Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Earlier discussions

  • Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive34
  • Background rewrite, Size of Israeli ground troops, Attacks on UN personnel..., Timeline(s) of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Background, Time for a move?, Flimsy sources. [2], October violation of ceasefire by Israel, Poor article, stupid Wikipedia, "Kuwait sources", Casualties in the infobox, Nasrallah statement, repair infobox, The recent revert war, Obscure referent, name issue, Outcomes, Media controversy section, Media Controversy, Signal interception, The article fails to name the Israeli operation, Reverts to my changes, Where does the fact that Israel had been planning this military operation since the year 2000 fit in?, Article name, Why is Lebanon not listed as part of the conflict in the infobox?, Unreliable tag, Attn some administrator who runs this site...

Again, about the name

I know it is probably too late for it, but I think there is a big problem with the name.

I don't see much discussion about the differences between conflicts and wars. I thought it had to do with the intensity of the fighting -and this one was really intense-. The view, borrowed from Realism, of States as the only protagonists in foreign affairs has already been widely criticised, so I don't think that it would matter if it was Israel against Lebanon or Hezbollah: either way it was a war.

The following credible and prestigious sources back-up the "war" denomination:

  • The Economist calls it a war, as portrayed on the covers of the July 22nd, August 5th and August 19th editions. and the articles included in different editions since July 2006. [1]
  • BBC considers it a war, too. The Lebanese crisis explained, BBC News, November 22, 2006.
  • So does Ze'ev Schiff, publishing in Foreign Affairs, and I quote: "Why did Israel turn the kidnapping, however serious on a tactical level, into a full-scale strategic war against Hezbollah and Lebanon?". Israel's War With Iran, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006.
  • Paul Salem, again for Foreign Affairs. The Future of Lebanon, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006.
  • Also, check Le Monde Diplomatique, in an article David Wearing The UK: hands on in Lebanon, Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2006.
  • So does The Perry-Castañeda Library [2]

Tzipi Livni, Foreign Minister for Israel -one of the participants on the so-called conflict-, in an address for "The Middle East After the War in Lebanon" event also referred to it as a war. I quote: "And I will give just a few examples referring to the war in Lebanon. Israel was attacked by Hizbullah from Lebanon – an unprovoked attack – and it was clear that we share the same interest. " [3]

I think the decision taken on the name does not reflect the leading foreign affairs commentators opinion. Wikipedia, as you might know, is not a debate class nor a collection of opinions: it tries to include knowledge in it, and I think the current title does not reflect the academic view about that war.

Finally, either Hezbollah or Lebanon, the war was conducted in such a manner that Israel attacked both, whereas Hezbollah was the only attacker against Israel. So, it can be "Israel vs Lebanon" or "Israel vs Hezbollah and Lebanon", but not "Israel vs Hezbollah", because as long as there wasn't a UN resolution permitting Israel's attack, Lebanon was a victim of an aggression. (Cfr. Germany attacking Czechoslovakia or Poland before and during World War II). Thus, in that part the name was spot-on.Chimba 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "2006 Israel Lebanon conflict" seems to suggest an ongoing, and primarily political dilemma, while "war" would acurately represent the scale of destruction and deployment of arms.

Bless sins 03:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

support users above. again --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
for the standard name 2006 Lebanon War- like 1982 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Another source that calls it a war: Israel:Seized soldiers badly hurt, Aljazeera, December 6, 2006.Chimba 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference who you think the "victim" was. The fact that Lebanon was affected does not change from the fact at all that the war was fought between Israel and Hezbollah. Germany's invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia may possibly be the worst comparison I have heard. When is the last time you opened a book? --Shamir1 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, maybe you're being too narrow. The comparison is only valid as in a aggression against a country. I know there was no UN during Blitzkrieg, nor were Polish terrorists, but if Israel attacks Lebanon -for whatever reason- it's pointless to wait for a war declaration before calling it a war. Here you have state A attacking state B; the grounds don't really matter afterwards.
Besides, don't lose the main point: it was a war, not a "conflict". Even you call it a war, so instead of attacking me, try to make your point: was it a war or no? If you agree, say it. Ooh, and basically, I don't know if there's a consensus about wars between terrorist groups and states (except for "civil wars"). When George W. Bush calls it the war on terror, many scholars blush.Chimba 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you people realised that the articles is calling it a "conflict" while quoting, in its first paragraph, two different sources that portray it as a WAR in Lebanon and in Israel? If you're going to be so inexact about the name at least be consistent. Either change the name, once and for all, or drop those sources if they're not valid. If they're valid, we should seriously reconvene on changing the name.Chimba 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Those were added by people who were, um, keen to see the name changed to War. Though they bring up a good point - which of those names is the most accurate? Iorek85 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The general consensus among governmental and non-governmental organizations, citizens in the countries involved, and the media at large seems to indicate that the correct term is "war". It is by far more widely used, and in fact got the majority of votes the last time a poll was taken on these Talk pages. However, there is a significant bloc of Wikipedia editors intent on keeping the name "conflict" due to their personal POV that will prevent the article from being renamed accurately any time soon. Good luck though. — George Saliba [talk] 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to also suggest to you what was suggested to me the last time I brought this issue up. Consider collecting all the information on both sides of the discussion from the archives of this talk page related to the naming of the article, and post it at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/name for review. That would make it easier to come to some conclusion. — George Saliba [talk] 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few reasons for the disagreement, but this discussion uniquely stood out as one of the few that crossed party lines equally, so I wouldn't count POV in its usual sense as a factor. My comments on GA criteria can be found under "GA nom on hold", and I urge you all to leave feedback no matter whether in favour or against so that we can finally get this over with. TewfikTalk 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wish someone could list the reasons for disagreement. I understand those in favor of the term "war", but not those in favor of the term "conflict". The only reasoned argument I've seen for "conflict" was that there was no declaration of war, which was rebutted citing other cases of wars using the term "war" without a declaration to my satisfaction. Oh well, I responded to the "GA nom on hold" discussion below regardless. — George Saliba [talk] 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't answer the question. What name do you think it should be? And do you think you could get people to agree on it? As for the majority, yes, it did, but consensus is what works here, not simple majorities. Iorek85 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Without minimising the importance of this issue, is it possible that we could temporarily focus on fixing the technical problems with this page so as to bring it into line with the GA criteria? I'd especially like to make sure everyone is fine with my proposal to move some of the info. Thanks, TewfikTalk 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC))
Where is your proposal? I've only been skimming the discussions of late, as I'm quite busy these days, but from what I remembered gathering I saw a bunch of feedback, most of which seemed minor or I outright disagreed with (such as having too many references). I'm all for moving some of the content of this article to subarticles however, and the article needs a lot more help than that with POV issues on both sides. — George Saliba [talk] 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, the appropriate title would be 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Most people refer to it as a war, and it's been established that a declaration of war isn't necessary to title an article using the term war. I haven't really heard any good arguments for using the term "conflict". I think that the only reason that the current title remains is a small group of editors pushes forcefully for the term "conflict", while the majority of editors don't give the issue a high priority. Unfortunately, that is a consensus – one which I think is based more on POV than reasoning. — George Saliba [talk] 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the 34 pages of Archives to this Talk page, pulling out all the discussions regarding usage of the term "war" versus usage of the term "conflict" in the title of this article. I've only skimmed the material so far, but I'm initally quite surprised how much more support for the term "war" there has been from just about day one of the fighting. I'll be spending the next days/weeks going through all of it, but I'm hoping to lay out the arguments and counter-arguments on both sides, and determine who voted for which term in the various polls (there were 3 or 4 such polls).

I'm curious if anyone has any suggestions before I start. Initially the arguments against the term "war" were predominantly to take a wait-and-see attitude to the subject until the media came up with a common term, but after the media started to use the term "war" extensively I'm having a hard time finding concrete reasons to favor the term "conflict" over "war". If anyone can shed some light for me that would be much appreciated. Thanks. — George Saliba [talk] 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For me, it's because no one can explain to me the difference between a conflict and a war. Since I've no cut-off to decide one or the other, I choose the term that I think fits best - Vietnam was a War, Iraq was a War, WW2 was a War, but this, like the continuing violence in Gaza and the West Bank, is a conflict. Israel sent troops into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, not take over the country, or even attack Lebanon. Hezbollah never entered Israel. Wars, for me, are between states, and are fights over control of land. Iorek85 13:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Iorek85 - Thanks for taking the time to reply! I think the confusion here (or at least one confusion), is that this definition isn't for us to decide - that would be a violation of no original research. Our goal shouldn't be to try to debate which term is the correct term based on our own interpretations, but which is correct based on Wikipedia's naming conventions for historical events:
  1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
  2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
  3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
Honestly, I have no preference between the two terms personally, but I believe the correct term is "war" according to Wikipedia's naming conventions on the subject, given the heavy dominance of the term "war" over "conflict" in sources from both country's governments, international media, international organizations, and so on. To clarify, I'm curious why the term "conflict" can be considered more appropriate than "war" according to Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines. — George Saliba [talk] 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
When Lorek says "I choose the term that I think fits best" or "Wars, for me, are between states, and are fights over control of land", he would be spot-on if this were a blog, and not wikipedia. Wikipedia tries to collect knowledge without original research, thus all the information and media available regarding the issue as a war should prevail.
Also... it might be true that there is not consensus, but if there's none, why settle with conflict? As consensus develops, it might be fairer to call it as the majority thinks ("war"). Specially since "war" has huge representation in sources, unlike "conflict". The declaration of war is barely used right now, folks.Chimba 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've no strong preference either way. If you can prove 1., then it should be war, otherwise I'll be sticking to conflict under 3. since I've no idea what the difference between war and conflict is. I tend to think that the media use 'war' as a hyperbolic term, trying to sell news. Still, if you can get a majority of votes for one name, go for it. Ah, war, the tired, overused thing, it's getting all worn out. And won't anyone think of poor conflict, the confused and overlooked word?Iorek85 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Iorek85. I appreciate your level-headedness and consideration in this matter. One minor thing to note is I believe "war" is more accurate according to both points 1 and 2, while the argument can be made for either term under point 3 (which is what I believe has been mistakenly debated here ad nauseum, rather than points 1 or 2). My question is what evidence do people want to see to show that "war" is the correct term under points 1 and 2? Should I be listing dozens of articles and sources from all major media outlets, governments, and international organizations using the term "war"?
One of the points I brought up a month ago was Google trends data[7] which, while only a sampling of their data, shows a pretty clear preference for the term "war". Note that this is a logical "AND" search, not a logical "OR" search, and doing a search for usage of the term "war" without the term "conflict", and "conflict" without war, return almost the exact same data. Furthermore note that the year is specificed as 2006, and if you click the Regions tab the data indicates that "war" is the more common English term in both Lebanon and Israel. While not scientific, I do view this as something that strongly favors the term "war" under points 1 and 2.
So would it be helpful if I start collecting a list of organizations and sources using the term "war"? Thanks. — George Saliba [talk] 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. I'd set up another straw poll, putting forth the arguments. As you say, it hinges on satisfying 1. (I don't think you have much trouble fulfilling it). Google trends aren't perfect, and the guideline seems to mention academic sources, so I'd try for a mix of all four. A google search, Governments (hezbollah, even), news outlets, and academic sources. To be honest, I wouldn't but too much effort into it - 4 or 5 of each should be more than enough to convince people - you've already convinced me. :) I don't like using the term war, as I've mentioned above, but you're right; according to policy, it should be war. Once the straw poll is set up, we'll run it for a week or two, and then get the admins to unprotect and move it. The only hiccup I can envisage is people saying no, because they think it should be Israel - Hezbollah. Iorek85 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a bit on the fence myself as to the Israel-Hezbollah versus Israel-Lebanon variations. I guess my personal preference may be something like 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, though that was voted down at one point, and I haven't researched how well it meets Wikipedia's naming guidelines yet anyways. I'm just hoping to get the "war" versus "conflict" matter resolved first, then hopefully we can take another look at other issues with the name. I'll probably start creating these lists you've suggested over the next few days. Also, thanks so much for your help. It's so much easier to understand and resolve these issues when other people are willing to discuss them in a constructive manner. — George Saliba [talk] 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't been so involved in this discussion as of late, but Iorek85's comments are a rather accurate summary of my feelings on this issue, though I have to again point out that I question the value of the GoogleTrends data, since that is merely an indication of what people might be searching for, and not some standard that we should judge naming by. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I only point to the Google Trends data as a good measure of "relative commonality" of the two terms. I could come back to you with a list of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of sources using the term "war", but one coul reasonably ask how we know which term is the more common. I think the trend data shows how relatively more common the term "war" is than "conflict". Other Google searches show a similar trend I believe, such as Google searches of web sites and Google searches of news articles – both of which show the same leaning towards "war" over "conflict". The other alternative is to have someone else do searches for articles using the term "conflict", and then see who can create the longer list, but that's a very inefficient use of editor time in my opinion. — George Saliba [talk] 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
One quick note: I've begun collecting articles that use the term "war" from a wide spectrum of sources. Still working on it, but the first 50 or so can be viewed at the top of the name talk page I started. I've also collected all the archived discussions regarding the term "war" versus the term "conflict" on that page, and have been reviewing it. — George Saliba [talk] 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't presently have time to do it, but such a survey would only really be complete if articles using the term "conflict" etc. were also collected. And maybe I'm not quite understanding, but I still don't see the value of looking at the search indices, since they are ultimately a record of what people search for, and not of some published usage of the term. That and like Iorek seems to believe, I hope that we are cautious of WP:Recentism. TewfikTalk 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe someone else can collect the list using the term "conflict"? I would, but I think that would be a definite conflict of interests for me to build both lists. You're probably right regarding the Google Trends search terms used by people. My only thought is that people would tend to search for more information on something they've heard about - I hear about a war in the Middle East on the news one night, so I go and search using the term war. It's meant in no way to be binding evidence of anything, just an interesting bit of information (plus it's extremely hard to generate such great graphical data for other things, such as the global use of the term "war" in published articles, for instance). I agree we need to be cautious of recentism, though I honestly feel that the term "conflict" may show recentism more than the term "war". During the fighting, especially early on, it was often referred to as a "conflict", but as time went on the preponderance of citations seem to use the term "war". This is just my own rough assessment of the random sampling of articles I've seen, as I haven't done any quantitative analysis of this trend. — George Saliba [talk] 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone given any thought to building a list of sources using the term "conflict" independently? I think it would be nice to graphically chart them by date versus the sources using "war". Another Reuters article out today uses the term "war".[8] I've added it to my ongoing collection of articles. — George Saliba [talk] 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW - the more I read this, the more pro-Israel it appears to be written.

There is no mention of the strong international backlash against what was seen as Israeli's unmeasured response. The name of Israel's military operation is left out.

Regardless of whatever side you are on here, leaving just those facts out is pretty bad.

69.138.15.46 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Chris

That is because it is a pro israeli article, just look at the discussion pages, certain members of the jewish faith or plain Israelis who have controlled these pages have really impressed me, this is definately their article and shame on us neutrals for letting them alter history this way. Clearly the palestinians themselves are in no way able to compete so it is up to us neutrals - if anyone can be bothered. Reaper7 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch it Reaper and anon, comments like that may get you accused of anti-Semitism. They have in real life, I'm not sure about on Wikipedia. According to some commentators and NGOs though, even criticizing Israeli policies in this conflict amounts to anti-Semitism. I say it isn't, I believe that honest criticism of flawed policies is not anti-anything. It's being realistic.--Euthymios 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There is mention of the criticism of Israel in the section 'attacks on civilians'. It does, however, seem to equate the criticism of both sides as equal, which I don't think is fair. It's a legacy of the NPOV guideline, which means articles must be balanced. Some seem to think it means an article must give equal weight to both sides, when in truth it should reflect equally the amounts of credibility both arguments possess. You don't make half an article on the Earth to the notion it is on the back of a turtle, do you? While both sides were criticised by various groups, much of the criticism was of Israel, but sadly, this isn't reflected in the article. It is difficult to strike a balance - 50/50 is a very easy one to achieve - every criticism matched by another of the opposing side, and rebuttals by both. Achieving an accurate reflection of public opinion is much harder.
As for the name of the military action, I hardly see how that reflects bias. You're welcome to add it if you have a reliable source. Iorek85 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored "slim" as a qualifier in the background section, but forgot to make mention in the edit summary. TewfikTalk 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Both of you Iorek85 and Tewfik have shown strong bias in this article and should stop editing and reverting chances in this article. Mtjs0 12:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence for this accusation... Iorek85 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

the amount of your edit times is evidence enough. Stop blocking other peoples edits, you dont have the right to controll this article. --Mtjs0 21:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making controversial edits such as these without reaching a new consensus. TewfikTalk 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct term of taking prisoners of war is capture not kidnapping or abducting as could be stated for civilians [9]The second edit [10] is a known fact fact and would clarify the situation af this biassed article. Please stop reverting edits so I and others can make this article better. --Mtjs0 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
One cannot be taken as a prisoner of war by a non nation entity... Hezbollah is a militia. They kidnapped, they did not take a Prisoner of War. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What makes you say that a non-nation entity can't take a prisoner of war? Although I doubt that the term would fit under the Geneva Conventions, it seems accurate of the common English definition.[11] — George Saliba [talk] 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a gray area. At one extreme we have nations at war, where POW obviously applies. At the other extreme two guys down the pub could decide to call themselves the Boddingtons Ale Liberation Army and roll a passing soldier, in which case the term POW would be absurd. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle: it's not a national army, though it is a large and somewhat well-organized entity. Accordingly it seems appropriate to adopt in-between wording -- not "capture", not "abduct", but maybe something like "took prisoner" or the like, which neither implies a national army nor implies criminality. Raymond Arritt 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually initially introduced the term "abducted" in the hopes of coming up with a less POV word than either "captured" or "kidnapped". I'm still not sure that captured alone is POV (without any POV adverbs, etc.), and I'm worried that we might run into other POV discusssions with taken/took prisoner - were they prisoners, were they POWs, were they hostages, etc. I do agree that it would be great if we could find a single, very neutral statement. Out of curiosity, why do people find capture to be POV? Arguments about whether they are POWs or not aside, captured seems relatively NPOV to me as long as it isn't associated with weasel words - swiftly captured, valiantly captured, slyly captured, etc. See below for my more in depth thoughts on the matter. — George Saliba [talk] 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The second is edit is far from fact - it is a POV, and a minority POV, at that, of some segments of the Lebanese population. Please to not introduce POV into this article. Isarig 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's actually the majority view inside Lebanon. Regardless, I've added the term "disputed" to the mention of the Shebaa farms in the Background section of the article, in hopes of conveying the meaning Mtjs0 intended in an NPOV manner. — George Saliba [talk] 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
While it might be the majority view inside Lebanon, that doesn't contradict what I wrote (that it is the POV of a segments within Lebanon), and more importantly, Lebanon's position on this is a minority POV. "disputed" as a compromise is ok with me.Isarig 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I agree that Shebaa farms being part of Lebanon is the minority view outside of Lebanon. Short of Syria signing something defining it as such (that the UN would recognize), that will probably remain the case. — George Saliba [talk] 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think capture is probably the more accurate term. The term kidnap doesn't seem wholey inaccurate by the letter of the definition, however I'm fearful of it being used in a POV manner as a weasel word (as it is derived from the English "child-snatching"). The term abduct seems less POV, but it sounds unusual to me when reading it, probably from the term being used so often with alien abductions. While capture is probably the most accurate term for prisoners of war, I'm not sure that the status of the soliders taken even matters – one can certainly be captured without having prisoner of war status. Also, if this was an issolated incident, outside the scope of the conflict, kidnap would likely be more accurate. However, the taking of the soldiers was part of a broader conflict (the conflict it sparked, which this article is about), so capture seems more accurate. If there had been more lag time between the capture of the soldiers and the retaliatory strikes (more than one day, or at least enough time for discussion or negotiation), and had the capture not coincided with simultaneous rocket attacks, kidnap might also apply, but given that the conflict started very quickly, I think capture is the correct term. — George Saliba [talk] 06:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash the arguments which have been made in the past, but I recognise the problems with 'kidnap', and I also see them quite clearly in 'capture'. It seems to me that the most fitting word (UFOs aside

) is abduct, which both conveys the sense of what happened without making it seem to be a part of some preexisting combat. TewfikTalk 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment?

I'm really stumped as to what's the best word here. Shall we try WP:RFC to get some fresh perspectives? Raymond Arritt 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

sounds good --Mtjs0 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah death toll - NEW

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340561,00.html

acknowledging a new death toll. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, now they admit 250 instead 80 as claimed before.
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/12/15/ap3258877.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.165.251 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Islamic Courts Union

what role does this organisation plays in the war?Yousaf465

There used to be a reference next to the listing that said that some Somalian members of this organization fought alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon. I've never heard it elsewhere, but I don't remember the credibility of the source. I'll try to dig it up. — George Saliba [talk] 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Found it[12]. I'll re-add it to the page. It would be good to get further references to support this probably, as this is still the only site I've heard report this information. — George Saliba [talk] 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As an update, I've found the original report to the UN that first mentioned this group in Lebanon. However, it's worth noting that it appears to be heavily disputed.[13][14] Anyone have thoughts on how to handle this? My personal thought is that it should be mentioned in some section of the article, with appropriate references to the dispute, but not listed as a combatant in the infobox until there is more consensus among experts. — George Saliba [talk] 16:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

For this to pass GA the following,

  • Don't wikilink solo years, ex 1975
  • Way too many references in the lead. Remember it is a summary of the article, the death count and all the events will be referenced in the body.
  • References go right after a full-stop and comma, not in the middle of a setence, also no spaces between references, ex [45] [46] [47] [48]
  • Is it possible to where you have 4 references to have one? makes it easier to read
  • In the 'Reviews of the conflict' move one of the images down, too crowded
  • Awful lot of external links, try remove a few
  • I think the semi-protection will have to go as it fails the GA criteria of not being stable.

I also suggest you request a Peer Review. Goodluck M3tal H3ad 07:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. We can certainly take care of the stylistic points which you mentioned. There are usually multiple references because the point in question would otherwise be highly contentious, and past attempts to reduce the referencing for such statements lead to challenging and readdition of the citations. The multiple external links are the result of a drawn out mediation, and while I believe there would not be much of an issue with trimming them, they are all of high quality. As for the semi-protection, the GA criteria (point 5) says that semi-protection is not a disqualifier when targeted against vandalism, which is the reason for this sp. I hope that you can take these points into consideration, and let us know what you think. Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Never knew that about semi-protection, thankyou. From what you said and taking a look at the external links, the links and multiple references should be fine. Main problem is the placing of references and the number of them in the lead. Goodluck M3tal H3ad 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pass

Well writen, but to many references. Recommend break up into smaller articles Try to simplify and could pass King of Anonymity 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned above why that is, and you'll notice that there are a plethora of subarticles. I don't mean to be offensive, but it would probably be best if someone a little more experienced could take a look. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and I apologize if I acted to bold. Be bold, but be wise, right. Sorry again.

 King of Anonmity   


Targeting of Civillian areas is mispelled: targetting of civillian areas. Article correctly spelled.

 King of Anonmity   

Isn't it targeting? --Banana04131 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

250 dead not supported by Al-Manar or other Hezbollah publications.

Is there other evidence for that statement? Otherwise the death toll is 184 as reported in this 3 part article(links below). Since that is how many funerals were held. 70 for resistance fighters, and the rest were non combatants most likely. About a 1 to 1 exchange rate. Some clarfication needed. Thank you.

[15]

[16]

[17] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasGolladay (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

GA nom on hold

I am not sure if anyone else is reviewing this article, but I am going to go ahead and put it on hold.

Good article! Two points though.

  • A lot of fair use images but as none of them are similar I do not think it is an issue. One photo I think should be removed is Image:Economist Cover 20060819.jpg. Looking at the fair use, it should only be used on articles about that particular issue of the economist.

I will check back is about one week. --Banana04131 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Also the web references are all formatted differently, check {{cite web}} and keep it constant
  • Don't wikilink solo years
  • External links in the text
  • As of December 1, 2006 wikilink 2006
M3tal H3ad 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
None of the issues have been addressed in three days ( or even commented on) so I am failing this GA. --Banana04131 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over this article, which many of us have worked quite hard on. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was quite busy and only just saw your new comments about its GA status recently...

  • We could remove that image if necessary, but perhaps you can first have someone intimate with image policy share their thoughts?
  • As the Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (since September) already documents many of the post-ceasefire events, I suggest that we write a brief summary and move the rest.
  • We can make all the other technical corrections a top priority for the coming days, though I don't understand M3tal H3ad's last bullet.

Lets begin implementing these changes as soon as possible. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The following are my thoughts regarding the GA nomination:

  • I would also suggest having someone intimate with image policy share their thoughts. The Economist cover, counterbalanced with the portrait of George Bush, illustrates the section in a well balanced manner.
  • I agree with summarizing the Post-Ceasefire section to the key points.
  • I believe his last bullet is saying when you wikilink the month-day section of the date, you should also wikilink the year section. So December 1, 2006 would be changed to December 1, 2006.
  • I haven't gone through the entire article in an indepth manner yet, but I would be very careful regarding POV in this article before passing it for GA. Any POV present, on either side, is more important to address than minor technical corrections in my opinion.
Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As we seem to agree, I suppose we should move ahead. Per the POV, this article has been under a great deal of scrutiny for most of its existence, so while your eyes would certainly be appreciated, it isn't one of the issues which comes to my mind as delaying the GA status. But then again, maybe we do need those fresh eyes to weigh in on that

. TewfikTalk 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Location of bombings pic

The picture depicting the location of bombings in Lebanon is one-sided coming from a biased source. This is not to say the map is invalid, it is the terminology and other biased mish-mush on it that is an undoubtable violation of WP:NPOV. If someone can crop or revise the picture so that only the map of Lebanon shows (we can add a blurb about what the circles and such mean on the bottom header), I invite you to do so, however, as it is with its one-sidedness and unwelcome propaganda, we cannot use it. --Shamir1 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the map per se is correct or not. But I checked into the source [18] and it is sufficiently partisan in tone that the map could be questioned. Does anyone have a similar map from a more neutral source? Raymond Arritt 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What parts of the map (or its wording) do people consider to be POV? It will be helpful if we can get a list of those specific phrases, come to a consensus on them, and then work to remove them accordingly. However, I do not think it is appropriate to remove the link to the map alltogether until we have reached such consensus, as it is a useful reference that helps the reader understand the content of the article, and in its thumbnail form is hardly readable anyways. — George Saliba [talk] 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My concerns are related to the fact that the map was constructed by an organization that has a non-neutral perspective on the conflict, and that the map does not appear to have been independently verified. See various criteria under WP:RS especially "self-published sources." The map itself may or may not be accurate -- but I'd be much more comfortable with the map if it was from a source with no obvious stake in the issue (for example the UN, or a neutral country). Raymond Arritt 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your concerns are different from those expressed by Shamir1. Shamir1 disputed the "terminology" of the map rather than its content. That is what I was suggesting we achieve consensus on before editting the map. I haven't reviewed it in depth, but we should be careful of weasel wording.
Regarding the map's accuracy, the closest thing I've found is from the Washington Post[19]. From my quick scan the maps seem to line up quite well, making the map seem fairly accurate, although the Post's map doesn't show how many times each site was hit (it just lists the number as multiple times for all strike). The map itself cites its sources as the UN and the Lebanese government, so those are good places to look also. — George Saliba [talk] 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As a followup, it looks like the Lebanese government references the same map the article currently uses[20]. — George Saliba [talk] 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not just sight the terminology but also the biased source it comes from. Raymond Arritt does make valid points. In either case, it is undoubtably one-sided and not at all encyclopedic. It will be removed. --Shamir1 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Could we link to the Washington Post map? Raymond Arritt 14:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

.

I've only taken a quick look at the debate here, but a similar objection was raised at article Lebanon. I cut out the POV text and created this image. I hope you find this helpful. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
We could, though I think having these maps add a lot of value to the article. I'm pretty sure we can't use the Washington Post image itself, though if we can find similar ones in the public domain that may be our best bet. Also, it would be helpful if we can find a map showing the other side - where Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. I think it's probably better to show both sides of the story than neither. — George Saliba [talk] 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As a followup, I've replaced the map with the editted version by Lestat. Rather than going through and picking out which factbox statements were POV it's probably easier to just remove the box altogether. Also, I noticed that there is a map of Hezbollah attacks on Israel, though it only lists the cities where the rocket attacks took place. It would be helpful if the map could provide more data, similar to how the one in Lebanon also reflects the number of strikes at each location. — George Saliba [talk] 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I misinterpretted your meaning Shamir1. However, please refrain from removing the map until we've actually established some consensus, and discussed possible solutions (such as Lestat's version of the map) further. Also, please give any reasoning behind your statement that the inclusion of the map is not encyclopedic. Thanks. — George Saliba [talk] 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If Lestat's map is in line with information from RS like those upon which the Washington Post map is based, then we should use it. If not, we should create our own (just as on the very first Talk page of this article

) based on the Post or other information. TewfikTalk 04:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For one, it uses the word "assault", which is not neutral. "Attacks" would be fine. Two is no longer an issue since LestatdeLioncourt removed the right-hand side which made the picture unequivocally one-sided and misleading. I thank LestatdeLioncourt for his/her effort. --Shamir1 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the two pieces of text at the bottom of the map to remove the term "assault," and added the map back to the article accordingly. — George Saliba [talk] 09:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese citizens or civilians

The numbers by Israeli killed are not disputed. There is a name of one of each killed civilian and soldier. There is no such thing on Lebanese side. Since the neutral source that 1191 is total Lebanese killed and if we take in account the killed Hezbollah fighters between 250-700 according to various sources. The exact number of civilians killed is hard to tell. The Lebanon government has no way to know who is a civilian and who is not because Hezbollah is heavily intermix with civilian population and don't have uniform.Shrike 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think you've read the sources cited fully. The neutral source you're speaking of cites (and therefore, I assume, accepts as reliable) their figures from the Lebanese government[21]. Furthermore, while I myself do not dispute the Israeli government figures, others may, and I feel it is extremely POV to trust one government's figures absolutely and reject another government's outright. While I do not have a list of the Lebanese civilians and soldiers killed, that does not mean that one does not exist, and it is fairly biased to call the government liars outright. The citation that Iorek85 added was from an Israeli newspaper that strikes me as being a reliable source, and one likely without a pro-Lebanon prejudice. Regarding the point you bring up about Hezbollah fighters possibly being included in these figures, that is already stated in a note in the death toll box. Unfortunately I'm bound by 3RR from reverting you at the moment, but hopefully someone else will go ahead and do so. — George Saliba [talk] 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC
This source [ http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/middle_east/] and your source say nothing about that all 1191 killed is civilians it gave as a general number of Lebanese killed we have no way to know how many of them civilian because Lebanon government claim contradicts the numbers of Hezbollah dead. Anyway the Israeli source that was brought only repeat claims of Lebanese government it doesn't mean that this claims are actually true but even according to this source the number of killed civilians is 1025 and not 1191.So until compromise would no not be reached I will put disputed tag. Also I don't think is a good thing to use third sources the best way is to see the original report.Shrike 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm making no claim that the 1,191 people killed were all civilians. I am, however, agreeing with Iorek85's sourced addition of the 1,025 civilian figure. You reverted the 1,025 civilian figure to the 1,191 citizen figure. If you can find the original report, I by all means suggest doing so. — George Saliba [talk] 21:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The casus belli right now: "Hezbollah cross-border shelling and raid, and subsequent abduction of two IDF soldiers and killing of three others, followed by the killing of five more soldiers from an unsuccessful IDF rescue force" is a run-on. It seems a bit difficult to comprehend. For one, Hezbollah does not argue with the word kidnapped, it is agreed upon with both parties. [22] "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it." -Hassan Nasrallah. (The article also does not give a civilian number, by the way.) The sentence is worded like: this happened, then this happened, then this then that. It should be more to the point: This person did this, they did that. I really do not see any problem in how it was before.

Also, a note about the militants in the civilian number article, It was printed in the New York Times. It is very long and complex, however it is not disputed that Hezbollah militants do not always care to wear some sort of uniform. Civilian clothing, just means that they did not change, they are wearing normal clothes, blurring them and make it hard to identify. --Shamir1 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion. I want to point out that, strictly according to Lebanese law, many of the Shiite residents in the south are not counted Lebanese citizens. Refugees is how the government defines them. Obviously, a 2nd or 3rd generation Lebanese 'refugee' is a contradiction, but that is how the Lebanese government rolls. Abe Froman 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed a slightly complex situation. The refugees in the south, largely Palestinian, are generally barred legally from attaining Lebanese citizenship. There is a stiff resistance in the country to incorporating the refugees for religious, economic, and possibly even racist reasons. Under Lebanese law, only children whose fathers are Lebanese can attain citizenship. That's my understanding at least. — George Saliba [talk] 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must say that my intention isn't to change the meaning – only to fix the English. However, the casus belli you continue reverting to is horrible grammatically. I agree that it would probably be easier to read as two sentences. However, rather than fixing the run-on and splitting it into two sentences, you continue replacing it with a much worse sentence, grammatically speaking. I'm guessing that English isn't your first language or native tongue, or your grammar just isn't that good (please don't take this as any sort of personal attack; it's purely my observation). For one, the way the parenthetical elements are used is horrible from a readability standpoint. Also, it's better to put the term shelling before raid, as this is the order the events happened in chronologically. Furthermore, the repeating of the death toll makes the actual numbers confusing (three killed, two kidnapped, five killed, eight killed, two kidnapped). Lastly, this isn't the correct way to display numbers this small grammatically; they should be spelled out. — George Saliba [talk] 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the term kidnapping, I have no idea if that the quote attributed to Nasrallah was made in English or Arabic and translated correctly (the title of the article uses the term "capture" for instance), and the very issue of which term to use (captured, kidnapped, abducted, or something else) is still part of ongoing discussions here on these Talk pages. I can only assume your continued pushing of the term "kidnapped" is in disregard for our efforts to achieve consensus on the issue before changing the article. That strikes me as POV pushing, as I can see no other reason to push the term before consensus has been achieved. — George Saliba [talk] 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the militants in civilian clothing statement, I don't think this point is disputed. The only issue was whether it was redundant and/or POV as a statement when the title was changed to "Lebanese citizens". If these figures were Lebanese citizens, then of course it would include militants, just as if the Israeli death toll box was labelled "Israeli citizens" it would, rightfully, also include military casualties. However, the title has been changed back to civilians (or will be when I'm able to revert Shrike's last edit), so the footnote is again appropriate, and I view this as a non-issue. — George Saliba [talk] 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding your edit summary which stated "also, shooting was not subsequent. it was part of the raid and still cross-border," this is simply incorrect. The rescue forces entered into Lebanon, which is where the five additional troops were killed. From the Secretary General's Report on UNIFIL: "At least one IDF tank and an IDF platoon crossed into Lebanon in the area of the Hizbollah attack in an attempt to rescue the captured soldiers. An explosive device detonated under the tank, killing four more IDF soldiers. An eighth IDF soldier was reportedly killed in fighting that ensued during an attempt to retrieve the four bodies."[23] — George Saliba [talk] 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the casualties included militants is irrelevant - as has been pointed out, the section is pointless when titled 'citizens'. If you want to dispute the figures, leave that the figures are disputed in the box. The box, however, refers to civilian casualties, just as the Israeli one does. I used, as I said, the figure given by the Lebanese government explicitly stating civilian, not, the total, number. Iorek85 11:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted an anonymous change back to 'civilian', for the reasons Iorek85 has stated repeatedly. I've also cleaned up the English of the note to be... well, proper English, as what was there was grammatically quite bad. The new note is "Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and non-governmental militants." If people have issues with this wording, please lets discuss it first, in order to avoid any more really bad English sentences and prevent an edit war. — George Saliba [talk] 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

War on Terror and civilians

The civilian data directly conflicts with the information already given, and is also behind. That is why it is better to have it written as it is now with the government's claim.

Some of you made statements such as "How can a war that started ... be ...?" That is a question for Mr. President, not for Wikipedia. According to the leader of the war, it is part of it. In either case, it is more than possible for a war to be considered part of an older one (Leb-Isr conflict) AS WELL AS a newer one (War on Terrorism). There is no reason why they do not coincide. Per WP policy, it stays. --Shamir1 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the government's claim (actually, they're both government claims I believe) is that the source doesn't specify if the figures are civilians or both civilians and militants. The problem with using the more recent figure is that it requires a change of the title to "Lebanese citizens", which, while possibly accurate, is not neutral. It should match the section titled "Israeli civilians" to maintain NPOV, and the militants/military deaths should be listed in their respective section.
Firstly, it's extremely POV to say that President Bush was the leader of the war. Secondly, whether or not he (or any individual or combatant) calls this a part of the War on Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with how it is listed in Wikipedia. I'd also like to see which WP policy you're citing when saying this edit should be kept. I support Iorek85's version, though I'll let him review your edit and weigh in before I revert. — George Saliba [talk] 09:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
OK first of all. The War on terrorism is a long war that will be running for decades, and it will be on multiple fronts. And that war actualy did not start even in 2001 but even long before that. The Second world war was a war fought on multiple fronts. We had The Pacific, Western and Eastern fronts. The Iraq war is part of the war on terror even if it didn't start in 2001. The Iraq, Afghan, Somali, Chechen, Waziristan and Israel-Hezbollah war are all fronts in the war on terrorism. The Israelis have said that this war is their War on terror. Bush is not the leader of the war on terrorism. He is just one of many like Churchil, Stalin and Rusvelt. And also Wikipedia has reached a consensus for the Israel Lebanon (Hesbollah) war to be added to the greater war on terrorism. And this should stick.— Top Gun [talk] 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A couple questions. Firstly, I too have heard Israeli representatives refer to the Israel-Lebanon war as "our War on Terror", however this makes me question if they consider it a part of the "global" War on Terror, or if it's just what they call their own conflicts with militant groups in the region. From what I've heard, the Israelis seem to tend to use the term for their own operations, independant of the US-led global war, drawing a comparison between the two struggles rather than including them as part of the same war. The only one that I've personally heard draw the link between this conflict and the global war is President Bush, but if you have other sources that draw this link I'd be interested in looking at them. Secondly, can you point us to the discussions where consensus was reached on this issue? It would be most helpful for reviewing it. Thanks. — George Saliba [talk] 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You want a consensus check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:War_on_Terrorism. It's the official Wikipedia Template campaignbox for the War on terrorism, you will see that the Israel Lebanon war is listed there in 2006.— Top Gun [talk] 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't consider two editors who agree with each other about an issue to be an absolute consensus, meaning that this issue is entirely open to dispute and discussion. Secondly, be very careful as there is nothing "official" to the template you've linked - making such statements is extremely misleading. Thirdly, please see my note below on why this inclusion lacks the verifiability to warrant in the location it has been added in this article. I am going to keep the note regarding the War on Terror, however I am going to properly cite it and move it to the appropriate location in this article. — George Saliba [talk] 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As a followup, I've moved this statement to the appropriate section. Also, it is entirely proper for the article on the War on Terrorism to list this war/conflict and this article not list itself as part of the War on Terrorism in the header. The War on Terrorism is an article about what the United States considers to be part of it's War on Terrorism, but their opinion lacks verifiability beyond the United States' opinion, which would be required for inclusion in the header of this article. However, it is entirely appropriate to the section on International views on the conflict, which is where I've moved it. — George Saliba [talk] 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not wikipedia policy, it's just a template which I note people have tried to remove this conflict from. The problem you have initiated with insisting on 'War on Terror' is that we should now have to note what ever Hezbollah or Lebanon or Palestineans call this long standing conflict (war of freedom, occupation, I don't know what they call it). It also gives the impression that wikipedia agrees that 1. Hezbollah are terrorists. 2. This is part of the War on Terrorism. Just because Bush says it, it doesn't make it true. We need to avoid POV statements as much as possible, especially when they are not needed. See Georges excellent argument that pertain to the naming of the article - I think they work well here too.
Secondly, you're still not making any sense on the citizens vs civilians. You can't argue all those killed were citizens any more than you can argue they were all Hezbollah fighters. You can't, in NPOV, argue that the Israeli government is perfectly accurate, and the Lebanese government are so untrustworthy that a disclaimer with a source stating that they might not be accurate isn't enough. Why can't you just leave it with 'civilians' and give the Lebanese government figure for civilians, and then have the disclaimer saying that this figure is disputed? I just can't see why this isn't an acceptable compromise. Iorek85 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually yeah if he says it, it makes it true because he and his allies essentially decide. There is no "war of freedom" or occupation please keep your OR and POV out. They are terrorists and considered as such by the United States, United Kingdom, Israel, and several other countries, whether or not anyone else thinks they are. They say it is part of this war on terror, so it is. It is not for you to decide, it is for them.
This has nothing to do with saying who is worthy and who is not. The death toll of Israeli civilians is not disputed, while the toll of Lebanese civilians is. It also appears to be innacurate considering ALL claims of the militants dead. The data is also behind. The number did not name civilians but gave the number that were not Lebanese soldiers or policemen in the dead. They were called "martyrs", officially on paper. Here is the problem according to the Associated Press:

The Lebanese and AP counts of Lebanon's war dead range from 1,035 to 1,191.

Lebanon's top police office, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, says 1,123 Lebanese died in the war — 37 soldiers and police officers and 1,086 other people, including 894 named victims and 192 unidentified ones.

The report lists the 1,086 dead as "martyrs." It does not differentiate between civilians and Hezbollah combatants, because the government considers them all Lebanese citizens. It also can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because many do not wear military uniforms.

A security official, who agreed to discuss the tally with AP on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said the figure of 1,086 was based on reviews of hospitals, death certificates, village officials, families of the deceased and eyewitness accounts.

--Shamir1 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting the point. If you can put in 'War on Terror' then it is equally legitimate to put in whatever Hezbollah calls it's struggle with Israel. I'm sure they have a name for it, (and where the hell did OR and POV come into this?) and when someone comes along to add it, then I'm not going to stop them if War on Terror is there. And I'm still not getting your issue. I'm not saying the Lebanese government is 100% correct, I'm saying that calling it 'Citizens' is POV and doesn't make any sense. You still can't explain why stating the Lebanese figure, and then specifically mentioning that the figure may include Hezbollah fighters, is unacceptable. Iorek85 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing your last edits - is this now acceptable? Iorek85 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not getting anything. Call it whatever "Hezbollah calls it's struggle with Israel", I have not heard them call it anything other than this war and that is it. The War on Terror is not just what Israel "calls it", if you look it just says the war is PART OF it. If Hezbollah says this is part of a greater war (and we have a general article on it), feel free to add it, but the fact that it does not exist does not make the "War on Terror" addition invalid. How is "citizens POV and doesn't make any sense"? That is the oddest thing I have heard. If you actually read the latest source, you will see the Lebanese Ministry of Health has not differentiated between combatants and civilians because they consider them all CITIZENS. It states the figure may include it, so what? In what way is that unacceptable? It is perfectly acceptable to note that some of the number in that box may overlap with that of another box. --Shamir1 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you're saying that if the United States and Israel, for example, consider this to be part of the War on Terror then it should be included. I believe that is a purely fallacious view. One of Wikipedia's three core content policies is that of verifiability, which states in part (emphasis added): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Now, the references you've provided do not meet this criteria. Why? Well, they do not state that this war/conflict was a part of the War on Terror, only that George Bush considers it to be a part of the War on Terror. Now, this is critical here, so please read carefully. The fact that George Bush considers this to be a part of the War on Terror warants note in this article, but the fact that this is a part of the War on Terror does not. Your source is stating one man's opinion. As such, this does not belong in the infobox header of the article, but somewhere within the body of the article itself, and when in the body of the article it should state who we can verify as believing that this is a part of the War on Terror (George Bush, Prime Minister Olmert, etc.). I hope that helps to clarify the issue for you. — George Saliba [talk] 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
At least you've changed the reference to suit your claims, but it's still rubbish to have one section for Hezbollah and one for Hezbollah + civilians. The reference that was there before matches those given in your article, and specifically provides a civilian number. Since it matches, You can't claim the figures are outdated. Anyway, I'm out of this argument - it's just not worth the effort. I'll let someone else take it from here. Iorek85 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to let you know, this may come as a shock, but President Bush is not one man's opinion. He represents the United States of America. He leads a war called the War on Terror, and it has already been verified that this war is part of that one.
What matches? Nothing matches at all. What on earth are you talking about. The Lebanese Ministry gave out three numbers: 1) national soldiers, 2) policemen, and 3) "martyrs." The source itself says the government has not (and probably is unable to) accurately distinguish between combatant and civilian, and basically excuses them for it. The Lebanese government gives one number asserting that they are all citizens and that is the way they look at them. There is no civilian number. --Shamir1 09:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's assume for a minute what you say is true (which it isn't, but I'm guessing you're not an expert on American law). Even if the United States itself, by act of Congress, passed by both houses and signed by the President, deemed this conflict to be a part of the War on Terrorism, that is still short of the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability. All you would be able to verify is that the United States felt that this conflict was a part of the War on Terror. You could not verify that this conflict was part of the War on Terrorism, only that the United States felt so. This is a key difference, and I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. Read what I'm typing very carefully, because the wording is very minute, but makes a very big difference.
Regarding your second point, we're trying to make the most accurate statement we can in a neutral manner. It is POV to list the Israelis killed as civilians and the Lebanese killed as citizens, plain and simple. In order to avoid having a POV imbalance, we've listed the figure as being civilians, but added the footnote stating that the figure could include the militants, though we have no way of knowing how many of them, and trying to determine such without reliable sources would be pure original research. Does that make sense? — George Saliba [talk] 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can you also please provide the references that use the term "martyrs"? I'm trying to collect & review as many of these various reports as I can to try to determine how widely the death toll figures range, and what the intended meaning was. Thanks. — George Saliba [talk] 10:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"Only" the United States thinks so? The US is leading this war, what are you talking about? How is it "POV" to list one as citizens and one as civilians? HOW? These arguments are utterly ridiculous to say the least. The word citizen CANNOT be changed to civilian just because it needs to "match". What rule says that each box must match? Those two boxes are not even to the side of each other. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states that. You are compromising the sources, which is vandalism. Here is the source from the AP: [24] Let me quote: Lebanon's top police office, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, says 1,123 Lebanese died in the war -- 37 soldiers and police officers and 1,086 other people, including 894 named victims and 192 unidentified ones. The report lists the 1,086 dead as "martyrs." It does not differentiate between civilians and Hezbollah combatants, because the government considers them all Lebanese citizens. It also can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because many do not wear military uniforms." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Again, the United States leading the War on Terrorism does not mean that their opinion is a verifiable fact. If I put my cat inside of a box, and I tell you that the cat is purple, then let a dozen other people look inside the box, and they claim that the cat is, in fact, orange, then it doesn't matter that it is my cat. My statement regarding the color of the cat lacks verifiability, despite the fact that it's my cat. The cat has to be in the box so that you can't see it with your own eyes, otherwise that would be original research. I'm really not sure how to explain such basic logic and reasoning any simpler. — George Saliba [talk] 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the civilian/citizen issue, I thought you were referring to one of the primary reports, but this is a good secondary source. I'm totally fine with changing the title to citizens if we cite a source regarding the civilian death toll. The fact that most of the deaths were civilians is entirely relevant, and if you're unable or unwilling to recognize the POV implications of imbalanced labelling of death tolls, there's really nothing I can do for you. Maybe we should request a mediator to weigh the evidence in the matter. — George Saliba [talk] 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/Talk%7E2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_Archive35_2744.html"