Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30

←

Archive 34

→

Casualty figures

In an attempt to resolve the disagreement over "civilian" versus "citizen" and the like, I've changed the headings to "other Lebanese" and "other Israelis", as distinct from Hezbollah and IDF which appear in the panel above. I'm a neutral in this edit war and offer this noncommittal wording in the hope that is acceptable to both sides. This is really going on for too long. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this change. My only concern with these infobox headers is maintaining neutrality, which this does. — George Saliba^[talk] 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How is citizen not neutral? The source says they do not distinguish combatant and civilian, specifically because the government "considers them all citizens"? What is this?

It is not "other Lebanese" because even the source says that the number overlaps with the Hezbollah number. That is not neutral. No rule in WP:Neutrality says you should compromise a source and write citizen to civilian. Nowhere, not even close, not even close. Stop making up non-existing NPOV rules and making up that it is only civilians. This is vandalism. --Shamir1 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamir ya ruhi, please calm down. No one is vandalising, but rather George and Iorek are both editing in good faith. I admit that this is a somewhat complex determination to make, and I'm sure Iorek recalls the grand time we had with the various casualty estimates etc. I'm not sure though that there is a better way to express the different numbers, one set of which is unchallenged and clear, and one of which is somewhat ambiguous. However I don't agree that the compromise version is a good one (thanks for trying to diffuse conflict though), and I don't think that there is a need to title both sections identically. Assuming that different information was available for both, we could only represent that which the sources provided without imposing our own 'balance' onto it. As for the War on Terrorism, including it in the conflictbox based on a single quote is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the reality - perhaps if there were multiple references that framed it that way? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the inclusion of the War on Terrorism in the conflict box if we can find sources that independently verify the claim. Please note, this doesn't mean more sources quoting President Bush as stating so, but instead reliable sources using the term independently in reference to this conflict. — George Saliba^[talk] 01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the citizens/civilians issue, I'm generally ok with one being labelled as citizens and the other civilians if data cannot be found specific to civilians on one side. However, if we do so, I believe it's critical that we have a note stating that the majority of the citizen deaths were civilians, in the interest of neutrality. At one point the article stated such, but the note, which I felt helped maintain neutrality while being factually accurate based on reliable sources, was repeatedly removed. — George Saliba^[talk] 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, I don't particularly understand your comments on the War on Terrorism issue, but I don't really care, that is not the issue. By saying "the majority of citizen deaths were civilians" without accurate sourcing is not critical in the interest of neutrality. By changing "citizen" to "civilian" as you have done, does not make it "neutral", it makes it incorrect. Israel has given out a number of civilians and it is undisputed, therefore we write civilians, no problem. Lebanon has given out numbers for soldiers, policemen, and others who they call "martyrs". They specifically do not differentiate between combatant and civilian because they say they consider them all citizens. So "in the interest of neutrality" while being totally oblivious to facts, does that mean we should change this name to civilian when they themselves do not? Furthermore, two sources (one from the AP and the other from The Times) have expressed the difficulty of identifying a Hezbollah militant. This can also be a factor for Lebanon. I urge you all to edit accurately with true/undisputed information, that is what is neutral. I am sorry if I am coming off as too aggressive, but this is simple Wikipedian policy. It comes directly from the source, directly, so please do not falsely accuse anything of having pov, it does not. Thank you. --Shamir1 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the crux of the dispute - you said:

By saying "the majority of citizen deaths were civilians" without accurate sourcing is not critical in the interest of neutrality.

I disagree with this conclusion on a couple of points. Firstly, I contend that what was added regarding the majority of the deaths being civilians was accurately sourced. I'm sure we can find further reliable sources that state this if that would help. Secondly, I'm not sure how you can't see the neutrality problems with listing the Israeli civilian deaths and not saying that the Lebanese deaths were predominantly civilians. Basically what you're suggesting is to list the Israeli civilians, but not list any Lebanese civilians by name, despite the fact that we can cite sources to show that many of the Lebanese killed were in fact civilians. To the average reader just passing, you've changed the meaning of the article to show that Israel lost civilians, and Lebanon maybe have lost zero, which has severe POV problems, and can easily be cleared up with a single note regarding the makeup of the Lebanese dead.

What are your thoughts on changing the title to Lebanese citizens, and adding a note of something like "The majority of the Lebanese citizens killed were civilians", provided we find sufficiently reliable sources that state such? — George Saliba^[talk] 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing up two different points. You say: "Firstly, I contend that what was added regarding the majority of the deaths being civilians was accurately sourced." The Lebanese government has not given a civilian number. Do you not get that? The Lebanese government has not given a civilian number. They have NOT. The source was regarding the others or "martyrs". There are claims that most of the deaths were civilians, and certainly at least a very large amount of them were, but it is a claim since many sources (including Lebanese ones which allege over 700 militiamen were killed) give a number of militiamen that is about half or over half the total casualties number. There is absolutely no problem with adding that claim, and I will happily look for an accurate source from a mainstream group. Gladly. You say: "Secondly, I'm not sure how you can't see the neutrality problems with listing the Israeli civilian deaths and not saying that the Lebanese deaths were predominantly civilians." How is there any problem with neutrality? This has nothing to do with neutrality, only accuracy. How does it not make it neutral by adding citizens? Is anyone saying that none of them were civilians? Nothing to do with neutrality. I challenge you to find a rule in WP:NPOV that actually says such a thing. What does this mean: "Lebanese civilians by name, despite the fact that we can cite sources to show that many of the Lebanese killed were in fact civilians." I never said many were not and neither did the edit. The edit never said that civilians are not there. The fact is that, please read carefully I'm tired: The government of Lebanon does NOT differentiate between combatant and civilian (hence, no civilian number). According to them, they are all considered Lebanese citizens. But I guess according to us, they are all civilians? It should be written in the manner their own government claims. Even according to Lebanese officials as well as Human Rights Watch, it includes some Hezbollah fighters. This all okay, it not about POV. George Saliba, your last note is FINE. You do not even have to find sufficiently reliable sources, even 1 would be suffice, but it should be styled in the same manner, such as "U.S. government claims most were civilians."

Thank you. --Shamir1 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't feel like trying to explain this again, but I'm glad we can agree on keeping a note regarding the civilian portions of this death toll. — George Saliba^[talk] 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I'd stay out of this, but I feel I must refute one point. Shamir, you claim the Lebanese government never released figures separating civilians and others. Your source partly agrees, but the source that was in the info box before you deleted it quite clearly separates civilian and non civilian casualties, comes from the Lebanese government and is reported in an Israeli paper. here is the source, and I quote "Lebanese government officials report 1,130 people have been killed since the IDF began its military offensive in Lebanon 32 days ago. Some 3,600 people were injured. The report added that 1,025 of the dead were civilians." Hence why I kept reverting (and still oppose) your changes to 'citizens' sure, if we didn't have source giving civilian numbers, only citizens, then citizen would be fine, but we do, so there's no need. Iorek85 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How do people (especially Shamir1) feel about changing it to Lebanese civilians and removing the 1,191 number altogether, replacing it with the 1,025 figure of actual civilians from Iorek85's reference? The reference seems valid enough, and the biggest problem we've been having is finding a source that states a number with the label civilian attached – this one does. I think that would be the best possible solution, to have a sourced civilian death toll figure while maintaining header neutrality. Thoughts? — George Saliba^[talk] 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I made mention of this before, but I would be against including this extremely outdated newsflash (not a proper article, but something out of a ticker - not something which should single-handedly support this data), and instead recommend we find a more current reference to that report, hopefully one which also provides more detail. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik makes a point. The number that was incorrectly assumed to be civilians was actually who the government named "martyrs", which are the majority. --Shamir1 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just on a different set of figures - the John Keegan claim you added says 1,000 dead, yet the numbers of 'active' Hezbollah fighters numbers a maximum of 1,000. Did all of Hezbollah get killed? Or do these deaths include 'available' but not active Hezbollah fighters? Or is the 'active' figure wrong? And if the Lebanese governmental figures include Hezbollah fighters, only 191 civilians died, despite no one else claiming that figure? Something doesn't add up here.Iorek85 12:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that Keegan's estimate is high and the estimate of active Hezbollah fighters is low. All we can really do is cite sources though. Does anyone has any ideas on how to clean up the Hezbollah death toll figures without changing the numbers? It's not so bad, but it's just getting pretty long, and if every expert has their own estimate, and we list them all, I'm worried it may get even longer. Would four numbers (say Hezbollah's claim, Israel's claim, Lebanon's claim, and one independent claim from the UN or similar organization) be enough? — George Saliba^[talk] 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't anticipate that figures will continue to arrive, and so I'd only feel more inclined to organise along those lines if and when that does happen. Tewfik^Talk 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

all figures confirmed by the Israeli government?

I'm curious what the intended meaning of this statement is, in the two locations it is used. It seems like it would be self-evident if the sources the figures cite go back to Israeli government pages. It currently seems to be POV, almost meant to cast doubt on the source of the figures just because they come from the Israeli government and not some third party. Thoughts? — George Saliba^[talk] 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be the intent, though I believe it actually appeared during the aforementioned discussions determining the Lebanese casualty count. Either way, I'm not sure whether there is any reason to keep it. Tewfik^Talk 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we remove both lines. I can see how they may have made sense at one point, but to me they seem to just belittle the Israeli death toll presently. I'm going to leave them for now, to allow others time to discuss the issue if they have other views on the matter, but I'll probably eventually look into removing them. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems even more odd. The source used comes from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Why do you guys think everything here is against you? Has anyone thought it may just NOT be POV? --Shamir1 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you may be a little to quick to jump to conclusions my friend. All I'm saying is that the way it's written makes the statement almost sound like an anti-Israeli weasel word, saying that somehow the figures aren't good because it is the Israeli government that says so, and not an independent group (which I don't agree with, that's just what it can be interpretted to mean). I'm not Israeli, so I don't really think it has anything to do with against me personally. — George Saliba^[talk] 06:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just redundant. We don't have "figures confirmed by the Lebanese government" in the other section, and nor do we need to. Iorek85 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how it is POV, but I also dont see it to be exceptionally needed. If it does not need to be, and apparently you guys think it should not, it is okay. --Shamir1 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

War on Terror in box

If Bush declared it to be part of the war, there's no problem in adding it. How is it any different from the use of the box against the Taliban etc ? It's not and it appears in the original article. I don't see any grounds for the removal of it. Cheers, Amoruso 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. Iorek85 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Keegans figure

I just can't see anything to support this. No one else is claiming anything as high as this, and it can't possibly fit with any of the other figures we've used. Even Israel isn't claiming this many deaths, (it even revised its figures from 800 to 600) nor the U.N, or 'Israeli research group' or 'Lebanese sources'. Keegan himself only states "perhaps as many as 1,000 killed out of its strength". It doesn't sound like even he is sure of this. Unless there is something that can corroborate his argument (or even an actual figure given by him) I think it should go. Iorek85 05:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd also like to reaffirm my support for the citation of and focusing on 3 or 4 key figures in the interest of readability and preventing article size creep:

Hezbollah's claim of their losses - 250
Israel's claim of Hezbollah's losses - 532 (Can anyone find the actual article? One reference is currently broken, and the other is a tertiary source.)
An estimate from an internationally recognized group not associated with the conflict - the UN, AP, HRW, Amnesty Int'l, etc. - 500 listed for the UN currently

Just my thoughts. There are way too many claims being made on both sides by individuals or special interest groups that very much lack encyclopedic value, and many of the current references are very weak (tertiary sources, or even worse in some case). — George Saliba^[talk] 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Found the article, its on. Also, most of them are not special interest groups, but research. --Shamir1 05:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you post that article Shamir1? I don't dispute the number, I'm just hoping for a better source. As it stands right now we're using a special interest group website that cites a Washington Post article, that I can't find on the Washington Post website, that in turn cites an Israeli source, whose original statement I also can't find. Nothing wrong in particular, just looking for the original source for cleanliness (primary/secondary sources vs. tertiary sources). The closest I've found so far is an Israeli military site that lists the number as "more than 530", or something along those lines. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 09:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for anyone's estimates, but it does appear according to links and various Wikipedia pages that John Keegan may be the most prominent military historian and journalist for our time. He worded it carefully, that it is a possibility that Hezbollah's deaths be as high 1,000, not that it necessarily is. None of the sources have been sure. It apparently is his own research. It actually does not sound too far-fetched in comparison. Different IDF officials have stated it may be this high or this much, and the Lebanese one stated that Hezbollah had already buried over 700 fighters AND have many more to go. That is also nearing a thousand, or at least gives the possibility of one coming pretty close. Also, the that is not a UN estimate. As far as I know, the U.N. has not stated a number, but a U.N. official made that estimate, which again, is noteworthy. --Shamir1 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean specifically that the article's citations were from special interest groups, just that there are many, many different numbers floating around from individuals (historians, generals, politicians, etc.) and special interest groups in general, and quoting them all is, well, next to useless. I don't think Keegan's experience is in question, and I absolutely believe the figure should be noted in the article (maybe in a specific section discussing the figures), however I think it does the article a disservice to note estimates by all these individuals in the infobox, which is effectively a summary. — George Saliba^[talk] 08:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

'Up to' is very different to an actual number. And yes, 1,000 is a lot more than 700 - 42.8% more, and 66% more than the Israeli military are prepared to claim. I agree with George in that this is supposed to be a summary. I've mentioned it above that I think we should choose a couple of figures to use, and this definitely stands out as one that isn't similar to the rest. Even if he is right, I still can't see how it fits with any of the other figures that we have used in the info box. If we're keeping the claim (and we shouldn't) then we need to change the active fighters, because they cannot both be right. Iorek85 08:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one more point – the Lebanese source figure of 700 is extremely weak. First, the source isn't name – Is this someone in the military or in the government? Do they hold a high rank? Are they political enemies of Hezbollah who would make gains from this figure being inflated? Is it my uncle's cousin's brother's ex-girlfriend? I mean honestly, you get the idea; we have no idea. Second, can anyone find any other source for this figure, outside of this Stratfor piece? Is there any other evidence besides this secondary source, anywhere in the world, in any publication, in any language? I haven't been able to find any, though maybe there is one out there somewhere. Third, Stratfor is a strategic organization. Basically, they predict things. They aren't a news organization in the traditional sense. They're the people that give your government or company strategic advice going forward. This doesn't make them unreliable necessarily, but we do need to keep in mind that they don't report news. They analyze situations and provide advice. Fourth, as we've discussed in the past, the Lebanese government has a habit of calling all the dead "martyrs". Are we sure that someone in the Lebanese government didn't tell Stratfor there were 700 "martyrs", which they in turn interpretted to mean Hezbollah fighters? Without any other articles to correlate this figure, we honestly can't be sure. — George Saliba^[talk] 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Iorek85, you did not read my words or the article's words carefully enough. It said OVER 700, not 700, and said that on top of that there are many more to go, which could near the 4 digits. Then, Keegan finds it is UP TO 1,000, not 1,000, which would have them together more similar. Those two both mentioned can both be right if they are right. Secondly, the IDF spokeswoman did not say it does not get higher or lower than 600, they have not excluded that possibility.

George.Saliba, the thinking on the 700 martyr is a bit too "what-iffy". By the sources it would mean that it is plural and they are members of the local population. No we can't be sure, but we can't be sure about a lot of things. What we do have is a source that apparently confirms that though. --Shamir1 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my only point is that the source is extremely weak, for a variety of reasons, and I don't think we can make any firm assertions based on a source this weak. The bigger problem is that these two figures directly contradict the "majority civilian" statement that far more references support (I'm guessing I can bring up a dozen such sources fairly easily). When two points conflict so completely, I prefer to go with the one that has more references to support it, then point out the second as a counterpoint. In general, I also prefer to have the points that most sources agree on in the summary, and the counterpoints described (and laid out in full) within the body of the article, rather than the summary. That's just my opinion. — George Saliba^[talk] 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all are based on the HRC estimate. The HRC also does not say X much to Y much were civilians, or at least Z civilians were killed, that is why just that statement by itself is not strong enough. The IDF estimate is essential to be considered, for which the chance of hezbollah to be half, a slight majority, or even more of a majority is still possible. It would calling it fact and essentially favoring one source over another. --Shamir1 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, firstly I'd like to see what led you to the conclusion that most of the articles that state the "majority were civilians" (or similar) were based on the HRC figure, especially given that the HRC doesn't release explicit civilian/non-civilian figures. Secondly, I agree regarding the IDF figure, however, the most recent primary source IDF estimate I've seen is 530. The "of up to 700" was from a previous statement at which time the estimate was 440. If I say the number I have is 13, but it could be as high as 20, then come back and say the number I have is 15, it may mean that the number still could get as high as 20, or it may mean that of the possible 20 I elected to stop at 15. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing what the intention was, especially given that I can't find either statement. — George Saliba^[talk] 09:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The up to 700 was regarding how many more could have died in total, since not all of the militants were identified. The 532 is only the ones that were identified. Also, the news sources base it on local authorities, which would be the HRC, who claim that most were civilians (but do not give a figure). --Shamir1 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is just pure original research on your part. You are assuming the "Lebanese source" meant "local authorities", and furthermore you're assuming that "local authorities" means the HRC. This chain of reasoning has no basis other than your own thoughts. We only list what is reported, we don't draw our own conclusions for what is reported. — George Saliba^[talk] 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is your reason for removing the 'most were civilians' then it's not correct. They are not all based on the HRC; the source you yourself first installed shows claims made by different sources all claiming most were civilians. it gives; HRC saying most were civilians, the United Nations Children's Fund saying most were civilians (and third children), and the AP count was 855 (including 37 military personnel and 70 Hezbollah fighters, giving 748 civilians) to which they have added Hezbollah's increased death toll. All of these, plus those added references show that the majority of Lebanese killed were civilians. Three separate counts all giving a majority of civilians. Even if you argue the AP count only includes 250 Hezbollah fighters is wrong, even if they added the 600 claimed by Israel, then it would still be mostly civilians. Iorek85 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully (again): "That included 37 military personnel reported in official statements and 70 Hezbollah guerrillas reported killed either by the group or by police." It says it includes that, not that's how many were there. It says that is how many Hezbollah or the police have confirmed, not them. Then, you put words in their mouth. They NEVER say most were civilians. Also, the Children's Fund and the HRC do not have different stats. The Children's Fund backs the HRC and uses their data.[1] The HRC has just "updated" their data with 8 people. It is the same exact information and the same source. Also, 600+600=1200 (which is over 1191), so I have no clue how the IDF's count would not make them a majority. The AP also never said 748 civilians, that is your original research. They only gave a number they could confirm were Hezbollah militants, which was of course only confirmed by Hezbollah as they said. Also, their claims are mentioned; you are making it seem like it was entirely removed. --Shamir1 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it included the 70 Hezbollah militants. They then increased the total number of casualties when they updated to include the 250 confirmed by Hezbollah. It didn't decrease the number of civilians casualties, giving 748 civilians, 37 military personnel and 250 Hezbollah fighters. And 748 > 600. Iorek85 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S - Do you have any sources claiming that the majority killed were Hezbollah fighters? Because while we've noted many that (whether you want to disagree with them or not) say the majority of those killed were civilians, I haven't seen any claiming that most were Hezbollah fighters, just you taking 'claims' and 'estimates' made by different sources and then subtracting them from figures given by yet more different groups. Iorek85 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's some sources for you which don't cite the HRC, most of whom were in the citations which you removed:

"Some 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, most of them soldiers, were killed in fighting which started in July 2006." – Reuters[2] - does not cite HRC

"About 1,000 Lebanese - most civilians - died in the conflict, while 161 Israelis, mainly soldiers, were killed." – BBC[3] - does not cite HRC

"By the time the United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on Aug. 14, more than 1,500 people had been killed, most of them Lebanese civilians." – CNEWA[4] - does not cite HRC

"About 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the conflict, mostly civilians in Israeli bombardment." – Gulf Daily News[5] - does not cite HRC

"More than 1,100 people - mostly civilians - were killed in Lebanon during the war. More than 150 Israelis - mainly soldiers - were killed." – BBC News[6] - does not cite HRC

Please be more careful to read the references before you remove them. — George Saliba^[talk] 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Iorkek85, please stop saying 748, that figure is never mentioned. They increased the number able to be confirmed, and gave no civilian number.

George.Saliba, these are news stories. These news reports have not done their own investigations, they rely on local authorities. That is news media. You can see that on BBC here and the Gulf News here. That is what the media tends to rely on. Even here it is the only source they use. You can also see Reuters which undoubtably uses the official state figure (HRC) but does not actually cite it. News media. --Shamir1 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You really need to be careful of original research. It has no place in Wikipedia. One, your assertion that "these news reports have not done their own investigations" is purely your own opinion. If you have any factual basis for it, I'd love to see it. Two, your assertion that "they rely on local authorities" is again your own research. If you have any factual basis for that statement, I'd be most interested to see that as well. Three, the BBC article you list doesn't mention the HRC or local authorities as its source. Four, even if one article from a source uses the HRC figures, it does not necessarily mean that all articles from that source do, unless they explicitly state such, in the article or as a footnote. To simply assume that they do is original research. Five, your statement that the Reuters article "undoubtably" uses the HRC figure is again, original research, as the article itself does not state such. You cannot simply draw your own conclusions based on two numbers being the same, and accept your inference as fact. We don't draw conclusions here. To conclude that all these sources cite the same figure from the same source, without the articles stating such, is purely original research. — George Saliba^[talk] 10:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

George.Saliba, this is news media, they are not international bodies. News media relies on local authorities, that is not original research. You can read simple news to see "according to security officials" or "according to medical sources" of the local population. Secondly, you just said in a message to me that the HRC is a government body, and indeed it is. You can see that on BBC: "More than 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians, have now been killed since the conflict erupted, Lebanon says." Please, they do not hide where they get their information from. Other stories report statements that originate from local LEBANESE hospital officials. On CNN, you can find their "mostly civilians" statement as well, and who they credit it to.[7] That is what the news relies on. On FOX News, you can see they count their dead according to a Lebanese security official.[8] Their more recent report only cites the local government authority that counts the dead: the Higher Relief Council [9]. (Lebanese government, Lebanese Health Ministry, Lebanese police,...) The Gulf Daily and Catholic News is different from Amnesty International or the Children's Fund. One is simply a report. A recent CBC story also puts it nicely for us: "Lebanon has said the majority of dead were Lebanese civilians." [10] And who does it look like ABC is using? "At least 715 people have been killed in Lebanon since fighting erupted July 12 including 628 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry, 29 Lebanese soldiers and at least 58 Hezbollah guerrillas. The Lebanese government's Higher Relief Council put the number higher at 973." A similar report is made here. And you can see who the AFP uses and where it comes from here. The Associated Press tells it nicely as well: "Lebanon says most of its casualties were civilians."[11] It all originates from Lebanese authorities. --Shamir1 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet all of these articles are wrong? They all state civilians, according to themselves. Even they all did use one source, which you have no way of proving, it is original research to argue they are wrong. If the BBC says that they were civilians, then it is the reputation of the BBC that is on the line. The BBC is a reliable source, and thus is perfectly usable as a reference, just like all the others cited. I'll note that you are basing this entire argument over one report, just one, as opposed to the tens that have been given. Even if they do cite the Lebanese government, it clearly shows that to all of those news agencies, they stated an explicitly civilian figure. If you can give references that state the majority of deaths were Hezbollah fighters, then fine. But until then, stop changing the page without consensus. (I'll also note you are about to break the 3RR) Iorek85 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reported Shamir1 for violation of 3RR without consensus. Unfortunately, I'm currently bound from reverting myself by the same rule. In any event, please check your Talk page Shamir1. — George Saliba^[talk] 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Iorek85, please, PLEASE, read carefully. I did not say anyone was wrong and this has nothing to do with BBC's reputation. Newspapers are newspapers. They rely on local authorities, as you just saw. They report the data collected by local sources or other officials, such as Amnesty International but not newspapers. To all of these news agencies they use sources from Lebanese authorities, not themselves, they are reporting. How do you expect me to stop changing it "without consensus" when it is you who is adding POV material? Clearly, other news sources even say "according to Lebanon", "Lebanon says...", "the Higher Relief Council", "Lebanese Ministry...", ... News agencies report, we have to have a firsthand source. This would be Lebanese authorities like the ones I mentioned. All of that data originates from them. I have just showed that and yet, some people change the subject to talk about how reliable BBC is. That is irrelevant. BBC reports come from sources, and that is Lebanon as it is shown. --Shamir1 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to convince you that your assumption is flawed is like trying to convince someone that the sky is blue when they fervently deny it. We can go over it all day, but if you don't want to hear it, you just don't want to hear it. I've changed the text to:

News reports indicated that most of those killed were civilians, but official Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, and Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing.

I find the wording to be neutral and accurate enough. See if it is more to your liking. If not, we can try to request arbitration perhaps. — George Saliba^[talk] 13:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny I feel the same way, but not "accurate". News reports, they report, they do not find, they report. As I have shown you (which you did not address) it is according to local authorities and all (including BBC, ABC, CNN, FOX) originate from Lebanon. There must be consensus for it to be added, not removed, its presence is the debate. Until then, I am removing it. --Shamir1 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, explaining the general nature of a news agency seems to be even harder to teach that the sky is blue. News reports do not "indicate" as you said, they are reporting data from other sources. Even the news you have shown me, has all come from Lebanese government sources as articles show. That is normal. Also, many other news sources (some from the same publications you post) do not say in an absolute fact manner that "most" were civilians, but correctly report it as Lebanon's claim. --Shamir1 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure where you're coming up with the assumption that news reports are always according to local authorities. Do you have basis for this statement, other than your own opinion? There must be consensus for changes in general, either way. I've stated an RfC at the bottom of this page. Please consider continuing comments there. I'm also going to file for page protection in the hopes of avoiding an edit war. — George Saliba^[talk] 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

I believe this has caused some discussion before, but it is an important factor. This was not so much a conflict as it was an outright war. It was between Israel and Hezbollah. Several sites and newspapers have named the conflict the Israel-Hezbollah war or Israel-Hizbullah war, etc. I am NOT saying Lebanon was not affected or involved, it most certainly was, and the name of the article will not change all of the information on the article that indeed says that. Here is Boston Globe link [12], the Washington Institute [13], Human Rights Watch and the HRC has constantly stated it as the war between Israel and Hezbollah, and there are others. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls it the Israel-Hizbullah conflict.

I propose the article name be changed to: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War.

--Shamir1 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

From my research of various articles, I absolutely agree on the term "war" in place of "conflict". It seems to be the far more widely used term. I'm currently working on a list of reasons why I believe the term "war" is more appropriate than "conflict". I haven't done any research regarding the use of the term Hezbollah versus Lebanon, however. This may or may not be the case, and I encourage you to research the issue further. I'm hoping to put the term "war" to a vote in the coming days or weeks, when I've collected more data on the subject. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 08:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's where it gets tricky. While I support the term war (begrudgingly) I think Israel-Lebanon war is more accurate. I think it is used by more sources, and Lebanon bore the brunt of the attacks, not Hezbollah. The Vietnam war isn't called the U.S-Viet Cong War. Israeli soil was attacked, so I think it should still contain the word Israel, otherwise 2006 Lebanon War might be more appropriate, as a designation of location rather than participants. Iorek85 08:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Iorek, regardless of our beliefs, it is not our job to name the war. No one, even Lebanon, calls it the "Israel-Lebanon" war. For starters, your comments could be considered very offensive to many Israelis, and probably even Hezbollah. Wars are not named after who bore the brunt, they are named after who fought them. Keep in mind that the Vietnam War was named after where it took place, and not called the American-Anything War so it is in a different category. That category is not typically heifenized and goes along with the Nagorno-Karabakh War (heifenized because of the disputed state's name, not the combatants), and the Agacher Strip War. Also keep in mind that Hezbollah was and is located in Lebanon (obviously where would be attacked) and surely bore a significant brunt, which in either case is irrelevant. Also, you can read a very recent article from the Associated Press: "The conference Thursday raised pledges of $7.6 billion to help Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's U.S.-backed government rebuild after last summer's devastating Israel-Hezbollah war." [14]. Both Greco-Turkish wars were fought between Greece and Turkey, and same continues with both Sino-Japanese wars, the Russo-Japanese War, the Eritrean-Ethiopian War, Indo-Pakistani War, and others that follow this style all indicate the ones who fought, not who we should feel sorry for or who bore the brunt. --Shamir1 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that the majority of people/sources/governments/news organisations call it the Israel-Hezbollah war, then it should be named that, but I don't think that is the case. I'm interested as to why my comments would be offensive to Israelis/Hezbollah. Wars are named over many things - where they took place being one of them. The Gulf War isn't called the American-Iraq war, or the Coalition of the Winning-Iraqi war. If the names stated at the top of the article are accurate, neither call it the Israel-Hezbollah war. A quick glance at the list of Arab-Israeli conflicts shows a variety of types of names. Anyway, this is irrelevant; as George has pointed out, guidelines state that we should use the most common name, and I think Israel-Lebanon war is more common. Iorek85 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, please read carefully. For this purpose, I separated it in two categories. One group of wars is named after where it took place (Agacher Strip, Vietnam); others are named after the combatants. Whenever it is heifenized with two groups of some sort, it describes the combatants (I gave examples above, also think of Cowboy-Indian or Georgian-Abkhaz). The Gulf War is named after where it takes place and contains no heifen. Same with the Vietnam War. But you say, well the Gulf war is not called the American-Iraqi war so... So, would you like to change the names of all of the wars in the second category for that reason (named a tiny amount of very many above)?

Israel-Lebanon war is not at all, I repeat at all, the most common name. Possibly in social regular conversation, but never in news use. I have shown you already Human Rights Watch, the Associated Press, the Israeli government, the HRC, and I have now found it also from the Washington Post [15] (several Post and AP reports), Townhall [16], Reuters via the New York Times [17], CNN[18], Al Jazeera [19], AP via USA Today[20], ... really, do I need to continue? --Shamir1 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? Yeah, you do. :) I think I've collected some 70 articles using the term war and not conflict so far, and I don't consider my research to be complete. Another thing to realize is that we avoid recentism, so also try to keep track of when each article was published. If, for example, the event was mostly referred to as the "Israel-Hezbollah war" within the first two week of its occurence, then mostly referred to as the "Israel-Lebanon war" after that, we would go with "Israel-Lebanon war". The opposite is true as well. I have no idea which of these terms was more common when, but that's the kind of thing I would suggest looking at. Also consider reading through the archives, as almost every one has some discussion regarding the name of the article, and it's important to know why the term "Israel-Lebanon" was chosen the last half-dozen times this issue was discussed. — George Saliba^[talk] 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles are recent, and I forgot to add the International Herald Tribune [21]. That covers about all mass media. There are many more, but I have only posted the ones I thought to be the most important (CNN, Al Jazeera, AP, Post..), and there is also Embassy Xinhua (CNI) [http://english.cri.cn/2947/2007/01/10/198@183213.htm, People's Daily [22], Haaretz [23], Reuters/AlterNet [24], Brandeis University [25], the University of Southern California, the U.S. State Department [26], Newsday [27], FrontPage Mag [28], Time [29], Fox News [30] --Shamir1 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These are a good start for the most part. I'd suggest organizing them by the agency that put them out (i.e., if the AP puts out an article that a dozen different papers reprint, list it under AP), and also remove the ones that use phrases like "war between Israel and Hezbollah" or "Hezbollah's war with Israel" – these kinds of statements shouldn't be confused with "Israel-Hezbollah" as a name, because one can describe the events as "war between Israel and Hezbollah" without the intention of affixing that name to the conflict itself. Same would be true of "Israel-Lebanon". Also, you should try to have someone do the other side if you can find someone, creating a list of all the articles using "Israel-Lebanon". From what little research I've done, the "Israel-Lebanon" citation is slightly more common, though both do occur (if I had to guess I'd say about 60% that used one of the two names used Israel-Lebanon and 40% used Israel-Hezbollah, but I haven't done any in depth searches on the issue recently). — George Saliba^[talk] 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate of you to go to the effort of listing them, but the washington post links shows nothing I can see, the New York Times and CNN both say war with Hezbollah (which isn't under dispute here), many of them are all from once source, AP (U.S.A Today, International Herald Tribune, Haaretez, Newsday and Fox). People's daily calls it a conflict, along with the U.S department of State, and Time doesn't name the conflict. (Much of this George has mentioned.) On the other hand, haaretz calls it lebanon war, the AP in the IHT calls it 2006 Lebanon War, ynet calls it Lebanon war, as does Al Jazeera and CNN calls it the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Iorek85 12:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Main Picture

I know this has been discussed before. But it is extremely biased to have 2 pictures showing Lebanese/Hezbollah suffering, but only 1 of Israeli suffering. If it is so important to have a picture of an Israeli tank, then please post a picture of Hezbollah firing a missile and there are plenty of those pictures. Remember POV...if you can't find a Hezbollah one, then remove the Israeli tank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borgmore (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Uh, where did the vast majority of the damage occur? And how is a tank firing showing Lebanese suffering? Iorek85 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Iorek85 on this issue. I don't even see how the other pictures in question show suffering. Indirect suffering? Maybe, but smoke in the distance doesn't even tell me what is smoking (regarding the Lebanon picture), and the picture of the Israeli building that was hit doesn't really tell me much either – what was this building used for, did people live here, etc. The vagueness of these images alone makes them seem pretty neutral to me (without the labels, I couldn't tell you which was where to be honest). — George Saliba^[talk] 02:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The pictures are not intended to evoke sympathy for anyone. If one would like to make another picture that included Hezbollah firing mortar shells or rockets, that is okay, but so is the one that is currently posted. I defend the current photo, but, Iorek85, wishing to keep it because of where "the vast majority of damage" occured is the wrong reason. --Shamir1 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't the picture attempt to accurately portray the conflict as much as possible? (This is, of course, a side note, since the tank doesn't show any bias). Iorek85 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It is a war conflict. (I did not say the tank shows bias.) It portrays the conflict, not necessarily the damage. The pictures are not there to portray damage and for people to say, "Oh, that's so sad..." Again, I do not have a problem with the picture. --Shamir1 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly just referring to the original posters assertion that the images evoked sympathy. I just don't see it, and I agree that doing so wasn't the intention. I don't really see anything wrong with the existing picture from a neutrality standpoint, but I agree too that an equally neutral image that also shows Hezbollah firing rockets is perfectly fine. If someone wants to create an image that they feel is a better depiction of the event, and put it before the editors for consideration, more power to them. Personally I think there's more important issues to deal with. — George Saliba^[talk] 03:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats the problem with trying to have an image that conveys everything equally. It never will. You cant objectively decide a quota, like 3 images of this side, 1 of that, or 15 of this, 3 of that. Any ratio will be based on a POV, and therefore the goal cannot be to create an image that meets a ratio or quota. It should just be a good image, an eye catching one. One that leads off an article well and fits better then others in the position. I dont really think the current one does, because I dont really like the whole split image look going on. But thats a different matter entirely. The current image does not violate NPOV for the way it shows things. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

US investigating Israeli cluster bomb usage

A link that might be worth incorpororating in to the article: [31] --76.214.141.233 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1000 death figure

So who is a source if not Lebanon government?Even if news agencies don't say it directly the only source that I can think of it is a government.And this proven by first source that 1000 death figure is according to Lebanon government.Shrike 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So there's a few problems with this. Just because the only source you can think of is the government, does not mean that that is the only source that collects figures. For instance, one of the references mentions that both HRW and the AP have been collecting their own figures. It's entirely possible other groups have as well. For us to make the assumption that various references are getting their figures from the Lebanese government, when those references do not cite the Lebanese government as their source, is pure original research. We cannot make such assumptions, period. Also, your claim that "this [is] proven by the... 1000 death figure" does not hold any weight, as the figures in the various references vary from 1,000 to 1,500, while the government has one figure of 1,191. Furthermore, the statement is not a claim regarding how many people were killed. It is a statement that the majority were civilians, based on various sources. To cite the Lebanese government as the source of the civilian degree of the death toll is simply inaccurate, as the references cited do not list the Lebanese government as their source, and, at least as far as I know, the Lebanese government has no official figures regarding the civilian nature of the death toll. — George Saliba^[talk] 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what George said, AP completed their own counts, the U.N and HRC and others have completed their own counts/estimates. Most notably if you read here "by government agencies, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press.". Also, the AP claim that the Lebanese government only used the term marytrs is under dispute, considering all of the articles we've referenced claim specifically civilian numbers. Iorek85 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Check to see if my compromise rewording is to your liking. I've changed it to:

News reports indicated that most of those killed were civilians, but official Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, and Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing.

I think it's neutral and accurate. Thoughts? — George Saliba^[talk] 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I put this in the media controversy section or will it be deleted by israeli members?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3829967.stm

Reaper7 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well no, really. It's about the Israel-Palestine conflict, not this one. Iorek85 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Iorek85 is exactly correct – it doesn't belong here. If you want to integrate it somewhere, consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. — George Saliba^[talk] 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I love lamp:vandalism

Someone has placed the words "I LOVE LAMP" in the middle of a sentence in the fourth paragraph of the article...I'm pretty sure this is vandalism, but I can't figure out how to remove the error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.251.34 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment: Civilian nature of Lebanese death toll figures

This is a dispute about whether or not to include a note in the infobox stating that most of the Lebanese killed in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict were civilians. The arguments for inclusion generally cite a variety of sources that make this claim. The arguments against inclusion cite estimates of the Hezbollah death toll greater than 50% of the total estimated deaths, and discount the sources for inclusion as based on figures from local authorities. Full discussion can be read in the Keegan's figure section. 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

(Keegan) worded it carefully, that it is a possibility that Hezbollah's deaths be as high 1,000, not that it necessarily is. Different IDF officials have stated it may be this high or this much, and the Lebanese one stated that Hezbollah had already buried over 700 fighters AND have many more to go. -- Shamir1 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I just can't see anything to support this. No one else is claiming anything as high as this, and it can't possibly fit with any of the other figures we've used. Iorek85 05:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The IDF estimate is essential to be considered, for which the chance of hezbollah to be half, a slight majority, or even more of a majority is still possible. -- Shamir1 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The news sources base it on local authorities, which would be the HRC, who claim that most were civilians (but do not give a figure). -- Shamir1 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The HRC also does not say X much to Y much were civilians, or at least Z civilians were killed, that is why just that statement by itself is not strong enough. -- Shamir1 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You are assuming the "Lebanese source" meant "local authorities", and furthermore you're assuming that "local authorities" means the HRC. — George Saliba 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
They are not all based on the HRC; the source you yourself first installed shows claims made by different sources all claiming most were civilians. Iorek85 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
These news reports have not done their own investigations, they rely on local authorities. That is news media. -- Shamir1 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion that "these news reports have not done their own investigations" is purely your own opinion. Your assertion that "they rely on local authorities" is again your own research. – George Saliba 10:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Shamir1, I've seen you make the argument that it isn't our job to decide whether something is true or not, it is only our job to report what reliable sources say. --YoYoDa1 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing of the dispute

The Lebanese citizen death toll estimates cited in the article range from 1,035 to 1,191. The death toll estimates for Hezbollah fighters killed range from 250 to 1,000. Some or all of these may be included in the Lebanese citizen death toll figure as well. Various references cited state that a majority of those killed were civilians.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Some references do not cite where they get their figures, so they may get their figures from local authorities, and thus they may not be reliable as official Lebanese figures don't differentiate between civilians and militants. (Note: This is just my paraphrasing based on my understanding of the dispute.) — George Saliba^[talk] 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Each source should be mentioned by name. --YoYoDa1 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments

For me, Keegan's estimates are a completely separate issue. It's just way beyond any other estimates, and cannot realistically fit with our figures. The problem for me is Shamir's constant insistence that all of the news articles are wrong because he says that the Lebanese government doesn't differentiate between civilian and Hezbollah casualties. He's completely ignoring the point that if the BBC and others to say that there was a majority of civilian casualties, they can be considered correct because they are reliable sources. He is relying on original research to try to claim that all of those articles used Lebanese government figures and that all of them mistakenly used the word civilian (or deliberately) when the Lebanese government didn't. This alone is enough to leave in 'majority of civilian casualties'. That the independent AP count, UN count, and HRC counts also claim a majority of civilian deaths, that he has provided no reliable sources that state the majority of the deaths were Hezbollah fighters, and that only one article says that Lebanon doesn't specify civilian casualties just further supports this position. I'll also note that the Keegan figure was added by Shamir, and that his changes are the ones that have necessitated the change to 'mostly civilians', and so yes, Shamir, you are the one who must gain a consensus to change it to what you want, not the other way around. Iorek85 10:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is a matter of Wikipedia's rules regarding original research, much more than trying to uncover some hidden truth. If it's reported as such, we should convey it as such. I've only left in the notes about Keegan's figure in this RfC section to try to remain neutral, despite being a party to the dispute, as I think that it's one of the things Shamir1 is basing his opinion on. I, myself, view these as two separate issues also. — George Saliba^[talk] 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

His <1000 figure is correct, but <10000 and <100000 are also correct. It probably isn't worth including an estimate if it isn't within a reasonable range. --YoYoDa1 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment from RfC - It sounds as if this issue is too complicated for inclusion in an info box. Why not simply put "Civilian death totals are a matter of some debate - see [[link to section of article where discussion takes place]]" Blueboar 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I considered mediating this case but I agree completely with the comment above. This dispute is far too complex to result in a line in the talkbox, and as such a section of the article should be devoted to it. If there is any disagreement about this, add that to the mediation request page and I'll personally mediate it. By the way, this isn't to say that some other mediator won't pick up the case anyway, but I'm just saying I'll help out if no-one else will get involved. Jem 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by to comment! Initially the note on the death toll read like:

Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants. Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing.

One of the impetuses to including the civilian nature of this death toll was to balance out this statement to maintain NPOV, as the "most civilians" statement was pretty widely reported (more widely reported than either of these two statements, but also more controvertial apparently). The resulting statement was:

News reports indicated that most of those killed were civilians, but official Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, and Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing.

Now, if we change the "most were civilians" citation to your suggestion, but keep the other two statements, I'm afraid that the statement will again become POV. Can you suggest any compromise statement that points the reader to a sub-section of the article, but also removes any possible POV bias by keeping the other two statements (Hezbollah wears civilian clothes, etc.)? — George Saliba^[talk] 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm suggesting is to replace all three statements with a modification of your proposal: "Civilian and militant death totals are a matter of some debate - see [[link to section of article where discussion takes place]]". Thoughts? — George Saliba^[talk] 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By far the most important of the statements is the fact that Lebanon has not differentiated between Hezbollah fighter and civilian. That part should stay. However, the statement "News reports indicate..." has very many problems. First of all, news reports (key word) indicate from WHAT? From what source do they indicate that? There is hardly any matter of a debate. It is very simple, very neutral, and very accurate. It is already stated who claims that idea, without any problem. And also, several "news reports indicate" (including ones you have used, and ones that are very recent) make a clear difference for us--that it is according to Lebanon. Lebanon has the data for its citizens and this is what they claim. --Shamir1 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See, this is a matter of opinion. In your opinion, the most important point is that Hezbollah fighters were difficult to differentiate from civilians. In the opinion of others, the civilian nature of the death toll may be the most important point. However, in the interest of NPOV, I'm in favor of listing both sides, or listing neither. Leaving only one side or the other is entirely POV however. — George Saliba^[talk] 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad some users got to hear outside opinions; that it is a claim (a noteworthy claim) that most of the dead were civilians. Obviously I have been trying to explain the basic nature of news media. There is also a basic difference between what news reports and what an organization or an official finds. As you can see here with The Independent, they state a figure of Lebanese deaths that matches exactly what the government of Lebanon shows, without needing to cite it. They report according to local authorities. Also, if certain findings make it contradictory it cannot be stated as fact. We cannot favor certain sources over the other. Mainstream media (especially the more recent) has explicitly stated that it is Lebanon's claim or that their stats originate from Lebanon. For example, The New York Times says: "The human toll, according to Lebanese government statistics, was estimated at 1,183 deaths, mostly civilians, about a third of them children; 4,054 wounded; and 970,000 people displaced, out of a population of a little under four million."^[1] --Shamir1 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, George.Saliba, keep in mind that Amnesty International's stats are no different than Lebanon's, they simply source the HRC's data for their work.[39] The AP source you have used states where it comes from: Lebanese authorities. The BBC may be the most important of the news stories you have used, and you have posted 2 of them. Please do not forget this story [40] which clearly states that they are using stats from the Lebanese government. --Shamir1 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure where you get this flawed assumption that if some articles use the Lebanese government as a source, and they cite it, that all sources must be using the Lebanese government as their source, even when they don't cite it and have different numbers. Also, I'm not sure how you consider a factual statement that "News reports indicated..." to be non-factual. Are you stating that they didn't indicate this? Who did indicate it in the half dozen articles cited? The Lebanese government? An older version of the article stated such, but that too was reverted. I'm open to alternatives, but I've yet to see you put forward any attempts at a compromise. — George Saliba^[talk] 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping by again, and wanted to say that all of this discussion about media statistics is probably very valid, but should really be incoportated into the article. Perhaps keep the infobox nice and succint, as per the above suggestion, and have a whole section dedictaed to the difficulties of obtaining reliable statsistics and subsequent effect on the media and death toll. I'm sure most people will agree that that issue in itself is important enough for this entry to be raised in detail on the mainspace. Jem 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What do you think of my proposal to replace the three statements currently in this infobox with the more succint "Civilian and militant death totals are a matter of some debate - see [[link to section of article where discussion takes place]]"? I think the difficult thing is going to be finding a compromise that Shamir1 will agree to, so I'm open to alternative wordings if you have any thoughts. — George Saliba^[talk] 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is some debate, but not so much that you can't easily summarise it as it is. What is there now is a perfectly fine compromise, representing both points. Perhaps it could be shortened (something like 'most reports claim the majority of deaths are civilian, though exact numbers are difficult as many Hezbollah fighters wore civilian clothes, and the Lebanese government doesn't release civilian totals') or even have the numbers, a statement 'may include Hezbollah fighters' with a note to a more detailed section. It is noteworthy if the Lebanese government doesn't give a civilian figure, though I'm yet to see more than one article stating that. I'm against removing only the Lebanese figures and keeping the Israeli ones; if we are removing them, I'd prefer if all were removed to a section. My hesitance with a section is that it is already too large; originally, this article contained a casualties section, but it was moved to its own article. Iorek85 10:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jem, that is exactly how it is without George.Saliba's line. There is much explanation that I have continued to add in the Targeting civilian areas section.

George.Saliba, you did not address my comments. Please learn on your own time what a news report is--a REPORT. I have just explained to you why "News reports indicate..." is incorrect, not worded properly, and has many problems. (For one, you can answer: News reports indicate from what? From what source do they indicate this?) The 3 prime sources you use (BBC, Associated Press, Amnesty International) ALL come from Lebanese statistics and indeed they say it as I have shown you and as you can read. I do not have any "assumption" that news media relies on local authorities for stats, that is called common sense. News media gets information from authorities who can confirm deaths. I have also given you an example that I thought would make it easier for you. If you look above, you can see the link to The Independent. The article gives the exact number to the number that was given by the Lebanese government's HRC. It came from the citizens' government and was not cited. Are we taking rough estimates from a news story, citing actual stats from organizations? There is a big difference.

Then you also did not address the very many "news reports that indicate" it is Lebanon's claim. They say it explicitly and some are even from sources you used. It is from mainstream media and mostly very recent as well. Again, you can read that above.

If you wish to add some sort of caption, it could sound more neutral by writing "For civilian-militant death details, see [[link to section of article where discussion takes place]]"

--Shamir1 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And George.Saliba, it is quite offensive that you would allege that it is "difficult to find a compromise" that I would agree to. Once again, you are at worst the pot calling the kettle black. I have given some news stories which you can see again, and responded, "And all of these are wrong? They are saying it according to themselves." No they are not, they do not take a position on anything and clearly use stats from Lebanon. I have no idea where you got that "flawed assumption" but you can see them again.

CNN [41]
FOX News, [42] [43]
CBC [44]
ABC [45]
AFP [46]
Associated Press [47]
The New York Times [48]
BBC [49]

Please watch what you say and be open to input and other sources rather than blame the lack of consensus on others. --Shamir1 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You really are still missing the point. I'll just address the main one here, and ignore for a moment the veracity of your claim that the Lebanese government doesn't release civilian casualties. All of those news organisations gave explicitly civilian tolls. It doesn't matter where they got them from. Those articles (the vast majority of them) give a civilian number. But they are multiple sources from multiple agencies who have (even if they only used one source (which you have no evidence of)) stated they were civilian deaths. They are all reliable sources. It is then perfectly fair to say that most news reports (since that is what they are) claim that the majority of deaths were civilian. They could have picked the numbers at random, and that statement would still be accurate. Iorek85 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not my claim that the Lebanese government doesn't release civilian casualties, that has already been dealt with. It came from the "reliable sources" that you just mentioned and has been explained why the government cannot give a civilian toll. However, the government does claim that most were civilians, without giving a toll. The sources we are talking of say that. They do not give a civilian number, they give a citizen number and say most of them were civilians; and if you would actually take the time to look at the sources these reliable sources use, you would see it all comes from Lebanon--that goes for the "reliable sources" you are talking about AS WELL AS the (possibly even more) reliable sources I added above. It is also your WP:original research that "most news reports" claim that. For starters, news reports do not take positions, they do not "claim" anything. They report information and data. I have no idea what your point was. --Shamir1 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this obviously isn't working so well. I'm going to ignore your personal attacks for a moment, and assume that maybe something is being lost in translation here. I'll try to word this as questions for you Shamir1, which I'd appreciate if you can answer so I can try to understand the points you're trying to make. I'd even settle for straight Yes or No answers.

Does it matter (from the standpoint of inclusion in Wikipedia) where news sources get their figures from, if those news sources are considered reliable?
Are Reuters, AFP, and the AP reliable sources?
If one article from a given news agency gives a figure, and cites their source, must all other articles from that news agency, even those by other authors, therefore be using the same source?
If several different articles from different agencies cite their source, and other articles from other agencies do not, must they all therefore be using the same source?
Is it possible for a new article which does not cite their source to have gotten their figures from a group other than "local authorities", such as the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, or the Associated Press?

These questions aren't even specific to Lebanon, or this article. I'm just asking them as general Yes/No questions to try to better understand what you're saying. — George Saliba^[talk] 06:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR denies us the ability to analyse the sources in this manner. It does leave some grey, and so I might be inclined to support your caveat if you could actually produce numbers attributed to xyz that match the numbers published by News reports abc. Lacking that though, we must report only what is verifiable, even if it seems obvious that there is more to it. Tewfik^Talk 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, and so are the ones I presented
Not necessarily, but many of them state where it comes from
News media typically reports data that can be confirmed. This would be by local medical sources, police, government, etc. The majority of AP stories I have seen, especially all the recent ones, specifically state who says what. I do not know who HRW uses and have not seen any number. The UN has not given any toll, but the Children's Fund uses the HRC's information (shown above). I do not think I made any actual personal attacks; if I did I'm sorry. --Shamir1 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what Shamir1 and Tewfik are saying a bit better now. First, I'd like to list some excerpts from the Wikipedia policy. From WP:NOR:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source.

Ok, now from WP:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

This means that to include the statement regarding civilian deaths we should have to prove that it comes from a reliable source, not that it is "truth". I believe this negates any need to find actual numbers Tewfik, provided that the sources reporting are "reliable". Also, I believe that these definitions mean that the correct answer to the first question I posed is in fact "No" Shamir1. So, do either of you (or anyone else for that matter) have concerns about whether or not the half dozen articles cited were from reliable sources? Or do you have a different interpretation of what "verifiability" is perhaps? — George Saliba^[talk] 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you've actually misunderstood me George

. I was arguing the same position as you, and explaining that the only scenario where Shamir's concerns might be applicable would be one where we could show that the "News Reports" were actually based on the HRC or whatever numbers (and in the absence of explicit sourcing, I mentioned it might still apply if the numbers matched those exactly thus confirming the source, but which I don't think exists here either). Otherwise, as I said, we cannot engage on our own original analysis of the "News", and must rather take them as verifiable sources. Tewfik^Talk 08:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I think you're right on this point (the sources range from 1,000 to 1,500 if I recall), and you're right that I misunderstood you. ;) Do you have any ideas for a compromise wording Tewfik? I'm not entirely sure if Shamir1 is upset with the whole statement, or just the "News reports indicate..." part (which I'm totally open to alternatives to), though I'd prefer a more brief statement of the whole thing myself. — George Saliba^[talk] 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The issue is the "mostly civilians" statement. That needs data. This is not indicated by "news reports", this is indicated by the sources the newspapers rely on. As you can see above, the prominent names in news have all specifically said who says most of them were civilians or they use a the government source which says it. The numbers are not the issue, and according to the most recent Los Angeles Times "at least 800 Lebanese" were killed.[50] --Shamir1 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest reviewing WP:Verifiability. We need absolutely no "data" to add the statement to Wikipedia. We only need reliable sources. I have a feeling you're trying to discover "truth" rather than verifiability. As an aside, do you have any suggestions on a compromise wording of the three statements currently in the infobox? — George Saliba^[talk] 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but which ones? --Shamir1 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you can see you replied to a comment a month old. Specifically I was referring to the three which we already reached consensus on replacing with the single sentence. :) — George Saliba^[talk] 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead

From the emails I received there are 120 deas soldiers, can we verify that, the government hides facts on special forces, like russians and their pathetic war in chechnya, the government hides figures, especially when it comes to special units. Also, total dead of 1129 with palestine, can we verify it, can we get exact figures for both israel and palestine? I simply want just numbers on both sides! Boxingwear

I think you're looking at the wrong article talk page. Maybe you're looking for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? — George Saliba^[talk] 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfidy

The paragraph on the 19 August 2006 raid in the Bekaa Valley has forgotten to mention that IDF troops attacked while wearing the uniform of the Lebanese Army, thus committing the war crime of Perfidy. See: [Boston Globe], [BBC News], [Washington Post], [Newsday], [Times].

Earlier reports indicated that Israel had used this trick on 5 August as well, see: [Washington Post]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

The article clearly states that there is controversy associated with defining the donning of enemy uniforms as Perfidy. Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the IDF fighting the Lebanese Army? There is an impression in the rest of the article that the IDF was fighting against Hezbollah (who have never been under the Lebanese Army command). For that matter, did Israel actually declare war on Lebanon? That's not currently mentioned in the article either. At any rate, since the 19 August incident was after the ceasefire, and there was full agreement between Israel, Lebanon and the UN that the Lebanese Army should peacefully re-occupy Southern Lebanon (indeed, Israel actually demanded that Lebanon send troops to displace Hezbollah), for the IDF to dress up in Lebanese Army uniforms is clearly masquerading themselves as a non-combatant party.

Let's leave that aside for the moment and consider that there is some controversy of the definition. It might be reasonable to let the reader make up their own mind, but right now there is not the slightest mention of the fact that the IDF used Lebanese Army uniforms (at least twice) as a means of deception. Surely this would at least be unusual and interesting enough to at least rate a sentence in the 19 August paragraph... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk • contribs).

Again, we don't really have the authority to interpret international law, though it may be a good idea to make mention of the uniforms in the paragraph dedicated to the raid. I'll try to insert it when the page is unprotected. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, after further review of the current article text, it appears that there already is such an interpretation in there, but on the other side: "In response to some of this criticism, Israel has stated that it did, wherever possible, attempt to distinguish between protected persons and combatents, but that due to Hezbollah militants being in civilian clothing (thus committing the war crime of perfidy) this was not always possible." That claim of perfidy should likely also be removed unless it can be sourced. — George Saliba^[talk] 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Location

This section is the location of this article's mediation; this is simply an alternative site to hosting it at the Mediation Cabal's case page on this article. All editors are invited to participate in discussion; however, you must remain civil and level-headed at all times.
Yours, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Invitation

I'd like to kick-start the mediation by inviting all the users directly involved with the dispute to give a brief summary of the dispute as they see it, and exactly what they would like to get out of the mediation, or what they'd like to see changed. Please do stay civil, and try not to point the finger of blame at anybody. The summary should be content- not editor-orientated at this time. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

George Saliba

From my perspective, the dispute revolves around whether or not to include a note regarding the "majority civilian" nature of the death toll in the conflict's infobox. I feel that it is verifiably accurate, and would help balance neutrality with two other notes in the infobox (namely the Lebanese government's inability to distinguish civilian from combatant, and Hezbollah's use of civilian clothing). I'm happy with the wording in the current, protected version of the article, but I'm aware that others may disagree. I'm open to variations on the current version, including changing the wording of "News reports indicate..." if that is a problem, or just summarizing all three statements into one expressing the complexity of the situation. I'm hoping mediation can help us to resolve the issue, so that we can unprotect the article, and move on to other improvements. — George Saliba^[talk] 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Iorek85

I agree with George. While there are other side issues (such as there only being one source that supports Shamir's claim that the Lebanese government doesn't give civilian totals, and that there are other, non news sources that state majority civilian sources), the primary one here is that multiple sources claim majority civilian casualties, and I think that should be reflected in the infobox (and in the separate article) because not doing so makes the article unbalanced. Iorek85 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: we are now awaiting User:Shamir1's summary, before proceeding with the mediation. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we must accept that all of the news reports are accurate, however they are based around Lebanese government figars, which don't distinguish between non-uniform Hizbollah and civilians, as many of the so called civilians killed in air raids on Hizbollah strongholds may well have been hizbollah, and Hizbollah is widly believed to be covering up its casualties. --Boris 1991 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1

News media typically relies on local authorities for their data unless they specify otherwise. I have shown that most of the news reports that even George.Saliba uses, the news agency uses sources from Lebanon. I have no idea where Iorek85 made the ludicrous claim that it is my claim that the Lebanese government does not give civilian totals. That is not my claim or anyone's claim it is a fact. The Associated Press states it explicitly, and aside from that they do not give a civilian number anyway. I have shown above using some of the most prominent names in news with mostly recent reports that the media clearly states it is Lebanon's claim that most were civilians. That should be noted. --Shamir1 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Good evening (GMT time); nice to hear from you Shamir - it's excellent to find out that you are involved with this Mediation, and I thank you for joining us. I'd just like to request that everybody make known (in the same format as the initial statements) what they would like to see changed. This would help me to draw up any possible compromises, as well as get an idea what each editor views as inaccuracies in the article. The ultimate motive in this is to help reach a resolution to the dispute at a faster pace. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of the dead vary, and that is less of an issue. The real 'issue' is that there are no civilian totals. For some reason and I do not know why (and I hope I am not pointing fingers), Iorek85 seems to believe that there are. That is not true. There are sources that give a number of citizens and state that most of them were civilians. There is a world of difference between the two. George.Saliba gave news reports that make the claim about most being civilians. The Associated Press report did not make that claim but said WHO was making that claim (ex. Leb gov't HRC). The Amnesty International report is not their own, they are reporting the data of the Lebanese HRC. BBC reports indicate their data is according to Lebanon. It is not encyclopedic to write: "News reports indicate..." The news reports do not indicate or take a stance, they report. Of George.Saliba's reports, their sources are Lebanese. That is fine, but it would have to be said that it is Lebanon's claim that that is so. There are even more sources, including many recent ones that explicitly distinguish it as Lebanon's claim. Please see above (sources include the New York Times, ABC, CNN, FOX, BBC, CBC, AP, AFP). Thanks. --Shamir1 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); apologies to all for my absence - I've been experiencing Internet problems lately. Would editors like to post (below) possible compromises? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Shamir1 isn't happy with the "News reports indicate..." (interpretting indicate to mean taking a stance). While I don't agree with his contention that all reports cite the Lebanese government, I do agree that some probably do. So, what about replacing the three current statements with the simpler:

The Lebanese government claims that most of those killed were civilians, but only officially releases citizen death toll figures.

My thinking goes like this: (1) At least some of the news reports cite the Lebanese government, so let's cite them. It's not complete, but it's also not false. (2) The wording of the second sentence seems less contentious, and better explains the heading of the section ("citizen"). (3) I don't think the "Hezbollah... wears civilian clothing" sentence is worth keeping (in this infobox at least). I don't think it's wrong per se, but I'm not sure of it's relevency given that the preceding sentence says almost the same thing (who cares about the cause, when we just listed the result?), it seems like more of a detail that belongs in the main article body, and personally I thought it was pretty obvious (we already state that they're a guerilla group). — George Saliba^[talk] 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see Shamir (and I don't mean to pick on him, but he is the only one who thinks that what was there was wrong) is operating on three assumptions here;

That the AP report is correct and that the Lebanese government only ever released totals stating citizen, not civilian casualties.
That the news reports are wrong. All of them, because they used the word civilian instead of citizen.
Assuming 1, then that they all used the Lebanese government to get their totals.

I'm not convinced on any of these points. And besides all of the above, there are other sources (the HRC, U.N, AP and, as he states himself, the WHO). I would rather have a civilian section, as with Israel, with a disclaimer that the total may include some Hezbollah fighters, since they wore civilian clothes. I would also accept, should the first point be proved, an additional disclaimer that the Lebanese government only releases citizen figures. But if I have to, I'll settle for what is there at the moment. Iorek85 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this suggestion too. I think it's a glass half full/glass half empty distinction (the figure were citizens, and most were civilians, versus the figure is civilian, but some of them were Hezbollah fighters). As for the source, I agree with Iorek85 that the source isn't always the Lebanese government, but I don't think everyone will want to compromise on that point. I'm also ok with the current wording, although it is a bit long. — George Saliba^[talk] 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with George's proposal, or the way it stands now. It doesn't seem as if the meaning is changed significantly either way, though I can appreciate the attempt to incorporate Shamir's partially correct point. Tewfik^Talk 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, as you know I get easily frustrated. So I will make this quick. Iorek85, the U.N. does not endorse any source or claim a number. The UN Children Fund's has used the HRC data (I pointed that out already). The AP gives a number but no combat-sivilian variation. Those are the ones you included. Others, like AI also use the HRC as a source. I have already pointed this out, I encourage you to read above. It is easy to say who says what number since all that needs to be given is a number or a range, but the militant-civilian tolls gets tricky unfortunately. We must maintain a policy of accuracy and neutrality. --Shamir1 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are all agreed on George's proposal? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still satisfied with my proposal, for what it's worth. :) The article was recently unprotected, and editors immediately went after this statement. I'm going to try to keep the status quo wording until we can get consensus on this proposed version (or any other proposed version for that matter), or the page gets re-protected (as it looks like editors immediately went into edit-war mode). Do people think I should just insert this proposed version and see where the chips fall? I'm okay with that also. — George Saliba^[talk] 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it completely implemented, or implemented at all? If not, shall you implement or shall I? anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the statement. I've cut down the references a bit, although I don't know if any of the references actually cite the Lebanese government (which is how this whole discussion began). Oh well. — George Saliba^[talk] 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Nice work. Iorek85 08:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So everybody is agreed the dispute is resoled? Are there any more edits anybody wishes to implement? anthonycfc ^[talk] 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation successful; dispute resolved. Thanks to all for their positive contributions and civility. anthonycfc ^[talk] 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

^ [51]

[1] [51]

[1]