Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Discussion about the name of the article

Renaming: This is getting ridiculous

We should stop doing this in that way. There was a majority for renaming to war. Therefore we should brainstorm possible new names for this article. Requesting several moves won't lead to anything. Also it's actually not very helpful to change an already posted request during voting (requested move I). So far the following names have emerged during the discussion:

• 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict (originally this requested to move to: "2006 Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon" → as this makes no sense, I posted the second request.)
• 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon
• 2006 Israel-Lebanon War
• 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War

--Attraho 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Polls

These polls will close at 12noon on the 11th of August, UTC.

Comment: Whatever the outcome will be, please notice the important difference I have outlined in Why we shouldn't call it war - yet below, between using a descriptive title and giving the conflict a name (i.e. the issue of lowercase versus uppercase). Thanks Thomas Blomberg 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why there is any polling at all. An issue like this should only be decided based on what the sources say. We should have a listing of all the sources calling it "war" or referring to Hezbollah instead of Lebanon, and only then decide how to proceed. Wikipidia is not a democracy. Tewfik^Talk 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hence why I added a closing date to these polls. :) Iorek85 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move I: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

Voting for the header above

• Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article. Sign your entry.)

1. Oppose - I support Israel-Lebanon War. --Iorek85 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - can we please hold off any name changes until a clear consensus emerges in mainstream media? Tewfik^Talk 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Request makes little sense; by its logic, it should be called IDF-Hezbollah conflict. El_C 05:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Header makes no sense. --Attraho 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Please see updated header.
5. Oppose I say we move to 2006 Israel - Lebanon war.--Sloane 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose I suggest to rename it zionist Army's war on lebonan
7. Weak oppose - the name is unclear abakharev 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Please see updated header.
8. Oppose per Iorek85 and Attraho --Comrade^Wolf 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose. Per Sloane. Tazmaniacs 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose This title doesn't give any indication that attakcs are being launched from lebanese soil across the international border into Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose we had a consensus on "Israel-Lebanon"--Cerejota 02:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Its not just Hezbollah, Israel has stated they hold the government of Lebanon responcible to a degree. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose It seems clear to me that most of the arguments for renaming to Israeli - Hezbollah come from an Israeli perspective. The underlying impression is a wish to see this as a conflict limited to the paramilitary targets associated with Hezzbollah. This is simply spin. Take a look at the map of targets hit in Lebanon. There is virtually no area of Lebanon untouched by Israeli bombs. I agree with an earlier comment above. To be balanced and consistant, call it Israeli - Lebanon or IDF - Hezzbollah conflict rather than mixing the 2. Johan
15. Oppose I think it is pretty clear that the armed conflict is affecting all kinds of Lebanese, including plenty who are way outside the traditional Hezbollah areas of influence. So to limit it to Hezbollah would look biased. --89.49.206.73 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, It is taking place in Israel and Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Can we put together our energies to improve the article and stop renaming? . --Mainframe2000 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Lebanon's infrastructure has been destroyed (airport, refineries, bridges, main roads, communication centers) creating one the most humanitarian crisis in recnet history. Khebab 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article. Sign your entry.)

1. Strong Support--sinanwolfgazo look at the news everyone the Hezbollah said 'we will have open war' and what to do you have open war. this is a war which the Hezbollah decleared.It is a war and nothing else 9:36, 12 August 2006.
2. Support--Striver 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support--king_kilr 11:58, 3 August 2003 (CDT)
4. Strong Support The Israeli government has repeatedly stated that its main military objectives are to disarm and contain Hezbollah, and to recover its captured soldiers from Hezbollah. Israel has declared no military objective against the state of Lebanon, and to suggest that the primary antagonists in this conflict are Israel and Lebanon as opposed to Israel and Hezbollah is false and misleading. --60.241.140.100 10:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support Israel has attacked mostly Hizbollah-related targets, such as neighbourhoods or villages that have a strong Hizbollah presence. --Marvin Monroe 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support The Lebanese government has declared no military objectives against Israel, in contrast to Hezbollah whose declared objective is the "total destruction of Israel." The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict is a much more accurate name. --220.233.33.142 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support Most major media refer to this as Israel-Hezbollah conflict. The Lebanese government is taking no part in the actual military conflict going on. —Aiden 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support with the caveat that "conflict" should be lower-case. More accurate than the current title. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per Aiden. --Hyphen5 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
10. No idea if this vote is still open, but I wanted to express my Support in renaming per Aiden. Also, it's a lot more NPOV (and accurate) to say that this particular fight is not between the Israel and the Lebanese governments, but between Israel and a terrorist organization that has taken de facto control over southern Lebanon. --Micahbrwn 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Strongly Support The probelm is hizbollah. If Lebanon would've disarmed Hizbollah, we wouldn't be in this situaton today. The fighting has been between Israel and Hizbollah. --Zonerocks 05:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support, in addition to all the reasons already given, if this were a war between Israel and Lebanon then by last Tuesday there would have been nothing above two meters standing in Beirut. Beirut is almost unscathed, so the Israelis must have some other target. Begins with an "H" and is a puppet of "I". JDG 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per Aiden. Carson 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - I support "Israel-Hezbollah Conflict", but if not war, then conflict (with Hezbollah). Flayer 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support It is clearly a conflict between israel and hezbollah Proudzionist2347 16:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support It is not a conflict between Lebanon and Israel, it is a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that is happening partly in Lebanon. To state it as the Israeli-Labanon Conflict 2006 is factually wrong as to whom is at conflict. Robovski 00:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support This is a conflict between Hezbollah and the IDF. The Lebanese army is not involved in the fighting. Additionally, the label of "war" is a pretty strong one, and I think in years to come this won't be looked at as a full scale war, but rather a conflict or skirmish. I realize polling is technically over, but I do not see why, as they conflict continues, and history continues to be written (titles included). 72.194.194.131 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move III: 2006 Israel-Lebanon War

• Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  • I feel strongly that it would be much more productive to hold separate votes on the characterisation ("war" vs "conflict") and the participants (i.e. Hezbollah and/or Lebanon). Tewfik^Talk 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - the naming (both the use of 'war' and the combatants) should be in line with the media and/or invlolved parties' consensus term. Tewfik^Talk 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, What matters is what the most common name is which is "conflict", not what some people think the name should be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose War is not the common term for it just yet -- Avi 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose, war is not an appopriate word as I said earlier. We should still adhere to our official policies. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose; calling the conflict a war is hyperbole. "Conflict" is more accurate. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose We shouldnt start calling it a war until the majority of media sources do. Picking out 10 in all this time is not a mjority of media reports. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose It's just NOT a war since we are talking about a terrorist organisation and a state. Not two states. --Deenoe 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - There is no state of war between Israel and Lebanon, and the Lebanese army has played a very small role in this conflict. This is a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that is taking place in Lebanese (and Israeli) soil. -The monkeyhate 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose, Its not a war. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Surely internationally it's not officially a war? Jamesedwardsmith 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Opppose at this point, though if the situation continues to degenerate past whatever point, go for it. If anything, I might propose 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis for the time being. Luna Santin 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Israel and Lebanon aren't at war. Robovski 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Support. : It's been pretty much agreed on that it's a war and I think it's pretty clear hezbollah isn't the only one suffering. --Sloane 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - Lets call a spade a spade. --Iorek85 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - A war is a war is a war. Hello32020 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Enough verifiable sources from all sides of the POV call it so. Haaretz and Labanon Star both call it a war. If CNN is stupid not my problem. Just in case I have previously resisted calling it a war, but I think now it is pointless, the duration, the tactics and a growing number of sources call it a war or what is the same "becoming a war". Lets jump into it.--Cerejota 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - See Israel seen favorable to UN draft on Lebanon war (Reuters) (Sun Aug 6, 10:42 AM ET); BEIRUT (AFP) - Israeli combat jets struck villages across south Lebanon...the 26-day war (AFP Sun Aug 6, 5:40 AM ET); Analysis: Lebanon war hurting U.S. goals (AP Sat Aug 5, 8:56 PM ET); Israel, Hizbollah fight on as UN split on resolution (Boston Globe). When Reuters, AP and AFP call it a "war", I think we're safe in following the "general mood". Tazmaniacs 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support- It should have a simple name that people are using.--Scott3 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move IV: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War

• Mainstream media call it a war
• The latest poll gave a majority for renaming to war
• The war is also taking place in Israel
• Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Oppose Combatants are indeed IDF and Hezbollah but the victims are the Lebanese people, I think that should reflect in the title.--Sloane 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose for the same reasons I listed above. This should not be subject to votes, but to a discussion of the current usage including current sources. Tewfik^Talk 00:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose War is not the common term for it just yet. -- Avi 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose we had a consensus on "Israel-Lebanon"--Cerejota 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. Per Sloane. Tazmaniacs 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose; calling the conflict a war is hyperbole. "Conflict" is more accurate. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Up to now it's a conflict: if Syria and Iran join in, then it's a war!Phase4 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Support - The combatants are IDF and Hezbollah, and the fighting isn't limited only to Lebanon - there are bombings of Israel. --Marvin Monroe 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support - Saem reasons above. We've already reached a consensus to make it a war, however the combatants are Israel and the military group Hezbollah mainly. John D'Adamo 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support - Almost everyone that matters (Prime Ministers of Israel and Lebanon, IDF leaders, President Bush, PM Blair, Hibollah leaders, etc.) have called this a war. A conflict is what Syria and Israel have been going through over the Golan Heights because there is no direct military action. What Hizbollah and Israel are doing is warfare. The two main combantants are the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the military wing of Hizbollah. The victims are from Lebanon and Israel but also include Americans, Canadians, Chineese, and people of many other nationalities. The title should reflect the main combatants - Israel-Hizbollah. If the Lebanon Army decides to go to war with Israel, then it would be an Israel-Lebanon War.
4. Support per John D'Adamo. If one country invades another country, and that's not necessarily a war, I don't know what is. --Hyphen5 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support See news web sites and TV--TheFEARgod 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Marvin Monroe. --imi2. - 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - This is a war and Israel and Hezbollah are the combatants. I see no other suitable title. -The monkeyhate 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - The level of this conflict is high enough to be called WAR, Hezbollah are well-equipped and well-prepared to be called Division, not a rag-tag militia. And it is not a war of Lebanese Army, nighter Lebanese Army declared war on Israel, nor IDF declare war on sovereign State of Lebanon. Flayer 11:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets get organized

Tewfik is right, we are being completely unproductive. We have to devide this into too main branches one on "War v Conflict" and another on "Israel-Hezbollah v Israel-Lebanon v Israel-Leabonon-Hezbollah".

We are making asses out of ourselves by this childish display of pseudodemocratic anarchy, IMHO :D

--Cerejota 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's refers to the news agencies: Associated Press, Reuters and AFP: **Israel seen favorable to UN draft on Lebanon war (Reuters) (Sun Aug 6, 10:42 AM ET); **BEIRUT (AFP) - Israeli combat jets struck villages across south Lebanon...the 26-day war (AFP Sun Aug 6, 5:40 AM ET); **Analysis: Lebanon war hurting U.S. goals (AP Sat Aug 5, 8:56 PM ET)

Tazmaniacs 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Israel-Hizbollah War of 2006. I have heard US President George Bush call this "conflict" a war. I have heard Israel's Prime Minister Olmert call this a war. I have also heard the Lebanoneese Prime Minister call this "conflict" many things including a war. I have heard militant leaders of Hizbollah, in Syria and in Iran call this a war. So why does Wikipedia still debate whether this is a war? The only question is Israel-Lebanon or Israel-Hizbollah?

When the dust settles, history will show that this war was started by an organization called Hizbollah. It may also be learned that while members of the Lebanon government was aware of the actions of Hizbollah in acquiring weapons from Syria and Iran, most did not want a shooting war with Israel. Also, history will also show that Hizbollah was used as a proxy by Iran and Syria who wanted the Israeli destruction of Lebanon to further its own aims. This may also just be one battle in a more global world war. But for now, this is a war between Hizbollah and Israel that is taking place in Lebanon and Israel.

I just took a look at World War II and noticed that the invasion of Poland was a section of that article. However, there was also an article titled "Polish September Campaign" and under a redirect of "Polish-German War of 1939". Something to ponder.

News article: (IsraelNN.com) Speaking to members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee in the Defense Ministry on Monday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz stated the current military situation “is a war, not a military operation.” Case closed. --user:mnw2000 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, apart of the Hizbollah question (and making it a simple proxy of Iran is just too simple, as is the vision of Lebanon which forgets that this country's just got out of a civil war and is built on a consensus between various communities; Hizbollah recently allied with Michel Aoun, something which those who only want to make it pass as a proxy of Iran forget...) But despite this "little point", medias, governments, everybody call it a war. It is pointless to continue using weasel words. Tazmaniacs 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources using the term "war"

• Time, July 17, 2006
• =Israel seen favorable to UN draft on Lebanon war (Reuters) (Sun Aug 6, 10:42 AM ET);
• BEIRUT (AFP) - Israeli combat jets struck villages across south Lebanon...the 26-day war (AFP Sun Aug 6, 5:40 AM ET);
• Analysis: Lebanon war hurting U.S. goals (AP Sat Aug 5, 8:56 PM ET)
• Peretz sued for war crimes, Daily Telegraph August 2, 2006
• Moroccan Jews ask court to try Amir Peretz for war crimes, Haaretz, August 3, 2006
• Peretz: We’re at war, we must win, Ynet News, July 27, 2006
• Peretz: the peacenik who led Israel to war, Reuters, August 3, 2006
• CNN: "In Olmert's Monday speech, he said Hezbollah has suffered a "heavy blow" in the fighting. Israeli troops and airstrikes have inflicted serious damage to Hezbollah's capacity to launch rockets into Israel, and its supply routes from Syria have been hampered, he said. "We will stop the war when the [rocket] threat is removed ..., our captive soldiers return home in peace, and you are able to live in safety and security." (Israel OKs expansion of Lebanon campaign. Tazmaniacs 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As User:Mnw2000 has noted, the case is closed. Lebanon call it a war, Hezbollah call it a war, Olmert (Israeli Prime minister) calls it a war, Amir Peretz (Ministry of War) calls it a war. Wikipedia still doesn't call it a war. Now Wikipedia does follow media & will call it a war. If you disagree with this, please provide reference demonstrating people who don't call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move V: 2006 Israel-Lebanon Sectarian Violence

since nobody can get the name right, I am now proposing using the new dod terminology to classify the current events. --Stephenzhu 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that title more accurate than the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict?

Israel is at war with Lebanon, whose government is comprised of multiple religious sects and denominations.

This isn't a sectarian conflict, like the original Lebanese Civil War.

DOD?

Do you mean the Dept. of Defense?

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Israeli casualties

• There is an official daily-upated governmental source [1], but it has one mistake. "Since July 12, 39 Israeli civilians and 63 IDF soldiers have been killed." If you DO REALLY COUNT the names of the IDF soldiers, you get 64 instead of 63. I alteady sent a feedback abount this mistake.
• There is another israeli source, but it is on russian [2]. And it also has a problem, 'cause the link is dying every day. Instead of http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/08aug2006/shem.html, tomorow you'll have to look on http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/09aug2006/shem.html, and so on. 89.1.254.24 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli military equipment losses during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I think we should include another link with the exact number of israeli military equipment losses.By my calculations the Israeli military has suffered since August 09:

HMMWV vehicles:2 destroyed
Merkava tanks:8 destroyed, 6 damaged
Armoured personnel carriers:1 destroyed
Apache helicopter gunships:3 lost
Battleships:1 damaged
Armored bulldozers:1 destroyed

What are your opinions?

1 000 killed according to Lebanon

Tewfik, I'm sorry, but if Lebanon claims 1 000 dead including 1/3 children, then the box can't just say 500 dead and bypass that. Tazmaniacs 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely Tewfik, you seemed to agree at one point that the range 400-800 had to be given, but the box now is 500, while Lebanon say 1000. Range should be 500-1000. Do not minimize losses from one side or another. Thanks. Best regards, Tazmaniacs 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It doesn't bypass that, but rather gives range of reliable media estimates. I suggest you look at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC. Not that its completely relevant, but one of the reasons we do this is to prevent repeating a blunder that even PM Siniora made (40 casualties became 1). The news generally say what they can verify, but still preserve the context of the greater numbers. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(2nd Edit conflict):I agreed to 400 when it was the case. Whether and how we should include official Lebanese numbers should be discussed above, but we last decided not to include them in light of the lack of distinction of combatants and general lack of clarity surrounding their numbers. Cheers Tewfik^Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, I'm sure you realize why you can't continue saying "we decided". Wikipedia:No binding decisions. Who is this "we"? Not everybody. Yes, we should include the Lebanese claim that 1 000 civilians were killed including 1/3 children, it has been reported by Reuters & others news agencies. This is simple respect of reality. Tazmaniacs 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying "we decided and that's it," but I am saying that what was decided shouldn't be ignored. Take part in the discussion, a case could be made for including the Lebanese position to some degree (though as it stands now, I oppose that =D). However totally replacing the sourced range isn't appropriate. See you there, Tewfik^Talk 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

General Discussiom

Megaphone Software is official Israel Gov policy

"is no evidence that this is official Israeli policy, only action of WUJS" Really? [3] So when Director of 'Hasbara', Amir Gissin, aka Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promotes it hes working freelance? Check the article on Megaphone software or the email sent out by Gissin [4]. Quotes Gissin as saying: "Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc. We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters. Do it now. For Israel." Why is this now changed to make it appear like WUJS are the source of megaphone? 82.29.227.171 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments while welcome need sources to support them. Since you have not proven it is, other then by your own original research and assumptions, its best to start again with sources stating it is official policy to convey your point. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a statement issued by Amir Gissin, Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promoting the use of the software is "original research"? LOL, im laughing at you. Didnt you read his comments? [5] Looks like the Hasbara Dept of Israeli Foreign Ministry considers Hasbara policy to me. [6] 82.29.227.171 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I see where it says using this software is their policy. I appreciate your juvenile comments, but please refrain from using them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the webpage doesnt call it a policy ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

When the Director of the Hasbara Department announces a drive to get 100,000 people using the software- "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference", most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy. If youre looking for other policy statements on Hasbara then check some of the aims as outlined in 2005 [7] 82.29.227.171 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The announcement was made for the organization if I am reading your source correctly, not directly for the government. Doesnt the other source specifically mention it was not a gov policy, the cyber soldiers one? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Israel’s Foreign Ministry must avoid direct involvement with the campaign but is in contact with international Jewish and evangelical Christian groups, distributing internet information packs. " It seems he, or his department, is not the originators of the idea either, he just send emails out telling people about it. The source actually specifically states these points. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats from the Times correspondent, not the Director of Hasbara in Israel, Amir Gissin. To repeat: When the Director of the Hasbara Department announces a drive to get 100,000 people using the software- "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference", most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy. What the Times have to say about them avoiding "direct involvement" is redundant when the Director of the Hasbara Dept publicly announces it via one of the sites in question.[8] 82.29.227.171 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The current formulation stating that the Times reported that Gissin made those comments, and assigning responsibility for the software to WUJS, is the best way to discuss this in an NPOV matter at the moment. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Quotation That is WP:OR. -- Avi 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No its just a reasonable assumption. Gissin is Director of Hasbara in Israel, he sends out a communique urging use of the software on 22nd July, (before Times gets a further quote from him on 28 July)-

"We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference.. Do it now. For Israel.", We being who? Him and the WUJS? The Times was reporting that the WUJS students had joined the campaign AFTER Gissen's call to arms on the 22nd. Is Amir Gissin in the WUJS? Nope, he works for the Israeli Government, he signed the call to arms on their behalf, in his official capacity as Director of Hasbara in Israel, and his 'call to arms' is "For Israel". Here is his announcement, note his, not the WUJS's.[9] Note the date- 22nd (before the Times article [10]). The IDF is spreading propaganda, the WUJS is in alliance with them following their 'call to arms'. Why the coded denial and attempt to make it out to be a WUJS initiative? 82.29.227.171 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tewfik in this matter, hopefully others will chime in however. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik, thats what the source say. Now, Hasbara should be mentioned, as this is a widely acknowledged practice that goes back at leasts to the Jewish Authority and Haganah. Thats not OR, bayby. --Cerejota 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The Times source article remarks on the WUJS rallying to the initial Hasbara Dept announcement made by Gissin. It is dated 27th July and refers to the period of the last 5 days when WUJS members began downloading and using Megaphone.
2. The Times article was written 5 days after Gissin made the initial announcement here.
3. The Times article does not say the WUJS created megaphone or that they started the campaign.
4. Gissin launched the campaign and policy of gathering support using Megaphone via standwithus.com on the 22nd July as the announcement posted there indicates [11]

Is anyone reading that announcement or what?? Why weasel word the piece on Israeli Government Hasbara Dept. and try to make out the WUJS started it? 82.29.227.171 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

beginning of conflict

the original beginning is like this,

According to Haaretz at 9:05 AM local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians[18].

it has a defective citing and also I think using the Haaretz alone cannot be considered npov (it probably just cite idf sources). same can be said of using lebanon newspapers/al manar.

I change it to npov vesion.

--Stephenzhu 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Haaretz is not like al-Manar. But nevermind, not Haaretz alone is used, several prominent sources are also mentioned. Al-Jazeerah also calls it cross-border here. --Yms 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am only saying it seems that both Israeli/Lebanese sources are suspect as wiki sources. Also, I am aware of prominent sources calling it cross-border but it doesn't mean the notation is not in dispute. -Stephenzhu 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If both Ha'aretz AND Al-Jazeerah call it cross border, I think it is no longer reasonable to consider still in dispute. -- Avi 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am only using a neutral sense here. I am not subscribing either version of the story yet. As I said, if AP and AFP explicitly repudiate their earlier reports and the Lebanon source repudiated it as well, we can consider it not in dispute. Al-Jazeerah doesn't really count since they don't have people witnessing the causing events. --Stephenzhu 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to explicitly repudiate, as they have not repeated the claims. And none of the agencies had people watching the event; as an extreme defining its limit, Al Jazeera is absolutely credible in this instance. Tewfik^Talk 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The practice of medias like AP and AFP is that they will post a correction if the original report is wrong. You see that all the time. I am not saying the current Al Jazeera is not credible in general, only saying that they don't have the first person reporting on that event so the specific reporting on the causing event has no weight in this issue. It seems only two sources are relevent here, IDF and Lebanon/Hezballah sources. Everbody else gets their info from them.--Stephenzhu 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

12th of July is not the "beginning of conflict." 12th of July is the beginning of the regime in Beirut to have a real world problem (with Hezbollah/Israel.) MX44 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalists determine what is WP:Verifiable, and us based on their reliability. Those are the principles at play here. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was Rafik Hariri International Airport bombed?

Hello,

at this point nor the article Rafic Hariri International Airport nor this article provide a reason for bombing that airport. I know that this is a controversial topic but it could be done in an objective way by providing Hezbollah's and Olmert's explanation for instance.

Thanks.

Evilbu 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the official justification for that strike,

Israel said it targeted the airport because it is a transfer point for weapons and supplies to Hezbollah. The airport was closed and all flights were diverted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, well (but there is a lock now) that is something we could add. Evilbu 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the lighthouse in Beirut eradicated?

Eye-wittnesses have said that it looked like some boored out IAF crew having a local competition between themselves? MX44 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik please discuss removing sources here before

Relating to this last edit, could you explain it here? Please adress important casualties problem above. See also discussions concerning term "war": everybody calls it a war, we should follow use. Please do not claim your POV is "consensus", it's a war, "consensus" is not the correct term to use when you revert 1 000 dead to 500 and change "war" by "conflict". Peace brother, Tazmaniacs 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit has nothing to do with the "war" issue; I only removed a redundant source due to space issues and changed the characterisation of "all" to a more encyclopedic and verifiable "most."

In terms of the "war" issue though, we should only make a change once the entire procedure finishes. This has nothing to do with POV - as can be evidenced by supporters for competeing titles on both sides of the spectrum. There's just no rush. When we change the page title, we should change the internal reference, but to call it war when the consensus has not arrived at it is pointless. I do hope you understand. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit shown was the reason of the name of this section: why did you remove that source without discussion? Concerning the term "war", do not mix together the issue of the title of this article which is no emergency, and the content of this entry. All mainstream news agency, the Israeli governemnt and Lebanon call it a war. No, I do not understand your support of Tasc's revert of my edits, which include lowering 1 000 killed to 500 and erasing the term "war". Regards, Tazmaniacs 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the terms "conflict" and "war" can be used interchangeably, although I honestly don't think it's a major issue. Most observers will characterize these events as a war regardless of how Wikipedia, or Reuters, or The Guardian choose to describe them.

I think insisting that 1,000 fatalities is an accurate and reliable figure is another matter altogether.

As someone's already pointed out, several major news agencies-and the current prime minister of Lebanon-have already been caught exaggerating the casualty figures on the Lebanese side. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to elicit sympathy for one side of this conflict, especially not one that is accomplishing that task quite well on its own.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I do agree with your common sense, you can't argue in favor of the exclusion of the word "war" under the grounds that it doesn't makes any difference. It does. Words have sense. Regarding the 1000, Reuters has deemed the information noteworthy enough to be said. I make no judgment on its reliability, but the fact is that the war is ongoing in Lebanon, and that, as far as I know, the Lebanon government is as valid a source as the Israeli army. Dividing numbers by two is lying. Period. Tazmaniacs 08:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it matters a great deal, that is reflected in the ongoing discussion about the name. There aren't two separate discussions; if its a war, than it is one in both the title and the content, and if not, likewise. We don't call things by one name in their title and another in their body. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article

Another intresting article. this information needs to be added to ensure NPOV. It echoes Galloways information. --Striver 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehh .. Would you care to quote what is missing? MX44 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

suitable lead

We have 2 edition for some part of lead:

1- On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise, consisting of a alleged cross-border raid resulting in the capture of two soldiers and shelling into Israel as a diversionary tactic. Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward, later renamed Operation Change of Direction. Israel's strike has included massive bombing raids by the Israeli Air Force (IAF), an air and Israeli Sea Corps naval blockade of Lebanon (especially southern Lebanon and Beirut), a force of tanks and armored personnel carriers, and some small raids into southern Lebanon by IDF ground troops. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has engaged in artillery rocket bombardment of Israel's northern cities and towns, including Haifa.

2- Triggered by a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling across the Blue Line into Israel, which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three Israeli soldiers, Israel retaliated with an air and naval blockade of Lebanon, massive airstrikes across the whole country, and ground incursions into southern Lebanon . Hezbollah in turn immediately responded with large-scale rocket attacks into Northern Israel .

I think the first one is more suitable.--Accessible 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The first one is more suitable, but the word "alleged" sounds like it is not proven yet. It is proven.... 89.0.219.66 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't propose to answer the question of whether it is or isn't proven, but "alleged" (implying they might not have done it) seems inconsistent with "initiated" (implying they did it).--82.69.133.230 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The important difference is that the first version is a mile long. We need to keep this already long article down by not including rather irrelevant details in the intro that are repeated further down anyway, like the names of the various operations and different branches of the IDF. The fact that some Lebanese policemen initially claimed that the Israeli soldiers were taken on the Lebanese side is also something explained further down. As that claim is not supported by the Hezbollah announcements or by the Lebanese government (and they would repeat it over and over again if they felt that the claim was valid), indicates that we do not need to write "alleged" in the intro. Thomas Blomberg 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the second one is suitable for "Begining of the conflict" not "Lead".--212.6.32.3 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand. Everytime I check the lead there is written a new thing. But nobody participate in this debate. If the talk page is a joke, Please tell me too.--Accessible 09:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the Operations is not the most interesting, and, at any cases, they is no reason to put them in bold. These are military details, which is not like the 1000 dead (which concerns civilians). Tazmaniacs 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Nasrallah quotation and Hezbollah actions

This part is removed frequently.:

On 25 July Nasrallah has announced the launch of the "second phase of our struggle" in which his long-range rockets would "go beyond Haifa," Israel's third-largest city. Israeli officials have been bracing for possible rocket attacks on Tel Aviv. On 29 July in a televised address to the Lebanese nation Nasrallah said:

"I tell the Lebanese that no one among you should be afraid of the victory of the resistance.. I assert that the victory will be for all of Lebanon, for every Arab, Muslim and honorable Christian, who stood with Lebanon and defended it."

30 July reportedly saw 140-146 rockets fired from Hezbollah positions into Israel- the most fired on a single day since IDF Operation Change Direction began. On 2 August rockets also landed near the town of Beit Shean, about 70 kilometres (43 miles) from the border. Reports of rocket attacks reached 300 striking 15 targets inside Israel despite the IDF's claim that the three-week offensive in Lebanon had eroded Hezbollah's firepower.

I think the reason should be written.--Accessible 09:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because we are trying to keep the article short. That section is a summary of the main article, where this information is (or if it isn't, should be) included already. July 25 was two weeks ago, and his comments are old, and also irrelivent - his actions speak for themselves. Details of his speeches are not needed in a summary. July 30 was over a week ago, and it is already mentioned that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets into Israel - the specfic number fired on one day is of no concern here. Please, remember this is a summary - and all of the main info in there (that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets on northern towns, and that they have reached quite far south) is already in the section. --Iorek85 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Widing of the War

Where should it be mentioned that the Israel's Security Cabinet approved the widing of the war? Israel Security Council OKs Wider Ground Offensive in Lebanon Red1530 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BUTTTTTT Israel said it would widen the war if and only if diplomacy at the UN doesn't work. It's not an immediate green light to widen the war. --68.1.182.215 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Karen Kwiatkowski

This belongs in Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where you will find corroborating evidence on NSA sharing SIGINT with the IDF- check the Salon.com article cited there 82.29.227.171 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of weapons with wide blast patterns

The merging of Hezbollah's ball-bearing use into a section with other critiques of Hezbollah while creating a section just for claims against Israeli cluster-bomb use creates a skewed presentation of facts, and minimises Hezbollah's problems while highlighting problems with Israel. This is especially true in this case where Human Rights Watch feels that the two issues are related and deals with both under one subheading. While I'm sure this wasn't the intent, the outcome is an extremely POV section. Please address, Tewfik^Talk 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This section should be renamed—the title naïvely misrepresents the issues with these weapons.

Ball-bearings are a normal feature of certain high-explosive fragmenting warheads, HE-Frag—others use metal fragmentation casings designed to turn into shrapnel. These are conventional antipersonnel weapons intended to be most effective against unarmoured targets, including unprotected civilians. Cluster bombs release a series of grenades or minelets, particular ones are be designed for antipersonnel or anti-armour use, or both—like antipersonnel land mines, they may leave behind unexploded munitions which render the ground dangerous, and may indiscriminately maim or kill civilians long after a conflict.

It also should be explicitly mentioned that the Katyusha-type artillery rocket launchers being used by Hezbollah are bargain-basement area weapons, sacrificing accuracy for the economy of their launchers and ammunition, and for a high volume of fire. One of their characteristics is their shock action against even experienced, prepared soldiers, when they are used en masse. Launching them at inhabited areas is an indiscriminate attack on civilians, and in my opinion practically constitutes a terror attack by definition. —Michael Z. 2006-08-09 19:14 Z [updated]

Nasrallah - spiritual leader

Are you sure? Isn't it old Fadlallah? 89.1.208.97 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point.

Nasrallah's title-to the best of my recollection-is "Secretary-General" of Hezbollah.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields

Someone removed the subsection Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields. i have put it back in.

Please explain why the criticisms of the allegations should not be present in the article. The allegations are disputed, so WP:NPOV means we have to present the arguments for and against. i don't understand how someone can remove this, unless s/he is attempting to present only one POV in this section.

Thanks. Boud 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I'm about to vastly shorten both sections. That section is a summary of the sub article, where the larger quotes and details can be found. The article is currently far too long. Iorek85 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Which "sub article"? The present version looks something like an NPOV summary, though i agree that more splitting off into a new article and then bringing a better summary back here would make more sense. Boud 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Boud I believe this needs its own article to be dealt with, there is both too much detail on it and too much criticism. It is overpowering both this article and the article on Targeting civilian areas. I will leave a message on your talk. 82.29.227.171 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Breaking off into a separate article X sounds fine to me - then NPOV debate can happen in the discussion of the new article X and this article (2006_Israel...) can have whatever the latest NPOV summary of article X is and we can tell people to stop doing things here which could sound POV since the debate is happening there. So then the main question is: what title? (one that delete-maniacs will not try to delete). How about:

Allegations of human shield usage in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict ?

i think you'll find in Jonathan Cook's article, that there's something like an allegation that Israel has deliberately built military facitilies close to Israeli-Arab population centres - so that's more or less an allegation that Israel has been using human shields, in which case the allegations go both ways (that doesn't mean that they are equally true, just as "Israel-Lebanon" conflict does not claim that one side is more morally/legally right than the other). Anyway, the point is the allegations go both ways enough for NPOV to require that the title go both ways.

IMHO, part of the article would be documenting the rhetoric by "both" sides and other parties, and the title reflects this, and (briefly) its relation to human rights law, the geneva conventions etc, some comments by analysts (not wikipedians ;) about whether or not the concept of "human shields" makes any sense or not, the history of the term itself (AFAIK it only dates back to the 1991 attack on Iraq, when it was used to show that Saddam Hussein was not just a US-installed dictator, but he was also a really evil man - but don't quote me on this, i'm just saying this from neural memory). It would be necessary to avoid too much overlap with the numbers of civilian victims, though of course, that a summary of civilian victims would presumably be part of the article.

i can't promise much work on the article, but i think we have enough material as it is and then the NPOV + NOR process can go on from there... Boud 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Boud, thank you for your help. In a fork article it will be more manageable and easier to NPOV/NOR as you said. (User:82.29.227.171) RandomGalen 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote in the article that says not using human shields would be "like standing in an open field waiting to be shot" is absurd. Hezbollah could build bunkers, tunnels, etc., in which to hide, they don't need to hide behind women and children. That is, of course, not true if their real goal is to maximize Lebanese civilian casualties to try to elicit world sympathy and/or to excuse their own killing of Israeli civilians. StuRat 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)