Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

• (rocky start) Archive 1
• (until 17-06-2006) Archive 2
• (until 03-08-2006) Archive 3
• (until 04-09-2006) Archive 4
• (until 30-10-2006) Archive 5
• (until 21-02-2007) Archive 6
• (until 27-05-2007) Archive 7
• (until 20-07-2007) Archive 8
• (until 31-10-2007) Archive 9

Hi

If we want to prevent editorial war, we should remove POV pictures.Refer to talk page of conflict article for more explanation.--Accessible 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

do you want to get a blocked for your own 3RR.you are not a GOD here. Yousaf465 Sir,your record is too bad.What you were describing as " problematic behaviour" was a hard fact.If you observe some thing of your own childhood children respond to children not to Hassan/Hizbullah. Anyway do you have any remote interest in photography.[[User:Yousaf465|Yousaf465] Which camera could you perfer Sony H-5 or Canon S3 Is.pl let me know i want one of these.would you help. How does you canon works,is it works fine or super fine.i really don't knew that you could own that canon,but it was the work of my ESP which works Super fine.

I do have the the citation you need on the quote. check 01:27, 4 August 2006 Stephenzhu (Talk | contribs) (→Previous prisoner exchanges) version, with miami herald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.56.164 (talk • contribs)

Nice to meet you.--Azmanet 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can speak Hebrew and Arabic!!! That's wonderful. I think they are enemeis!--Azmanet 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could speak in more than 1 lanquage. How do you learn these languages? Are you learn them in school?--Azmanet 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew and Arabic are not enemies, they are just languages... And they belong to the same family (though they are distant enough from each other). Aleverde

i didn't had any idea that you could own this.But could you give me some ideas about this canon s3 IS and it's performance with you.Sample are wellcome.Yousaf465 would you advocate canon s3Yousaf465

I was not aware... the info needs to be put somewere in any case. --Striver 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ah, i see it now... never mind me then. --Striver 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the hebrew translation you posted on my Abdullah Geelah in many languages page can you tell me the hebrew translation in English and how you say it. Abdullah Geelah 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought it wasn't a bad idea since they weren't signed and the header specifically asked so. --Sloane 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true though, I have signed all of my posts and other users have, an archive would be nice. --JRA WestyQld2 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well he claims above that he deleted the posts that hadn't been signed on his talk page, when all of them were signed including mine. --JRA WestyQld2 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

He selectively deletes his talk page. --JRA WestyQld2 06:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I noted you said in your edit summary there is sufficent talk - but it has been noted after our dicussion on the talk page that the guardian article (which was sourced) specificially states "Yesterday the Lebanese government said that of the 828 of its civilians killed". Since the guardian article is a reliable source, claiming it's wrong is original research. Noting that other sources disagree isn't, though, so I think we should leave a range as we discussed before, which should cover all the bases. --Iorek85 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Casualty Figures is the discussion I was referring to. I don't quite understand - as I've stated above, that article specifically says civilians, not a total figure which you quite rightly object to. I don't really think there is anyone more reliable that the Lebanese government, except maybe the Red Cross or Human Rights Watch. Why is it we take the Israeli government at their word but not the Lebanese? If we think they are unrelaible, why not just put "according to the Lebanese government" like we do for Hezbollah casualties? I just think using an outdated figure is unfair to them, especially since the Qaa incident has happened since then. --Iorek85 07:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're completely right that it is hard to get an accurate count, even for the Lebanese government. Still, I think the best option would be to use "828 according to the Lebanese government" and cite the Guardian or another article with this figure. We have a disclaimer about the accuracy in the casualties section already, so that should cover that. Then we just wait and hope someone will make an accurate count of just the civilian casualties we can use. --Iorek85 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's just that 577 is so low - Reuters has more than 800 total now. Lets take this to the talk page of the article - I'm gonna go reference digging. (Nothing on T.V tonight here :))

Can you not remove this please? The pollution caused by the weapons is well known. Im placing it back in the article for a second time. Thank you. 82.29.227.171 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you. We remove Fisk's report and keep the NGO's reports. I only want the section organized using sub-titles as it is a mess. Feel free to tell me about any other issue. -- Szvest 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Re casualities. I've just corrected and reverted it. -- Szvest 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, i just read the sources and found out 828 instead of 833. -- Szvest 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

What has happened in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? Why the history is missed?[1]--Sa.vakilian 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I agree with new arrengement of this part and I think it's more clear and better. I'll add a part ==Independent Reporters==. Please help me with it to achieve NPOV edition.--Sa.vakilian 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about Independent reporters but why do you remove HRW quotations?[2]----Sa.vakilian 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See, the problem with all the "cowardly blending" and "human shield" stuff is that it's very value-driven, dependent on one's point of view and useful for political reasons.

My take on this particular case is that it's disingenuous to accuse Hezbollah of using "human shields" (not that the practice doesn't exist: far from it, and the Israelis are experts in the field). What's lost in the propoganda war is the fact that they're a guerilla force, not a uniformed army. What do people expect them to do: paint big yellow emblems at their rocket-launching sites? Make themselves even better targets for the IAF? Come on, get real. Think the Vietcong, the Algerian guerillas, any of dozens of other outnumbered, outgunned, outbombed forces. That's the way people fight on planet Earth when confronted by an overwhelmingly militarily superior adversary.

My further considered take on this whole outrageous situation is that "international law" has become such a pathetic joke, only honored in the breach, that it makes me want to puke, rather than engage in a solemn discussion of who's violating it, and how, at the moment. So I'm afraid I can't be of much help here at the moment. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag was the one who introduced the info - I've been arguing with him about whether it should be included/where it should go. I've put the text including the references as he gave them into the roles of non combatant article. Someone's removed the link to it in the 'international reaction' section in the main page, too, so I'll fix that. --Iorek85 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I congratulate you the birthday of Ali Amiralmomenin.--Sa.vakilian 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. The section accurately quotes the Times article; the later quote doesn't resile the Times from its claim about the Foreign Ministry. I have changed the wording again to make it clear that the WUJS is responsible for the software, though. Hope that's OK. — JEREMY 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read the megaphone talk, and can't see anything to refute the Times' assertions. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on developments though. It could still easily turn out to be a scam to make Israel look bad. — JEREMY 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tewfik! I've presented evidence on talk page (one article from each main news agency: Reuters, AP and AFP). Others contributors have chimed in. Words are important, but there is consensus to call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. I am sorry to express my disagreement. The reason is simple. Please tell me if i am wrong. If we accept that, we'd be accepting bias. There's a big photoghraph out there alleging of Hezbollah launching rockets from Qana inside a section related to using human shileds. We need a balance Tewfik. I understand your concern about the size of the article, no doubt but that is really important and relevant info as much as other allegations are. -- Szvest 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol! I understand what happened now Tewfik. You are refering to what Avraham did. Well, logical and i totally agree as i told him. Cheers -- Szvest 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Tewfik. I've just answered Avi. There's a balance there Tewfik. Every party in this stupid conflict got its part of allegations and accusations. HRW accuses everybody according to their observations on the ground. We've heard enough comments in the talk page from editors supporting both sides (everyone is taking one anyway ;)) and that must be dealt w/. That's why we are admins. By the way, where are you from? Israel? Don't tell me Haifa or any targeted area there please. We want to see here alive as we want to see this conflict resolved so that every party gets what it needs w/o attrocities. -- Szvest 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. That wasn't unilateral to me as you stated that you are waiting for a reply. I don't see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons. Anyway, my point is that the section i added is very relevant to the conflict. Both sides using humans and shields and using cluster bombs are war criminals. We cover the use of human shields and we do not cover the rest? Also, see the sub-sections!

• Advance warnings of attacks by Israel
• Allegations of Hezbollah's human shield usage
• Reports of Israeli pilots refusing to bomb civilian areas

What does that mean to the reader? If we have to remove that than we have to remove everything Tewfik which is against WP principles, policies and guidelines. If you're still doubting, Let's keep it here and discuss it in the article's talk page. -- Szvest 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Hi again. It makes sense of course. But if i follow your reasoning Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Hezbollah.27s .22human shield.22 tactics should be removed as well as it is on the other fork article. Please let's get it back and discuss it at the talk page if you wish.

Tewfik. Why is that considered POV? HRW is accusing someone and that encyclopaedic as much as everthing there is encyclopaedic. The size of the article is not a big issue and it is only a guideline. If that section is the only one creating a havoc re the size than so do the rest of sections. We've been working on articles longer than that. Many featured articles were as twice as long as that. Hizbollah is accused and there is a section but accusations re Israel are to have refuge to a fork article? That is not logical Tewfik. It's a real accusation and it's more important than 2 pilots refusing to shoot. It is as important as using human shields. If i were a judge i'd have given life sentence to both of them and not only to Hezbollah. Sincerely Tewfik. -- Szvest 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall we continue the discussion in the article talk page? -- Szvest 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tewfik. I'll have to leave now. Hungry mouth. Let's see what will happen when other contributors participate. I may come back probably. Was nice to have this discussion w/ you. To be continued. -- Szvest 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC):

After a delicious meal yesterday, i am back :). Well, as i said, you got logic in what you say but do not forget that HRW issues separate reports for every single incident(s). The main section about civilian targetting should be about acts committed by the 2 parties. We are not editing following HRW, IRCC, Amnesty, etc... We are editing acts committed by the parties involved. Using human shields and sharpnel rockets are allegedly used by one side. The other side is allegedly using cluster bombs. There are separate reports by HRW for that anyway. We need clarity for readers. The much clearer the thing is the better. Indeed, nobody is arguing about the way those sub-sections are Tewfik. We are just wasting our time about a simple thing. The important thing is that both of us believe all those info should be there. -- Szvest 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's so balanced. You got Israel allegedly doing that when they drop leaflets and you got refusniks (which may be positive things for israel) and you get all allegations about Hizbollah. It is me that should say the section at all is POV as it favours more Israel than Hizbollah. However, i still don't argue about that. -- Szvest 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do as you see Tewfik. However, i'll not defend your version if someone reverts it. That's the deal. Cheers -- Szvest 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't errr mate. It is just that we have different views over a simple thing. At the end of the day someone has to offer a non-harming deal. My simple objection was that advance warning is a positive step from israel as well as the refusnik, not a negative one. No worries. Ok, work on it and we will enhance it if needed. -- Szvest 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Why I removed the paragraph about Hezb. rockets w/ball bearings: The section, and the first paragraph, were about cluster bombs (munitions, if you prefer the mincing, polite term). Human Rights Watch has specifically protested the use of those bombs, as on this page on their site.

If you want a section that deals specifically with weapons that disperse shrapnel over a wide area, as the ball-bearing filled ones do, that should go in a separate section. Cluster bombs are a separate genera of weapon, as they contain bomblets, not all of which detonate upon impact (HRW states a 14% "dud" rate). They should be dealt with separately from other munitions. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Not sure what you mean by the not mainstream media bit? I note you left the Haaretz link but dropped the BBC link? I don't really mind which link - there seem to be plenty of reputable sources to the fact that a "diversionary" rocket/mortar strike occurred prior to the cross border raid. My point is this is critically important from an historical POV. ie. Nasrallah has been saying they only started firing rockets in "retaliation" for the Israeli bombing - this would appear to be an attempt to fuzz over the historical accuracy of what actually occurred. Same same for the "happened in Lebanon" conspiracy theorists. I liked the jumping HUMVEE bit in talk. regards Greynurse 08:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically Hezbollah is not using humans as sheilds, that is the overall consensus at Fox news maybe, but the truth is that it is people in Lebanon with connections to someone from Hezbollah, that fire these missiles. The truth is that Hezbollah only seems to be firing close to villages... but if you look at what Israel has actually done, against the Geneva convention, they have used innocent people, as actual "HUMAN SHEILDS".... here are some sources: [3][4][5][6]

PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THEM!!! Yahuddi 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"All" meaning the totality of the country, as opposed to only certain regions: I think it's understood by most thinking persons† that this doesn't necessarily mean that every square foot (sorry, meter) or even square kilometer is under intense attack, but it does serve to show that the entire country, basically, is under attack: a look at a map of airstrike targets in Lebanon will show this.

†I probably shouldn't be so charitable. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you welcomed some time ago so I assume you know more about copyright issues than me around here. Is typing out the all lyrics of an entire (presumably still copyrighted) song a copyright violation. The article which prompts me to ask is What Would Brian Boitano Do? as I was wondering whether or not to delete the lyrics section. Thanks in advance mate! --Hydraton31 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i stole your code.Will you take it back?Yousaf465

this code Welcome to Yousaf465's Talk page. Feel free to leave comments and criticism at the bottom of the page: will you let me use thisYousaf465

You need to stop leaving out the historical details. you would like to believe that the conflich started just 4 weeks ago, but everyone who knows anything about the conflict knows that it is not a 4 week old crisis, it has been going on for hte past 24 years. stop with your historical revisionism please. you are the only one that has a problem with me making the article more neutral by writing about both sides of the issue.Khosrow II 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what im doing. i've been in wikipedia long enough to know how things work and where things should be placed. so far everything is fine and you are the only user with a problem with it. leave it along, as of now everything i added is telling the facts and is neutral. do not start an edit war over something like this.Khosrow II 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

nothing i added is POV. if you would like to prove that something I added is POV, please use the talk page and prove it first. you are the one accusing me, so its your responsibility to prove that i am wrong.Khosrow II 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are also on the verge of breaking the 3rr rule. please dont threaten me, i've been here long enough to know how things work.Khosrow II 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The user was subsequently blocked for violation of WP:3RR. Tewfik^Talk

Hi, How are you? How do you find resolution?

As I see there is disagreement about how many are they? Please look at [7]--Azmanet 06:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want what is verfiable why doesn't you give the Lebanese police case why protray what is IDF's POV.the Lebanese police is not a party in the conflict it so why not mention what this netural side thinks then what the Hassan or IDF says.Yousaf465

The media will try to protray what the U.S POV is,so as the U.S have special LOve with it's very special USSp so it will try to the best to confirm which is most suitable for the USSp.

What is all this

Bahrain Information Minister Nabeel Yacoob Al Hamer banned Al Jazeera correspondents from reporting from inside the country on 10 May 2002, saying that the station was biased towards Israel and against Bahrain.[18] After improvements in relations between Bahrain and Qatar in 2004, Al Jazeera correspondents returned to Bahrain.

• While prior to September 11th, 2001, the United States government lauded Al Jazeera for its role as an independent media outlet in the Middle East.

What i myself have watched a one or two reports on al-jazeera while on a international tour i prescribed Al-jazeera a hidden pro-USSp channel.so what all it says is not always correct.Yousaf465 After First week or two NSA is at it's full capcity why should it allow a story against USSp run into Media.I really could ask what evidence was given by USSp for the raid being cross border.Yousaf465The change in reporting came just at start in favour of USSp.

i'm talking about that one of the first reports on yahoo were that police POV is this that USSp convey was attack while it was heading for a mission in lebanon. "The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border."captures two Israeli soldiersbut afterwards it was the same media portals which changed it to as crossborder which was first describd as this by USSpi spokepersons.Yousaf465

what credibility of the USSp9israeli0 claim.Yousaf465

The confirmed kills and "estimates" are two completely different figures. Editors are not including the full range of the latter, these "estimates." Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz gave an estimate of 300 within minutes of the tourism minister's estimate of 400, and for weeks, editors have insisted on only using the highest "estimate."

Editors will either include the full range of estimates, or no "estimates" should be used whatsoever, sticking with IDF-confirmed only. I have made this point very clear on Talk and in past edit summaries. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The correction is repeatedly reverted. Italiavivi 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not to mention, by the way, the repeated source-doctoring. Any sourced "estimates" contrary to the highest have repeatedly been removed. This is an "extreme" POV matter. Italiavivi 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will only allow the tag removed under two scenarios: 1) The full range of "estimates" are used or 2) only the IDF's confirmed kill # is used. I've tried discussing this on Talk all week. Italiavivi 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik, I've just posted a reply on my talk page, as it's best to keep discussions in one place. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have another reply for you on my talk page, Cheers Thomas Blomberg 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Have another reply for you. Good night! Thomas Blomberg 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet another reply on my talk page that you may add to the discussion below. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reply on my talk page. Regards Thomas Blomberg 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Pasted copy of discussion from Thomas Blomberg's user Talk:

While I acknowledge that some of that should be removed, I think the last two (short) paragraphs should certainly be included, especially as Fayssal has expressed a strong interest in having those points noted. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewifik, Both paragraphs refer to HRW statements which are expanded at length in the sub-article. However, I agree that these are important criticisms that are justified a mentioning in the main article. A good solution would be to insert one sentence in the existing HRW paragraph in this section, stating that "The organization has also strongly criticized Israel for using cluster bombs too close to civilians, and Hezbollah for filling its rockets with ball bearings." That way it's covered in the section, and in addition HRW is just given one paragraph in it, just as all the rest. I'll do that, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Thanks, Thomas Blomberg 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My main problem is that I conducted extensive conversation with Fayssal last week specifically because he felt that this wasn't a good compromise. If we follow suit, the section will most likely be bloated and POV again. (I'll self rv if necessary - I was waiting for your reply) Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is already at twice the recommended size, and there are a few sections that need to be expanded further, especially the environmental one, as the Eastern Med is facing one of the world's largest oil spill disasters in history, something which has been very overlooked so far. So, if possible, we need to shorten the existing content even more.

As we have numerous sub-articles which expand the various issues further, I therefore think the content of this article should basically consist of summaries of the content of the sub-articles. That way we get an article of decent size, where those who are marginally interested can get a very good and lengthy summary of all aspects of the conflict, while those more interested can use it as a good starting point for diving into the sub-articles. I noticed that you have re-inserted the lengthy piece about the Fourth Geneva Convention, for instance, which is a typical paragraph more suited in the sub-article. However, in that paragraph you have also the human shields critique, which, of course, need be mentioned in the main article - and the best place for that would probably be in the "Israeli reply" paragraph, as part of the Israeli arguments why civilian areas are being hit. The Jan Egeland statement isn't necessary in the main article though, for two reasons. 1) we already have the views of one UN representative in the section, and 2) as Jan Egeland has also strongly criticised Israel, we would quickly end up with another lengthy paragraph containing both his critiques.

If we follow such a structure, the section will consist of:

1) Summary of Israeli attacks on civilian areas and infrastructure.

2) Summary of Hezbollah's attacks on civilian targets.

3) Criticism of both from a UN representative.

4) Criticism of both from Amnesty

5) Criticism of both from Human Rights Watch (with the inclusion about cluster bombs and ball bearings).

6) Hezbollah defending its actions.

7) Israel defending its actions (with the human shields complaint added).

Short and balanced, giving equal space to both and handing out equal criticism of both. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thomas, In terms of size, I don't think we can look to 32kb as an appropriate length for an article of this type while it is in progress, though I recall something around 64kb being mentioned by Iorek, which seems more realistic. In general, I'm not sure if this is the best part of the article to further condense - again I point to the fact that detail was expanded at Fayssal's insistance, which I think is indicative of future issues we would have here. If me must though, your suggestion is certainly a good one. I terms of the Egeland quote, I think some reference should still be made in the context of the human-shields claim, as (I think) it is separate from the dual critiques he made before and after. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think it would be best if we tried my outlined suggestion. After all, Fayssal hasn't seen what we intend to do, I think his objection has been to having all of it disappear, but this would ensure that the main points are there. This section is right now larger than any of the other, the article stand currently at 70kb, and we need to expand the environmental section, with at least one picture as well (I've found a good one which we are allowed to use). If you're not around, I'll do it according to the outline above. Regards. Thomas Blomberg 01:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do what you plan, and I (and everyone else in the article, I imagine) will emmend whatever they see as lacking, until the editing/discussion reaches equilibrium. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's now down to 67kb, although I've added more text and a picture to the environmental section. However, much more can be done, for instance shortening the International reaction text and making it much more into a summery. Good night Thomas Blomberg 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, while I'm not sure how the article got back up to 70kb, I don't think that the minimal detail that you trimmed is responsible, and I think it removes some necessary context. Additionally, I couldn't find any mention of the Egeland statement; I strongly feel that the trimmed down version is unique among the NGO commentary, and should be included. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When I started trimming it down a couple of hours ago, it had grown to 74kb and I managed to get it down to 69. I don't find Egeland's statement unique enough to justify expanding the section and creating an unbalance to it, i.e. all the other NGO references currently criticise both sides. If we keep his statement in, we would also need to add his very harsh statements about Israeli actions, as those can be seen as equally valid by lots of editors. I have included the human shields issue by adding it to the Israeli arguments. I have also given Israel the opportunity of a "quick response", by rearranging the paragraphs so both Israel and Hezbollah get to reply to the listing of their "misdeeds" before we let the NGOs speak. As we already have 41 (!) sub-articles linked to the main article or its sub-articles (see Category:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and as this article in addition is twice over the recommended size, the only sensible way forward is to turn this article into a list of as brief as possible summaries of the sub articles. It would also get the eager editors to concentrate more on improving the sub-articles, which are in dire need of improvement. Most people seem to concentrate their efforts on this main article and disregard the sub-articles. I will suggest this solution on the talk page.

I suspect one of the main culprits for the size growth is the questionable and rather new practice of using template:cite web and template:cite news to create this enormous list of footnotes at the bottom, instead of the much more space-conserving direct linked references used commonly elsewhere in Wikipedia. The footnote method may look more scholarly, as it resembles the references indexes of factual books, but I strongly question if it makes any sense for news-based Wikipedia articles. Instead of allowing the reader to quickly check a reference by clicking on a direct link, he/she is forced to 1) remember the reference number, 2) click on it, 3) locate the actual reference by its number in the reference list, and 4) click on the reference in order to read it. I doubt very few just look at the reference list to establish if the reference in question should be considered trustworthy or not. This footnote method is useful for Wikipedia articles where the sources are books or old newspaper/magazine articles not available for reading on the net, but here, where we're referring to newspaper articles or web news stories that in many cases will not be available for free access within a couple of weeks (as many news media quickly move older articles to subscription archives in order to free up servers and make some money in the process), and where, in addition, the article and its sub-articles probably will have been totally re-written in a few weeks time, based on background articles rather than news flashes, it makes no sense at all. In addition, most of these references are three times longer than a simple url link, thus contributing substantially to the size of the article, as they are so many that they often double or triple the size of every paragraph. This is something that, perhaps, should be addressed centrally in Wikipedia, in order to create some kind of Wikipedia recommendation as to when these references should or should not be used. But perhaps such a recommendation already exists? I'll have a look. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done about the extensive citations, though I don't know that abandoning the format entirely for inline links is the best solution. As for the article size, while emphasis certainly needs to be placed on cleaning up (and reducing the number of) subarticles, I disagree that turning this article into a super-concise list of summaries is, which I see as greatly reducing the utility of the main article, is the way to do it. There are certain sections that can/should be reduced (with all due respect to environmental impact, it plays a minimal role in the discussion [for better or worse], and could be shortened; The extensive discussion of the previous ceasefire could be shortened as well), but I see a size of 64kb as realistic and acceptable for an article as contested as this. Not that there is parity, but World War II is 107kb.

While Egeland criticises both sides, I believe this went beyond his critique of Hezbollah, and is an important 3rd party statement on the human shields allegation, just as the statements about white phosphorus go beyond the declarations dealing with both sides. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ball bearings are a standard part of several kinds of antipersonnel weapons (famously, the claymore mine), but after seeing a photo of very fine shot on the Human Rights Watch web site,[8] I've given the issue a bit more thought. I'm no expert, but the pictured tiny pellets seem too small for a serious antipersonnel weapon to me—more like improvised shrapnel using birdshot than a military weapon meant to kill. I don't know whether any real weapons use such small shot—perhaps they are specifically meant to kill or disable without damaging equipment—or whether these were packed with shot by the fighters to enhance their effect. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 20:10 Z

I'm not really sure I'm meant to reply here and apologies if I shouldn't but I just saw this and thought I would respond. I'm not an expert either but the way, to my understanding, that ball bearings cause severe injuries is partially through the great amount of kinetic energy they attain because of the explosion and also through sheer numbers, ie, one or two would be like bullets but several hundred would be devastating. You might well be right about their improvised nature (some Hizbullah units may have run out of proper ammunition or they may be using old stocks etc) but they are quite deadly at close range for the aforementioned reasons. I hope this helps and apologies to Tewfik for replying on your talk page. --Hydraton31 21:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't check, I've replied on my talk page. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statement about alleged Hezb. non-compliance w/cease-fire or disarmament: as I've pointed out in every single edit summary, this material simply doesn't belong in the lead. It's basically TMI there. Put it somewhere else in the article (there was a section dealing with this before, don't know if it's still there). Simple. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify, were you saying that I wasn't being civil, or that "I like 2 be anonymous" wasn't being civil? -Ruff 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Dreadfully sorry about that. I really was letting myself get out of hand. Thanks for the help! Ruff

As a matter of fact, I do have a question. How do you make the superscript ^[Talk] come after your signature? Ruff

Re: your message: Of course! You may need to tinker with it a little, as the version of it on my subpage has some kinks, but go for it! - Tapir Terrific 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: your other message: Well, I've got this little subpage with welcome messages on it, but I basically just copy and paste from welcomes notes I've left earlier, making sure that I substitute the time/date stamp with tildes. There's probably a more efficient way to do it, but I kept having trouble.

As for the "in/out" message, I've got an "in" message subpage and an "out" message subpage, which I link to with {{ }} on my talk page, then just change manually when I'm in or out... or whenever I remember, which is seldom. I've seen other users with similar messages, like a green or red button saying that they're on or offline, and they may have automated ways of doing that. If I find out, I'll let you know, but right now, I'm just doing it manually.

By the way, speaking of being on or offline, I'll probably be offline a bunch the next few days due to moving cross-country, so apologies if you leave a message and I don't respond promptly. See you around! - Tapir Terrific 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik, I noticed that you have added merge templates to Siniora Plan, Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, but you haven't on any of the talk pages explained why you think so. As I see it, these are three articles that benefit from standing on their own. Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is formatted as a day by day account of the attempts to stop the conflict; Siniora Plan is an article describing a peace plan that heavily influenced the re-write of the draft UN resolution; and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 describes the circumstances of how that resolution came about (although it is in need of a lot of editing). All three articles can be regarded as valuable background material for anyone writing about this conflict 5-10 years from now. My view is that it's generally better to have several shorter articles than a few very long ones. These three are so long already, that if they were to be merged we would not only have to do a complete re-write but would also have remove a lot of interesting information. And what's the benefit of doing that? Regards Thomas Blomberg 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for youe message and suggestions. I would love to help, if possible! []'s —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatoDonald (talk • contribs)

You edited out the following [9] from 2006 Marjayoun convoy

After the strikes, two ambulances were dispatched to the scene with both reportedly coming under attack from the IDF wounding the rescue workers.^[1][2]

Source YNet says: "Daher said there was a second attack on Red Cross and civil defense vehicles rushing the aid of the stricken convoy. It was not known, he said, if any rescuers were hurt."

Source EasyBourse says: "A Lebanese Red Cross ambulance was hit in an Israeli airstrike outside the town of Tibnin, southeast of Tyre, the organization said. Several were injured in the strike, it said"

The Red Cross says the IDF also killed a Red Cross worker at the scene [10]

Please try to be more careful and please try to check the sources before claiming you know what they say.

Noted that the sources still do not support the passage's claims, Tewfik^Talk 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the user's unjustified vandalism tagging, Tewfik^Talk 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that they do, you just didnt read them :) A recurring problem you appear to have. See the talkpage and stop your vandalism. RandomGalen 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You removed all the cited detail without inspecting the sources. You claimed you had inspected the sources. On doing this a 2nd time you were warned for vandalism. Ignoring, and removing the warning, you then went on to remove the detail again. Nothing good faith there.

You need to read the sources closely, you need not rush to judgement on removal of sourced material, and you need to talk and reach a consensus before removal of sourced material. Please try to remember these simple steps when you feel the urge to remove sourced material from articles. Particularly in the case of articles which may be contentious.

Can I also suggest you read up on the article you cited as an example of combatant behaviour towards civilians? If you imply attacks on Red Cross by Hezbollah when they dont exist then it will only mislead other editors. Thank you. RandomGalen 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded to user's allegations on page and user Talk, Tewfik^Talk 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tip was much appreciated. Thanks! (→Netscott) 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

... and I always tell people when I do that. I made your keep bold, since one side of it had 3 apostrophes and the other two. Revert if that's not what you intended. Happy editing, Karwynn (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

did you rv the 140km to 120km if not pl keep it up to date.Yousaf465

i gave the ref. about the 140km it was the from bbc pl check the log for the ref. someone by mistake may have removed it.Yousaf465

[11],are more for this.Yousaf465 what about the lastest 170 km.[12]

Your edit summaries make no mention of editing content. Explantions of "move" and "+ref" are hardly explanations for editing content and removing information. The only reason one would do this in articles about such controversial topics is to circumvent discussion on the removed text and to hide one's actions.--Paraphelion 12:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Explained on user's Talk and page Talk ([13],[14]), and denied circumventing discussion or other bad-faith intent.

As you are known for making many subtle pro-israel edits, it is difficult to believe that of the things involved in the edit in question - moving, adding text, rephrasing text and removing information, that the "move" was so much more important that this is all you specify in the edit summary, especially since there is of course room for more.--Paraphelion 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

if your statement is true then all the IDF members who have either use thier weapons or have ordered to kill inncocent people and children have to tried and excuted as according to law of Humanity.might the law of countries don't have rules against mightistest army in world.Yousaf465

o.k i have edited the pic well.thanks

the incident happened on 12 july not on 23 aug for which you need current sources.Regards.Yousaf465

Can the USA(a lonely country griped by fear of Jews),UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media speak without getting permission from Israel? Yousaf465

This speaks for itself, Tewfik^Talk 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The above warning stands, do not attempt to appear finding a solution as you tried on my talk page. Such hypocracy is useless after continuing to destroy content by reverting. Destroying content is vandalism, follow the link here before. — SomeHuman 28 Aug2006 03:44 (UTC)

(I have removed an inappropriate Test4-n tag placed by the user after insisting that my actions were vandalism, despite my explanation that they are a content dispute, Tewfik^Talk 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Please check what happened here. Some guy named Ed came in and turned it into an 'incident' (while of course, in Deir Yassin there was not an 'incident' but a 'massacre'). Help needed there. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Already solved. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Amnesty report is outrageous. While it accuses Hezbollah of war crimes, it is heavily biased against Israel. And taking from it just the part that speculates about depleted uranium is completely POV. --Gabi S. 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

The only hard part was deciding which barnstar you deserved more, since you covered pretty much all of them with ease. Don't let the critics get you down; most of them are just POV pushers (innocently or deliberately). As the main editor on the page, you'll get attacked more for standing up for what you think is right, but just remember that people do appreciate your work. I can't imagine what the article would be like without your contirubtion. Oh, and thanks for the comment on the help article I've been working on. You're more than welcome to edit it or suggest improvements. Iorek85 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism on palestine page

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)