Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Discussion about the name of the article

move to 2006 Israeli-Hizbullah conflict

  • 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict → 2006 Israeli-Hizbullah conflict … Rationale: The war started with the kidnapping of uniformed Israeli soldiers by non-uniformed Hizbullah militia and was waged to effect the return of the hostages. Lebanon never authorized the kidnappings nor did they declare war on Israel. Israel took great pains to avoid involving the regular Lebanese Army in the war including dropping leaflets on target areas to be hit. Claiming the conflict was a battle between Israel and Lebanon is misinformation. --Neil Brown 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes

  • Oppose because there are so many varied ways to spell Hezbollah, and Israel didn't just bomb Hezbollah, it bomb Lebanese army bases, and non-Hezbollah roads, powerplants, etc. 132.205.93.88 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. My first instinct was to leave it where it is for now, but the nominator's rationale is persuasive. 6SJ7 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It wasn't just Hezbollah. Do they own the Lebanese Airport? Iorek85 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Israel did place some blame on Lebanon. Plus the fighting is happening on their land and clearly affecting the country, not just Hezbollah. Crumbsucker 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Something that seems to be absent from much of the discussion is the fact that Hezbollah has representation in the Lebanese parliament. While the conflict was not ordered by prime minister Siniora, to limit this crisis strictly to Hezbollah would be inaccurate.Zainchristopher 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The rationale has a fault in that the name doesnt mean it is between Lebanon and Israel, but instead that it takes place in Lebanon and Israel. Just like the 2001 war in Afghanistan was never fought against the legitimate government of Afghanistan (the Taliban were rebels, not UN recognized), it occured in Afghanistan and goes by that name as such. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All of Lebanon was affected by the war, which has been pointed out by previous voters. --Soman 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

General Discussion

Damage inflicted on Lebanon

Hello there,

I wrote about this on the NPOV section but I don't think many people read it. I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia article on the same subject. I have been following this article as well as a comparison. I think there are several important NPOV problems with this article.

The tremendous damage inflicted on Lebanon's infastructure the the extent the Lebanese have suffered are not reported with justice. I believe the authors of this article have taken a somewhat pro-Israeli stance. Just saying that there are over thousand dead and the infastructure is damaged is not enough. The article should be written in such a way that when people read it several years from now, they will understand the horrors involved. Life has been hell in Lebanon during the last month and that should find its place in the article. --85.103.57.38 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck - the "NPOV" Israeli editors will have it out in seconds, decrying the massive damage caused by Hezbollah and demanding 50:50 coverage of both sides. Iorek85 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT about whether Israel or Hezbollah are 'in the right' or 'in the wrong'. Both groups are terrorists--both are criminals in different ways. Hezbollah are practising an illegal variation on vigilante activity. Israel is responsible for major war-crimes and general incendiary behaviour in the Middle East which threatens to foment WWIII. No one here is 'in the right'. The world will not be at peace until Israeli is totally dissolved and the United States of America withdraws from ALL foreign nations, including Iraq. There is no question about this. It is becoming an extremely serious matter. We cannot pre-occupy ourselves with silly debates about the specifics of who did what in this insane conflict. All of it is criminal--all of it threatens the peaceful way of life of human beings on Earth. It is time for all of these individuals, the Israeli government administration, the militant Muslim groups, George W. Bush's administration, Tony Blair and his goons--all of them are CRIMINALS, and the time is imminent to convict them, lest they make a mess of the entire planet. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a political chat forum, please keep discussions not directly relating to the improvement of the article off of the talk page please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You say this as though I do not know what this talk page is for. Every talk page related to a controversial event has discussion about the politics. This is about the approach we need to take to actually be objective, which, it would appear is not the approach you take. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually no this talk page and the others used for those purposes are not what they are for. There is no political discussion needed not directly related to items being added or removed from the article, what you are looking for is a political forum, this is not one. Please refrain from general chat on the topic here, as its noted at the top. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It would appear it is not the approach you take either... Advocating genocide, as you do, is frowned upon... Valtam 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. When in the name of Wotan did I advocate genocide? Are you completely blind? The only time I ever even mentioned it here was in reference to the fact that the Isarelis have been developing (since the 1990s) inherently genocidal and racist weapons. Namely, race-specifc bioweapons (search for keyword 'Nazi' above). Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose "totally dissolving" a nation-state against its will without the use of genocide? (I do appreciate the fact that you read my user profile - name of Wotan, indeed!) Valtam 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, Matt. You know the names of Wotan through your writings on the subject, as per your user page. I find your anti-gun-control and anti-abortion views interesting, although I don't think most people would agree with your proposal to forcibly sterilize prisoners... Valtam 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about moving the Israelis themselves--just getting rid of the State--the government of Israel. Also, the Mossad needs to be strategically dismembered. Yes, Vikings and Wotan are very interesting. I like the Eddaic approach, personally--describing the history of the gods, many of them men who were attributed god-like status. Dissolution of the State of Israel simply means just that--dissolving the government of Israel, and then establishing an internationally-governed country that encompasses Israel and the Palestinian areas--making no discrimination, as the Israelis do, between Arabs and 'Jews' (see [1]). Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea - so no-one would have to move... My first thought would be that the Israelis would be afraid of being out-populated by the Arabs... Who would control the international governance? The UN? UN Security Council? Egypt? Saudia Arabia? The US? China? India? A mixture? Valtam 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, an elected council of officials from each newly-established 'county'/region of the 'Israeli' area. This would be overseen and arbitrated by the UN for a while. The new country could be called 'Canaan' for neutrality reasons. After all, the Phoenicians (Cnaani) ruled the region long before the Palestinians or Israelis even existed. Matthew A.J.י.B. 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Lebanon has been reduced to one big pile of rubble. More than a thousand people has died. Life has been hell for the Lebanese. It is our duty to make people, who will read this artic in years to come, feel what has been happening. This article fails to describe the brutuality of the situation. This article unfortunately has taken a pro-Israeli stance when it comes to describe what has happened to the Lebanese. That has to change if we want Wikipedia to be able to live up to its fame for neutrality. --81.214.107.32 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Haaretz

I want to put "According to Haaretz" at the bigining of "Bigining the conflict). What's your idea.?--Azmanet 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just according to Haaretz, it's according to almost (if not all) major news outlets. Iorek85 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

first of all, you need a spell checker. second what is the point of putting that, and what will you put under it. and if you do it without concensus, it will be considered vandalism and you'll probably be reported and banned. --Zonerocks 06:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. TewfikTalk 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

lol tewfik --Zonerocks 07:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing funny about biting newcomers. Just don't. Zocky | picture popups 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, his asking "What's your idea" is seeking consensus. --Epsilonsa 08:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions Pertaining To The Infobox

1. Why is the number 40,000 placed beneath Israel under the "strength" section? They don't currently have 40,000 troops placed in Lebanon. And if it's an estimate of the number of Israeli active-duty soldiers and reservists-which one would assume, since the number placed below Hezbollah is 5-10,000, i.e. the number of Hezbollah militiamen/terrorists currently under arms-then it's even more inaccurate.

2. Why is the box beneath Lebanon vacant, rather than being filled with an exact number of active-duty soldiers in the Lebanese military?

3. Where are the sources documenting the deaths of non-Hezbollah combatants? I realize that there have been reports about Palestinian gun-men and Amal gun-men being killed during the present conflict, but it would be nice if there were some verifiable sources to document this.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Ruth. This person added this on his own will. He has no documentation of this obviously. It should be changed immeaditly, and if he or she adds it again, they will be reported. --Zonerocks 07:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting photos

This is an interesting Lebanese report, which was cited by Michael Béhé (a controversial figure in Lebanon I understand). TewfikTalk 07:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a controversial Michael Behe? In Lebanon of all places?
LOL.
Shouldn't there be a section documenting the attempts at manipulating Lebanese casualties by staging photo ops, considering the amount of attention it has attracted, and the amount of media outlets that have been forced to retract erroneous reports?

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok im not signing up to view this. Can you maybe give me a google image link to view it. Or use something else, ok. --Zonerocks 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(You don't need to sign up for the first link, only the New Republic article) Another image that should be somehow included is this shot of a Hezbollah rocket launcher. Perhaps a conflict box? TewfikTalk 08:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A confict box on a POV allegation? WOW, this is going way out of hand...--Cerejota 12:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the picture be inserted into the conflict box. It is not a "POV allegation" that one primary feature of the conflict has been the Hezbollah rocket campaign, and there were previously requests for such an image. TewfikTalk 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldve given two seperate links. --Zonerocks 08:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


hmmmmm, perhaps a conflict box about allegations that hezbollah is using civilans as shields. Something on how this has caused the civilian deaths. Image should be used. You should draft some text or a it's own conflict box and post it in this talk page and then we can consider adding it to the article. --Zonerocks 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some simple additions would help. I do not know the details myself. 1. When did Hezbollah start the launch of rockets into"Israel"? 2. When were rockets previously launched (How much of a lull - months?) 3. Where did the "kidnappings" actually take place? 4. Is there any evidence to support the "pre-meditation" of these particular kidnappings, or did some member of Hezbollah simply "panic" do to the effect of the Israeli buildup (Gaza)? In other words, does Hezbollah (or anyone) declare the kidnappings as a planned military action? (Were they a spontaneous actions triggered by Israeli troops in a particula=r proximity to the border? Are the conditions know by israeli when Hexbollah will attept to kidnap? In general, I do not find the events that "triggered' this war clear, but they are very critical to the US response and media campaign, and also central to Britain, Astrailia, and Canada's official positon that this action was cause by an attack by hezvollah on Israel. We need some insight as to what happened in the USA (although this is a matter for other topics.)


Insight could turn into an opinon. Why don't you show us the insight. --Zonerocks 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli preparations for a response to Hizbollah

This article appeared in the British Press today, regarding preparations alleged to have been made over the last year for a response to a Hizbollah provocation.. It has been denied by the US govt, but is relevent to the history/timeline discussion. As I dont know where best to include it I leave that to you guys. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1219021.ece Fig 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Israel may have prepared for the scenario does not change anything as long as we agree that Hezbollah still initiated hostilities. Beware of framing things in the context of some kind of conspiracy theory. TewfikTalk 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How little understanding of strategy and tactics, and planning in general, can one have? Do you have a 5 minute memory? This is non-sense. You can't just label any suggestion of planning or strategy 'conspiracy theory'. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you could address my comments without questioning my strategic, tactical, and planning skills, or the length of my memory? TewfikTalk 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the relavence of my comments, this only demonstrates my point. The point is: governments usually have agendas, they usually act with strategic, often corrupt agendas in mind. Fools call this 'conspiracy theory'. But, it is simply the facts that this is the case. Honestly, do any of you silly folks really believe that these politicians, imbruted with moral outrage, embark on heroic quests to quell terrorism and injustice? Matthew A.J.י.B.


We have a vandal

It seems we got a vandal who has been tampering with the section: Israeli Action. It seems he added some qutoes and changed some qutoes that where there before. He put qutoes that make israel look really bad and that they want israel to be wiped out. Here are the qutoes. "and promised Lebanon a “very painful and far-reaching response.” “[i]f the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land. His screen name is Avraham. and though those are qutoes. He changed the wording, and added new words to the qutoes, and the link of sending lebanon back 20 years is not in the article, that is provided for the link. --Zonerocks 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is what the citation says. Follow the link. Now, if that source is a forgery, or is judged to fail WP:RS, that is another story, but when going through the citatiuons one-by-one I check links and content. I save the WP:RS, WP:V judgements for when I have more time to think. If you ask a few editors around here, I think it is quite clear where my personal opinion about this conflict lies. However, here on Wikipedia we need to provide both sides of the story, and that means I check, confirm, and enhance sources for both sides of the conflict. And my name is Avraham, by the way, but please call me Avi. -- Avi 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I must say, I guess this proves I'm doing something correctly. Oiboy and Sarastro accuse me of vandalism and being an Israeli pawn of operation megaphone, and now I've been accused of vandalizing this article for the Hezbollah side. :D :lol: -- Avi 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, I, of all people, have even beena accused of being a 'Zionist spy'! It all depends upon which extremist camp you're debating with. If I'm debating with the American Bush-ites about their criminal government, I'm called a 'Left Winger' or an 'America-Hater'. If I'm debating the unethical and criminal behaviours of the IDF with Israeli extremists, they call me a 'Nazi' or a 'Self-Hating Jew' (as if that has anything to do with the State of Israel). On the other hand, if I'm talking to those folks who believe that 'the Jews' are behind everything from Freemasonry to Homosexuality, I'm accused of being a 'Zionist Freemason conspirator' or simply a 'Zionist', seemingly only on the grounds that I don't believe the Israelis should be kicked out of their homes when the State of Israel is dissolved... People these days--they're all extremists. There are only a few rationals out there who can see it all for what it really is: a bunch of criminals manipulating different creeds against one another. Quite sad. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with labeling what Avraham is currently doing as vandalism, and I don't see how he is making Israel look bad at all. His profile indicates that he is possibly an Israeli himself, and he is actually telling the truth indiscriminately in the article, something refreshing to see among Israeli Wikipedians. Coolintro 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I usually do not add material to this article; rather, I check material for accuracy. CNN reported Halutz said that. For all you know, I agree with him >:) . Regardless, CNN is a reliable source, and thus there is no reason to remove it from the article. Conversely, I monitor whitewashing of Hezbollah as well. For the record, I'm an American, (great satan, not little satan ;) <-- HUMOR ALERT!!! ) -- Avi 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, man I apologize, there are words added to the qutoe though that I hadn't seen before that qutoe and i checked the link and it doesn't have the exact words and words where added and made israel look bad. The CNN link doesn't have that link. I couldn't find it at least. But man I am really really really sorry. What can I do to make up for it, and are you talking about sarasto777? --Zonerocks 21:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Avu, you of the few good editors here. As to the link, man, I read the "turn lebanon clock back 20 years" quote in Ynet. If you think that makes Israel look back then try to change the government official who said it... Now in all honesty, my OR is that what he meant was that they were going to create a situation similar to Operation LItani, which to a certain extent has happened, except the Hezbollah forces have proven much better in combat than the PLO ever was. In other words is not as omnious and "bad" as it sounds. On the other hand, its a bit ironic to see an editor who is keen on making Hezbollah look "bad" trying to make Israel look "good": I mean, we must, constarined by the verifiable facts from reliable sources, make both sides look neutral to the average reader. And neutral generally means neither good nor bad. And that goes for both sides.--Cerejota 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, am i one of the good editors??? --Zonerocks 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

see, when you ask, it ruins it --Epsilonsa 08:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You arte actually among the worse POV soapboxing trolls, now that you ask. Hey, tho cry PA! PA! PA! You asked :P--Cerejota 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hersh says U.S. integral in conflict initation

In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh makes the case that an Israeli delegation visited the White House earlier this summer to receive approval for an attack on Lebanon. Hersh further argue that the U.S. agreed to the removal of Hezbollah as a deterrent for Iran to discontinue their nuclear development activities. A tidbit worthy of inclusion?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255

So wait, your telling me that the murder of 8 soldiers and 2 kidnapped in the beginning, where....Staged. So this has been a big plot by israel. They have been staging this and hezbollah is innocent? Also I would like to see a link from the new yorker to prove it, and so what if the US agreed to the removal of hezbollah. The UN agreed for the removal of hezbollah, that is what un resoultion 1559 is. --Zonerocks 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if they didn't actually stage the event through intrigues, they certainly were awaiting such an opportunity to begin this invasion. They have wanted Lebanon's water supplies for years now, and they are in direct cooperation with the USA in their attempt to dominate the Middle-East. There are numerous agendas involved here, differing depending upon the individual involved. However, some can be named. For Israel it is about conquest and further control of resources, partially. For the USA, Iraq at least was largely about 'tapping' the oil there, so that they could regulate the oil prices for the advantage of their sponsors. This is all exposed and proven succinctly by Greg Palast (BBC reporter) in his latest book Armed Madhouse. The book is endorsed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and includes his documentation of this criminal oil-cartel-driven invasion scheme. He describes the two main agendas behind the Iraq War--1)PNAC and their associates, who wished for 'American military supremachy in the 21st century', seeing Central Asia and the Middle-East as a major strategic location. 2) OPEC and the oil cartel of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc., whose plan prevailed in the end, to increase oil prices by seizing Iraqi oil. Similarly, there are efforts underway by the USA government to demonise Hugo Chavez because he plans to reduce global oil prices through his resources--the largest oil supply in the world (Venezuela). Although I am not in agreement with all of Chavez's policies, his plans for cheaper oil would benefit the poorer communities all over the world, and the USA's attempts to stop him are diabolical to say the least. The government of the United States of America is horrendously criminal, really--to an unbelievable degree. The Israelis are maybe more vehemently hated, however, and this is what makes them so dangerous. If the USA invades Iran (partially as a result of Iran not accomodating their economic plans), Israel will inevitably be blamed. This is another reason to attack Hizbollah, discussed between Bush, Blair and the Israelis this Spring. This way Hizbollah will not be able to organise an Iranian-sponsored retaliation in Northern Israel. The danger lies in the fact that certain well-sponsored Muslim extremist groups have stated their intention to, in the event that Iran is invaded, actually invade (from within) and take over Southern France, and subsequently to attack Spain. Because of this, anyone in Europe should vehemently oppose Israeli and American military actions in the Middle-East. Matthew A.J.י.B. 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a chat forum, can you please take this to your respective talk pages. We are not here to discuss would politics we are here to improve this article. Please refrain from starting general discussions on this page as per the tag at the top. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything, and I agree with your demurral. However, considering Mr. Hersh stature as a reporter with insider knowledge of the Bush administration it is certaintly relevant in the context. If you have a closer look at the link, there's an in-depth interview with Mr. Hersh. I believe the article will be online in a day or two. Shoplifter 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard Hersh being interviewed on NPR a day ago, explaining the general details of his report.
I suppose that it could go under an alternative theories section, if one exists.
His amount of insider knowledge with respect to the Bush administration is a sketchy matter.
He has some sources within the Pentagon and CIA, most likely.
However, how reliable, or close to the Bush administration, they are is a matter of some dispute.
His assertion that a strike on a convoy carrying Mullah Omar during the initial days of Operation Enduring Freedom was forbidden by JAG officers still has yet to be verified by outside sources.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact is an interesting read, explains much (if these anonymous sources can be believed). The title of this section is neither an accurate assessment of Hersh or his sources though. mdf 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Polls

The polls are closed. no more voting. We have agreed to kidnapped. --Zonerocks 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. You struck out votes, and even were the count only 14-18, that is not consensus. Wikipedia is not 51%-rules democracy, nor do the "polls close" when building consensus. You and your "kidnapped" POV don't have consensus.
((removed personal attack)) 80.216.124.251 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Zer0faults: The comment on immaturity was hardly directed at you personally, but rather at some of the involved parties in the conflict. Removing comments on the other hand, could be considered a bit ... MX44 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not feel they were directed at me, however this is a talk apge to help the article not insult the participants, people can take their frustrations out on a pen and pad in their home instead of publically insulting everyone working on this article. Seeing as the comment had not bearing but to attack people it was removed. If you feel we are losing some encyclopedic value in the words that were posted, please explain to me what that was. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

and how long should this poll be open? --Zonerocks 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, lack thereof, and removal of cited information

I agree that there was no consensus, 14-18-whatever is not overwhelming. However, when there is no consensus on wikipedia, the usual result is that no changes should be made to the status quo, which in this particular case happens to be "kidnapped". I will be restoring that pending a more clear resolution on talk.

Further, people keep on removing properly cited material with edits such as "does not belong in lead". That is somewhat confusing, as the acceptance of the cease fire is critical to the article. I am putting that information back in.

Lastly, this article seems to be devolving into a full-scale edit war based on this consensus/lack of consensus. The article may need to be locked for a while until the various editors here can hammer out their differences without skirtinig WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and whatever other alphabet soup is being honored in the breach.

-- Avi 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, what was the status quo? -- Szvest 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was "kidnapping" the entire time I was monitoring the article. Are there diffs that prove otherwise? -- Avi 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey it's avraham. lol. --Zonerocks 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What if someone considers the status quo to begin w/ the first stub we had instead of the "time you were monitoring the article"? -- Szvest 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought "status quo" meant "existing state of affairs." What state of affairs existed during the polling? Valtam 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
During the polling it was "kidnapped" -- Avi 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Do we know which term was in the article longer? I was going based on what was in the article at the time of the discussion, with the discussion aimed to change status quo.

By-the-By, would the term "abducted" be acceptable? It has both connotations, I believe. -- Avi 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to review the, um, "discussion" in the archives here and at the article for Hamas' business in Gaza: it's all been said before. At this point, it doesn't make a spit of difference what started it all, let alone which word is used to describe the action. Archduke Ferdinand -- oh, right, wrong war. Ooops! Not a war, a "conflict"! I suggest that we follow the references directly cited by this article: they use "kidnap". Anything else is just an inevitible exercise in Israeli/Hezbollah agitprop. mdf 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Abduction is too vague and inexact. Hizbullah violated international law by _kidnapping_ soldiers. Capture (according to Wikipedia) means a legal capture, as in a Prisoner of War capture. Hizballah is an illegal organization to begin with, but that does not excuse them from accurately depicting their actions Claymoney 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, 'abduction' was an option in the poll and it received only 2 or 3 votes. BTW, is the poll still open? Valtam 19:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Clay, as you can see from the voting, I agree with you. But abduction also has connotations of illegality, and perhaps shades of ambiguity are what is required to allow everyone to feel as if their views are represented, without sacrificing what each of us believes is the truth. -- Avi 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What international law was violated? Where is the force being used to apprehend these supposed criminals to be tried by the supposed legal system to which they are supposedly held? The captures took place outside of law and the response is being taken outside of law - aka war/conflict. Hezbollah are not citizens of any entity which is trying to apprehend them for criminal activities.--Paraphelion 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems clear that Hizbullah violated UN resolutions establishing borders as well as the Geneva Conventions regarding captures/kidnappings, etc. Just because a specifically legalistic remedy is not used does not mean that the actions should not be described as illegal. Claymoney 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so clear that we can't cite the laws and so clear that the UN has not dispatched a force to apprehend the supposed criminals. Of course, Hezbollah isn't part of the UN or a signatory to the geneva convention. This is nothing but an attempt to describe actions in terms of civility when there is none. Anyone can make up laws and claim aliens on another planet are breaking it.--Paraphelion 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if "Hezb is an illegal organization" is Clay's POV or it is just based on the few countries accusing it of being that! -- Szvest 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Humane and dignified treatment of prisoners is present throughout the Geneva conventions because it has been accepted as a norm of international law. Therefore, the fact that Hizbullah is not a signatory is irrelevant. This thread is getting away from the discussion, however. Claymoney 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to a previous comment calling Hizbullah an illegal organization. I was not describing my position Claymoney 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense guys if during the poll it was X. Editors were engaged on a revert war. "Captured" lasted for a long long time before edit warring begun after the article stopped being semi-protected. -- Szvest 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


This is ridculous. I opened the poll because there where previous and current discussions about the matter. I set a date, monday 8 am cst. people casted votes after that time while it read polls closed. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to comprehend what polls closed means. you can't vote on a poll after it closes. Alright. Do we understand that. But instead we are making this into a 2000 presidental elections dispute. It isn't that and we shouldn't treat it like that. the votes where 14-18-2. Kidnapped won the votes. So we put that word. Valtam the polls are indeed closed. They have been since 8 AM TODAY. There should not be any more votes casted. kidnapped won, now let's move on. This is so ridciculous. I would scratch out votes if it where casted for the word kidnapped, and szvest, that was a STUB alright a stub. Now im done, I will say it again NO MORE CASTING VOTES. --Zonerocks 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As you are new to wikipedia, i have the duty to guide you to read Wikipedia:Consensus -- Szvest 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate if you could say it 43 more times. BTW this is official notice that I have extended your deadline to Feb 29th, 2170. I am also offering voter amnesty at this time.--Paraphelion 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I set a date for closing, there is no excuse. --Zonerocks 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(EC) FayssalF is correct in stating that the word used prior to the vote was captured. However, as the vote makes clear (50/50 split), it was hardly consensus, and it was contested from day one, which makes me doubt that it is any more legitimate. Perhaps we can take the opportunity to find a compromise solution that would satisfy both sides? TewfikTalk 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys! Here is a short article from 12 July, signed Der Spiegel ... You've read it now? Good! As you can see it doesn't really matter what word we use, or if we use them all at once, nobody has a problem with understanding what's going on anyway. For some obscure reason Israel prefers kidnapped, so if we wan't we can go that route and make the article look like an IDF press-release. This will positively make a lot of people giggle! Hezb etc prefferes captured, which we have also found out is making another group of people very annoyed ... So, abducted is the word left to be used for consistency, or use all three of them ... MX44 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict and Dates

It is important to note that Lebanon and its military units were involved on a minor scale, this was a war and not a conflict, it was between Israel and Hezbollah, do not put the end date Aug 14, since there will be some fights on the borders and as of today there are casualties. It's important to stress that Israel did not win this, because their goal was to destroy hezbullah and they did not do that, on average they dropped 150 rockets into Israel, on Sunday they dropped 260 or more. So this tells us a lot, they could have continued doing that for the next year or more. It's hard to say who won, but certainly more victory belongs to Israel, since the party exists and it will exist and they will be part of rebuilding Lebanon. It's important that this does not happen again, such attacks only destroyed Lebanon and its people, not only Hezbollah, all those bridges, hospitals, institutions could have been mostly prevented. I do not see the point of destroying them since Hezbollah's supplies in 35 days did not diminish one bit.
Somebody should change the name of the conflict to Israel-Hezbollah war, not conflict because conflict is on a minor scale, this was on a huge scale, all Lebanon now looks as Warsaw did in its uprising of 63 days in Oct 1944.
This is Hezbollah-Israel war, only and the date of the end of the war not known yet... Victory is mostly on Hezbollah side! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.11 (talk • contribs).

Again this is the same guy. To bad your ip will be banned from editing. --Zonerocks 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing paragraph and source about South of Litani

This is getting somewhat bothersome. Firstly, that source is the source for the acceptance of the cease-fire as well, it is the same article. Read the first through sixth paragraphs. I am afraid this is not a content dispute, but vandalism, and may not be subject to WP:3RR.

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- The U.N.-brokered cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel will begin at 8 a.m. (1 a.m. ET) Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Saturday in a taped statement.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora agreed on the time, Annan said. But on the deadliest day yet for Israeli soldiers, he urged both sides to stop fighting immediately.
"Preferably, the fighting should stop now to respect the spirit and intent of the council decision, the object of which was to save civilian lives, to spare the pain and suffering that the civilians on both sides are living through," Annan said. (Watch Annan announce the deadline -- 1:15)
Hours earlier, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a cease-fire once a deal on the timing was reached.
The Lebanese government, which includes two members of Hezbollah, unanimously approved Security Council Resolution 1701 on Saturday, Siniora said.
The announcement followed a meeting of the Lebanese Cabinet, and Siniora said the Cabinet would meet again Sunday to discuss implementation.

While Siniora said only the Lebanese Army and U.N. forces would be allowed to bear arms, the two Hezbollah members told the Cabinet that the Islamic militia has no intention of disarming south of the Litani River, about 15 miles (25 kilometers) north of the Israel-Lebanon border, a senior Cabinet member said.

— CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/12/mideast.main/index.html

This has been sourced by a reliable and verifiable source, and removing it is plain vandalism, unless someone can show me a wikipedia policy that implies otherwise. -- Avi 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well who is doing it? --Zonerocks 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't important as long as they stop. TewfikTalk 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I cannot restore it for a while, as I have to be careful about WP:3RR. Cest la vie. -- Avi 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't in the past because the Reuters citation below seemed to contradict it, but now I see the the former is a specific to south of the Litani. TewfikTalk 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus vote: Captured, Kidnapped, or Abducted

Polls Closed . .
One vote only. Well it seems we have been talking about this for a week. I say let's settle this once and for all. --Zonerocks 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes are evil and no decisions are final. You can't settle things once and for all, especially not with voting. If the facts support one option, no number of votes for another can overrule the facts. Zocky | picture popups 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitions:

  • Kidnap - To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. [2]
  • Capture - To take captive, as by force or craft; seize. [3]
  • Abduct - To carry off by force; kidnap. [4]

Captured

  • Vote here if you support the use of the word Captured (Sign your entry.)
  1. Support: I think it's a pretty neutral word taking into account the graveness of the conflict. --Jambalaya 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: These soldiers are captured, not victims for a crime--imi2 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: Per imi2. Lebanese prisioners in Israeli jails were captured inside Lebanon during the occupation. We use the same terms.-- Szvest 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support: Per Fayssal. Kidnap and abducted are words associated with criminal activities, not armed conflicts. There is a double standard on en: regarding the actions of Israel and its enemies. Using the term kidnap or abduction is equivalent to using murder for killings. Bombing civilian targets in Beirut is also illegal but no one proposes the use of the word murder. --Burgas00 20:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mega-ultra-Strong Support Kidnapped and abducted are both ultra-POV. "Captured" is the only neutral, factual description. Those who fail to see this are just pushing a POV. If we use "abducted" or "kidnapped" article quality will go to the floor. If they are choosen, am raising a moderation request, as both "kidnapped" and "abducted" are clear violations of NPOV.--Cerejota 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF. --Hyphen5 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support. Most non-POV term on the roster. If "kidnapped" is used, this article will have a permanent NPOV warning tag. Italiavivi 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: This is an armed conflict after all. The article name seems to indicate it. Mceder 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: Capture is a NPOV word in this situation, while kidnapped is not. I just noticed that since the page was unprotected a few hours ago, new anon users have started taking over the editing, and one of the first things they did was changing all the "captured" to "kidnapped", although there has been a consensus to use the word "captured" for at least a week. If we allow "kidnapped" here, then other users will argue that the Israeli Operation Sharp and Smooth action in Balbeek was a kidnapping as well, and we're back to the old edit wars. Thomas Blomberg 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Best term to use to keep the NPOV lovers happy. Iorek85 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support This is war - you capture enemy soldiers in war, you kidnap civilians - if Hizballah fighters were CAPTURED, so were Israelis - let's stick to NPOV, past propaganda.--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Inahet 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Civilians are kidnapped, military personel are captured. Aelffin 19:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Coolintro 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support both kidnapping and abduction support the Israeli POV that Hezbollah is terrorist, rather than the objective fact that personnel of one armed group were taken prisoner by personnel of another armed group. As much as you might feel that Israel is/was 'in the right' (whatever the hell that means after nearly 6 decades of wrong on both sides), WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars and is non-negotiable.Cynical 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support It was a military attack on a military target, and it was a part of a conflict which was never concluded with a peace treaty. Breaking cease-fires is not illegal, and we shouldn't imply that it is. Zocky | picture popups 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support The phrases 'kidnapped' and 'abducted' contain with them an opinion of the legality of the action, 'captured' does not. Therefore captured is the only neutral option. Damburger 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. How is kidnapped NPOV? This is just a troll.
  13. Support This is the term used by BBC & the Associated Press ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support As per discussions I've participated here before - [5]. Agree with Damburger. Kidnapped implies breaking a law. Hezbollah operates outside the law and there is no legal system which has been effectively used to deal with their actions. Israel recognizes this and is why they have resorted to war in response rather than any legal channel.--Paraphelion 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support yeah. soldiers are captured, not kidnapped. soldiernapped? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.196.120 (talk • contribs).
  16. Strong Support Rm uk 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support--Nibblesnbits 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kidnapped

  • Vote here if you support the use of the word Kidnapped (Sign your entry.)

--Zonerocks 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Support. Only an actual government can capture prisoners, not a terrorist group. StuRat 23:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support cross border intrusion and the kidnapped them, there using them as a ransom to get something. --Zonerocks 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support It was an illegal act, captured does not specify illegality, hence its POV by stating Hezbollah's actions were in any way legal. Crossing into another country without permission is illegal, breaknig a cease fire is illegal, murdering soldiers is illegal since no war, ransoming soldiers is illegal according to geneva convention, soldiers kin has not been notified of ways to contact them, illegal by geneva convention etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    That is original research and is in violation of NPOV, as Hezbollah doesn't agree with it. At most we could say "Some sources descibe the captures as "kidnappings" or "abductions" or something like that but in general the article can only be un biased if we say "captured". This is sheer, obvious POV pushing.--Cerejota 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    How do you know Hezbollah doesn't agree? Is that original research on your part?? (Also, see my vote, #21, for an alternative defense of "kidnapped" apart from the legality/lawfulness angle.) --Hyphen5 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. Also, I'm curious -- are you claiming, Zero, that the Israeli soldiers who have been killed in combat since Israeli began this campaign were murdered, and are murder victims? Italiavivi 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    How is this remotely original research? Hezbollah is a militant group, not a nation, and is therefore not under the geneva convention. In order for the soldiers to be prisoners of war, it needs to be a nation, not a militant entity. If I, and a friend, launched an attack on a military patrol nearby, were we to take soldiers hostage it would be a kidnapping, not a "capture" as we would be a militant group or entity outside of the Geneva convention. To call this POV pushing is a terribly bad faith assessment that is also without base. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    If John Smith murdered 20 people and was sentenced to death, its barely original research to say he broke the law and cite the penal code. It would actually be against policy to state he broke a law without citing the law, as thats an unsupported statement. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    You failed in our last discussion [6] in this and were never able to answer my questions regarding what law that Hezbollah is bound to that they violated when capturing the soldiers? If there is some law, why wasn't legal recourse taken? The issue is being handled through the system used when there is no law - might makes right, or war. It is no coincidence that this is also the system, or lack thereof, that Hezbollah used to capture the soldiers.--Paraphelion 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry I do not know what you mean "failed in our discussion". As for what law, They violated the Israeli border, they violated Israeli law on kidnapping, they violated Israeli law on murdering, possession of illegal arms. As for why legal recourse isnt taken, I think they are having trouble issuing a subpoena to Nasrallah. As for the international community, they do not recognize Hezbollah at all, hence why UN resolutions do not name them, they are just a militia in Lebanon that was suppose to be disarmed many years ago as per the resolution that Lebanese government was in violation of. They also fired on a UN convoy of unarmed peace keepers, I guess that would be attempted murder, but I doubt Lebanon will charge them as they are even scared to send their military to southern lebanon. If you will can you please tell Nasrallah his presence is requested in an Israeli court? Are you so naive to think a law isnt broken simply because the victim has no recourse? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per above. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Please, fact check. The geneva conventions do apply to non-State actors acting within signing states, and under the Law of Land Warfare. Uniformed non-state militias are considered legal comabatants, even if they belong to irregular forces. Thsi is the basis of UN-mediated efforts to end various civil wars world-wide, and the basis for groups like HRW to treat Hezbollah as legitimate combatant to be held to the same standards as a State. Only Israel (ie, one side of the POV) calls this a "Kidnapping", and a large number of less POV but generally anti-Hezbollah forces use the weasel word "abducted". But the only true neutral term is "captured". Read the definitions above: if we say kidnapping, we will be breaching NPOV, because we will be saying that Hezbollah performed an illegal act, which is dsiputed and is pro-Israeli POV. Simple, if you can't see it, well go with your concience knowing you are violating WP:NPOV, you cant argue it was not explained in detail to you. Lastly, I am not breaching good faith: I am making an observation so that good faith editors do not fall, unwittingly, into POV pushing. There is a difference and I ask you retract and apologize for your personal attack. I do stand by my word: if we adopt "kidnapping" this article will cease to be neutral until we change it back to captured.--Cerejota 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    Kidnaped is not only used by Israel, but by the White House, many prominent media, and perhaps others. TewfikTalk 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    "because we will be saying that Hezbollah performed an illegal act" Seeing how countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt all agree with the US and Israel that this was an illegal act as does the UN it's hardly POV to say it was illegal (which it was if you actually take a look at the relevant laws). 84.109.52.88 05:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Per zero Yonatanh 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Per zero. They are not Samir Kuntar. Flayer 20:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, as this is the term used by most news agencies. The Secretary-General is using the term "Kidnapping" in his statement to the Security Council on the adoption of a resolution on Lebanon. Fuzzy 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Kidnapping emphasizes that subjects were taken against their will. Capturing sounds more object-oriented and does not have the connotation of a situation one is being forced into. Sijo Ripa 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    This is not true, the very definition of the word "capture" is to take using force. Kidnapping emphazises the illegality of an action, which in the context of this article is a contested POV.--Cerejota 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    The action is seen as illegal by the UN, US, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabi and more. If even these three Arabic countries said it's illegal, when they are hardly biased towards Israel - who are you to disagree? Also, they were taken for ransom which is in the definition of kidnapped as opposed to captured. Yonatanh 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    The definition I read, said: "to take possession of". While I agree that other definitions may emphasize the force aspect, there shouldn't be an ambiguity (and the fact that some definitions emphasize the force aspect and others don't, make this ambiguity clear), especially not an ambiguity on purpose which, something which would be highly POV. Also: almost all media refer to it as "kidnapping": European, American and even (english) Arab media. Sijo Ripa 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. The only possible factual term. Lancsalot 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support as they were kidnapped to secure the release of arab prisoners which would make it for ransom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per above, taken hostage from across the border with the explicitly stated goal of prisoner exchange. TewfikTalk 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per def and args above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support captured gives the impression that they were taken prisoner during a normal wartime exercise, in reality they were taken during an attack across an internationally recognized border when there was no recent provocation from the Israeli side.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Valtam 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per MCHAS, Sijo, and zero. -- Avi 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support a cross-border prisoner taking should be considered a kidnapping in this situation Hello32020 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Hemhem20X6 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Soldiers were kidnapped as the UN recognized Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory. Guy Montag 22:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. "Captured" suggests a legal act of taking a prisoner of war according to Third Geneva Convention. Hizbollah's kidnapping, besides being illegal to begin with, is in violation of at least Article 71 of Geneva Convention, which would allow a prisoner to communicate with his family. -- Heptor talk 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Read the definition of "captured" it suggest nothing with regards of legality: it only describes the fact, with no opinion as to legality or illegality. Kidnapping on the other hand does suggest and illegal act. Your explanation is simply incorrect according to a dictionary.--Cerejota 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    It is not about definitions. "Captured" is obscuringly general, like calling looting "goods acquisition". It was an illegal abduction with an intend to put forward demands -> kidnapping. -- Heptor talk 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support. A soverign government might can capture prisoners and/or criminals, a terrorist group kidnaps. However, either potrays a POV. I'd accept that Hizbullah "took hostage" the Israeli soldiers. I will not accept the POV "capture." --12.74.187.195 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong support per above. "Capture" implies a state of war. It suggests an armed conflict was ongoing and in the midst of it, enemy soldiers were seized. However, no armed conflict was happening at the time Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. (That also suggests an answer to Italiavivi's question about "murdered" Israeli soldiers. They would be accurately described as "murdered" if they were not killed in the midst of a military conflict or engagement. But once the actual warfare is underway, you can't speak of "murder" anymore. So, Israeli soldiers killed by Hezbollah were "killed", not "murdered", in this context.) --Hyphen5 21:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What law has broken? If any law was broken, where is the legal system and enforcement dispatched to deal with this breach of the law. These actions are outside law and accordingly Israel's response has been prosecuted through war.--Paraphelion 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 is part of international law, and it called for disarment of Hizbollah. International law has special provisions for application of force for self-defence "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations", article 51 of the UN Charter. IDF is the enforcement, "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".
If one disregard that Hezbollah is an illegal armed force, they would have to follow Geneve Conventions, something they just don't.
One could of course argue that Hizbollah has de facto established a state on its own, independent of Lebanon. If so, international agreements would not apply, but that would go both ways. -- Heptor talk 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey heptor, notice how the liberals are all about applying geneva convention rules when it comes to defending terrorists at guantonamo bay, but when it comes to this israel conflict and hezbollah geneva convention rules, and all of a sudden it doesn't apply to terrorists. --Zonerocks 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I define myself as a liberal, but it does not stop me from supporting much of the war on terror. Some people on the far left (I do not refer to anyone here) do seam to ally themselves with anyone who is against the democratic values, be it the communists or the terrorists. -- Heptor talk 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed this and was hoping someone like you would be kind enough to come along and make mention of this in the article - please do so at once. This is an official request. You have 10,000 hours to comply.--Paraphelion 06:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed how conservatives, since they don't understand wikipedia is not a soapbox, and unable to reason and debate, have to build needless and inflamatory strawmen in order to build a point?
As to the geneva convention, need I remind you that someone voted FOR "kidnapping" did so arguing that the geneva convention DIDN'T apply to Hezbollah... Mebbe a Zionist liberal? ZING!
As to legality, actions can be illegal without a taking in of prisioners being illegal itself. As a matter of fact, a Israeli court can accuse the hezbollah soldiers who got the israeli soldiers of kidnapping and it makes no difference: it is still a POV not a fact. And it will remain POV until a real international system of justice, such as the International Criminal Court (which Israel and Lebanon refuse to recognize) exists to pass judgement. Treating a combatant in a war against oyu as a criminal is an expected behaivior of any combatant, but it is POV nevertheless.--Cerejota 08:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how hypricritical Liberals are. They say this is not a soapbox, but there doing the exact same thing as us. Especially some people in here. --Zonerocks 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DO you realize how irrelevant your comment is?--Cerejota 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how funny all of this is when you read it? Valtam 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Abducted

  • Vote here if you support the use of the word Abducted (Sign your entry.)
  1. Support -- abducted is a fairly neutral term. -- ArglebargleIV 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as second choice - Szvest 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support for reasons I stated above. -- Deborahjay 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussions here please:

I agree the term Kidnapped is somewhat POV, and during an armed conflict the correct term is naturally Captured. However, the incident took place before it became a war (or an armed conflict), hence the correct term, AFAIC, should be Kidnapping. Fuzzy 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Before it became a war? C'mon look past 4 weeks - this conflict had been going on for decades, Israel was occupying the area, conducting military operations, and "capturing" Lebanese militants for a long time, so let's be objective and neutral here.--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhu... Ask the "militant" Samir Kuntar. According to UN, Israel is NOT occupying any area of Lebanon. Flayer 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought Israel gave back all captured Lebanese/Hezbolla militants for, what was his name, you know, that drug dealer. Never mind, this discussion is a waste of time. Fuzzy 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You know whats so funny fuzzy? the fact israel has given lebanon all of it's 350 soldiers within a day that the caught in that one city, that israel has given back thousands of criminals to all these terrorists. But Israel can't get 3 soldiers who where kidnapped after a long six months of peaceful time. After Ehud Olmert met with the prime minister of palestine and they shook hands and promised peace, and then all of this crap happened. has people like crejota forgotten hezbollah isn't supposed to even be there. --Zonerocks 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You distort the truth. Israel has failed to release many Lebanese prisoners. Furthermore, Hezbollah has a right to exist, as does any militia group formed of civilians during war-time. The criminal actions of the 'organisation' can be attributed to a few specific people who ordered and/or carried out these actions. In general, Hezbollah is just a civilian group oriented at community work. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah's military wing operates against UN resolution 1559 --Epsilonsa 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The UN is far from a world government. The UN operates against my personal resolution 53,663,773, which I signed into law last week in my personal kingdom.--Paraphelion 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Those in Hezbollah's military wing responsible should be prosecuted under their own government's laws regarding militant vigiliantism and such. Israel should be severely curtailed by foreign nations, and punished by an international war crimes tribunal. The World Trade Organisation is currently the closest thing to world government on this planet--and it is very dangerous and corrupt--corporatist. However, the UN is the only organisation which officially enforces international law on this scale. Matthew A.J.י.B. 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I got this from the article on kidnapping a few minutes ago, from the definition section. "It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense. Another case is when two countries are at war: enemy soldiers may be captured in another country and detained as prisoners of war under the law of the capturer's state, and suspected war criminals and those suspected of genocide or crimes against humanity may be arrested." I'm not quite sure I understand what it is trying to say, perhaps that soldiers "captured" in one country can be considered by the other country to have been "kidnapped"? 71.123.31.93 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

71, These soldiers where captured in there own country. Also the defitniton of kidnapped also contains the word ransom, and that is what is going on. --Zonerocks 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I meant "I'm not quite sure I understand what it is trying to say, perhaps that soldiers "captured" BY one country can be considered by the other country to have been "kidnapped"?" The question as I originally (mistakenly) phrased it is incorrect in the context of what I was unclear about. 71.123.31.93 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution: use both

As the poll was not conclusive (it was far from a rough consensus), I suggest that we use both (temporarely or permanently). Both sides claimed that the other term was POV and incorrect. Using them both will not necessarely remove POV claims, but will at least ease them. Also, while media sources seem to prefer "kidnapping", they sometimes use "capturing" - sometimes both in one news report. Therefore, using both in one article doesn't really constitute a problem imo. A more practical reason: the choice for both will stop the edit wars, which are getting annoying and which are rising the wikistress levels. Sijo Ripa 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, consistency is key. You kidnap CIVILIANS not soldiers. Lebanon and Israel have been in a state of technical war for decades. So if some pro Israeli idiot wants to claim it's "kidnap" because it's a time of peace then he is a liar.
If these guys insist on using "kidnapped" then I will change Israeli "captures" of Hezbollah fighters and Palestinian Members of Parliament/Cabinet to "kidnapped". That is surely fair? The Israelis are engaged in an illegal occupation of foreign territory and regularly "kidnap" Palestinians yet they call them "detentions".
Please do not restart the debate in this section. My proposal is not about who's (most) right and who's (most) wrong. Also remember the three-revert-rule (see: WP:3RR). Sijo Ripa 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fauxtography Scandal

There is no mention of Hezbollah manipulation of the press, now known as "the Fauxtography Scandal." As a journalist, I find this very disturbing.

Fauxtography is so pervasive that it has already become one of the greatest scandals in the history of journalism. As of this date, the evidence of tampering and coverup is overwhelming. The Reuters clouds, the "Passion of the Toys," the Green Helmet Guy, the Pieta of Tyre (taken by an American photographer for the NYT) -- all will affect careers and personal relationships for years to come. The reaction may have an effect on the outcome of the war.Scott Adler 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources?--Cerejota 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies presents some of the basic claims. TewfikTalk 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, these Bush-supporters are now the silliest, biggest conspiracy nuts out there. They accuse 'terrorists' and 'left-wingers' of just about everything these days. Don't even make mention of the fact that the entire Jessica Lynch story was made up for propaganda purposes, or that the Saddam Statue Toppling was staged... Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks wasn't aware of the page, thanks! Seems like the mother of all the POV forks tho...--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
WTF? The Reuters photos, hallo? Proven doctored? Hajj fired, 920 photos pulled, hallo? Where's conspiracy theory? It's a proven fact for God sake! As far as I know the only conspiracy nuts are those trying to prove Joos are behind 9/11 relying on Al-Manar reports! OMG, do you learn the facts before you post? Aleverde.

Well Scott, that's what I don't like about our administration's PR efforts in the war on terror. the terrorist's know how to work other people's media's and especially ours. --Zonerocks 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for example Haditha. OUCH! :D--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all haditha is disputed. It would be POV, POV, POV, omg POV, POV that POV this, POV, POV. --Zonerocks 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, CLinton and wako, The Asprin Factories, Kosovo. OUCH :D --Zonerocks 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You bitter? :D--Cerejota 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Waco. Yes, that was major criminal activity. Janet Reno should have been punished for it. Clinton's administration were major criminals. But, Clinton is just an associate of Bush Sr., and works for the same cartel as Bush Jr. Your remarks are a perfect example of why political parties should not exist as they do now. Somehow people become convinced that this dichotomy is the guide to 'right and wrong', rather than actually bothering to investigate facts. Bush is actually centre-left in his policies, just for reference. He is more left-wing than Clinton was, although more toward the authoritarian side. You need to do some research and think independently instead of just associating everything good and wonderful with the Republican party. Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Matt, just out of curiosity, can you direct me to a reasonable argument showing GWB is center-left? I'm being serious - I can think of some reasons, but would like to read more. Thx! Valtam 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Well the voting found a concensus that most people support the word kidnapped over captured. By a vote of 14-18-3, the word kidnapped will be implemented into the article in whatever place it needs to be added.If anyone changes the words, you will be reported for vandalism. --Zonerocks 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zonerocks, striking out other people's votes will get you reported for vandalism. Please note that the log shows everything you do. The same goes for removing anything on this page. You just removed a response to you claim above, which, just as I do, accused you for striking out other people's votes. Thomas Blomberg 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked him about it, and he explained that it was because they were made after the vote was closed. And it is true, he did set a deadline originally that it be closed at a set hour, and when this came he closed it. That is essentially his rationale. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will reaffirm this again, these polls closed at 8 am cst today. it clearly says untop polls close. votes casted after polls close will be deleted. it says this untop. --Zonerocks 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is a very slight majority of the votes cast for kidnapped, and not counting votes cast after the time is an exercise in procedural creep. I have seen RfD denied on grounds of no-consensus for wider margins. Whats more, you have just begun an edit war of un told proportion. Wait and see.

I do not understand why pro-Israel editors, who are the bulk of thos epushing for the POV "kidnapping" cannot respect the fact that there is a need to mantain neutrality, and that this need is based in part in trying to avert edit wars. I think they should be satisfied with a mention on the text that according to Israel those were kidnappings and according to Hezbollah those were prisioners of war.

I mean its so obviously not neutral is not even funny. I say we take this up directly to Moderation, not moderation cabal but moderation, unless enough people can be brought up to see the harm they are doing to the entire NPOV of the artcicle by that simple act (for example, careful compromise on wording, subpages, and article size wmight be lost simply for an unwiillingness to compromise in good faith). I mean, if this is how we want it to be, then lets do it, but I think there is a better way. And stop the meatpuppetry :D--Cerejota 07:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Invalid voting

Dear Zonerocks,

This voting is totally invalid, as it hasn't been handled correctly at all. You first set an incorrect and very ambiguous closing time for the vote. 28 hours later you set the deadline 12 hours earlier. When the second ambiguous deadline is past while the first is not, presumptive voters are given a message that easily can be interpreted as "Last chance, the voting is closing soon." Four minutes later you start overlining "late" entries (including some that came in well before your second deadline) while that message is still up, and nine minutes later - in a totally different place on the talk page - you declare that the voting is over and that "your side" has won. However, not until three hours later do you change the "hurry up" message to Polls Closed - and at that moment your first ambiguous deadline is still eight hours away; a deadline many may have counted on, as they never expected the deadline to change.

  1. The time you set was incorrect and very ambiguous. The only valid time reference in Wikipedia is UTC. Not only is CST a largely unknown entity outside the US, Canada and Australia - and In Australia it means something totally different. When it's 20:00 (your first time) Australian CST, it's 10:30 UTC, 04:30 US CST, and 03:30 US CDT (the time reference you probably meant to use). And when it's 08:00 (your second time) Australian CST, it's 22:30 UTC the previous day, 17:30 US CST the previous day, and 16:30 CST the previous day. However, as probably not even the Aussies thought that you would be nice enough to set the deadline according to Australian CST, we'll assume you meant US CST. But as it's summer in your part of the world, you probably meant CDT, i.e. Central Daylight Time, but we can't be sure and many editors would have had no idea. Why you would pick the time zone for the metropolis Askov, Minnesota (how on earth can Americans call a place with 368 people a "city"?) as time reference for the very global English Wikipedia nobody knows but you.
  2. Your first entry, at 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC), said Polls close on Monday at 8 pm CST. However, at 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. more than 28 hours later, you just changed the text to Polls close on Monday at 8 am CST, i.e. you set the closing time 12 hours earlier. This was done without any additional message, such as "Please note, the deadline has changed." Most of those who read the closing time message during those first 28 hours wouldn't have read it again - and even if they did glance at it later, they may very well have overlooked the fact that a small "a" had replaced a small "p". Consequently, some editors (provided that they understood what CST was) would have assumed that the closing time was Tuesday 14 August 2006 at 02:00 UTC, while others (who guessed that you actually meant CDT) would have assumed that the closing time was Tuesday 14 August 2006 at 03:00 UTC. (We can forget the poor Aussies who assumed that you meant Monday 14 August 2006 at 10:30 UTC, as they would have given their votes way ahead of your deadline.) Those who saw your time change and understood what CST meant, but didn't think about summer time, would have thought that the deadline was Monday 14 August 2006 at 14:00 UTC, while those who saw it and figured you meant CDT, would have set their alarm bells at Monday 14 August 2006 at 15:00 UTC. Consequently, people were given four possible deadlines.
  3. So what happened? At 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. 33 minutes after your second deadline, the text was changed to Polls are close. Any other votes past 8 am will not be counted, which can easily be interpreted as "Last chance, the voting is closing soon" - and late arrivals would have no idea which 8 am it referred to. HST, perhaps? At 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. 4 minutes later, you started overlining "Captured" votes that you deemed had come in (but not explaining that this was the meaning of the overlining), including one cast at 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. well before your second deadline. At 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) you declared in a new section labelled "Vote" at the bottom of this very long page, instead of in the voting section: Well the voting found a concensus that most people support the word kidnapped over captured. By a vote of 14-18-3, the word kidnapped will be implemented into the article in whatever place it needs to be added., adding If anyone changes the words, you will be reported for vandalism. at 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC). However, at that time it still said Polls are close. Any other votes past 8 am will not be counted. at the top of the voting section. At 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) you changed the text to Consensus gathering . . , and not until 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) did you change that text to Polls Closed, i.e. more than three hours after you declared that the voting was finished. However, at that time your first deadline was still eight hours away.

I think this "consensus vote" should be awarded some kind of price for being the sloppiest and most mismanaged thing we've seen for a long time. But as the feisty Zonerocks has only been with us for less than a week, perhaps we should consider it to be the result of an overeager beginner.

I agree with Avi that there is no consensus, so the result should be that no changes should be made to the status quo. However, status quo is not "kidnapped", but "captured". This is not the first debate in this matter. It started already on 13 July, and after a heated debate for three days, most agreed that "captured" was better than "kidnapped", see Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis/Archive2#Discussion_about_the_captured_soldiers and Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis/Archive3#Discussion_about_POV, and it has been discussed several more times since then. If you check the log, you'll find that the word was "captured" almost all the time from 14 July to 12 August (shortly after the semi-protect had been removed), when anon user 12.74.187.164 started changing all the "captured" to "kidnapped", i.e. the same day that Zonerocks instigated this silly vote. So, except for the two last days, the word has been "captured", i.e. the word BBC uses. Regards Thomas Blomberg 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

206.255.1.73

Avi seems this user can't stop switching kidnapped with captured. Indentification of userHe has been reported and it will not be tolerated. --Zonerocks 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See, you're mistaken, or just trying to scare me. Anyone willing to read this Talk page can see what you did with the voting on "Captured" versus the POV "Kidnapped." I won't be blocked, and you'll be reprimanded for misrepresentative reports. Have a ball, champ. 206.255.1.73 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You won't be blocked, but I will reverse your POV, yes, POV "captured" crap every single time you do it. Things that Zonerocks might have done have no relevance here. They were kidnapped, period. The intention of holding them as a deal card, the unprovoked attack, the lies about circumstances of Kuntar's non-releasing - all are evidence for this. So calm down. If the Hizb can have its Al-Manar regurgitating the Protocols and be considered a "legitimate tool", Israel can have me and all I do will be legitimate as well. And be sure, I will take care of the crap you post. Aleverde
Quote: "Avi seems this user can't stop switching kidnapped with captured". And methinks "another user" cannot stop switching it back. The soldiers were kidnapped, not captured. They were not involved in any military action against Hizballah then. So they are clearly kidnapped, to be used in an exchange deal for convicted child murderer Kuntar and not "captured". Nice use of euphemisms for Islamist propaganda, but I think the one who should not be tolerated is the one who writes this "captured" crap. Regards, Aleverde. Update: sorry, thought you were referencing me and not the Hizb guy.
This POV disputed stuff, not vandalisim. Please stop trying to pass your POV as consensus. Captured is indeed the only neutral term.--Cerejota 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No it is NOT the neutral term. They might have been "captured" if Israel's not releasing of the last three Hezbollah murderers along with the scumbag Kuntar (who killed a child smashing her head against his rifle and killed her father and two policemen as well, by the way) was breaking the previous KIDNAPPING AND KILLING deal (of 2000). But it wasn't! Israel was to release the three scumbags only if Nasrallah was to provide a reliable info on Ron Arad. But the bearded Islamist fanatic didn't do it! So don't tell me they are "captured" only because they are soldiers. It is hypocricy. They are kidnapped exactly as Gilad Shalit is. Hey, yo sé que el vuestro ódio de los Judíos no se paraba nunca, incluse después el 1492, y ha después contaminado a todo el mundo Hispánico, pero eh - hay límites, no? Pienso que el moonbat Zapatero con su qafiya será bastante para hora. --Aleverde
I ask you aplogize or I am raising an ArbCom for ethnic slurs. There are personal attacks we can handle, and then there is racist and ethnic insults which are a banable offense for just one instance. I am dead serious. I have a sense of humor until it comes to this. Posting on your talkpage too. --Cerejota 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What ethnic insults? What racist slurs? That I said that Spaniards and Hispanics usually do hate Jews? How does that amount to a racist slur? How does that amount to "racism" against them? That is true, and face it. You guys in US are used to treat any inconvenient saying as "racism", but what I said is very far from being racism. I did not say Spaniards and Hispanics are "inferior" to some other ethnic group. I just said they usually hate Jews (and usually becasue of religious indoctrination), and this is true, and you know it very well, I bet first-hand. So don't threaten me, please, and don't try to intimidate me. Remember Chávez's speech about "those who crucified Christ now own the world"? So when he apologizes to the Jews, so will I. Till then, you'd better curb your threats. And yeah, I am "dead serious" as well. Aleverde
I think there needs to be a cease fire between you guys. While I dont think Aleverde's comments were racist, they were prejudice perhaps, but I think you two need a moment to cool down, perhaps just not addressing eachother few a bit to let cooler heads prevail. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems pretty racist to me, and what's worse is that he didn't apologize. Deuterium 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Pretty racist, Deuterium? How exactly? Do Hutus hate Tutsis? Yes they do and they proved it in 1994. Now how "racist" is that, my friend? You'd better learn first what "racism" means before applying this term to everything that moves. And what I said was not even a prejudice, Zer0faults. See for yourself, how many results Google yields for a popular Spanish slur against the Jews, "perros judíos" ("Jewish dogs"), and how many results it yields for the parralel Hebrew slur, "כלבים ספרדים". Compare for yourself - infinity against one. So please, Deuterium, don't try to teach me things. I know what I say, and I know it very well, and I know it much better than you. Apology will not come, because there is nothing to apologize for. It's enough to take a look of your user page in order to see what kind of stuff you are up to. Allek anti-Arab racism. Take a look at the Qur'an - it says Jews are pigs and monkeys. It's time you learn a little bit about your own racism before you accuse anyone of it. Aleverde.
Saying Germans hate Jews because Nazi comes up alot on google seems like faulty proof and a prejudice statement. To label a whole group by the actions of some is pretty prejudice. However I am not here to make an arguement either way, just asking you to please calm down here as things seem to be getting a bit tense and there is no need for that. There is a clash of opinions, however we are all adults and can talk it out resonably. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You did not understand me, Zer0faults. The term Nazi by itself is not a slur against an ethnic group - it designates an evil ideology but it is not an ethnic slur. But "Jewish dogs" certainly is. If you can read any Spanish, you can also see what context does this phrase appear in

the results. Yes, I repeat again, the hatred of Jews (religiously based) is extremely common in the Spanish-speaking world, especially in Spain proper. Aleverde

I am not here to argue the merits of accusations simply to ask everyone to relax and cool off. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'd really like to calm down. But blatant distorting of facts (making the false pretext of Hizballa's raid valid by using absolutely non-neutral term "captured" instead of factual "kidnapped", "abducted" or even "taken for human ransom"; wondering if the article about the Reuters fauxtography scandal with proven doctoring of at least 2 photos is a "mother of all POV"; putting the number of Israeli soldiers that died during the raid on three instead of factual eight, trying to justify this by their attempt to save their comrades and thus being "unrelated" to the attack itself - what a cynism) is not exactly something that has a deep calming effect. Like being 58 years under siege (with overtly genocidal intentions) and being killed for what you are is not enough, like being sput at by all the world is not enough, we also have to suffer this false, deceiving taqiya crap being posted here. Aleverde.

Too bad kidnapped won consensus. --Zonerocks 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Too bad the voting "method" was a sham, as detailed above. Stop pushing POV, please. --Keyne 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And methinks YOU are pushing your POV. Any sane person knows they were kidnapped and not "captured". Kidnapped to be used as a blackmail to release a child murderer. See response to Cerejota above.
Eh? Where I come from that's no "consensus". Not that I really care what term you end up with, but calling a disputed decision a "consensus" is rather ingenuous. 71.123.31.93 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The End of the Conflict?

I think it's fair to say that there will be extensive debate about how to write about the end of this conflict which (hopefully) is coming about now. I think it's fair and in the NPOV spirit to simply talk about the cease-fire and not to begin (yet) to talk about who won or much about who is withdrawing or being disarmed. The cease-fire is a fact on the ground. Victory is much more POV-based and biased. Claymoney 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, good thinking, no end yet!

Clay, the conflict isnt over, and the result isnt a ceasefire. That is where we are now though, a ceasefire. It may turn out to be the end, it may not be, we will have to wait. The result of this will continue to be "ongoing" as its not over. Do not confuse the "result" section with a "current status" section. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something in the table reflecting the UN-brokered cease-fire, which both sides (at least right now) are treating as potentially permanent? The opening paragraph mentions both that the conflict is ongoing and that a cease-fire is in place, so I think the table should as well. Claymoney 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, no end yet, the end will be once israeli army leaves the territory, I wonder what will happen to Shebaa farms, but before Zonorocks rudely interrupted us, this is only ceasefire, people still dying it's important to find out eventually how many soldiers died on each side, israel like cia hides the deaths of their special commandos and within days at least few soldiers will die from wounds.

In the "Date" section, the ceasefire can be noted. But to put the ceasefire as a result is premature, anything except "ongoing" is premature and I would appreciate if people helped to keep it as this for the time being as I unfortunately have already reverted it 3 times. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to have some sort of internal logic. If this conflict begin date is 12 July, with the end of the last ceasefire, it should end on 14 August with the new ceasefire. Otherwise, there's no reason the begin date wouldn't really be 28 May, or last year, or, as some have said, 1000 years ago -- Kendrick7 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As for an end of the conflict? This would imply that Israel goes back to The Blue Line (north and south) of '48. I do not see that happening anytime soon, not least because of the investments made in disputed areas. Who is going to inherit that?
As for a democratic state including all provinces of Palestine, this will not happen because the Jews would be in minority, and the Muslims (frankly) are not mature enough to deal with that! MX44 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither are the Jews, as we have witnessed. MX44 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1949 armistance line between Israel and (then Transjordan) the West Bank is called the "Green Line." Very colourful region... TewfikTalk 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You say I've got my crayons mixed up? :) That may be so, the essence of what I say still holds. MX44 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My 'southern' reference was to Ashdod/Isdud occupied by Egypt ... What is the colour I am thinking of? It was part of the plan from '47 MX44 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the 1947 UN Partition Plan? If so, I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways, any discussion of who started what can go to well before 1948. TewfikTalk 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1947. I have found this old map (sorry about the superimposed PLO propaganda) explaining why I say blue line. And as you say, the "who started what" goes back a long time, way before the British Mandate. MX44 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As for what I mean about the crayoned lines is, that there will be no solution as long as ppl insist on calling for personal interpretations of Gods vengence. MX44 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The line is blue like the helmet. Get it? :>
1) Conflict/war on ceasefire, so it is not ended. Althought the Korean war is called "ended" even tho all they have is an armistice wich is a weasel-word for ceasefire ;-).
2) The "Blue line" (follow link with map!) has jack manure to do with the 1940s. It is the name given to the UN-sanctioned and monitored border of Lebanon with Israel, and is called Blue LIne because of the Blue helmets. Damn kids, forgot your vitamins today?
3) The green line Tewfik explained. As to its colorfulness, Ill let him testify, although I am told there is some kind of berlin wall (except taller and better built) being built, so perhaps the name will change at some point.--Cerejota 05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of original raid

There has been some confusion over whether Hezbollah's initial raid was actually in Israeli territory. Could someone please provide a map or otherwise help clear this up?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.236.127 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Most news agencies (including Al-jazeera) and world governments say the attack occurred in Israel proper. Hezboallah claims otherwise. I believe it is in the article. Without a photograph and GPS devices, it will not get much clearer than that. -- Avi 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend we investigate this deeper THIS IS OF HUGE IMPORTANCE, GOOD THING YOUR BROUGHT THIS UP, IT'S POSSIBLE HEZZBOLLAH ATTACKED INSIDE THEIR TERRITORY OR SHEBA FARMS!

The last time we had this discussion, it didn't seem to be clear that Hezbollah made that claim (possibly an allusion, I think Cyde said something about it). The Shebaa farms area is nowhere near Zar'it or Ayta al-Sha'b. TewfikTalk 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, Shebaa farms are not and never were Lebanese territory. Aleverde

Cease Fire broken

What a surpirse, fox news has just confirmed that in the last three hours, over 10 katusha rockets where fired from lebanon towards israeli outposts. Im going to keep looking for an article. But it was just on foxnews. --Zonerocks 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now israel is firing artilley --Zonerocks 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here foxnews website says it in the alert http://www.foxnews.com/

Im not seeing at at the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All I found in English was this, though Maariv is reporting the 10 katyushas claim. TewfikTalk 00:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, Fox News just reported that, but nothing about artillery being fired. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I read it as being attributed to AP, but I can't find an English language report yet...TewfikTalk 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Found this on Ynet, [7], still nothing about artillery. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So what it looks like is that they fired these missiles from a farther range, and I saw sean hannity and it was very close to the israeli border. In the direction of israeli outposts. --Zonerocks 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright here is a link. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Mideast_Conflict BEIRUT, Lebanon - Tens of thousands of Lebanese jammed bomb-cratered roads Monday as they returned to still-smoldering scenes of destruction after a tenuous cease-fire ended 34 days of vicious combat between Israel and Hezbollah. Highlighting the fragility of the peace, Hezbollah guerrillas fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets that landed in southern Lebanon early Tuesday, the Israeli army said, adding that nobody was injured. --Zonerocks 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I sourced it from yahoo/AP and rewrote the article text to be more faithful to the source. For example, we do not KNOW that they were fired at Israeli positions (who knows perhaps Hezbollah was aiming at some rogue camels :D ) Regardless, "into south Lebanin" is the better construction -- Avi 02:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there still Israeli troops in southern Lebanon? I mean not an avid Ynet reader like me can find anything?--Cerejota 08:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Yes Crejota, many news organizations reported that this morning. IDF is saying missiles where launched from central beirut and fired at israeli outposts in southeren Lebanon behind the litani river.--Zonerocks 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are. The agreement is for the IDF to hand over their locations directly to joint international/Lebanese forces when the latter are ready to take over each individual location. Therefore the withdrawals are expected to take at least several days, with the first handovers expected to occur on Thursday. And I heard that this morning on WABC radio (ABC network news), based on some of your user boxes I am pretty sure you can get that.  :) 6SJ7 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Well there's not much military forces from israel in haifa. So I would guess, there trying to kill civilans mdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_23&oldid=1136284911"