Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Lebanon War/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Lebanon War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Moved from main article

Please feel free to chop down and incorporate. Done.

Added DU Weapons detail

Included a 1 line detail on the Lebanese Gov investigation in main article. 82.29.227.171 08:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Added detail on what Halutz said

Wrote this up as best I could, it may develop if he is prosecuted. 82.29.227.171 09:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Same for Justice minister. Both mention attacks on civilian areas. 82.29.227.171 14:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Added detail on vehicle/convoy attacks

It isnt a comprehensive list, and as new ones are reported/old ones come to light will add 82.29.227.171 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Al-Manar TV

Is there a consensus on whether attacks on Hezbollah should be included here? Attacks on various Al-Manar buildings have been ongoing through air campaign- Al-Manar article says 3 confirmed attacks, 5 attacks since those (uncited). It has been condemned by various Human rights/journalist bodies- see article. 82.29.227.171 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Added it in- there have been other attacks- but included Israeli Foreign Ministry explanation given plus reaction. 82.29.227.171 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization of Article

The article is not well-organiized, causing some repetitions and other problems. Here are some suggestions:

Group the "Use of phosphorous..." "use of uranium" and "use of wide dispersal pattern weapons" under a heading called "alleged use of illegal weapons", which will follow the "by Israel" and "by Hezbullah" sections. (All of these are unproved claims)
Organize the "By Israel" section so that Israeli response (i.e. Israel's explanations for the attacks) will follow the detail of the attacks themselves, maybe even under a different section heading.
Move several passage from the "by Hezbullah" section, which detail the Hezbullah's blending into civilian population, into the "by Israel" section, in the part detailing the Israeli position, since these Hezbullah actions are the reasons given by Israel to its actions.
Move Nassrallah's quote in the "by Hezbullah" section to the end of the section (for the same reasons detailed above).
delete or shorten, in the "by Israel" sections, subjects that already appear in the subsections or in the Qana airstrike article.
(possible, but not sure if necessary) break down the "by Hezbullah" section in a way similiar to the breakdown of the "by Israel" section - there have been hospitals hit by Hez' rockets, and yesterday a reporter was injured by them.

I have written all this on the talk page because I know this is a controversial issue and didn't want to make major changes without discussion.M. Butterfly 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the attacks on convoys from Tewfiks last changes and added detail. The reasons/denials/leaflet details I could find are included per your comments in the criticism/response sub-section. Your overall suggestion for responding to each attack allegation will be problematic but I tried to do that when I initially included the section on convoy attacks.

The IDF do not appear to have issued individual responses/rebuttals to each individual event described- they have issued general explanations of why, in some cases, attacks on proven non Hezbollah convoys, may have taken place. Without the IDF having made clear its side of the story after hearing the specific details of each attack I dont see how it is possible to insert a blanket statement time and again for the IDF. That prejudges their response to the details of any attack and places words in their mouths. It is entirely possible that in some cases IDF personnel may have actually made a mistake, been ordered to attack civilians, committed a deliberate "mistake", or committed an illegal act. Im not saying this did happen- only that its possible in conflict situation. Without an IDF investigation, acknowledgement, recorded dispute of details/testimony given by survivors/journalists how does anyone know that the blanket IDF response fits the individual event? With that in mind it is likely more reasonable not to presume and where applicable to give IDF responses to individual events/criticism as they were issued. I would propose a "general IDF response" section which lists commonly cited responses/reasons that, in general view of IDF unaware of specific details, explain instances of Lebanese civilian fatalities. The same can be done for Hezbollah in same section (Hezbollah dispute the 'hiding amongst civilians' allegation for example) and I dont think they make a distinction between settler or soldier. This makes it clear that these views are an opinion in general without knowing detail and not one size fits all explanations for all incidents.

Regarding DU weapons I am unaware of any statement IDF made on their use in Lebanon other than on their offensive capability so no response to contamination from DU exists that I know of. The contamination has not yet even been measured but from previous battlezones it seems intelligent to presume contamination. It is incorrect to group the 3 weapons as "illegal weapons". The illegality of all the weapons in article (so far) stems from their 'use' (in case of DU & Hez shrapnel rocket) or their use in a particular way in case of Phosphorus/Cluster. Again I dont believe this article should get into legal questions on conduct of the IDF/Hezbollah, rather it should be a record of attacks made in civilian areas. Another article on "allegations of IDF/Hezbollah war crimes" might work and allow a setting out of the relevant law and events where the allegations have been made.

Also I believe the title of the article is POV and non neutral. Use of the word "Targeting" in title implies that the term 'targeting' applies in each case described in the article, and that an actual process of selection based on military/political effect took place on part of IDF/Hezbollah. In some cases attacks on vehicles/convoys could be described as indiscriminate as could the Hezbollah rocketing. It is better to remove this question from the article as it is a legal one. For the same reason the question of "proportonality" appearing in statements of western Governments, and allegation of "state terrorism" from Syria would not be suitable in this article.

The word "Targeting" is a military term used in warfare to dehumanise and belittle, rather like the term "collateral damage". "Targeting" also attaches a legtimacy to all attacks described in the article before their legitimacy has been established. The term also could prejudice a readers view of the IDF as the full title implies that civilians (who tend to inhabit civilian areas) were the intended Target for bombs. The term "attacks" is more neutral and exact. 82.29.227.171 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "targeting" is NPOV when it is applied to "civilian areas." What else can you say? I'd like to see a division between Israel's targeting of civilian areas and Hezbollah's targeting of civiilans. "Attacks" is anything but exact but could be a route to generalize what should not be grouped together - targeting civilians and targeting civilian areas. Ranieldule 13:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction

The intro now is badly written, does not work well as an intro (it delves into the Englard issue rather than given a concise intro of what is going on) and is somewhat POV (linking to an op-ed article by Jonathan Cook). It should be rewritten completely, with the info now found in it removed to other parts of the article. M. Butterfly 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes its badly put together so far, needs NPOV'd. 82.29.227.171 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Phosphorus bombs

Added an IDF response disputing that they use illegal weapons. 82.29.227.171 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article proliferation

I'm writing my comment here but I could have written it in one of the other "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" articles. I find the number of articles rooted in the main topic (the conflict) problematic. Maybe some would say the idea of an encyclopedia is to document history thouroghly, but right know it seems that any topic - how tiny and akward that may be - gets its own article. And sometimes it smells of POV fork. What's a hot topic right now, may be regarded as a minor detail in history in the future. Not a hundred years from now, just a few months from now. Does anyone but me think that small aspects of a topic should be kept in as few articles as possible? Medico80 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Participants" section

I'm not asking this as a matter of agenda, but in an attempt to be objective--is Iran any more a direct participant than the United States, as each nation is only directly related to the conflict in that it has armed and supported one side or another? This has the US listed down with France and Norway, which I would consider an inaccurate characterization of the nation's role in the conflict. Fearwig 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleared up the IDF radio Halutz story

Jerusalem post amongst others reported it initially, quoting the "Senior Airforce Officer", then IDF denied it a few times. See article. 82.29.227.171 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

UN section

Dont think this belongs in the article as I dont think they can be described as "civilian areas"- they were known to both combatants, marked on their maps etc. Attacks on UN is a special case. 82.29.227.171 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Report

titled: "Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon"
link: [1]

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

Can this source be considered NPOV since it doesnt look at Hezbollah attacks? I think with the wealth of information in it forks will be needed to document it all. 82.29.227.171 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

merge tag

The text which is written under merge tag is moved from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to this article. Please merge it with the body of this article.--Accessible 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image use in this article

I realise that there are a lot of things to keep track of for the editors of this article. That said, please be more careful with the use of unlicensed images. Images sourced from blogs without authorship or copyright-holder status do not meet Wikipedia:Image use policy. Images taken from news agencies do not meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. They are subject to deletion and should not be placed into articles. Thanks. Jkelly 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? That is simply NOT TRUE, they are eligible under fair use, considering the importance of the events! The whole article has been striped of pictures, with no discussion whatsover! I strongly object to this, see here for previous versions. Restore the pictures and put them on vote for deletion, dont unanimosly decide what is and what is not fair use. --Striver 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think importance of the subject matter is actually a criterion for considering the images "fair use". Additionally, it's easy enough to revert the pictures back once their copyright status is established--there seems to be good reason for their removal. Fearwig 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples number five. I urge you to not upload any more images that you haven't created until getting a good grasp of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Imagevios from commercial news providers' websites will be deleted. Jkelly 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly is right, if he didnt remove them now then someone else would do it later on. Its wiki policy live with it. Having said that a good place to find images is on flickr eg. [2] which contains a lot of images of bombed out southern lebanon (the place where a lot of the bombing is taking place). Take a look for the words 'public' on the image, and check with the photographer if they can be made wikicommons- then upload as many as you like. You are also entitled to use one screenshot from TV per article, then you can also check the israeli government website for pictures of civilian casualties/damage and also the various lebanese bloggers may be able to give you some images they took. I dont think finding uncopyrighted pictures of damage to civilian areas will be a problem. 82.29.227.171 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The photobloggers may also be willing to freely-license their images if asked, although may be less friendly if they notice that they are republished here without permission. All of that aside, I wasn't intending to keep watching this article, but there are now redlinks to the deleted images because of an unthinking reversion. This needs to be cleaned up. Jkelly 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I secured permission to use some of the above images. 82.29.227.171 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

After having all the images I uploaded listed as 'copyright violations' by Jkelly earlier today I was informed that to make the process of securing creator permission 'official' you need to have the original creator send mail along the lines described here [3], once wikipedia have it in writing to permissions AT wikimedia.org you can use them. 82.29.227.171 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

After asking the photographer they agreed to a Sharealike license 2.0 and edited the permissions on Flickr to that license (see the copyright symbol under the Flickr image). That meant I could then upload them to wikipedia using the Sharealike 2.5 license. Credit must still be given to the photographer. Sharealike 2+ license is needed in this case as wikipedia asks that license allow for commercial use of the images hosted at wikipedia. Check the image tags if you need guidance, or message on my talk page, I will try to help if I can. 82.29.227.171 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of blockquotes

Thomas Blomberg has raised a problem with the use of blockquotes to frame the words of people/organisations quoted in the article. Thomas Blomberg says:

The blockqoutes are messy. It's something recently introduced in Wikipedia by a few people, and it's highly debated, as they make the pages look terrible. They were originally intended for very long qoutes, where they may serve a purpose, but in this article they are being used very irregularly, and sometimes for just one sentence. There are already quotation marks (") around each statement in the article, so there is no reason to separate them out in addition. If you do, it should be done for every quote in the whole article, not just those some people find important - but if that happens, the article becomes twice as long. In addition, the article contained two different types of blockqoutes.

Thomas lets us know its "highly debated" but didnt waste any time debating it on here so you wont see blockquotes in the article now. The passage above is using the blockquotes format I adopted and stuck to. Anyone think its useful? I think the use of blockquote makes whats said more legible making what was said more distinct. If you dont use blockquote then what the person said has a tendency to get hidden in a block of text as it is now. It shouldnt be hard to standardise the use of blockquotes in the article if this is such a massive issue. 82.29.227.171 12:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Readded them standardised now, its important particularly in the 'comments made by' area to be able to read what the people said. Likewise when statements are made by IDF in rebuttal. Also that case when text is taken from various reports. Really do not see the problem here. If length is an issue (is it really?) then probably the UN stuff and the double recurrance of the "human shields" stuff can go. 82.29.227.171 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, I agree that blockqoutes make peoples' statements stand out. However, there are two problems with them:
1) If not used consistently in an article, but only where users pushing a certain POV insert them, they make the article NPOV by itself, as they led higher visibility to some statements than others.
2) They create an empty line both before and after such a quote, making the text very spaced out each time. If the <:blockqoute> and <:/blockquote> commands just created carriage returns before and after the quote, combined with an indent and a different style (smaller font or italics), I would have less problem with them, as they would keep the text together and still achieve a higher visibility. Perhaps one of the people who have created Template:Cquote could create something like that. Thomas Blomberg 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a question of making them stand out to push a POV- Ive introduced quotes both 'for' and 'against' in this article, any I introduced I blockquoted where it made sense to do so. For example, if a particular subsection is about the actual quote itself it made sense to give it that prominence. By all means introduce a consistent format around quotations and excerpts you've identified. Just when you do, upgrade to a higher standard instead of downgrading them all please. It might also be an idea for you to talk about changes like that first otherwise, with only 1 edit on the article, people might take you for a vandal as I nearly did. 82.29.227.171 17:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lacking of links to international law and conventions ?

There should be some links to the international laws and conventions regarding this issue. imi2 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Added images by photographer 'Masser'

These came from 'Masser's flickr account, I asked for permission to place the images on wikipedia first and it was granted. Then made 'Masser' aware where the images were placed and that they can be ammended/removed at any time if he/she changes their mind. 82.29.227.171 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed copyvio picture montage

I've just removed a picture montage of Israeli casualties as it was a clear copyvio - see Commons discussion. Thomas Blomberg 01:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pie chart

Excuse me, what is the purpose of that israleli casualty pie chart? I think I can comprehend the numbers (better) without such silly graph. Medico80 09:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. At least make it a bit smaller. AndrewRT 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental et al. -- this article is too big and out-of-scope

I was bold and removed the environmental consequences, as they are tangentially related to the threust of this article AND are more fully documented in the parent article.

I propose that there are too many tangents remaining here, especially ones with their own articles. For example:

UN - Has its own article AND I do not believe UNIFIL et al. are considered civilians.
Use of phosphorus incendiary bomb, ball bearings, etc. Does that belong here? Or is that an issue to be debated regardless of target, thus being out-of-scope of this particular article?
Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons - which is partially redundant the wiley pete section. Same issue.

I think all of the above should be removed from this article. Thoughts? -- Avi 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with removal of the environmental detail, people happen to live in the environment. If their environment is covered in oil, a smouldering DU polluted wreck, or a burning forests after an attack its important to note. Please discuss on the talk page before being bold- this is a controversial topic.

Agree UN should be removed.

Use of the weapons does belong because the complain is that they are being used against civilians. Only their use against civilians/in civilian areas is considered illegal so it wont be appearing elsewhere.

Likewise wide dispersal weapons or the tactic of using them is also a hot topic when it takes place in civilian areas.

Please revert your changes until some kind of consensus can be reached. 82.29.227.171 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You may revert it, but the environmental fallout is not a result of intentionally targeting civilian areas which is what this article is about. It should be in the main article (which it IS, even more developed than it was here) or have its own, IMO. -- Avi 19:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But 'fallout' caused by attacks in areas where people live is somewhat important. DU munitions, oil slicks, forest fires all affect these "civilian areas" and the quality of peoples lives after the conflict is ended. If you drop a DU munition on a civilian area you will get pollution, if you destroy a powerplant you will get oil slick, or lob missiles near wooded areas you will fire. There is no chance this detail will be included in the main article as it is constantly removed due to what some claim are "space" issues. I will revert it, it is good you brought the matter up but the detail on these factors has to be recorded somewhere. 82.29.227.171 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, in trying to reach a consensus, this may be see-sawed back and forth, however, it is still in the main article here: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Environmental consequences of attacks and I still think it more belongs there or its own article than here.

Anyone else care to chime in? -- Avi 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to reach a consensus? Is it possible you can revert your deletions of the information while we 'reach' one? Thanks 82.29.227.171 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's own article perhaps ?

The enviroment scope of the damage is really big, maybe it's should have it's own article ? BBC: 'Damage is done' to Lebanon coast

imi2 12:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. 82.29.227.171 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Any other with thought of the matter ? imi2 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. Environmental damage is important ebough to have own article but doesn't fit in with this article or any other current article. Suggest Environmental consequences of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict for a title. AndrewRT 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating schema - vote

The article is comprised of both European and American schemes. We should pick one and stick with it. As an initial impromptu poll of preference, please sign under which option you prefer. Thank you. -- Avi 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Day-Month-Year

--imi2 13:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Month-Day-Year

--Avi 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for a vote

Please see the Wikipedia policy for dates, specifically Dates containing a month and a day and Incorrect date formats. As long as you link the dates it doesn't matter which approved date format you use. Once linked they all come out the same for registered users who have set their date preferences in "my preferences" above: [[9 August]] [[2006]] becomes 9 August 2006, [[August 9]], [[2006]] becomes August 9, 2006, and [[2006-08-09]] becomes 2006-08-09. Likewise, writing just [[9 August]] becomes 9 August and [[August 9]] becomes August 9 . So a variation of the dates is only a cosmetic "problem" for anon users, or registered users who for some reason have decided to select "No preferences" in the date preference set-up (or don't know that the settings exist). The dates, however, cause no confusion for them as long as we stick to the approved dates. Cheers, Thomas Blomberg 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Retitle

AFAIK, Israel claims to target military objects, including dual use ones. As any army, sometimes they miss the target. Until there a conclusive evidence that they indeed target strictly civilian objects, to use the word "targeting" in the article's title is POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose to change the title to Civilians in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Already raised this use of the word "Targeting", it is POV. I proposed "Attacks on civlian areas..." because Hezbollah weapons can not be described as targeting except in targeting a general locale. With IDF they cant be accused of targeting for the reason you outlined and they have given a response to each accusation made against them in the article. I think "civilians in..." gives a much wider brief and would see a lot of superfluous detail included. 82.29.227.171 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Targetting civilians is a war crime, so having an article with "targeting of civilians" would strike me as being accusatory, and hence NPOV, in the absense of any trial and conviction. I like the idea of Civilians in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which would clearly cover alleged targetting of civilians, and also the humanitarian impact. What kind of superfluos information do you think that would bring in? AndrewRT 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just that I think its a vague title meaning that the detail to be included could be confused with non relevant detail. "Civilians in.." sounds like its about civilians when the majority of information here is about events involving attacks on civilian areas/infrastructure or areas which contain civilians. I would stress the 'areas' because attacks on civilians is not neutral. While Hezbollah only discriminates between Arab-Israeli and non arab, the IDF say they dont attack civilians if they can help it. If the focus of the article is civilians then all kinds of legal matter would need to be introduced to describe the legalities of attacks on civilians in wartime. I tried to explain it before under my IP address 82.29.227.171 here Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Organization of Article 82.29.227.171 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer Civilians in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict but could live with the title Attacks on civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, because these titles do not imply that these areas were always deliberately targeted. Sidenote. Compared to other wars, this one is covered in WP way out of proportion, which makes WP what it's not: a blog. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, both Hezbollah and Israel openly admit to targetting civilian areas. Both offer detailed excuses for this targetting, but none deny it. If they did deny it would be ridiculous, as the rockets are not THAT innacurate and the Israeli Air Force and Artillery can be so bad shots that the civilian casualty counts would be as high as it is. I think the title is very NPOV almost weasel wording the facts, because a salient, verifiable fact is that civilians and civilian areas are the majority of the casualties on either side of the border--Cerejota 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact check: targetting civilian areas is not a war crime, as it would be impossible to conduct war today if it were. What is a war crime is to conciously and consistently target sites in civilian areas with no military value. This is probably why Israel takes pains to explain that its attacks are directed at military and dual-use infrastructure, and that damage to civilians is due to "human shields", and hezbollah takes pains to explain weapon innacuracy in assymetrical warfare.--Cerejota 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah's attacks on civilian areas

The beginning of this section claims that "Rockets also landed and resulted in casualties in the Israeli Arab population. 11 Muslim civilians (including 3 women and 6 children) and 3 Christian civilians were killed", quoting a website from the Israeli Foreign Ministry as source. However, that webpage, which lists Israelis dead so far, does not identify their religion. The text was inserted on 6 August by the anon user 88.152.85.85, and is in addition illustrated with a strange pie chart from Commons, based on the same source. The pie chart has been created by someone called Lior, which is surprisingly similar to Lior, who has been blocked since 17 July on English Wikipedia. A new anon user, 88.154.4.171, who activated himself/herself on 8 August, was nice enough to insert the picture from Commons two hours after activation, and just 20 minutes after Lior had uploaded it to Commons.

As 88.152.85.85 made his/her debut on 4 August by inserting a copyvio picture from Commons, which was a montage of copyrighted pictures of dead Israelis sourced from the same website, created by the same Lior, I have the suspicion that 88.152.85.85, 88.154.4.171 and Commons Lior is the same old Lior who has re-emerged under a set of new IP addresses.

However, my main reason for writing this, is that I can't understand how you can determine someone's religion just from that person's name. How would you know that Habib Isa Awad is a Christian, Amir Naeem is a Sunni Muslim, and Frida Kellner is a Jew? The two first are Arabic names and the last is a German name. You can't determine people's religious belief just from their name any other country, so how would it be possible in Israel? Thomas Blomberg 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Frida Kellner is a Yiddish name first of all, when you talk about Israel :) Yms 09:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If the information is unverified - which it appears to be - then it should be removed. I agree that you shouldn't infer someone's religion or race from their name. AndrewRT 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally the inferred breakdown of religion from the names is given at: [4] AndrewRT 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sources for victims' religions: Awad - Christian [5]. Shnati Shnati, Amir Naeem, and Muhammad Faour - Arabs [6]. Hana Hamam & Labiba Mazawi - Christian [7]. Manal Azzam - Druze [8]. Rabia Abed Taluzi - Arab [9] AndrewRT 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. However, the only source given, both for the text and the pie chart, i.e. the Israeli Foreign Ministry, doesn't list people's religion, which is why I wondered. As for the name "Frida Kellner" having to be Yiddish because she lives in Israel, I'm quite baffled. Both "Frida" and "Kellner" are very common German names - but of course also very common among Jews with German/Central European roots. So who can say that she isn't a German - or are you claiming that there are no Germans living in Israel, Yms? Regarding the references that AndrewRT have managed to dig up for a few of the names: they verify the religion for some of them but not for other, as "Arab" doesn't identify religion. As Arabs can have any religion - they can even be Jews - those Arabs that the newspaper articles mention could have been Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, whatever, but nobody bothered to tell the journalists their religion. However, the pie chart even manages to identify them as Sunni Muslims as opposed to Shia - quite an achievement, I would say, considering that the cited source doesn't indicate religion at all. As the quoted source for the material doesn't support the claims in the text, and as, in addition, everything points to a blocked user having inserted this material under assumed aliases (see above) - and thus severely violated Wikipedia policies - I'll remove the rubbish. Cheers Thomas Blomberg 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I removed it before, but it was reverted back in. I've put a comment on his talk page, but he hasn't got back to me. AndrewRT 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy Editing

Do we need this tag still? I think the article is well written now, and has been there since the creation many many edits ago. Is everyone ok with me taking it out? AndrewRT 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Someone, most probably unknowing, has corrupted a bunch of ref tags (see the list). I'll try to fix them over the next few days, but please be careful when using them. Also, in my opinion, it is preferable to use {{cite web}} instead of {{cite news}} if you are quoting from a website, unless the article brings the page number of the print edition. -- Avi 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at {{cite web}} is says: "This template ... is specifically for web sites which are {my emphasis) not news sources" This would seem to go against what you say above. By the way, thanks for sorting out all theose dodgy links AndrewRT 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect link to ratification

The link added by parahelion is to the incorrect protocol, I belive.

Here is the link to protocol 3: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=515&ps=P

Israel is abesent. This is more specific than the other link, and as such, demonstrates that Israel did not sign this, and as such it should be removed. -- Avi 00:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Protocol III is part of the UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which Israel has ratified. Protocol III is part of this convention, as is evident from source documents which can be found on the wiki entry for the convention AND because Israel makes specific mention about some of the other protocols in its declaration of reservations.

This link - http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=500&ps=P shows that Israel did not specifically ratify or sign Protocol III at the time that document was created, however this does not contradict their ratification of the convention as a whole.--Paraphelion 01:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see - they only have to agree to two of the protocols to.. actually I'm clear about that, I'll do some further reading.--Paraphelion 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess this convention isn't so useful for much :

The operative provisions of the CCW are contained in several protocols annexed to the convention.[2] Currently, there are four protocols in force (see below) and a fifth that has been negotiated and adopted, but has not yet entered into force. All states-parties must agree to the addition of a new protocol. After being adopted by consensus, the new protocol must be ratified by 20 states-parties before it enters into force. Each protocol is only binding on those states-parties that ratify it.

Also, the AI report itself says that Israel is not a party to the protocol (see the blockquote in that section). I think that the ratification of the convention as a whole is tangential and only serves to confuse the issue specific to phosphorus weaponry. Do you agree that it should be removed now? -- Avi 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure--Paraphelion 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Repetition and redundancy. Also, detailing the same things more than once. And repetition

This article is currently a mess of repetitive redundancy. It repeats itself, mentions things that it has already mentioned, makes throw-away comments on subjects that have their own whole sections before or after that, is highly redundant, details the same disputes and quotes and counter-quotes twice and even thrice, and repeats itself. Someone ought to unseathe the eponymous +3 glowing sword of copyediting posthaste. --AceMyth 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claims of repetition are unverified. They also remain, at this time, unconfirmed. That is to say, no evidence has been provided at this time.--Paraphelion 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" human shield tactics

Is there any doubt that Hezbollah uses Lebanese citizens as human shields, at least some of the time? There are countless videos and independantly verified reports that Hezbollah operates and launches katyushas from civilian populated areas. I say the word "alleged" gets deleted from the topic heading unless we also write that Israel "allegedly" targets Red Cross ambulances. Any thoughts? --GHcool 08:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah operates in South Lebanon. They fight Israeli invasion in urban areas and rural areas, which happens to be where they and their families live. There is no proof that they purposefully use their own neighbours and families as "Human Shields". And considering the thousand or so civilians killed by Israel in the past month, it would not be a very effective shield.

--Burgas00 17:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah operates in south lebanon and have every capability to launch rockets from within fields and bunkers. instead hezbollah holds rockets inside cities and villages which enforced israel to go into a house to house fighting from village to village in south lebanon. They go out, launch rockets from the suburbs of the cities as clearly documented and they go back into the populace and change their clothes into civilians clothes as to blend within the populace. they take refuge in the populace. they keep weapons within the populace. they launch weapons near the populace and threaten the populace with retaliation. dont play word games. humans shields are not an effective shileds per se, they are a psychological shield. Hezbollah uses human shields out of choice not ifs, not buts, these are the facts.

--NightyBeta 1:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm taking the word out. --GHcool 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) EDIT: It looks like it was already done. --GHcool 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assertion that Hezbollah are using citizens as human shields, it's only been claimed by Israeli and international media is quoting Israeli Politicians/millitary. It can be a mere war media nothing more. It can be true, but to preserve an NPOV I suggest using "Israel claims that Hizbollah is using citizens as human shields". Abountu 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

People Fooling with the Article

It would appear that someone or a small group of people are going on every Israeli-Lebanese-Conflict-related article and distorting certain sentences in favour of Israel. In this article, I just corrected a few instances where someone replaced the words 'Israel' and 'Israeli' with 'Hezbollah', and changed 'Lebanese civilian targets' to 'Haifa'!!! What kind of sick-minded criminal would do this? Seriously, whichever barbarians are going around the Net altering information like this should know that they are promoting the murder of civilians. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps THIS ARTICLE adds some insight to the whole phenomenon. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Have seen both things happening so...imi2 09:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ivana Watson article

I have to admit, in this case, in my opinion, user:Deuterium is correct, the article does not say anything about shielding, and the fact that they are in plain clothes to blend in would be WP:OR -- Avi 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

United Nations

Twice people have suggested that this section be removed, as the attacks were on soldiers (even if unarmed) and this article is about civilians. Following WP:BOLD, I'll do it. --Dweller 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You just beat me to it :) good call. RandomGalen 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have found something uncontroversial to do in such a controversial article. --Dweller 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They weren't part of the conflict making them innocents be the civilians or not. In anycase it is a very important part of this section targetting without regard seems to be the theme.

Created articles for convoy attacks & industry attacks

Attacks on civilian convoys in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

No POV, just a size issue- page is too long, which probably has a lot to do with all the stuff on hiding amongst civilians.

Regarding the article names; in the case of convoys the IDF has yet to respond to the accusation that they were targeting them all in every case. Same in the case of the industry- unclear if the industry was a target ie. if the attack was on the industry, or an unintended casualty. Attacks is a compromise as that an attack took place is not in dispute.

Articles for Israeli industry could probably also be created. RandomGalen 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah's "human shield" tactics

This needs its own article. It has increased the size of the article for little net value. RandomGalen 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict → Damage to civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict – More NPOV title Avi 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

Support, as I'd say current title risks presumption that civilians rather than combatants in civilian areas were targets. (This might be/have been so, but title shouldn't risk its presumption.) Regards, David Kernow 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
PS Is/was this conflict between Israel and Lebanon, or Israel and He/izbollah...? (So far as I'm aware, the Lebanese government ≠ He/izbollah.)

The way I understand it, the conflict was/is between Israel and Hizbullah, which happens to be a Lebanese organization. The Lebanese government is a bystander, however whether it is a guilty or innocent bystander is subject to debate. --GHcool 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That is however a valid point given the existing name of the article. Perhaps the proposal should be move to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah conflict. Ga rr ie 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose. I think the reader is more interested in deliberate action than in merely the result of that action. —Ashley Y 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose for the same reasons given by Ashley Y. I think the title should remain as it is. Also, both sides have undeniably targeted civilian areas and both sides admit that they do so. I don't think its un-NPOV for Wikipedia to also say so. --GHcool 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose who cares about collateral damage? --Striver 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose The two names convey quite different meaning. One is an intent to damage, the other is the damage inflicted regardless of intent. However given the current title there is a very high onus into verification of any statements made. Ga rr ie 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. I have to think on this, and that hurts my brain. -- Avi 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

In response to the discussion on Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, what are the opinions on renaming this article to Damage to civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? -- Avi 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copy edit?

Does this article still need to be copy edited? Aside from the fact that its a little bit long, I think its ok in its present form. If nobody disagrees, I'll get rid of the call for copy editing at the top of the article.--GHcool 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No response? OK. I'm deleting it then ... --GHcool 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Herald Sun article

The Herald Sun link is already there as note #102, which links to the original Herald Sun article. That is the best source for it. Weblogs have a WP:RS issue, and we do not need two links to the same source, especially when one is the original article itself. -- Avi 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambulances

For the record: The information I brought (well-cited and supported according to WP:RS and WP:V can be seene here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=71198350&oldid=71186194

The fact that in 2002 the terrorists performing the attack were in Gaza as opposed to Kiryat Shemona should be irrelevant. A few tens of miles does not mean that the entire modus operandi of terrorists changed. The citations show that 1) Under international and Israei law, there are times when “ambulances” lose their protection, to wit, when they are used as combat or munitions transports and 2) this has happened to the state of Israel any number if times. The fact that the 2002 and 2004 reports happen to predate the 2006 conflict does not mean that Hezbollah has had a collective lobotomy and would never even conceive of using such tactics. -- Avi 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article makes mention of attacks on ambulances in the framework of its being a crime. The Israeli justification under international law is the same, whether this occurs in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, etc. Thus, it must remain in this article, otherwise we have the POV that it is a crime without the corresponding POV that it is allowed under the international rules of war. The presence of any one of those requires the other for WP:NPOV. -- Avi 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, it is not about a few miles. It is about that this article deals w/ Isreal-Lebanon conflict. If your edit was on the conflict w/ Hamas article, i'd not remove it. -- Szvest 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the justification remains the same. You seem to believe that Hezbollah would not use ambulances, because they have a different name. I believe that is ludicrous. The issue is rather simple, inmy opinion:

Anti-Israeli Arab terrorists have used ambulances in the past to support their attacks.
Under both Israeli and international law, ambulances used in such attacks are stripped of their protections.
This article claims Israel attacked ambulances, in violation of international law.
To refuse to allow the documented Israeli justification, because in 2002 the attacker was Fatah or Hamas is, in my opinon, semantics, sophistry, and makes that section, de facto, a POV propaganda piece, and not informative. I think your reasoning is weak, goes to make this article not represent all sides. -- Avi 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia should use sources related and specific to the issue on hand. You seem to believe that Hezbollah would not use ambulances, because they have a different name is just untrue Avi. Have i removed any sourced material re Hezbollah in all the related articles? If yes, than i'd say you're right and would apologize. Let me talk to you about my reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions yourself. In the court, we judge the person who is responsible of a crime, not their neighbours who did the crime before him somewhere in the neighbourhood. They've already been judged. What i know is that i never judged your reasoning. For the rest, I don't object your other points above. I have an idea which may explain to you clearly my weak reasoning. The info we are talking about would fit very well into something like Usage of ambulances by terrorists or Usage of ambulances on wartime. -- Szvest 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Fayssal, and I apologize if I came on too strongly -- Avi 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. No worries Avi. I know your intention and no need to apologize. -- Szvest 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand. (I hate edit conflicts) I can see having a discussion on whether the bulk of the arguments belongs in its own article, should one ever be created, but to keep the instances of attacks without the corresponding legal justification is against WP:NPOV in my opinion. -- Avi 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are any official Israeli claims that ambulances have been used for unlawful purposes in Lebanon, the very long "defence" section has no place in this article. There is nothing in that section mentioning Lebanon or Hezbollah. As Szvest rightly has stated above, "In the court, we judge the person who is responsible of a crime, not their neighbours who did the crime before him somewhere in the neighbourhood. They've already been judged." Trying to defend multiple attacks on official Red Cross ambulances in Lebanon by putting in material about Palestinian misuse of ambulances several years ago, must be considered as POV pushing. The fact that Hezbollah don't like Israel, for obvious reasons, doesn't mean that unlawful actions done by members of various Palestinian groups in the past should be attributed to them. Thomas Blomberg 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, we are not judging the Lebanese or Hezbollah. We are bringing the long-standing Israeli position, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Israel (a left-wing establishment in my personal opinion, but that does not matter) that attacks on ambulances are warranted. The Geneva convention giving the protections in the first place (Red Cross/Convention 1) also does not mention Lebanon, does that make it inapplicable? Of course not! That very same convention brings the times those protections are stripped, as confirmed by the Israeli Supreme court, which is also applicable without mention of Lebanon. I feel that the defense must remain as the NPOV balance to the accusation. -- Avi 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I think you have misunderstood your role as Wikipedia editor. Your job is not to come up with defenses for Israel's actions. It's perfectly okay to report what Israel's defense is, but that requires verifiable quotes that Israel has actually referred to the Palestinian misuse of ambulances as explanation for the ambulance attacks in Lebanon. If they haven't, then you're trying to do it for them - and that's definitely POV. Thomas Blomberg 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to remove the usage of ambulances by Palestinians who have nothing to do with this conflict on hand. It is not a hard job finding references to the usage of ambulances by Hezbollah. -- Szvest 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page restructure

I made some major changes to the page structure, but I did not remove any information (except for a redundant citation).

I've tried to place all of the weaponry allegations in one section, and removed "prohibited" as the first sentence in that section say that these weapons are not expressly prohibited
I've tried to place all opinions in one section, broken down by UN, US, UK, etc.
I've tried to combine the leaflet issues, which were in at least three different sections.
I've put the Lebanese gov't statement about Israel targeting industry under the industry section.
I combined the two different Engeland sections together, and followed it with the Hezbollah defense under the UN opinion section.
I combined the to Arbour sections together under the UN opinion section.
I combined most the numerous AI allegations into one section under AI opinion, but I left the individual AI allegations of weaponry is in the weaponry sections.

I think it is more logically combined this way. The next step is to go through and remove unneccesary, excess, redundant citations. -- Avi 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Avi. :) --GHcool 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium ammo is illegal

The use of depleted uranium ammunition is illegal indeed.[10][11][12][13] This is verifiable and in my opinion should be reflected in the article. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium ammo is illegal under the Geneva convention, yes. But Israel and the US aren't signatories to the convention, and so when they sue it, it's not illegal in the slightest. HawkerTyphoon 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Israel's position should be reflected too. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 04:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be of interest also, if DU is illegal under Lebanese law or if Lebanon is signatory to relevant Geneva conventions and exactly under whose jurisdiction is US-made Israeli DU munition exploding on Lebanese soil. --Magabund 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Geneva Convention you might mean that neither Israel nor US have signed or ratified? If you are talking about the 1949 convention both have signed as well as ratified the convention [14]. If you mean the 1980 convention restricting the use of certain conventional weapons both have ratified and US was also one of the signing parties [15]. --Jhattara 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Remba

The Remba article is brought in its entirety in a number of places including:

The article has been verified. You do not expect something like this on Al-Jazeera's website. -- Avi 12:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please. Like I said in my comment: I removed references to an opinion piece by a former Israeli PM official and current president of a self-proclaimed zionist organisation, written on a website called "zionism-israel.com". Please comment if you think that this is a reliable source. You accused me of removing Harvard references, but trust me: I wouldn't even dare to touch them. Feel free to quote published Harvard scholars, anytime. Cheers. Kosmopolis 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I know I am a bit of a wikipedia neophyte, but I digress...

It is of interest that no-one has even mentioned the fact that the targetting of Ambulance during the 2006 conflict has been all but debunked at http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

BTW, before you accuse me of stating a fringe view remember that Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer publically spoke out against this particular photo fakery.

So I suggest that the Author of this article also try and remedy some of the information on Qana, as he, on a supposedly unbiassed and academic site, has completely whitewahsed the fact that there was prior warning to the attack. In addition, it must be noted that rockets were fired from the building that was hit, not, as the author purports, near the building

Isn't this website meant to have a neutral POV?

http://www.zombietime.com is hardly NPOV. The articles and essays on that site have a severe right wing bias. If zombietime is a legitimate source, then so is Loose change. --Joshua242 07:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"added sources sympathetic toward Israel to ensure an NPOV"

Adding "sources sympathetic toward Israel" in a section for voices critical of Israel – when there is already exists a subsection "sympathetic toward Israel" – injects POV rather than ensuring NPOV.--G-Dett 05:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

chart

This chart may be usefull on this page somewhere.

File:Casualties-of-the-2006-Israel-Lebanon-conflict.png

Pie chart of casualties using figures provided by respective parties

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonate (talk • contribs)

I disagree. The chart is clearly anti-Israel propoganda and does not reflect the complexity of the facts. It cites no sources, does not account for the fact that Hezbollah combatants may have been counted as Lebanese civilians, the fact that Hezbollah lied about its own casualties (Hezbollah estimates 80 casualties compared to the 500+ estimated by the IDF and the UN), the fact that Hezbollah's allies (such as the Amal militia) were not counted in the graph, and does not even give a total number of casualties (just percentages). If you take the statistics from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article, the data looks closer to the following:

Lebanese civilians — 1,187 (59.26%)
Israeli civilians — 44 (2.20%)
IDF — 119 (5.94%)
Hezbollah & its allies — roughly 600 according to IDF and UN statistics (29.96%)
Lebanese army — 46 (2.30%)
UN — 7 (0.35%)

The total number of casualties was 2,003. In short, this is a poorly designed graph that design to construct reality rather than to reflects it. --GHcool 06:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useful and can be used here, as long as we put a tag that says the figures is provided by respective parties. Go ahead and put it somewhere. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This POV chart has been removed from 2 other articles where the POV pushers have tried to insert it. It does not belong here, or anywhere else on WP. See Talk:Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

What makes the numbers given from IDF _more_ reliable? I agree that the Pie chart shouldn't be included, but not because it is anti-israely (the whole article is anti hezbollah), no because it has no clear references. If you want to show numbers, show what both claim or the offical numbers from an investigation given by the UN.

Opinions

if someone is reading this they need to know that israel did make attacks on civilians. many people died in lebanon as a result of israels malicious, and cruel bombardment of the country, with the majority of casualities being the lebanese citizens. my family and i were there on vacation and we were amoungst the people being bombed, but thank god no one from my family was injured. but when anyone says that israel was not targeting lebanese civilians, it is a lie and i can not just sit here and read it with out responding. May 12, 2007, 9:26pm

Thanks for your opinion, but this talk page is for the improvement of the article. It isn't a forum. Feel free to read the article and if you'd like to improve it, this is the place to talk about it. --GHcool 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Human Shields" section needs work

There are several problems here. First of all, the title of the subsection. Unlike any of the other items listed in the "Targeting by Israel" and "Targeting by Hezbollah" sections, there is vigorous debate between prominent reliable sources about whether this tactic was even used. As a title, "Hezbollah's 'Human Shields' Tactics" forecloses that debate instead of presenting it. It needs to be changed; I suggest "Hezbollah's Alleged Use of Human Shields."

Secondly, the Salon.com report by Mitch Prothero disputing the allegations about H's use of human shields clearly belongs here, and not in a special section about individuals "Unsympathetic towards Israel" (a hilariously POV title in its own right; I've now changed it to "Critical of Israel").

Thirdly, the sources presented here needs to be pruned. The views of UN officials (such as Egeland) and human rights organizations should obviously be presented. I would say that we should likewise present the work of journalists reporting from Lebanon, and of news media (like the Sunday Herald Sun) who published a documentary scoop. But not Alan Dershowitz blogging from Martha's Vineyard, or an op-ed writer from the Financial Times Deutschland, and so on. These just bloat the section; given that no balancing layman pundits' perspectives are offered from the other side, we can moreover conclude that this is just POV-pushing bloat.

Fourthly, if we're going to quote IDF officials, there ought to be a balancing perspective from the Lebanese government or Hezbollah.

Lastly, the following paragraph is completely problematic, and needs to be fixed ASAP or thrown out:

"According to Al Arabia's website as well as an article on IslamOnline.net, Hezbollah fighters tend to wear civilian clothes while being blended within to the civilian populace. Hence, fallen Hezbollah fighters in civilian areas are likely to be accounted as civilians casualties."[12][13]

"While being blended within to the civilian populace"? The broken syntax says little but insinuates much. The linked article, on the other hand, says that Hezbollah fighters wear uniforms on the battlefield, and civilian clothes in town. It doesn't talk about "blending." The article is illustrated, incidentally, by a photo of a regiment of Hezbollah soldiers in uniform.

The sentence "Hence, fallen Hezbollah fighters in civilian areas are likely to be accounted as civilian casualties" is obviously original research, unless the Al Arabia website articulates this conclusion. From the way this paragraph is put together, it seems that's not the case. Someone fluent in Arabic ought to check; if there's no confirmation that the Al Arabia article says something about the accounting of fallen Hezbollah fighters, then I'm going to delete it.--G-Dett 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, most reliable sources (most prominantly Jan Egeland) agree that there is at least some degree of human shield tactics used by Hezbollah in this war. Its as clear to me that something would be wrong with "Hezbollah's Alleged Use of Human Shields" as there would be with "Alleged targetting by Israel."

Secondly, the Prothero article is so full of baloney as to make it null and void for serious consideration. FrontPageMag.com has already systematically challenging every piece of disinformation in the Salon.com article.[16] Even if you don't trust FrontPageMag.com, use some common sense! The entire Western world and international bodies such as the U.N. (including critics of Israel) all say that Hezbollah blends with civilians. By the way, Hamas does as well. Prothero's remarks are equivalent to Holocaust denial in terms of its motives and its reliability as a source. If it were up to me, I would delete it completely from Wikipedia, however I will not without a consensus.

Thirdly, I agree about pruning sources such as editorials, while keeping official reports or news articles. This merits more discussion about which sources are considered "prunable" and which are not.

Fourthly, I agree with you on the "a balancing perspective from the Lebanese government or Hezbollah," as long as we keep in mind that the Lebanese government is the ultimate authority on the reaction of the targeting of Lebanese civilians and that Hezbollah is the ultimate authority of the targeting of Israeli civilians.

Lastly, the sentence you had an issue with seems to have been changed.--GHcool 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, there is indeed a dispute about "human shields." "Blending" with the civilian population doesn't automatically mean using them as shields. Every guerrila army in history – the IRA, the KLA, the French resistance, the American revolutionary minutemen, you name it – has blended with the population to some extent. If the population believes in the justice of the guerrila force, believes their interests are being protected and advanced by it, and offers willing assistance, then they are not human shields. The HS argument also maintains that Hezbollah tried to engineer civilian casualties for propaganda purposes – a claim dismissed by Human Rights Watch and others. The counterargument says that Israel calculated that a high cost to civilians would help turn them against Hezbollah. In any case, GHcool, read a little further into the debate and get a better sense of its contours.

Your second point is a fatuous one, to be frank. It's not for you to dismiss one reliable source and elevate another. This is elementary wikipedia protocol. The comparison of Prothero's report to Holocaust denial is offensive, and a serious discredit to you.

We are fully agreed on points 3 and 4, so let's get to work.--G-Dett 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear G-Dett,

You seem to be a fairly moderate wikipedian even if we do not see eye-to-eye on all of the points concerning Hezbollah's human shield tactics. Let's set aside our differences for now and deal with the matters we agree on. That seems to be the most productive course of action now. If after we are done editing the human shields section according to points 3 and 4 and we still want to discuss points 1 and 2, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

In my opinion, the sources that can be pruned without serious damage to the integrity of the section include: Alan Dershowitz, the National Post, New Republic, IslamOnline.net, Financial Times Deutschland, and NormanFinkelstein.com. I would argue that the Sunday Herald Sun and the Los Angeles Times citations are necessary to the article since it emphasizes solid evidence over political commentary. And I think we both agree on the necessity of the citations of Jan Egeland, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and official IDF spokesmen in this section. --GHcool 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions are excellent.--G-Dett 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

wow. the section indeed needed work. the citations for folks alleging the use of "human shields" were artificially bloated. Alan Derschowitz is not "the media." as for HRW: one citation given for the claim that HRW alleged Hezbollah's use of the tactic was actually criticizing Israel, and the other was just a commentary by a singer member of HRW's staff. furthermore, in its most recent study HRW found that there was no basis to the claim that Hezbollah used "human shields." The "UN representatives" part had no citation, and was redundant (and pluralized for no reason) if this was a reference to Egeland. the title was also biased, presuming that the tactic was used, when an HRW study found that it was not used, and that Israel bombed civilians indiscriminately, including trucks full of fleeing civilians.

71.220.214.111 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the revert warring going on in this article, and I'd just like to remind editors (or, point out possibly), that all this information about allegations of the use of human shields would fit much better in the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War article. I've been too busy to merge the articles (which I still intend to do at some point), but the mention of human shields doesn't warrant more than a couple lines in the context of this article's subject, the targeting of civilian areas, and is also in the wrong location in this article. ← George^[talk] 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Once/If the two articles are merged, this section would be more appropriate in the other article. Until then, however, it belongs here. --GHcool 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that it belong here until then, at least in its current form. There should be mentions of the allegations of the use of humans shields in the sections titled "Israel's position" and "Opinions on civilian attacks - Human Rights Watch", but there is already a full section with much of the same information in the correct place in the other article. I'd rather see the expansion or clean up of the information happening over there, since the two sections are basically redundant, so we don't have to keep the two files synchronized and to help with merging the documents. (As an aside, the same is true of the whole "Allegations regarding various weaponry" section) I'll try to look into merging the two this weekend possibly. ← George^[talk] 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But just to continue this discussion (although GHcool does not seem interested in discussing), it seems that it was *never* Human Rights Watch's position that Hezbollah used human shield tactics. Having little good information, since they obviously had not done any study yet, they criticized both sides and urged restraint. While a single staff writer did write a *commentary* urging Hezbollah not to use such a tactic, after actually conducting studies, HRW established the position that Israel's claim was false, and they had *never* established any position to the contrary. This is not "POV." This is a fact. This is not the only citation/claim that was false/misleading. I will point out again that the opinion of Alan Derschowitz, a single pundit, does not merit mention in the article, and it is clearly (and deliberately?) misleading to cite him as being "the media." Also, Jan Egeland is a single person, not "UN representatives."

Note that I actually left the citation/claim of Lebanese civilians making the allegation, despite the fact that the original article was misleading. The article was re-interpreting the villagers' statements. The villagers were lamenting the fact that Hezbollah had stored weapons in their village before the fighting started, not accusing Hezbollah of using 'human shields.' There is no quotation in the article in which villagers use the phrase 'human shields.' One even states, 'Israel is our enemy, but Hezbollah gave Israel an excuse to come here and kill our children.' The media source distorted the situation.

71.220.214.111 18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear 71.220.214.111, I understand that you are a new user here and maybe hasn't taken the time yet to read the Wikipedia guidelines. Pay close attention to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, and, most importantly, Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. --GHcool 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not new to wikipedia editing, and I understand the rules. You, on the other hand, are trying to leave POV and false claims with bad citations in the article. Your condescension and pretension do not fool me. You are not responding honestly.

71.220.214.111 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I appologize for assuming you were new. I was judging by the fact that you don't seem to have a user account. Nevertheless, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, if you haven't already.

As far as the minor revert war we seem to be engaged in, I submit to your good judgement the notion that redundant information need not (in fact, must not) appear in the article. A September 2007 study belongs at the bottom of the human shields section. I'm having difficulty understanding why it would be necessary to include it at the top and at the bottom of the section. Even if your argument is that the Sept. 2007 report is the updated, final report that is more reliable than the 2006 one (an argument that I would be highly skeptical of), it still does not merit the same information from the same report appearing twice in the same section. --GHcool 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I finally took a look at what the revert war is about, and you're both right, and you're both wrong, to some extent.The opening sentence, "Hezbollah has also been criticized by Israel, UN representatives, Human Rights Watch, Lebanese civilians,[35] and the media[36] for using Lebanese civilians as human shields," is fundamentally wrong. First, it hasn't been criticized, it has been accused. Criticizing implies that it definitively happened, while it is still in the realm of allegation. Second, some of those cited are simply untrue. Israel? Definitely. UN representatives? Inaccurate in the plural, unless further citations are added - only Jan Egeland is cited thus far. Human Right Watch? The sources actually counter this claim, saying that HRW did not find this to be the case. Lebanese civilians? Definitely. The media? Alan Dershowitz alone cannot represent the all media, and thus needs additional sourcing to be included. I'm going to fix this sentence up.

As for the paragraph about Jan Egeland, GHcool is correct that it is relevant, and belongs. Same with the paragraph from the earlier HRW report. ← George^[talk] 08:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, the HRW report quotation I mentioned is quite long, and should be trimmed down significantly, but I'm not in the mood to do so right now. Maybe when the articles are eventually merged. ← George^[talk] 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick explanation for GHcool why criticized is incorrect for usage in this case. Let's say I accuse you of a grizzly murder. I cannot then criticize you for having murdered someone, as it is only an accusation, and has not yet been proven (even if I believe you are guilty). If proven true, then, of course, criticism makes sense, but until you were found guilty of actually committing a crime, criticism would be the incorrect term to use. I hope that makes sense. ← George^[talk] 19:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson fits the hypothetical situation that you are describing, and I just read an article in the Los Angeles Times this morning criticizing him for his conduct. (Granted the article this morning criticized Simpson for writing that ridiculous new book, but I think we can agree that he has been heavily criticized in the media for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman even though he has been found not guilty of the murder in a criminal court). I am currently unswayed by George's counter-argument, but I am open to more discussion I take any further action. --GHcool 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a good example indeed, but I think it proves my point. O.J. Simpson was criticized "for his conduct" and for writing his book, not for the murders he was accused of. He was never – I repeat never – criticized in the media for the murders themselves. Doing so is would get them sued and could result in a mistrial under U.S. law regarding the presumption of innocence. Now, media outlets may have said something like "whoever murdered these people must have been insane", but they will never criticize him directly for the murder itself, until such time as he is convicted of the murders (unless it's the sort of "in my opinion" editorial). If you want to write that Israel criticized Hezbollah for firing rockets, or for kidnapping the two soldiers, or for anything that goes beyond the realm of accusation (that is, that everyone agrees happened), that is totally fine, but Hezbollah (among others) deny that they used human shields, so it remains an unproven accusation. There is some room for compromise, such as adding a sentence after this one like: "Israel criticized Hezbollah for what it viewed as using Lebanese citizens as human shields" (the "what it viewed" being the critical distinguisher in this example). I think that maybe be your intended meaning, but the wording has to be precise. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 01:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you put it: "Israel criticized Hezbollah for what it viewed as using Lebanese citizens as human shields." This is probably as accurate a statement as we can hope for. I'll insert it. --GHcool 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I added a note at the end that Hezbollah denies the accusations, just to make it clear, and properly use the sentence as a introduction to the topic. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your dedication to WP:NPOV, but I expect a citation to a reliable source concerning such information. I deleted the addendum for now, but you're welcome to re-insert it if and when it is verified by a reliable source. --GHcool 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done. "In Lebanon, a Hezbollah official denied the allegations, saying its military units were based outside towns and villages and entered populated areas only when circumstances required it. "[17] ← George^[talk] 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and thank you for a good IHT article. I haven't read that one yet. --GHcool 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do have an account. I just was not signing in. I suppose I should do that. Thanks George for your vigilance here. I don't see where I was wrong on any points, though. I seem to have been right on all points (not that my ego is involved here - just want the record to be clear). I never deleted the Egeland quotation or said it should be deleted. It was the reference to "UN representatives" that I was talking about, along with the other bad citations lending false merit to the 'human shields' allegation. I still don't think Dershowitz's claims belong in the article, unless we're going to cite the opinion of every single pundit on the issue. I could dig up quite a few pundits who deny the allegation, but I don't see how the opinion of a single person merits mention, excepting the actual villagers who were bombed.

I do still believe the HRW study deserves more attention, along with Amnesty International's study. It seems rather wrongheaded to give so much space to redundant accusations and so little space to the only systematic studies conducted to address these accusations. Perhaps this study and Amnesty International's should get their own subsection together?

CelestialDog 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We gave HRW and AI the attention they deserve in the article and you added a little bit about them (which I modified slightly) in the first paragraph. That's enough. --GHcool 06:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The part in the first paragraph doubtlessly belongs there. To claim that it's redundant there would be equivalent to claiming that mentioning Israel's position in the first paragraph is redundant. State positions first. Elaborate later. But I presume you are not arguing otherwise. As for your assertion that the details of these reports already given are "enough," I don't necessarily support that position, but I'll reserve judgment until I read more details of the reports. CelestialDog 01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I think this article should be merged into the new article at Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War. This would be a subset of that subject, albeit large. — George Saliba^[talk] 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I would support such a merge unless I hear a compelling argument against it. --GHcool 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also worth noting that this article has a section titled "Allegations regarding various weaponry," which may not match the articles current title. This would fit much better in the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War's "Use of prohibited weapons" section I think, and I think that article has a more NPOV title. — George Saliba^[talk] 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible. I was just going to ask if the NPOV discussion tag could be removed - I don't see a lot of edits happening now, and the article looks pretty comprehensive. Random name 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the NPOV tag. --GHcool 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to merge the articles.

CelestialDog 01:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, they should be merged, but I've been too busy. I fear that any attempt to merge over time (a section per day or week) will be reverted by other editors, so it likely has to be done in one fell swoop, which would take hours. If anyone feels up to the task, please be my guest. ← George^[talk] 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New Data for Editors and NPOV

I have read the cool down caution and it has been a long time since the last discussion. That time has allowed the cooling, but not necessarily the NPOV. Please excuse my first contribution to Wiki. I am not yet qualified to do the edits, but give the existing Editors the following sources:

Human Rights Watch has recently issued two reports on the 2006 Lebanon War (http://hrw.org:80/english/docs/2007/08/30/lebano16740.htm) Aug 29, 2007 and (http://hrw.org:80/english/docs/2007/09/06/isrlpa16781.htm) Sept 6, 2007, which cover both sides of the conflict. Since HRW is already referenced, I assume their data is good, or at lease acceptable.

These articles will also, hopefully, help the Editors with NPOV. A highlight on the NPOV with this subject can be found at (www.fair.org/index.php?page=3176), where I found it.

CasualObserver'48 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC) CasualObserver'48 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be bold and edit it as you see fit. El_C 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== I think writing like this is not a good idea^[1]. However others have disagreed with me^[2]. On the other hand some have reservations about their insight^[3]. Though yet others have claimed... (unsigned)

... that 'opinions are like assholes, everybody has one', would be a vulgar way of expressing a polite thought. The corollary, however, 'and everybody else's stinks', would be in violation of NPOV.

As the edit history shows, discussion had virtually stopped, when I added the reference to new data and NPOV, although I had missed the then-current indented thread, which was talking about the same thing. If the unsigned shouting statement was reinforcement of El_C's be bold suggestion, then it has worked, and I will accept it in that light. I also learned that by editing it to rebut, also caused the font to drop 3 sizes back to normal. --CasualObserver'48 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC) ==

I think in the section about allegations of human shield tactics I ran across a paragraph with some five "however"s in it, which is ludicrous. That's what happens when both sides insist on shoving their last word everywhere in the article, and it reads like a glorified forum debate thread. Stop doing that. My experience says that the sympathy of the article's voice should switch as few times as possible, and ideally only once. --AceMyth 17:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not to mention that "however" is one of the words to avoid... ← George^[talk] 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody said that 'Truth is the first casualty to war.', and I believe it, because I have seen it time after time. The edit history of Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War is, in fact, good evidence for this thesis. I support the merge and note that the war is now over. That being the case, a more even handed version of the truth appears to be available. I believe that that should be the reference point from which the article is written.

I do have some bones to pick with particular current statements. In light of the new data, these are mostly to completely untrue or POV-overblown. I am taking aim at the last two sentences of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War#Hezbollah.27s_use and the refs. These distort the facts and make the ball bearing packaging of a 122mm rocket sound like a Cluster Bomb .

The refs are likely more significant for what they leave out. I didn’t bring these refs into the dialog to hammer one side, but since they are already in, I will allow them to be used to hammer both sides to get to a NPOV. Ref 128,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War#_note-Friedman is freely available as a 3 para abstract. This source is left wing Israeli, the other is Israeli govt. A bit of the 1st para has been used, below is the full text of the next two paras, which have not been used:

Nevertheless, perhaps because of the sheer density of the bomblets that failed to explode on impact in south Lebanon, the U.N., human rights groups and the U.S. government are all addressing trenchant questions to Israel. The first relates to the interpretation of international humanitarian law itself. "We don't claim that cluster munitions are illegal," says [Marc Garlasco], explaining HRW's stand on this issue. "But when launched against urban areas, they contravene the [Geneva Conventions'] prohibition on indiscriminate fire on civilians." The second and more vexing question, he posits, is why Israel did not use the cluster munitions of it own making, rather than the American imports with a far higher dud rate.

"Israel really leads the world in the development and production of cluster bombs with the M85 Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition," Garlasco elaborates. "It has a 2-percent dud rate and a self-destruct mechanism to incapacitate the bomblets that don't detonate upon impact." Yet the unexploded ordinance being found in Lebanon is of the U.S.-produced M42 and M77 models, he says, which have about a 20-percent dud rate. "We even found some BLU63s, from the Vietnam era," he adds, "which have a failure rate of close to 100 percent." What's more, Garlasco notes, rather than use its own improved M85 model, Israel ordered a re-supply of the American cluster bombs during the war.

So, what’s my point… the current text is not NPOV. It is presently from the world of press releases, not from a world of deeds. It also has considerable impact on sections that follow. Like I said before, the war is now over. Maybe the truth will resurrect itself. (I must learn how to do this right in wiki typing.) --User:CasualObserver'48 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--CasualObserver'48 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)