Talk:Battle of Bint Jbeil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Taken?

I have heard that the city has been taken, does this mean the battle has ended? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

see now. [1]--TheFEARgod 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment

This is a very nice start, with a good degree of detail. I applaud your ability to remain objective and neutral in writing this; it is a very hard thing to do, considering the subject matter. The infobox needs a little work- the casualties do not seem very well organized, and there is a hanging phrase of "Israel claims..." But I am quite aware this is a work in progress, as it is a current event. For an event so well reported and published, I think a lot more could probably be said, which is why I'm giving it only a "Start" rating. Thank you again, though, for your hard work, and for writing this in such a neutral way. LordAmeth 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal

I added detail of a media report saying Hezbollah still hold Bint Jbeil in 'aftermath' section.82.29.227.171 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

I've put the result of the battle as "town held by Hezbollah", which I believe is what the sources say. The word "stalemate" is unacceptably vague and not even appropriate given that Israel has withdrawn. This is not to suggest that Israel has "lost" according to its goals: the casualties are of course listed separately. —Ashley Y 05:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualities

Why is the article only mentioning the IDF estimation of casualities, Hezbollah announced that 13 IDF soldiers were killed in the battle. According to israeli sources, most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements.The Israeli sources are estimating Hezbolla's losses ranges from 15-200 !! I believe this implies uncertainity, or even more, intentional exaggeration for morale boosting purposes, especially after IDF had to withdraw from the town (why would they do that if they killed 200 out of 200 Hezbolla fighters).

--12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Suspicous

According to what israeli sources "most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements"? This is absolutely ridiculous. Hezbollah never published their real losses, but in ames of propaganda. Israeli losses published with names of soldiers and their photos. Shmuliko 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i meant that threats made by Hezbolla are taken seriously on the other side, this can be quoted from Israeli officials responses to Nasralla's statements. As to "Hezbollah never published their real losses" how can you be so sure, Hezbolla is announcing the names of its fallen on Manar TV, what am saying is that both sides are trying to under mine there losses & increase the other's so we shouldn't take israeli figures for granted especially when no independent press is able to enter the fighting area.

Shmuliko don't talk about something you don't know; Hizbollah not only published names of those who died (during the whole conflict on Al Manar TV) but also organised military funerals for most of them. weeks ago, they broadcasted video tapes of those who died during the war talking to their families, children and friends.

[edit] Hizzballa strategic victory?...

hizballa lost most of it's force in the area, and in the end of the battle itself, the town was compleatly under the control of the IDF. the IDF widrew its forces because it's job was done, not because hizballa still controlled the area. this is no "strategic victory", this is a tie.

Yes, STRATEGIC because they still control the town--TheFEARgod 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. Firstly, is there any reference that says the "the town was completely under the control of the IDF"? Secondly, "strategic victory" etc. is POV. I'm changing it back to the plain fact of Hezbollah hold. —Ashley Y 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


A strategic victory is one that accomplishes your goals the: Hezbollah goal was aparently to retain control of the town, something they acomplished. Also the perceived victory gives the Hezbollah forces a Large morale boost. Tacticaly it was indesicisive as neither force clearly defeated the other, and no major media outlets have reported that the Hezbollah forces at the town were virtualy destroyed. --72.145.144.254 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally the latest casualty counts are provided by MSNBC in the latest source and it says 18 so stop reverting.--72.145.144.254 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't touched the casualty counts. Israel can also claim this as a "strategic victory", it's entirely POV. The plain fact of the result is that Hezbollah held the town, everything else is interpretation. —Ashley Y 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

“Strategic victory” refers to the accomplishment of one’s goals. at the start of the campaign the Israeli goal was the destruction of the Hezbollah forces in the area and possibly the capture of the town, Nether of these were accomplished by the point of Israelis withdrawal, While Hezbollah as stated above accomplished their goals: the retention of the town and the preservation of their forces. (Although taking more casualties than Israel in the process). Finally the terms Tactical Victory& Strategic Victory are the correct and formal terms used by military annalists.--72.145.154.203 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Strategic victory is one that turns the war scenario. It is not the case. IDF cleaned the territory and kept the positions on controlling heights. That is exactly what they do in every village they enter. Today there no Hezbollah forces in the town and it is not their victory, however IDF has casualities, which is main Hezbollah aim. I'll remove the strategic vctory. Shmuliko 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NO single news post says that the teritory was cleaned they only mention a Hezbollah ambush and a IDF retreat, also the town is reported by all major news services to be under the control of Hezbollah, so none of the above you mentioned are true.

Btw: strategic does not mean turning-point, it just represents the acomplisment or faliure of goals--72.145.143.215 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a guerilla and that the town are still held by hezbollah are more than victory


Saying israel won the war is completely idiotic, israel declared a list of objectives before the war and failed to reach any of them, the two soldiers are still captured, hizbollah still have rockets (at least until the last day of the war) and hizbollah is still armed and well popular. therefore, hizbollah won this war.196.203.167.198 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualities

Unlike the Hezballa, IDF reports are official. When IDF says the were 8 israeli casualties and 22 wounded, it means that.

By the way, there were 2 israeli casualties around Bint Jbeil during the night before the battle of Bint Jbeil - this is official.

89.0.211.46 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed you’re correct, but the casualty figure you gave is marginally outdated check the MSNBC for a more recent figure.--72.145.154.203 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

C'mon... I don't need MSNBC to know how many israeli soldiers got killed there... Find some more sources (NOT Hezbollah sources) talking abount 18 dead israeli soldiers in Bint Jbeil... 89.0.211.46 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These aren't Hezbollah sources! they are MSNBC sources and paragraph 22 shows an official Israel body count. additionally by wikipedia rules and procedures this (MSNBC) Is a reliable source and more recent than the one you provided, so it supercedes it. --72.145.154.203 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, MSNBC mistaken... 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)(that is a very POV view, but nontheless it won't afect the use of updated casualty figures.)--72.145.154.203 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It is POV, but "Hezbollah strategic victory" is also POV. Well, if MSNBC did not mistaken, there shuould be some more sources about 18 casualties... What about IDF official site? Any other site talking about 18 casualties? 89.0.211.46 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also you do know only a admin can protect pages. And putting up that Sprotect sign may count as vandalisim.--72.145.154.203 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

didn't know 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

thats ok we all make a mistake or two.--72.145.154.203 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

MSNBC is one of the largest and most respected news services but if you need more proof for the last three on the list see Paragraph.22

[edit] 8 vs. 18 casualties

All sources agree about total 36 casualties:

8 in day-1 near Zar'it

4 sailors on INS Hanit

1 pilot in helicopters crash

2 (MAGLAN unit) in Maroun-a-Ras

another 5 (EGOZ unit) in Maroun-a-Ras

2 pilots when MRLS rocket hit a helicopter

2 during the night before the battle of Bint-Jbeil in the area

8 in the battle of Bint-Jbeil

1 in the same day but in Maroun-a-Ras

3 yesterday in Ayat-a-Shaab

Total: 36 casualties - this is official and up to date! I can show you reliable sources about every one of this situations, as well as I can show an up-to-date source about total 36 casualties.

89.0.189.135 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


This topic is about Bint-Jbeil, so it should be 8. Shmuliko 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will quote a post from a veteran user El C (Hi. Nine was just for one day: "It's not clear yet how many people died during three weeks of fighting in what Israel dubbed Hezbollah's "terror capital." Israel says 18 of its soldiers were killed here".) that post pretty much just says it all.--72.145.155.51 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is BULLSHIT... I'm gonna put here an IDF source... 89.0.243.231 07:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IDF official website: IDF Pulls Out of Bint Jbeil (Sunday 30/07/2006)

" IDF forces withdrew from the village of Bint Jbeil today, having completed operations there. It was in Bint Jbeil that heavy fighting erupted last week between IDF forces and Hezbollah terrorists, resulting in IDF casualties of eight soldiers dead and 22 wounded, some seriously. "

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55319.EN

You can see here that there were no updates about anymore IDF casualties during the battle of Bint Jbeil:

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=54279.EN

89.0.243.231 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

the above links you gave are out dated aditionaly they seem to be broken and the news posts I gave are much newer.

The links are not broken, the IDF servers are oveloaded. 89.0.243.231 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Your sources are eighther mistake or fake. Wait when IDF sources come up. 89.0.243.231 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not fake you fool, they are from the NY times [[[MSNBC]] CNN some of the most prestigious News services around. no, CNN and NY times are owned by jewish and its neutrality cannot be fully trusted

[ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Temporary_screenshot.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Temporary_screenshot.JPG] Image:Temporary screenshot.JPG

"It's not clear yet how many people died during three weeks of fighting in what Israel dubbed Hezbollah's "terror capital." Israel says 18 of its soldiers were killed here".)


Israel says 8 of its soldiers were killed here. That is what we see on IDF official site!

Probably here was a journalist who was not very focused, and some news agencies published this mistake!

Apparently not it seems to be written by multiple authors, therefore as per-wiki policy we will use the more recent (and numerous) msn/cnn articles. And will so unless the news services issue a retraction.--Freepsbane 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here (http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/02aug2006/shem.html) we can see (in russian) a list of israeli casualties, including IDF casualties, which is up to 2/08/2006. The total number of soldiers is 36 (up to 2/08/2006). I can show you an official source telling about every one of this soldiers (when and where he did killed). According to these sources, there were 28 casulties + X Bint-Jbeil casualties. While the total number is 36 (up to 2/08/2006), it is clear that 8 soldiers killed in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I cant read Russian however the above mentioned msn, cnn, New York times. hold priority over the smaller websites out there.--Freepsbane 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they have priority over IDF official website, which tells both in english and in hebrew that there were 8 soldiers that killed in Bint Jbeil that day, not 18?? Ask any of the israeli Wiki-moderators, ask any israli you find, and he will tell you the exact number od IDF casualties in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

the idf web-page you gave us is older than the 2nd msn article and the ny times also it seems you have made more than 3 reverts today a clear violation of wikipolicy.--72.145.156.5 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/- curently the most recent

Thats why I give you this ([2]) and this ([3]). So you can see that no such update about 18 casualties was given. Flayer 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We can agree that 18 soldiers got killed in the area, but the battle of Maroun Ar-Ras was in Maroun Ar-Ras itself. Also, IDF troops withdrew from Maroun Ar-Ras, but not from the area, not from Bint Jbeil, for example. Flayer 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Victory?

I don't understand why the focus of a single battle event. This cannot be considered as a battle which is over. The Battle for Bint Jbail is not over. Israel is using a tactic against a guerrila advantage. Israel prefers to conduct search and destroy operations in the villages then withdraw. Why remain inside and be a target against an enemy who knows all the passageways, tunnels and bunkers. All you is inviting yourself to be a target of an anti-tank missile by remaining in one position too long. What Israel is doing is, fighting, killing and wounding some Hezbollah's then withdrawing. If they attempt to reinforce their dwindling numbers inside Bint Jbeil, they get attacked. If they try to withdraw they run the risk of attacks. If they stay put, they are a target for the next search and destroy incursion. So I don't think you cannot categorize this as a victory for Hezbollah, unless of course there is a cease-fire and they still hold the town and are not forced to withdraw or disarm. Until then, I categorize this battle as ongoing. Richardmiami 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As we can see from this news dispatch: "IDF forces operating in the south Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil spotted five Hizbullah cells on their way to launch anti-tank missiles; the soldiers opened fire and struck the gunmen." (source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286360,00.html)

The IDF is still coming in and out of the village. The Battle is still ongoing. I believe that the final decision of victory will be, who is in control after a cease-fire is declared and what consequences it brings (e.g. Hezbolllah withdrawal from village replaced by International monitors, or Hezbollah control despite cease-fire). Richardmiami 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

then create a new tactical battle article we could use the 2nd battle of Bint Jbeil, as a new article. it can be handeled like the fallujah battles were,--72.145.156.233 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the IDF announced from the beggining that their aim is to totally destroy Hezboll's fighting power, by the end of this war, if Hezbolla still have fighting capabilities this will only mean one thing, the israelis lost the battle.. this is what happens when you set a high ceiling without being sure of the ability to acheive it, note that Nasralla was aware of that fact & thats why he stated that ( we don't claim to be able to stop Israeli invasion but we promise to inflict damages on them wherever they go), so far that is exactly what Hezbolla is doing. As for the tactics used by IDF, what you said about killing some hezbolla fighters then withdrawing is incorrect, lets not forget that in every engagement so far both sides are having casualities, & i believe this have more influence upon the israelis..the main reason IDF invaded Bint jbeil was because they suspected that Katyushas are being fired from there & they wanted to stop that, the only way to do it is to keep the town in IDF control. Their failure to acheive that so far is the reason this was considered a defeat to the israeli army, else what is the use of controlling a village, losing a dozen soilders while doing so, then evacuating it so that Hezbolla fighters can go back in and launch some more missiles..--213.42.2.21 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

I have to agree with Richard, Isreal has stated that it has no intention to re-occupy southern Lebernam and has just stated that it will expand its opperations, Isreal is capturing areas, dismantaling Hezbollah infestructa and then leaving. It has no intention of controling the village in the long term. --88.108.217.33 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind this is not a traditional war between 2 armies where the victor is the side who gained more land, this is a guerilla war where all rules are changed, . Guerilla's can declare they won the war by acheiving the purpose behind it, Hezbolla had the right to declare a victory in 2000 cause their stated purpose was isareli withdrawal of the south. In the same manner IDF can claim victory if it acheived its goals from the operation, what exactly did it acheive in bint jbeil especially after withdrawing from the town. Engaging with Hezbolla in a close range battle is surely not an acheivment, suffering casualities is also a set back, if we accepted the Israeli backing of their frist accounced goal which was total destruction of Hezbolla to their second declared goal which is holding the land until multinational force arrive, then again they failed to do so since they withdrawed before they can handle it to the multinational force..even in their subsequent wide offensive in which they drove several kms into south lebanon, you can't state that they have controlled the land which they have taken since pockets of resistence is still costing them even greater losses than before. At the end of the war both sides will declare victory, Hezbolla will argue that israelis released lebanese prisoners & withdrawed from lebanese lands, israelis will state that Hezbolla will no longer target north israel with Katyushas. but come to think of it, Hezbolla offered to stop launching katyushas if israel stops its assault, yep..total mess..but in all, Hezbolla gained respect in the arab world for holding against such an assault, while the IDF lost some credibility for not being able to vanquish an enemy outnumbered 15 to 1 and lacking for air, naval & ground power. I don't think these are results Israel was hoping for.

[edit] Arbirated

The dispute has been steeled in favor of 18 casualties by the ruling of the administrator RyanGerbil10 [[4]] if people continue to presist in removing the arbitrated version then I will allert the administrators, and have them enforce the rulling.[[5]]--72.145.156.233 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny.. What did administrator RyanGerbil10 say to the parents of 10 soldiers that did not killed in the battle of Bint Jbeil?
No, what I did in the end is report both numbers in the infobox, as appears now, although I perosnally think more sources back up 18 rather than 8 casualties. If no consensus can be reached, as is obvious here, both numbers will be reported until conclusive evidence is presented that the number of casualties is definitely one or the other. This is the decision I will enforce. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
May I call the person that tried to put presure on me by writing this a liar? Flayer 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

you may if you do so wish to.--Freepsbane 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times"

"The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times" claims on the casualty list will be mentioned only after the official source, which is IDF website. Like IDF claims about the number of Hezballa casulties are mentioned second. Flayer 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The globe clearly says 18, does this mean that 18 is the official Israeli position? --Freepsbane 19:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No. official Israeli position is 8 killed, 22 wounded. [6] Flayer 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Never the less Globe says 18.--Freepsbane 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why Globe is also mentioned. Flayer 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

so do the MSN, New York Times, Guardian,and CNN you have removed.--Freepsbane 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only few of them are dated later than IDF source, but they will be mentioned only after an official source, which is IDF. Flayer 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli media

By the way, I'm gonna add all the israeli media reports about 8 (not 18) IDF casualties.... Both israeli and international reports will appear. Flayer 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYT

The NYT article, which is being used as a source for the claim that 18 Israeli soldiers were killed actually says "two days of bitter combat that had left 10 soldiers dead". Please stop using it to support that claim. Isarig 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNN

CNN is listed as a source for the 18 killed claim, but no CNN article is refernced. I am removing CNN until such cite is produced Isarig 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian

The Guardian article, which is being used as a source for the claim that 18 Israeli soldiers were killed actually says "They eventually dragged eight corpses down a steep hillside under cover of darkness.". Please stop using it to support that claim. Isarig 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The NY times& guardian must have had older articles linked check for newer ones.--Freepsbane 13:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to check for newer ones - it's up to you, if you want to list them as references. Isarig 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8 vs. 18 casualties (№2)

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm

This official source is far more updated than news agencies that had claimed 18 casualties. And of course it says: "Eight soldiers from the Golani Brigade were killed in battle in Bint Jbeil: Maj. Ro'i Klein, 31, of Eli; Lt. Amihai Merhavia, 24, of Eli; Lt. Alexander Shwartzman, 24, of Akko; Sgt. Shimon Adega, 21, of Kiryat Gat; St.-Sgt. Edan Cohen, 21, of Jaffa; St.-Sgt. Shimon Dahan, 20, of Ashdod; Cpl. Ohad Klausner, 20, of Bet Horon; and Cpl. Assaf Namer, 27, of Kiryat Yam. "

89.0.229.237 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The battle isn't over

It is clear now that the battle isn't over, 'cause another IDF soldier killed there now and some wounded.

Creating "Battle of Bint Jbeil #2" is a waste. The date of the battle (still going) and the result (unclear yet) should be edited. 89.1.237.106 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Isarig 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also published that two more soldiers was killed today (August 7) morning. 89.0.219.66
Fine. I will unprotect the page. But I want clean, appropriate contributions. I have wasted a lot of time making sure this page stays neutral, and if I have to block anyone, you can be sure I won't be lenient. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. 89.0.219.66 20:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Battle of Bint Jbeil
Part of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Map of South Lebanon showing location of Bint Jbeil
Date July 25 -
Location Bint Jbeil, Southern Lebanon
Result Ongoing
Belligerents
Israel Defense Forces Hezbollah
Strength
Unknown Unknown
It's arguably a second battle, though, isn't it? Rather than creating another page, we could rename this to "Battles of Bint Jbeil". —Ashley Y 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary, though we can have two different battle-tables on the same page called "Battles of Bint Jbeil". 89.1.255.244 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

I have added a NPOV tag. Nearly all of the sources are from Israeli media sources. There seems to be disagreement among editors as to certain facts and timelines. Much of the article is anecdotal stories from the IDF troops as told to Israeli newspapers. This article should adhere to the guidelines in Wikipedia:NPOV. Nimur 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RE- Drive-by tagging: I have added my discussion here. Please see the talk-page before reverting an NPOV tag. Thank you, Nimur 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
proper procedure is to discuss any charges of non-NPOV edits on Talk, and tag the article only if there is no consensus on how to arrive at NPOV on Talk. I have thus reverted your drive-by tagging. Now that we are discussing your actual points: (1) The references include arab sources such as Al Jezeera and Al bawab, as well as numerous non-israeli and non-Arab sources, such as The Guardian, CNN and Reuters. So the claim that "Nearly all of the sources are from Israeli media sources" is false. (2) There is (or rather, was) some disagreement with regards to some facts, but that is common to most WP articles, and there have only been 2 edits yesterday, and not many more than that the previous 4 days. If you have any specific issues with edits that you claim to be non-NP0V, let's hear them, but tagging an entire article based on the fact that there is some disagrement over facts is over the top. Isarig 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah victory....

...Israeli claim: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750990.html--TheFEARgod 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a claim of a person, not a Hezbollah victory. Yon can put it in the end. Flayer 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent edits - july 24 and result

User:Freepsbane removed my last 2 edits with the summary "1st link supports claim". Not clear to me which of the first links he is referring to (I removed 2 sets of links), but neither one supports the claims it is used as a refernce for. The first set of links is related to the events of July 24th. The first link in that groups is to the Isreali MoFA site which lists all Israeli casualites. It indeed mentions two soldiers killed on 7/24, one in a tank flip, the other in an anti-tank missile attack - but nowhere does it link these two deaths to Bint Jbeil. The second set of links is related to the results of the battle. The 1st link very clearly and explictly says 'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters'. Isarig 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did Israeli forces try to take Bint Jbeil?

What was the strategic importance of the battle from the Israeli point of view? Was it a form of insanity? Can anybody shed light on this riddle? Abu ali 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference to Hezbollah stronghold

Now that I jumped into this edit war, can somebody tell me which side I am on? Seriously, Hezbollah still being there means?? they won?? Anyways, please advise.... --Tom 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RyanG's disruptive editing

Before protecting this page, RyanG admitted in his own edit summary that the msnbc article being used to claim Hezbollah still holds the town is vague. I have now added a current article, which shows the UN holds the town, and asked that this not be reverted prior to discussing on Talk. RyanG has not addressed my previous Talk comment (from 19 August 2006) to the effect that the "vague" article actually explictly says "'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters', and yet still reverted to the claim that the town was held by Hizbullah, based on that same "vague" article that actually says the opposite. Isarig 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think I'm being disruptive. The fist article, from 19 August, does not state that there are no Hezbollah fighters in Bint Jbeil. This news article, which I actually used to source another statement in the Bint Jbeil article, states that there are no Israeli soldiers in Bint Jbeil, and that the United Nations in fact controls the twon. The September 3 article does not mention whether Hezbollah fighters are still in Bint Jbeil. Neith the August 19 nor the September 3 articles state whether or not there are Hezbollah fighters remaining in Bint Jbeil. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You are being disruptive, and disingenious. The 8/19 article clearly says 'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters'. It was being used foa a very stong claim - that the town is still in Hezbollah hands - but that claim is not supported by the article. For you to reintroduce that claim based on that source, after admitting the articel is vague is being disruptive. Isarig 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On my revert

The discussion on AN/I and the the article itself states: "Hezbollah's fighters remain as deadly as they are elusive." Clearly, they must be present to be deadly. I am re-adding the source, and if this continues, I will request the page be re-protected. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that is far from clear. They can be deadly elswhere, or deadly from afar. To jump from a statement such as '"Hezbollah's fighters remain as deadly as they are elusive." to the conclusion that Bint Jbeil is still in Hizbolah hands is Original Research, and has no place in WP. No one was claiming the Hezbollah fighters were eradicated to the last man, so clearly those that remain are deadly. But the article clearly states they are nowhere to be seen in BJ. Extraordinary claims require extarordinary proof - this article, described by as you vague" does not even come close. Please find a better source if you want to add this claim to the article. Isarig 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Isarig's logic is correct for this particular phrase. The Land 08:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Isarig is correct. The source says nothing about them being present - which is in fact not true. They weren't. This should be deleted immediately. Amoruso 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Freepsbane - please see the above. If you have good reason for reverting my changes - let's hear them. Your refusal to use Talk to explain your edits reflects badly on you. Isarig 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent edit by User:BintJbeil

I removed the recent edit which reaqd "New Israeli reports revealed that after the IDF failed to capture Bint Jbeil, army leaders requested several soldiers to take pictures showing the Israeli flag on top of a house in the town; several soldiers were killed by Hezbollah fighters while attempting to carry out the order.". This is sourced to IMEMC - which is not a WP:RS, and partisan in nature. The information is dubious for several reasons: (1) the article claimes it is based on "IMEMC & Agencies" - but a google search on relevant items (e.g. the named soldier "Eyal Bloom") yeilds zero hits. (2) The Israeli enquiry commision has not yet issued its report, making the source of this alleged "report" questionable. Isarig 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Isarig, IMEMC is a reliable independent source, why is it not RS?. <restored BintJbeil's edit> Nielswik(talk) 09:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It is self published. It is explictly partisn and one sided. And as noted above, the recent claim is dubious and appears nowhere else in a mainstream media source. Isarig 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T A CREDIBLE REPORT. ALL OF THE MAIN INFO CAME FROM ONE ARTICLE> FROM THE JERUSALEM POST, WORD FOR WORD. Ahmadhusseini 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (AHMAD)

There are 21 differnt sources for this article. Please read more carefully and stop shouting. Isarig 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Outcome

Attention User:RyanGerbil10 . We don't need a novel in the factbox about who won. And it's obvious the parties here will just refight the battle. Let's just put a simple "contested" or "disputed" for the outcome. Let the reader decide.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can show consensus support for this view, I will be happy to unprotect, but I am unwilling to do so until I see evidence that edit-warring will at least temporarily stop. This article was without protection for almost an entire year - stability is possible on this article. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere." --google translate" Godspeed John Glenn! Will 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)