Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 20

Discussion about the name of the article

Result & Discussion of the 'War' Poll Results

Results:

  • 9 Users opposed the renaming
  • 17 Users supported the renaming

Discussion:

  • Still, this topic is controversial and therefore before changing anything this should be discussed here.
  • Please feel free to come up with ideas for a new lemma inculding war --Attraho 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have difficulty classifying this conflict as a war, because "war" traditionally refers to a conflict that exists between two or more nation-states. Israel has declared no military objectives against Lebanon, and Lebanon has declared no military objectives against Israel. Additionally, the official Lebanese military is not engaged as a principal combatant at this point. The primary antagonists are Israel and Hezbollah, and because Hezbollah is an organisation, not a nation-state, the term "war" does not accurately describe this conflict. "Conflict" is a more appropriate term because it can be used to describe a state of conflict between a nation-state (Israel) and other non-state actors (Hezbollah) --220.233.33.142 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move II: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon

  • Mainstream media call it a war
  • The latest poll gave a majority for renaming to war
  • Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon is NPOV
  • The voting on this issue is open for 48 h (01:48, 8 August 2006) --Attraho 01:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose look here this is a war beacuse first of all the head of Hezbollah said 'we will have open war' so that solves it. A conflice is when people dispute of different subjucts for example for land or the berlin wall.
  • Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Oppose - The war isn't just in Lebanon. Why not just have 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War? --Iorek85 07:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - War isn't just in lebanon and it's not only directed against Hezbollah. --Sloane 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - the naming (both the use of 'war' and the combatants) should be in line with the media and/or invlolved parties' consensus term. If we feel that consensus has arrived for one or both changes, then each should be decided on separately. TewfikTalk 05:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose - The "Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon" is not an accurate name, because direct attacks are being made against Israeli targets within Israel's borders. It is misleading to suggest that the conflict is occurring only in Lebanon. --220.233.33.142 02:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per anon above. Pleanty of people are being wounded and dying in Israel too. -- Avi 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose. Per Sloane. Tazmaniacs 02:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose This title doesn't give any indication that attakcs are being launched from lebanese soil across the international border into Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak oppose we had a consensus on "Israel-Lebanon"--Cerejota 02:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, the mass media refers it as a conflict, not a war, calling it a war is inappopriate and this event happens on both Israel and Lebanon. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose; calling the conflict a war is hyperbole. "Conflict" is more accurate. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose We shouldnt call it a war until the media mainly calls it that. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose It is not a war because it is Israel operations agaisnt terrorism. Main medias also call it a conflict. --Deenoe 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
    1. Support. : Should Wikipedia abide by Bush's terminology? This is a WAR whether Bush agrees or not.--tequendamia 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Support. : Although I don't really care about the terms "war" vs "conflict". What I do care about is that the current name suggests that the government of Lebanon is fighting with Israel, and they are not, only Hezbollah is. StuRat 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Support per StuRat abakharev 05:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    4. Support for now as it best reflects current situation, but don't set in stone. Rename again if necessary when status changes. --Vsion 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    5. Support, 'cause it sounds like the best name. As Vsion states: "Rename again if necessary when status changes". --imi2 12:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    6. Strong Support - Hezbollah specifically named since they are the only militarily active side besides for Israel, and "in Lebanon" because that country is the principal target of Israeli offensive depite it not being militarily involved. - Xuancris 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support. Satisfies the defintion of a war (OED): "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states …" Hezbollah is a "state-within-a-state", ergo it qualifies. AdamKesher 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Casualties

Infobox fatalties

Says 1 american dead (Bostonian), is he also counted in the Israeli dead? Also still has the number of UN dead incorrect. I make it 4 killed by IDF + 1 civilian staff killed by IDF. There were reports of 6 though. 82.29.227.171 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Readding as it appeared to have gone missing during the edits to the talk page. 82.29.227.171 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. --Iorek85 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

question about hezbollah casualties

hezbollah and amal are lebanon citizens,right? and they are also support lebanon against israeli invasion so why should hezbollah and amal casualties be separated from lebanese casualties?

—–The answer to this question is that members of Hezbollah and AMAL, while they may be citizens of Lebanon, cannot be classified as civilians because they are combatants and do not deserve the same classification or protection as non-combatant citizens.

Members of Hezbollah and AMAL are also terrorists and target innocent, non-combatant citizens of Israel. However, the IDF targets only combatant targets, that is, Hezbollah strongholds, which have been conveniently and cowardly located within civilian areas in an attempt by Hezbollah to secure some measure of immunity from attack. --Iceberg007 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Iceberg007

General Discussion

"Hizbullah committing war crimes"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525810863&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

We should add this. Flayer 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if you have evidence of israei war crimes that are happening, than it would be NPOV, but by itsefl it is the POV of Israel.Enlil Ninlil 16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Um no thats not even close to what NPOV is. If a WP:V source is stating war crimes occured then its perfectly legit to be added. Its like saying we cant add the beach shelling cause Hizbollah didnt shell an Israeli beach. If you have sources however stating Israel committed war crimes that fits with WP:V then feel free to add it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You should ask Human Rights Watch about this, not me. What we have here is an evidence of Hizbullah war crimes that are happening, according to Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, not me. Flayer 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here you go: "The Israeli military seems to consider anyone left in the area a combatant who is fair game for attack," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Such consistent failure to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime." (source 1, source 2) Enjoy!  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful, see both should be added, however one was not required for the other in the first place. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Why add either at all? It's all documented in Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and several similar articles. Here's another for you to chew on, dated yesterday: ""In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians," HRW said in a statement accompanying a report released on Thursday. "The failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hizbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes." (source 1, source 2)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Although a Human Rights Watch report released on August 3 said:

""Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Lebanon between July 12 and July 27, 2006, as well as the July 30 attack in Qana.. cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians... Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack."

[1]

  1. ^ "Israel/Lebanon: End Indiscriminate Strikes on Civilians". Human Rights Watch. 2006-08-03.
Yes good to see the evidence, I wasnt stating that war crimes didnt occur or Human Rights Watch, just that the Jerusalem post didn't include all the facts only ones that condemed Hezbollah. Enlil Ninlil 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Problem with the concept of "targetting civilians" is that almost ALL Hizb'allah members are civilians, as they belong to no nations military. They wear no uniforms, belong to no nation, and are not signatories to the Gevena convention.

Technically, any combatant in civilian clothing can, under the Geneva conventions be shot as a spy...but thats a different story. 12.158.14.66 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Proteus

To solve the disaster

We can either request protection for the page, or request arbitration. The article is so POV! Can you discuss about what is the better method, protection or arbitration? Eshcorp 18:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is a false dilemma as your suggestions are not the only two options. It is kinda normal for this kind of craziness on such an article as this one. However, I might actually support someone protecting this article to stop this edit war.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, sure, it is normal to have such edit wars, and I've seen nastiest! Believe me! But I think that such an important and large event as this one should be protected at all times from these unbelievable POV edits. Also, I know my suggestions aren't the only ones, but that's what I could have thought of, if anyone thinks of anything better, then why not discuss it here? Eshcorp 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is not POV at all. Thanks to the tireless work of a few dedicated editors, and the welcomed efforts of more casual editors, the page is pretty damn neutral. It's especially apparent when you have headers like "This page is so anti Israeli!" and right underneath it "this article is pro Israeli!" both sides are claiming it's POV one way 'and the other. Yes, people keep adding POV crap, but it gets removed pretty quickly. The revert wars are not between anons and established editors, its established editors duking it out, so protection won't help. That, and a lot of good edits have been made by anon I.Ps. We need to keep wikipedia as open as possible. Until the page is coming under heavy fire, it shouldn't be protected. --Iorek85 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars and revert wars are what make it POV, it might be neutral if no one started editing it like crazy everytime someone said something objective. Eshcorp 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hizballah military capability