the last month alone there have been 481 articles either written by him, citing him, or mentioning him, according to a quick Google News search. [8] Those articles describe him as everything from "a renowned linguist and professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology", to a "famous US political thinker", to the "USA's leading political thinker" – and those are just from the first page of results. Here is an article describing his participation in a panel discussing U.S. policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at Boston University. His name has come up in previous discussions of whether or not other sources could be considered to be reliable sources (in this case, Daniel Pipes):

"... I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right (e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM)." - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Since when is Daniel Pipes notable in any way similar to Noam Chomsky? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not... While I get the similarity here on Wikipedia in terms of perceived POV lets not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues)." - PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment that those quotes were discussing Daniel Pipes, I'm sure you get the general idea. ← George ^{[ talk} 11:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are commentators for a dime a dozen, even if some of them are well known (I'm not suggesting we delete the article about Noam Chomsky, you know). But he is not an expert in these matters, even if he likes talking about them. He's not an actual source of information, he has no special sources. He's just a person with his own opinion. The external links should not be used for people's opinions, articles trying to convince the reader of this or that. They should be used for good, objective sources of information and scholarly analysis, to add on what we provide in the article. okedem ( talk) 14:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You seriously underestimate Chomsky. Now, I haven't read the text in question, so I don't know what it contains nor what impact it has had. But dismissing it for being writting by Chomsky is not likely to convince anyone who wasn't already. Comment on its content and impact rather than its author, and you may get further. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The content is even worse than Chomsky's irrelevant credentials. He talks, shortly, about why he thinks the war was not justified, talking at length about the the Palestinians, an irrelevant subject to this article. He tries to predict the outcome of the war, but really has no idea, as this piece was written during the war itself. This has zero useful content with relation to this article.

I've removed the link. Chomsky is irrelevant, but that link is doubly irrelevant. Try to find a useful piece of information in that link, about the war. okedem ( talk) 16:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's better reasoning, IMO. I'll reserve judgment, for I still haven't read the piece in question (and I won't have time to give it fair treatment any time soon), but I agree that those who wish to include it should first demonstrate that it provides something relevant beyond what there is in this article already. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So I've removed Lebanon from the list of belligerents. Anyone have an argument for why it should be included? Wiktionary defines a belligerent as "1. Engaged in warfare, warring. 2. Eager to go to war, warlike. 3. Of or pertaining to war. 4. (By extension) Aggressively hostile, eager to fight. 5. Acting violently towards others." [9] The actions of the Lebanese army during the conflict just don't match these definitions. I don't think that failing to disarm a rogue militia from attacking another country makes the government forces "warlike" or "aggressively hostile", but maybe other editors have a differing opinion on the subject. ← George ^{[ talk} 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that the unimpeded activity, for years, of Hezbollah on sovereign Lebanese territory makes their actions effectively sanctioned by the Lebanese government. This isn't some new militia that suddenly used Lebanon's territory to attack Israel, without warning. They've been doing that for years, without any opposition by Lebanon's army or police. Even after the initial attack, Lebanon's forces made no attempt to exercise their sovereignty, and let Hezbollah continue the fighting. Remember, also, that at that time Hezbollah was already a full member of the Lebanese government, not some outcast, unwanted, militia but a major political power sharing control of the country.

By way of analogy, what if Yisrael Beiteinu, Liberman's party in Israel, were to establish a militia, and launch attacks on Lebanon, without any attempt by Israel to stop them? Would you consider only Yisrael Beiteinu as the belligerent, or Israel? Or does a different standard apply to Lebanon? okedem ( talk) 07:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Israeli parties, but let me extend your analogy – if the Republican party in the United States were to form militias, and the government couldn't (or wouldn't) control them, and they attacked a foreign nation, such as Canada, then no, I still would not consider the United States to be a belligerent in any war that resulted from the militias actions, unless the United States itself engaged in fighting. The same goes for your example; Yisrael Beiteinu would be the only belligerent, until and unless the Israeli army also engaged in fighting.

There are three fundamental holes in your argument. First, you're making the assumption that Lebanon's government even has the ability to control Hezbollah's militia, a militia better trained, better organized, and in many ways more heavily armed than the government forces. Whether or not Lebanon even could control Hezbollah without sparking another civil war is a point of much debate, so assuming that the government is willfully allowing Hezbollah to do anything is a bad assumption. Second, the inclusion of Lebanon as a belligerent opens up the possibility of other editors adding Syria, Iran, or even the United States to the list of belligerents, and I don't think any of us wants to see that. Like Lebanon, they all played some role in the conflict, but none of them engaged in combat. Thirdly, and most importantly, you haven't made a case why inaction on the part of the Lebanese government forces meets the definition of a belligerent. If the title of this section was "involved parties", I would completely agree with the inclusion of Lebanon, but that's not the title, and failing to disarm a rogue militia inside your sovereign territory does not meet the definition of "acting violently" or "eager to fight" or "engaging in warfare", or any other definition for a belligerent. ← George ^{[ talk} 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon, claiming sovereignty over it's territory, is responsible for the use of force in and from it. That's the most basic definition of sovereign. I don't know if Lebanon's army can curb Hezbollah's actions, but if it cannot, and does not attempt to, that basically means the Lebanese state is controlled by Hezbollah, and they become one and the same, with the Senyora government being a powerless civilian organization. okedem ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that Lebanon was in no way responsible, I said that they were not a belligerent. You still haven't in any way convinced me that they were a belligerent, or made a case for why they were belligerent in this case. Whether or not Lebanon can control an internal militia, they did not behave in a belligerent manner. ← George ^{[ talk} 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your answer regarding the republican party is interesting - that means that any country can wage war against another, with the victim being unable to strike back. A country can just allow an organization to create a militia, and use it to attack neighbors. When the neighbor wishes to retaliate, strike at infrastructure, etc - they would be unable to (legally, say), as the attacking country isn't a "belligerent" (reminiscent of privateers...). This is a marvelous trick, I'd say. Next time Israel needs to fight Hamas or something, it should create a "citizen's militia", which will carry out attacks independently. This militia will be free to use Israel's territory, infrastructure and borders to attack neighbors, but Israel's will remain blameless. The militia could even bomb as many civilians as they want - the militia never signed the Geneva Conventions. Israel would, of course, be under no obligation to hinder the militia's activities, or, god forbid, try to arrest its members. If anyone criticizes Israel, or wants to impose sanctions on it, it can claim it isn't responsible. That ought to solve Israel PR problems. okedem ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that Canada couldn't strike back against the United States, or against the Republican militia that attacked it? No. I said that the United States government would not be classified as a belligerent. In your example, if the "citizen's milita" attacked Hamas, and Hamas counterattacked against the Israeli citizenry, and the Israeli government did not respond with any force, then no, Israel would not be a belligerent party to the conflict. A nation's citizenry getting bombed by a foreign nation due to a the actions of a rogue militia do not make that nation a belligerent. ← George ^{[ talk} 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty means, first and foremost, a monopoly on the use of force. A country is responsible for actions from its territory against other nations, and the identity of the attacking force - official military, paramilitaries, militias, etc. is irrelevant. By the Lebanese government's refusal to act against the militias using its territory to attack Israel (with Hezbollah a full member of said government), Hezbollah becomes an arm of the government, just without the official name, "Army of Lebanon". okedem ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the source for your overly narrow definition of sovereignty, then cite a reliable source that states that an attack by any group from within a sovereign nation counts as some sort of de facto extension of the democratically elected government of that nation. By your definition, a single person crossing a border and attacking one country from another would make the first country "engaging in warfare"; that's simply nonsensical. ← George ^{[ talk} 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding sovereignty - please take a look at Sovereign state. The lead ought to suffice in this regard. Note - "democratically elected" is irrelevant - most, or at least many, governments are not democratically elected, yet still are the legal sovereign in their respective countries. Even if there are free elections in a place like Syria, and the people elect someone other than Assad, the new representatives would still not be the government, if they don't control the various institutions involved. They would just be the brave opposition leaders...

Regarding the other points - would you say that the country (Lebanon in this war, Israel in my hypothetical) is responsible for these actions, and can be held accountable (for military strikes, sanctions, etc), but not a "belligerent"? okedem ( talk) 10:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So yes, I would say that Lebanon in this war (and Israel in your hypothetical) are in some ways responsible. Likewise, I would say that Iran, Syria, and the United States are in some ways responsible. I don't think that any of them should be labeled as a "belligerent" though, and I would leave the details of their involvement to the body of the article. ← George ^{[ talk} 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Going back to our American analogy - what if you knew that the US government was pleased with the militia's attacks against Canada? That it was encouraging them to attack, basically using them to do its bidding, just to claim they're not responsible? What if they were giving some support to the militia - intelligence? Training? Funding? Weapons? Would the US become a belligerent at any point?

Anyway, given the nature of sovereignty, I think that Lebanon is much more responsible for a militia operating within its borders, and using its territory to wage war against another country, than any other country - including Iran. But, given your narrow definition of belligerent, I understand your view. I won't press the matter. okedem ( talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So in the initial analogy, I might consider the US government a belligerent against Canada beyond some point. The real problem is that most of the things you mentioned – intelligence, training, funding, weapons – are things that the US has provided Israel with, but I wouldn't consider the US a belligerent in the 2006 war. Likewise, I'm unaware of any evidence that the Lebanese government "encouraged" Hezbollah to attack, nor any evidence that they gave them intelligence, training, funding, or weapons. It seems much more likely that Hezbollah would have received such support from Iran or Syria than from Lebanon's government.

It looks like an IP editor has already removed Lebanon from the list of belligerents, so maybe it's a moot point. However, I would be okay with including Lebanon (and possibly others) in this list if that section of the infobox was retitled to something like "Involved parties" instead of "Belligerents". I'm not really sure if that's possible with the infobox template though. ← George ^{[ talk} 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Lebanon - I wasn't implying such evidence, just curious about your definition.

I don't really mind too much about "involved parties" in the infobox. As long as the text itself gives the facts (attack from Lebanon's territory), the infobox doesn't matter too much. This, by the way, is an example for the problem with infoboxes - they leave no room for flexibility of phrasing, demanding a yes/no definition for everything. In the Hebrew Wikipedia the use of such templates is a point of contention between the editors. okedem ( talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this very Wikipedia article that is being discussed the Lebanese military did do some fighting against the invading Israeli military: 2006 Lebanon Warand according to this article on the Lebanese position of the war: Position of Lebanon in the 2006 Lebanon War 'Lebanese defense minister Elias Murr said that the Lebanese army would fight any ground invasion by Israel' Source 10 on that page 71.254.190.187 ( talk) 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any claims of Lebanese forces fighting in the section you linked. I only see claims that they died. Likewise, stating that you will fight invading ground forces is quite different from actually fighting them (which didn't happen, as far as I know). ← George ^{[ talk} 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2006 Lebanon War in the sub-section "Lebanese Military Casualties", which I posted, there are implications that the Lebanese Army fought in two of the sentences: "Though rarely engaged in combat..." and "...One soldier was killed in combat...". "Lebanese Army 46 dead" is listed under combatant2's casualty box. Also, I must've forgotten to link the Tyre raid page, which states "It was reported that the Lebanese Army fired Surface-to-air missiles at the Israeli helicopters, which returned fire, hitting a Lebanese M113 Armored Personnel Carrier and destroying it." The page on the Tyre raid, which is listed as a military operation of the 2006 Lebanon War campaignbox, also includes Lebanon as a belligerent. 71.254.190.187 ( talk) 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. The Tyre raid article does state that the Lebanese army fired surface-to-air missiles, but doesn't cite a source for the claim. I've added a citation request in that article for a source. If a source can be found, then listing Lebanon as a belligerent may make sense. Otherwise, it should be removed from there as well. ← George ^{[ talk} 06:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Lebanon is a belligerent if it allows belligerents to operate freely in its territory. See the 1907 Hague Conventions [10]. Did they even claim Neutral status?
Instead of reading what "belligerent" means and then using OR to remove things, perhaps you should have read Neutral_country. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're mis-citing the 1907 Hague Conventions. Article 5 states that a nation is not a neutral power if it allows belligerents to operate in its territory. However, just because a country isn't neutral doesn't make it a belligerent. From the Neutral country article you suggest we review, the lead states that "A non-belligerent state does not need to be neutral." Likewise, the article on non-belligerent defines the term in a way that matches Lebanon's behavior in the conflict quite accurately: "A non-belligerent is a person, a state, or other organization that does not fight in a given conflict. The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war." As the government of Lebanon did not engage in the war militarily, and while it was not a neutral country, it would be defined most accurately as a non-belligerent in the conflict. ← George ^{[ talk} 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the bit in non-belligerent where it says "The status is non-existent in international law"? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a discussion about whether or not to include Lebanon in the list of belligerents in the article's infobox, not whether or not Lebanon was considered a non-belligerent under international law. ← George ^{[ talk} 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if international law only recognizes "belligerent" and "neutral" then this should be reflected in the infoboxes. They are a belligerent since they allowed other belligerents to operate freely in their territory. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this just a matter of WP:V compliance ? If a reliable, preferably milhist academic source can be found describing Lebanon as a belligerent then it's easy. If not then the default is not to include it because it's unsupported. Maybe someone in the Wiki milhist project can help out. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"...if international law only recognizes belligerent and neutral then this should be reflected in the infoboxes." Why? Says who?

"They are a belligerent since they allowed other belligerents to operate freely in their territory." According to who? Your misinterpretation of the 1907 Hague Conventions?

Sean is correct. If reliable sources describe them as a belligerent, then we can list them as such; otherwise not. To try to divine out a label like belligerent based on your interpretation of a convention that was written thirty years before either country existed (did either ever sign it?) is purely original research. ← George ^{[ talk} 10:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Said the guy who removed something because it didn't fit what he read in a dictionary? Talk about OR. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think removing unsourced content can be considered research of any sort - original or otherwise. The burden is on and will remain on the inclusion of material. To resolve this once and for all, an article already used as a source for this page explicitly states that Lebanese soldiers were "not in conflict with Israelis". [11] Mnation2 ( talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This site: [ Nasrallah is scared] claims that Israel is stroger today, than in 2006. Agre22 ( talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

[copied and pasted from FayssalF's talk page]

You reverted my edits to the Second Lebanon War. Apparently, you thought that they weren't "neutral." I should have you know that my edits were thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, sourced and on some occasions, double sourced.

I'm puzzled as to what you find biased in my edits. I added 6 paragraphs (2 in the "Background" section and four in the "Post War events" section), each dealing with a factual event that ocurred. Please review each paragraph and tell me what you find objectionable and why you found the sources to be unreliable.

In addition, since everything I edited was sourced, the reader can take the information at face value and disregard or accept the information based upon the reader's assessment of the source. However, by deleting my edits, you have substituted the reader's judgnment with your own and have acted as an abusive censor and I believe that you have abused your position as site administrator.

I fully intend on re-posting the reverted edits and adding more edits to this and other articles dealing with the Arab/Israeli conflict to restore some balance and unbiased reporting. -- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Faysself. I see that you were quick to revert my edits but not so quick to explain why you thought the sourced material violated neutrality. I would like an explanation please. -- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jiujitsuguy. Nobody can be connected onwiki for 24h :) Well, the following are your edits...

• In late June of 2005 an IDF paratroop unit operating near Shaba Farms detected and engaged a three-man Hezbollah squad that had infiltrated the area. In the day long chase that followed, the IDF force succeeded in killing the squad’s commander while his two comrades fled back across the border. A videotape captured by the paratroopers contained evidence that left little doubt of Hezbollah’s intention to abduct soldiers. <ref>Amos Harel, “Chronicle of Disaster,” 07/18/08, www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1003170.html</ref>

reason: This sounds as like press release made by an army. succeeded, evidence, little doubt, intention are all terms used by a biased source. The use of such heavy words makes your tone so biased unless the newspaper is using the same words and in such a case it would be deemed a biased source.

• The following 12 months witnessed three more attempts by Hezbollah to abduct soldiers. All of these were thwarted by the IDF. The most audacious attempt occurred on November 21, 2005 when dozens of heavily armed Hezbollah special forces, under cover of mortar and rocket fire, crossed the border on foot, motorcycles and ATVs and stormed an Israeli outpost at Kafr Rajar. The outpost however was empty and the Hezbollah force fell victim to an Israeli ambush. A lone Israeli marksman, Cpl. David Markowitz succeeded in killing four guerillas. The remaining force retreated back to their positions in Lebanon, leaving much of their equipment behind. <ref>Dudkevitch, Paratrooper Sniper Becomes Hero, Jerusalem Post Online Edition, 11/22/05.</ref>

reason: Sounds too heroic for an encyclopedia tone. Look at the source again. Imagine a Hizbollah's partisan media talking about this same event if it ever took place.

• On February 12, 2008 a car bomb in Damascus killed Imad Mugniyah, the head of Hezbollah’s military wing. As its chief military strategist, Mugniyah’s assassination dealt the organization a severe blow. <ref>Zisser, Nasrallah’s Defeat in the 2006 War, 01/23/09, http://netwmd.com/blog/2009/01/3167</ref> According to Israeli intelligence sources, someone had replaced the headrest of the driver’s seat with another containing a small high explosive charge. <ref>http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/02/israel_killed_h.php </ref> Israel considered Mugniyah a “significant force behind actions against Israel” and connected him to the kidnapping of the two reservist soldiers. <ref>Greenberg, Militay Intelligence: Hizbullah lost its number one figure, ynetnews.com, 2/13/08</ref>

reason: Note the blog in the website address. Blogs are not used as reliable sources. We are also talking about the 2006 Lebanon War so the this whole edits about Imad Mughniya which happened on 2008 is considered undue weight. See WP:UNDUE.

• On July 14, 2009 an underground Hezbollah ammunition depot set off a massive series of explosions in the South Lebanese village of Khirbat Silim, just ten miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Hezbollah, embarrassed by the incident and its apparent violation of UN Security Counsel Resolution 1701, blamed the explosion on, “leftover shells that had been collected during and after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon,” in 2000.<ref>Associated Press, Hezbollah: Lebanon blast set off by old shells, 7/22/09</ref> However, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Alain LeRoy, placed the blame squarely on Hezbollah and blamed the organization for heightened tensions in Southern Lebanon.<ref>Benhorin, UN official: Arms Cache that exploded in Lebanon was Hezbollah’s, ynetnews.com, 7/23/09</ref>

reason: Embarassed, apparent? That aside, is this article about the 2006 events or 2009? Please do review WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

• On July 15, 2009 an Iranian Tupolev commercial airliner crashed in northwest Iran. The Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, reported that the crash-which left 168 people dead-was caused by the explosion of sophisticated fuses slated to be delivered to Hezbollah. The aircraft was carrying a large number of modern fuses composed of two kilograms of explosives and electrical instrumentation. Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who accompanied the contraband, were also killed in the crash. <ref>Magal, Iran Plane was carrying arms for Hezbollah, ynetnews.com (citing Corriere della Sera), 08/02/09.</ref>
• On August 23, 2009 villagers of the South Lebanese village of Marwakhin forcefully repelled efforts by Hezbollah gunmen to store weapons in their village. The incident was filmed by the IDF’s field intelligence Corps. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/user/idfdesk?blend=4&ob=4</ref> <ref>Lebanese villagers recorded driving away Hezbollah men, Ynetnews.com, 8/25/09</ref>

reason: Undue weight again. And Youtube is not a reliable source.

P.S. I am not sure if the IP 71.72.53.61 belongs to you. If it is the case, please be aware of WP:SOCK. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

jijutsu is biased but whatever since he is biased towards israel who cares.and to prove that i am not hezbullah here fuck iran and the revolution . so you dont think i have an agenda paranoid dipshit.

Hello Faissalf. Thank you for responding and thanks for the constructive criticisms. Perhaps we can come to agreement and consensus on my recent edits. I think you were a bit trigger happy on the revert button. That said, I am willing to play ball and make some changes in the spirit of conciliation and journalistic integrity.

Re paragraph 1: You claim that the edit reads like an army press release. I served four years in the JAG so that’s just my writing style but I am willing to remove the offending words that gave rise to the reversion.

Re paragraph 2: You claim that the edit sounds “too heroic” and suggested that the source itself was biased. The source was Haaretz, a well respected, left of center Israeli daily, equivalent in style and substance to the New York Times. As far as the incident itself is concerned, it truly was a remarkable feat considering that a lone, relatively inexperienced soldier killed four heavily armed operatives and foiled their plans. By your logic, the Wiki article dealing with the Entebbe rescue mission, where IDF soldiers flew into the heart of Africa to rescue hostages should be reverted because the episode “sounds too heroic.” Nevertheless, in the interest of consensus, I will make changes so that it will sound “less heroic.”

Re Paragraph 3: You cite two objections. First you claim “undue weight” and you expressed similar objections to the remaining three paragraphs. Second, you claimed that blogs are not reliable. I will first address the former objection as it pertains to the remaining three paragraphs. There is a specific section in the Wiki article that deals with “Post Ceasefire Events.” The last entry prior to mine relates to an event that occurred June 30, 2007 nearly a full year after the cessation of hostilities. Moreover, the following paragraph relates to an event that occurred on July 16, 2008 two years after the war. Yet you did not delete these entries, presumably because they were issues that were very germane to the war. It is therefore entirely appropriate for me to include paragraphs 3 trough 6 as edits in the “post ceasefire events” section. As I pointed out, Israel connected Mugniyah to the abduction which sparked the war. Deletion of my edit as “undue weight” without doing the same in connection with the aforementioned edits is hypocritical.

You also objected to citing the blog as a source. The article that I cited from was written by Prof Eyal Zisser, head of the Department of Middle Eastern and African History and a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is the author of several books including Syria: Domestic Political Stress and Globalization (2002), Assad's Legacy: Syria in Transition (2000), and Lebanon: The Challenge of Independence (2000). In short, he’s no light weight and I suggest that you let the Wiki readers determine for themselves the reliability of the source. Moreover, that was 1 of 3 sources that I cited for that particular edit and deletion of the entire edit was harsh.

Re Paragraph 4: You objected to the usage of the words “embarrassed” and “apparent.” I will substitute the offending words.

Re paragraph 5: You argued “undue weight.” Please refer to my counter argument above. In addition, the issue is germane as it relates to a violation of UN Security Counsel Resolution 1701, the Resolution that brought an end to the war.

Re paragraph 6: You objected to YouTube as a source. First, that was not the only source that I relied upon. You were so quick to delete the edit that you failed to take note that Ynet was also cited as a source. Second, the incident was videotaped and uploaded to YouTube. I just wanted to give Wiki readers the opportunity to view the video and judge for themselves.

Thank you for your time and consideration and I eagerly await your response. -- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and attempted to remove some the sensationalist language used in this material. ← George ^{[ talk} 00:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello George. The explosions in Khirbat Silim were multiple and massive sending many of the residents in the village into a panic. The original wording, ("On July 14, 2009 an underground Hezbollah ammunition depot set off a massive series of explosions in the South Lebanese village of Khirbat Silim, just ten miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border") was a more accurate reflection of actual events.

Also, in the Nov 21, 2005 abduction attempt, four, not three gunmen were killed. The first 3 were killed when the bullet hit the Hezbollah munitions and a fouth was killed later in the battle.

It would have been nice of you to consult with me before making changes and we could come to consensus. Jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have a source saying there were "multiple, massive" explosions?
• The old source says four, the newer source says three. Generally newer sources are more reliable. As only three bodies were recovered (the fourth was carried away by the Hezbollah militants), only three fatalities were confirmed.
• Consultation and consensus aren't prerequisites to editing.

← George ^{[ talk} 06:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading "Reactions in the rest of the world" I added some perspectives that were different from the ones already cited. I think it was necessary to restore some balance and perspective. Jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "UNIFIL was given an expanded mandate, including the ability to use force to ensure that their area of operations wasn't used for hostile activities, and to resist attempts by force to prevent them from discharging their duties," seemed awkward and out of place where it was, so I moved it to the section of the article dealing with overview. -- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone with an apparent agenda unjustifiably reverted John Keegan's viewpoint and provided no reason for doing so. Such behavior will be reported if repeated. I uploaded Keegan's viewpoint again.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

no need for paranoia i removed them cause they were exagerated extremely . And ya so you dont think I am in bed with either of terrorists fuck muslims . Dumbfuck

The targets deemed civilian infrastructure had dual use applications and that is why they were targetd. The term "dual use" is the more appropriate terminology.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, international airports where commercial jets operate and military aircraft don't are considered civilian infrastructure. Israel's claim during the conflict was that it was targeting the airport because it was also being used by Hezbollah for military purposes (or it would be). This was, however, claimed only by Israel, and per WP:NPOV we can't state one side's view as fact. I've rewritten this to take out the word infrastructure entirely, and just say what was bombed. ←  George  ^talk 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, did Israel think that the airport would be used for arms replenishment by Hezbollah, or that it had been used by Hezbollah? I've gone with would for now, but if anyone has a source that says that Israel thought that it had been used by Hezbollah, we could certainly change the wording to "had". ←  George  ^talk 23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Naharnet, a Lebanese daily, Hezbollah uses Beirut airport to smuggle weapons. I've enclosed the link.

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/BD506C70EC46346CC225752B004375CA?OpenDocument

I think it should be changed to "had" but I'll leave it to your judgment.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That article is from a couple years after the 2006 war, while "had" would imply before 2006. I'm going to change it to "had" anyways, though we should continue to look for a quote saying that they "had" (as in prior to 2006). I bet there's a quote by one of the Israeli spokespeople (Regev maybe?) somewhere that says something to that effect. My main concern with using the past tense is that it makes the Israeli attack on the airport sound more like "payback" for past use, rather than a pre-emptive move to limit Hezbollah's rearming. ←  George  ^talk 02:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It stands to reason that if they are using the airport to smuggle weapons in 2008, after UNSC Resolution 1701, while under the microscope, they almost certainly used it prior to 2006 when they had a lot more freedom of action. In fact, one of the reasons for the March 14, 2008 violence was because the Lebanese govt. wanted to exercise its authority and fired the airport chief of security, who was a Hezbollah ally. For what its worth, I think you made the correct choice changing it to "had."-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 04:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jijitsuguy, due respect as you have added well sourced information, but when you say The targets deemed civilian infrastructure had dual use applications and that is why they were targetd you are attempting to represent the POV of one of the belligerents as a fact in the article when third party sources call these targets "civilian". We can say that Israel regarded these as valid targets that have dual use capabilities, but labeling them "dual use" is presenting the POV of the Israeli government as fact. nableezy - 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, we need to be careful about saying things like "It stands to reason that if they are using the airport to smuggle weapons in 2008... they almost certainly used it prior to 2006." That's considered original research, something Wikipedia shuns. ←  George  ^talk 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering, is worldnetdaily considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia; Since it is the source used when mentioning the Iranian deaths? Also, the source cited when mentioning the PFLP is the Jerusalem Post and it doesn't mention that the PFLP were engaged in combat against the IDF. It says that the IDF bombed their bases. So should the PFLP be included in the list of belligrents? Knight Prince - Sage Veritas ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I believe it is a reliable source. In any event, Worldnetdaily was one of two sources that I cited for the IRGC casualties. I also cited the New York Sun. In addition, the columnist who wrote the piece is a well-known and respected journalist.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 05:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. World Net Daily is not a reliable source for any purpose except for their own editorial policy. 99.166.95.142 ( talk) 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add a sentence or two on the seizure of the Francop by IDF commandos in the post war section. The Francop was carrying close to 500 tons of Iranian weapons and munitions including 3,000 rockets. Israel claims that the weapons were slated for Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Syria of course deny this and attribute the seizure to "piracy." In any event, I think it's appropriate for the post war section for obvious reasons. Any views on the subject? I'd like to establish consensus before inclusion. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 17:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced an objection, I've included it.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 07:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this and related back and forth, Katz isn't "some analysts". Isn't the important point of this Katz piece that the IDF's Northern Command (rather than "some analysts") have concluded that Hezbollah is more cautious today than it was several years ago because of x, y, z ? Just a thought. Also, saying that it bolsters someone elses view is original research/synthesis because it's not in the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I've trimmed down this statement to what the source says, removing all the fluff around it. ←  George  ^talk 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also regarding Totten's views, it's entirely unclear why Wikipedia should care about them or what value they add in terms of informative encyclopedic content. Opinions are ten a penny. What is significant about this one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed this, but I'm also curious why it should be kept. ←  George  ^talk 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Totten is well recognized as an authority and expert on Mid-East issues having written numerous articles on the subject (particularly Lebanon) in well respected publications. He has also been the recipient of numerous awards and honors in connection with his Mid-East publications. Moreover, the article was written in 2009 where the war's impact can be assessed with greater accuracy and perspective than just after the end of hostilities when the smoke is still settling. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is one of space. There are literally hundreds of award winning journalists and bloggers, each with their own opinion, but we can't fit them all into this page (which is already too large). I suggest this be moved to the International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War article - specifically the reactions by communities in and citizens of the United States (as he is American), which already houses similar opinions from other famous figures and political scientists. ←  George  ^talk 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

George, I hardly think that a few sentences from an award winning writer will compromise the article in terms of size and space. However, you do make a good point concerning space and I concur with you, which is one of the reasons why I self reverted here. There's also another issue and that is the behavior of User 71.22.227.188 (who appears to be socking under 99.157.98.136) who started this issue by blindly reverting Totten (as well as other edits) despite my numerous requests for him to discuss the issue on the Talk pages. I don't think that this type of uncollaborative behavior should be rewarded by giving him precisely what he wants.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

George, as I've indicated I concur with you on the issue of space and the need to dipense with fluff and to be concise. For that reason, I don't see why so much emphasis is placed on the views of Matt Mathews, a relatively obscure "historian." There are three paragraphs describing his views on the war, which can be codified into one or two sentences. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 01:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the change I spoke of above concerning Matthews. If you disagree with it, I'll self revert. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this to the section of the article I mentioned. By itself, it's not an issue with the length of the article, but if you allow one journalist's opinion in, you have to let them all in, and it's a slippery slope that quickly bloats the article (something this article especially has had problems with in the past). At the end of the day, this journalist is little more than a roving blogger, and his statements shouldn't be elevated to the same level as Presidents and Prime Ministers. And I general agree with your edit regarding Matt Mathews, for the very same reason. ←  George  ^talk 17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sean, concerning Somali combatants check this out, UN: Somalian Islamists fought alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon. However, the article is not specific on casualties though it does refer to the sum of $30,000 for Somalis who died in combat. Also, I wouldn't consider Lebanon as a combatant. Aside for putting up some minor resistance to an Israeli commando assault during the Tyre raid, the Lebanese Army did not generally partake in hostilities. I would add the flag of the Somali Islamic Courts (using the above-referenced source) and exclude the Lebanese flag.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Somali Islamists, as along as it's RS based and passes WP:REDFLAG i.e. preferably back by multiple mainstram sources, go for it. No comment on Lebanon as a combatant. That's been discussed before and I don't have a view. I'm just trying to clear out questionable material because we shouldn't have any poorly sourced material. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)...other than the view I already expressed in the talk page section above obviously... Sean.hoyland - talk 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IRGC, this was not Reneem's edit but mine. I consider the NY Sun to be an RS and Aaron Klien is a well known journalist. I can probably find additional sources to back this claim, if you so desire. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Lebanon as a combatant. Concerning the Somalis, I won't revert any attempts to add them based on the source that I provided but by the same token, I won't add them myself. If they were indeed combatants, you'd think that the IDF would report encountering them but to my knowledge, no such report exists. Moreover, form a logistical standpoint, I don't see how they could have reached Lebanon given the air and sea blockade. Of course the Iranians or Syrians could have sent transport planes to Somalia to pick them up and bring them to Syria for overland transport but this scenario is extremely unlikely if not impossible and in any event, would have been detected. But this is all original research on my part and not relevant. Again, I won't object to Somali inclusion as combatants using the aforementioned source.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 07:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Reneem then. Aaron Klien=WorldNetDaily which is not an RS as far as I can tell from RS/N. I think claims of IRGC involvement on the ground in Lebanon require multiple high quality sources. Claiming that country X's armed forces fought on the ground in country Y needs very good sourcing before it gets into an encyclopedia in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my edit only concerned IRCG casualties and nothing more. Everything else was Reneem. As I stated, I think the NY Sun is an RS but I will attempt to provide additional sources to back the claim. Must sign off now but will be back tomorrow, Respectfully-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 08:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This has come up in the past, and I'll tell you that you're going to need much stronger sources to support it than are currently in the article. Essentially you have a single source so far, Aaron Klein of WorldNewsDaily ( SourceWatch). Your NY Sun and Ynet sources are both reprints of the exact same article by Klein, and in the case of reprinted articles we should only be citing the original. Furthermore, your third source contradicts this one: "No evidence has yet emerged, however, that the Iranians are actually operating any weaponry in the fighting, say U.S. officials." (There is a distinction between being killed, and being a combatant who is killed while fighting) Of the sources provided thus far, the only thing that can really be said is something like "Aaron Klein claimed that 9 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were killed while aiding Hezbollah militants in Southern Lebanon." That is, it can be stated as his opinion, but without significantly better sourcing, it can't be stated as fact. ←  George  ^talk 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to list the IRCG as combatants, fine-no objection from me. However, there are three sources that confirm that IRCG sustained casualties, including the NY Sun, Ynet and Aviation week. Concerning aviation week, there's no contradiction as the article states specifically and clearly states that IRCG sustained casuaties. I would therefore object to the removal of the section dealing with IRCG casualties. Also, I object strenuously to the removal of Totten reiterating once again that if any opinion belongs in the article, it's his. Certainly, his opinion should be given at least the same weight accorded to Matt Mathews and should be given more weight than the article in the Financial Times, which attributes its opinions to unconfirmed sources, with no verifiability or reliability. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a chance to provide better sources before I remove it, though I can't guarantee that others won't remove it sooner. There are not three sources, there are two - an article by Aaron Klein in WorldNewsDaily (reprintings of the same article do not count as multiple sources), and one in Aviation Week. I haven't reviewed if either is reliable. I'm less opposed to the inclusion of casualty data than I am to inclusion of combatants casualty data (in the combatants section of the infobox). I haven't seen enough sourcing to indicate that they were combatants - something the Aviation Week article certainly doesn't claim.

You're putting far too much weight behind Totten. He isn't an award winning journalist, he's a blogger - albeit a decent one. His awards were for his blog, not for any journalism exhibited in a reliable source. His travels are financed by donations, and the Wikipedia article on him states that his trip to Lebanon was paid for by the March 14 Alliance - who, you may not realize, are political enemies of Hezbollah - so even his opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt. I haven't reviewed Matt Mathews or his statements at all.

Regarding the Financial Times, you can't discredit claims attributed to unnamed US officials on the one hand, while championing claims attributed to equally unnamed Lebanese officials (Klein's claims about the IRCG) on the other; it's disingenuous. ←  George  ^talk 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I’ll be frank. I’m a bit partial to Totten. I’ve been following his publications and writings for some time and found them to be very insightful and well written. I think his removal and your revert is a detriment to the article. Concerning the IRCG check out A Preliminary Military Assessment of the Lebanon Conflict, where defense analyst Ben Moores states that of the 600-900 anti Israeli forces killed in the war, some were IRCG members though he does not apportion the numbers. Respectfully,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)