Talk:Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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] Repetitive edit
I have removed the repetitive entry from every single day; however I see that I am not the first, nor I suspect the last to do this.
My objection is not the fact that the daily (I will accept as a matter of good faith that it was in fact daily) use of rocketry is being noted but the way of its inclusion. Some days, for instance July 28, already have a record of the rocketry included in the narrative; by giving details and even citation for that days rocketry the entry for the day has considerably more believability. --Drappel 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No worried Drappel. Every day rockets were fired. As this is a daily timeline, the edits must be in, they are fact. There is no doubt about the rockets being fired. To exclude them means this article is only about the what Israel did, eg Patriot lauchers were delopyed.... but nothing about why. It does not say why so, it does not make sense. There is nothing controversial about it, it's simple fact. Even the wiki on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_%28late_August%29 talks about the rockets, so it's just a case of correcting this article and that is not controversial.213.219.16.20 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant edits
87.74.79.183 continues to add redundant statements to the article (such as labelling every Israeli town a "civilian town," when all towns on both sides are inherently civilian), which I intend to continue reverting. The user made the same edits to the 2006 Lebanon War article, but apparently decided to move on. — George Saliba [talk] 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like this user has rotating IP addresses, as it's the same user's edits outlined in the discussion above from last week. — George Saliba [talk] 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm currently barred by 3RR, but I'll check in again in the morning. — George Saliba [talk] 09:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is no rotating IP's. That is a different user. User Saliba only want to show the daily Lebanese POV which is factually wrong. I have asked User Anthony_cfc to be a mediator. The rocket fire is fgact and must be inlcuded.All towns are civilian, but Israel targetted militants in civilain towns where Israeli tonws were targetted by unguidable rockets which indiscriminantly killed civilians when their military was in Lebanon. Saliba only likes to keep his Lebanese POV and this makes the article factually wrong.87.74.79.183 09:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, that's why five IP addresses have made the same edits to this article in the last few weeks... Anyways, hopefully Anthony_cfc takes care of this when he's on next. — George Saliba [talk] 09:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Broken Format
I'm not sure if it only happens to me but the notes section at the bottom of the page is coming up scrambled and not linkable for about 1/3 of the notes. I don't know exactly what causes this or how to fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Article is subjective
The article only references Israel claim that Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as human shields. But it does not mention that Hezbollah claims they did not use human shields. Nor does it mention that Human Rights Watch has investigated Israel's claim and found no evidence to support it.
Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack
Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon.
Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also claim that Israel deliberately attacked civilian targets which had no strategic value.
The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy
Israel/Lebanon: Evidence indicates deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure
Also Hezbollah and Israel have an agreement not to target civilians. At some point both sides were guilty of targetting civilians. Which side violated this agreement first should be pointed out. To me it looks like Israel escalated this conflict first to include civilians. April Agreement --Fiolou 11:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article is a timeline, and only mentions that on that day Israel claimed that Hezbollah was using human shields. — George [talk] 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
But it leaves a false impression that Hezbollah did use civilians as human shields, which is a common false perception. Another problem I have with this article are the maps which only show destruction by Hezbollah, but omits maps of destruction by Israel. Also the map showing the area of conflict is patently false. Israel bombed all regions of Lebanon, not just the south.--Fiolou 12:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Another problem is that this article mentions individual Israeli civilian victims, but only references statistics about Lebanese victims. That bias creates an impression that Israeli victims are people, but Lebanese victims are numbers. I suppose I could reference each of the more than 1000 Lebanese victims and include their age, marital status, how and when they were killed, but that would render this article unreadable...
Also this article makes no mention of the hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bombs Israel scattered across Lebanon in the final days of this war. These unexploded munitions served no tactical purpose and were a deliberate attempt by Israel to render parts of Lebanon uninhabitable.
"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war. Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets. In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.
Israel made every effort to render southern Lebanon uninhabitable. “This is the worst [cluster bomb contamination] I have ever seen,” Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch, told the Christian Science Monitor
--Fiolou 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The April Agreement
Under the April Agreement, both Israel and Hezbollah agreed not to target civilians. If both sides had respected this agreement, this conflict would have remained contained to a small area without massive civilian casualties. The point at which one side or the other violated the April Agreement is an important threshold in this timeline as it indicates responsibility for escalating this conflict to include civilian targets.
--Fiolou 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is biased
Yet another wikipedia article which should be titled:
An Israeli government version of events as filtered by our news
--Fiolou 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:54368.jpg
Image:54368.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
