Talk:2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Page move[edit]

To something along the lines of "2010 South Lebanon clash" should this go beyond and/or another conflict/bombing further north or south.Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

since the clash took place on 0,1% of S. Lebanon I propose to move it to 2010 Adaisseh incident.--DAI (Δ) 17:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible, someone could also create a page for the village. I support. It is more specific than to say it is country vs. country. there is nothing to say it was under orders of the High Commands.
Someone moved the page again with talk. What if there is another in the next 2 years. seems to be a 2 years interval these days for war in the Levant.Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need year according policy WP:PRECISION; over-precsion should be avoided. We can rename this article later if distinguishing is needed. --Kslotte (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does seem rather arbitrary to have the name of that specific town in the name just because it's near. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We initially came to agreement above, and then an editor moved it (and moved it again) but it seems even the other editor above agrees with the current state.
There a thread below regarding a move. Maybe discuss it there, although that is complete POV. This is an incident in said place.Lihaas (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Title[edit]

Why is this being called the "Adaisseh incident"? Israel claimed that Lebanese forces attacked them on Israel's side of the border -- not Lebanon's. Using the current title - Adaisseh incident - presumes that it was an incursion into Lebanese territory, meaning an acceptance of the Lebanese narrative - which is not offering the neutrality for which Wikipedia is responsible. Why not entitle the article the "Misgav Am incident," since it took place near that Israeli border town. I propose this article be entitled something along the lines - "2010 Israeli-Lebanese border clash" (please suggest something better) - which is appropriately neutral. The current title is not. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm liking "2010 Israeli-Lebanese border clash". It goes along with the titles of most other articles like this and doesn't side with either version. Zazaban (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support a move but right now the feature is locked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One argument for the current title would be that all media reporting for this event mention that it occurred near the town of Adaisseh. 78.108.167.9 (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please move to 2010 Lebanon attack against Israel. This DID NOT happen in Adaisseh, no matter what the media says. UNIFIL has confirmed this happened on Israeli soil. Nutmegger (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the incident/clash happened at said location. Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name is hardly biased, but as per above, I think the name is arbitrarily chosen. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support border clash like above, or Adaisseh-Misgav Am. How about this: 2010 Border tree clash? Metallurgist (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree clash LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a single source calling this the "Adaisseh incident". Lets move this before they start picking up this name from here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of the above comments are in favour of a move to "2010 Israeli-Lebanese border clash". Let's makethe move now. Davshul (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. Marokwitz (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The current name is a made up term, besides for being undefining and misleading.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}Please move this article to 2010 Israel-Lebanon border clash. See above two sections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Appears to be a more descriptive title. NickCT (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page has now been moved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/reaction[edit]

can we get some from israel too? Op-eds from haaretz/jpost/ynet and the vernacular?Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents[edit]

This not a war that is under the respective high commands of each country, in fact it doesnt even involve more the patrol units (although if we dotn know that then its best to elave as the wider armed force). See the ITN nom. where ti is agreed that it is not a wide war (otherwise it would have qualified already)Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? There are two sides. This was an armed conflict. Metallurgist (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firefight reverts[edit]

The following edits were reverted thrice WITHOUT explanation each time and were replaced by worse grammar. It sounds worse int he current state: [1] Itsnot proepr, even redudnant, to go and list one thing, then another and then return to it when it can be addressed in the first stage. (per the edit it was changed from)Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

While ynet is not inherently unacceptable (as is al manar) on such controversial assertion not mentioned anywhere the requsite caveats had to be added. I reverted Marbehtorah-marbehchaim per the explanation of Maerek4 "until the source is not one side" where he added the "According to..." Lihaas (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Manar and ynet are not comparable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? If sources south of the border are fair game on controversial subjects, north of the border certainly is.Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to it's article, Al-manar is a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity" which is outlawed, among other, by the United States, France, Spain and Germany. I would say it is a tad problematic as a reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the west perhaps, using that logic you cant used western sources to cast aspersions on the al manar/hezbollah connection because they are inherently biased coming from countries that dont recognise either.
ps- Extended your smh source, cool find. But why ref name "au" ;)Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laziness I guess. In any case were are not so pressed to find reliable news sources in order to use Hezbollah's TV channel as reliable for anything other than their own opinions. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
other political reasons what basis is there to show they fabricate news like NY Times, BBC, Fox, etc. Still though for citing matter pertinent (and al manar were the first to report the israeli death (seems to have had a good reach of journalists)) it is relevant to cite them for the quotes of Lebanese figures as it is South of the Border (ironic? :)). If the latter can be cites for controversial stuff, then the former certainly can. the same be said both waysLihaas (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Al-Manar has certain reach or were the first to report anything is entirely beside the point. Al-Manar is a highly biased and unreliable source that does not even begin to approach WP:RS. Anywhere other, far more reliable, sources exist (which there are plenty, like the daily star), these should be used instead.
Besides, there was nothing POV in removing said link from lead. Al-Manar added nothing substantial to what other sources already provide, it's just a repeat of the fact that an Israeli soldier was shot dead. Furthermore, please don't revert entire edits simply because you don't like some of the changes. There was somewhat more than the link removal in that last one. Poliocretes (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, because its cites info tht another editor removed (frist the source, then the info on the basis that it was uncited). One can easily say the same about the hordes of israeli sources populating the article on controversial matters and not just israeli quotes. because you dont like or decree so is not grounds for removal
Have yall even read al manar before? Or is it just rehashing an old claim of bias? See the new addition which was quoted from al manar and read the article if you think it comes amid other bias...absolutely no nonsensical para's-on-para's like the other media rubbish. dont take my silly word for it...
there were other stuff in the edit to that was put because of discussion yesterday and you removed on the basis that you dont like it. if you feel like you can go back and see the history of the edits.
And all the while we can also add editorial and opinions from the israeli side, see the above section where i've specifically asked for the other side instead of just adding 1 view.Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thing that annoys me is that Ynet is apparently the only source stating 4 Lebanese soldiers were killed, all others say 2 to three, with only two names being confirmed. Yet only Ynet is used. In this instance, the more credible sources should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDF map showing location of soldiers[edit]

http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/08/03/aerial-photograph-of-location-of-incident-along-lebanese-border-3-aug-2010/ Liquidpappe (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add it in if it is a free image per wikipedia's copyright laws, of course with the caveat that it comes from idfLihaas (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not free, but someone could recreate it, which might turn problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Lebanese soldiers[edit]

It's about time their names are added, I believe they can be seen here, but I don't read Arabic. Could anyone who does add them?: http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/Multimedia/Photos/PhotoAlbum.htm?AID=25676&FAV=false&PID=1&ID=2796 FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found their names. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statements from Lebanese army[edit]

The current page contains this: A Lebanese security official said "The Israelis fired four rockets that fell near a Lebanese army position in the village of Adaisseh and the Lebanese army fired back."

A while back I added this: A spokesperson from the Lebanese army confirmed soldiers on the Lebanese side fired first, saying to Associated Press "the Lebanese Army opened fire first at Israeli soldiers who entered Lebanese territory…this constituted defense of our sovereignty and is an absolute right." [1]

I'm not sure why it was removed but if it was because ynet isn't a reliable source then here is another reference, the Guardian. [2]

Both quote AFP. I re-added the statement to the Confrontation section after the first statement, so there are two conflicting statements. Can we assume that the second statement is an update of the Lebanese army's official story, and should the first be replaced with the second?

Ynet is a reliable source for those who are wondering. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an official statement from the Lebanese Armed Force here. As it states that the Israeli enemy patrol continued its violation and the Lebanese Army forces confronted it with weapons and rocket propelled grenades, we can probably do away with any doubt about who shot first, as well as the warning shots in the air stuff (unless the Lebanese army has a habit of firing RPGs in the air). Poliocretes (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, initial reports being refuted is fair game. especially since both sources indicate so we can affirm that. Need to mention said controversyLihaas (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929928,00.html
  2. ^ Sherwood, Harriet (2010-08-04). "Tree that sparked deadly border clash on Israeli side, says UN". The Guardian.

initial reports changing[edit]

the mention of initial reports (as verified by sources including israeli ones) need mention. in the early stages of the article the requisite "casualty" section didnt exists, now it does. Maybe another section would be better suited but its not grounds for removal. I think a section entitled as such is the best place to mention what the casualties reports were, especially the oddity of casualties going DOWN instead of up (which is natural and wounded can die).Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mismatch[edit]

In the lead, there is:

deaths of 4 Lebanese soldiers and 1 civilian journalist involved near the scene,[3] while five soldiers were wounded,[4]

In the infobox it is 2 deaths, 6 wounded. I have no idea which is correct, and wouldn't be surprised if the number changes or varies by various different sources, but the page should be internally consistent at least. --Sfnhltb (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned other places, only Ynet seems to claim 4 Lebanese soldiers died. Most others say 2, some say 3. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial reports said 3 (which i added to casualties), and now others say 2 (which is odd in that it went DOWN (even in 26/11)). But i've not seen 4 anywehreLihaas (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Akhbar[edit]

the RS source (which is not directly involved in either side) may be okay, but it also says both journalists were affiliated with hezbollah?? This is the first being heard of Al Akbhar...the page doesnt even remotely mention an allegation thereof let along controversy as to its affiliation.Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Akhbar as "Hezbollah media outlet"[edit]

Markowitz tries to insert links to articles that write off Al-Akhbar as a so called "Hezbollah media outlet", but this should be removed until many credible sources claim the same, since this is by no means a widely accepted fact. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was added again for whatever reason. Any website with a huge banner of Pat Robertson at the top can't be said to be neutral in this matter. FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlink[edit]

Do we need all these repetitious links? The lead and infobox (viewable ont he same screen) already has the same bluelinks going to the same places.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact policy, but in my opinion it is good to have links in both. When users open the article he/she may either decide to read the infobox OR the lead. --Kslotte (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Perhaps a timeline would simplify the article?

I think it would improve the flow of the article and place things in the right context. The lead is problematic, here is the original source: [[http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-and-lebanon-on-alert-after-clash-20100804-11flf.html In the ensuing battle, an Israeli tank that was providing cover for the brush-clearing operation returned fire. Israeli Air Force helicopters later attacked several targets in al-Adeisa, and the village of Killa where the local Lebanese army headquarters is located, hitting several armoured personnel carriers stationed outside. Current edit says Lebanese soldiers were killed by tank fire - we don't know that, it is unlikely the tank fire is responsible because that sort of ammunition could never reach the city of Taiba. If we're going to mention the UN asked for further delay, then we should also say Israel agreed and delayed their activity until 11 am. I don't know who edited that out of the article. Also, the Israeli soldier was killed instantly - that is what set the chain of events. This needs to be emphasized. 2 Lebanese soldiers were killed immediately, while another died of his wounds.

Let's avoid removing reliably-cited information without some sort of talk notice - if the content obviously inappropriate a consensus is not necessary. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could be worthwhile as long as its not overflowing. In a box on the side, could even be attached as an image if anyone can create that?
The original source says they died not because of tank fire but firing (shelling i think) that hit the vehicle and then caused it to burn while they were in it.
Its already mentioned in the UNIFIL that they did they give a delay, though the UN says they wanted a greater delay. Both seem to be they and both should, so if one if missing that it should be added.
I dont know about the soldiers dying immediately or not, i've not added the confrontation part since the section changed. But the sources now say 2 Lebanese soldiers die, early it said 3. Casualties reflects that, but if you have another update then add that and change the infobox to 1 less wounded and 1 more dead.Lihaas (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Israel agreed to the delay (~5 hours). We can't simply say UNIFIL asked for a delay without explicitly saying Israel agreed to the delay without conditions. It gives the impression that the IDF didn't cooperate with UNIFIL when it did. The sources from jpost have an upset about a Lebanese soldier dying of his wounds hours after the incident. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UNIFIL asked, they agreed. Both are in there. I dont know, nor have read, what the preconditions were. Feel free to add that if there were. I dont see what impression it gives of them not cooperating, it reads as that they did give a delay, to which UNIFIL said they wanted/liked another delay.
Ah, then add it. I already decreased the wounded number as an accomodation. (see below)Lihaas (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Israeli wounded in the lead[edit]

There's a claim in the lead that not one but two Israelis were injured in the event. Two references are provided, one from Al-Manar, the second is from the BBC. The first, besides its problems as a WP:RS, does not even make that claim. It in fact admits only one was injured ("a high ranking Israeli officer was killed in the shelling and the occupation forces were trying to pull him out of the Lebanese territories. Another occupation soldier was injured and he is in a critical situation."). The sole claim that two were injured on that page is in a comment by a reader - from Pakistan! The BBC report, on the other hand, does mention that "Sniper fire was directed at their position and as a result two commanders were injured as a result of the firing". The article, however, clearly states that one Israeli soldier was killed and another wounded, making it perfectly clear the two injured officers include the fatality. The ambigous language is most likely a result of a mistranslation from Hebrew, where "injured" and "hit" are the same word. In short, there does not exist one single source that clearly and unambiguously states that two Israeli soldiers were injured. In fact, both the sources used to support the claim here state the exact opposite. I'm deleting it. Poliocretes (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made no proof to say it is unreliable, where is it known to fabricate news? It was the first to report the death, so if anything it is more reliable (albeit that it disputed so i wont go there). Who's the reader from Pakistan that added that?
it said 2 were wounded and 1 dead and 1 wounded in the same article? Is BBC not reliable now too? or does a presumption that they copied it directly from hebrew warrant its non-placement? O
On the contrary the source does in fact show there were 2 injuries as is cited, unless something is shown to the contrary instead of editor perception of error as opposed to the source itself. if the editor was a source then we need any. 2 very paragraphs in a row have affirmed such without saying anything about dying in hosptial.
Also before all the removal and changes the BBC source was the only on the page, not the al manar (forget how/why that came in) [2]Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for how many Lebanese soldiers were wounded? As of now, they aren't even mentioned in the casualties section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL reactions[edit]

TO Discuss a UNIFIL placement. (its currently in twice) Why does it warrant in each side, it is after all their reaction. The pertinent (brief( stuff about UNIFIL can be added to confrontation instead of a whole section laden with para's. The first 2 para's over there pertain to their investigation/process thereof so need to be a reaction. The last one can be added to the section just mentioned (and its already in the lead)Lihaas (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL was involved directly in the conflict - it doesn't belong in the "reactions" section. The organization was explicitly involved in the escalation, whereas United States, other UN bodies, EU etc..merely released a press statement which qualifies as a "reaction." With an article like this there is going to be repetition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Directly? How? IF they were involved then by all means nothing would have happened. They should have been involved (although thats besides the point of the article.
They were merely suggesting/investigating, if so then, and a source says this, Syria, Saudi, and America were involved in the buildup to these events (certainly the Hague's STL also added to it). Apparently, even france was invovled
The EU, Iran and canada as such were merely reacting.Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article - UNIFIL participated in the conflict. IDF coordinated their movements with UNIFIL, UNIFIL relayed info to Lebanese army, etc. Placing UNIFILS behaviors in reactions simply does not make sense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead right no mentions controversial stuff (As mentioned by a previous editor earlier today, i forget who). Instead of all that a brief mention of a conflict and reaction (including wounded) would/should suffice to leave the controversy on firing in the main article. Mention the "controversy" because there were at least 2 different views, thus a controversy.

[3] removed "reports also indicated one Israeli soldier was killed and another was wounded" and "they had asked for a further delay" which should be there on the basis that it would be POV if "and that the Lebanese Army had "no reason" to fire on Israeli soldiers" was added. Lihaas (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. UNIFIL asked for further delay and Israel honored their request. The original edit implied the event was somehow triggered by mis-communication between UNIFIL and Israel when in fact UNIFIL stated explicitly that the confrontation was started by Lebanon, although they are continuing and investigation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no implication at all. But all this controversy while ongoing at least can be left to the article, certainly with the aforementioend removed content that maked it pov. You cant mentions one and not the other.Lihaas (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think both sides are fairly represented. Lebanon's narrative is considered a minority opinion and has been rejected by international bodies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only part of the "Lebanese narrative" that has been rejected is that the tree was on Lebanese soil. The article reads like it was taken directly from "IDF spokesperson" as of now. An interesting opinion piece: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/only-we-re-allowed-1.306104 FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Gideon Levy speak for the Lebanese narrative? Editorials cannot act as substitutes for primary sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did anyone indicate that it was either a primary source or "the Lebanese narrative"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an op-ed and can't be used here. That's really all we need to know at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see also[edit]

WP:Seealso for related links, not necessarily directly related but similar. per Axe murder incidentLihaas (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Axe Murder incident has absolutely nothing to do with this event. Totally unrelated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a border skirmish between warring/enmity factions. See the ROKS Cheonan sinkingLihaas (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related, both are border incidents. --Kslotte (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally unrelated. There are hundreds of border incidents, we don't add all of them here. Marokwitz (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, not that many notable. Border incidents doesn't even seems to have an own category. --Kslotte (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL[edit]

It would be good if the article actually explained what this abbreviation stands for, instead of simply bringing UNIFIL into the text without saying what it is. 125.237.42.214 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been done in the lead ... The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) confirmed Israeli soldiers ... --Kslotte (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more clarification done in the UNIFIL section. --Kslotte (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Kslotte (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UN Press Conference[edit]

Mr. Le Roy said UNIFIL had determined that the tree uprooted by Israel, which caused the clashes between the warring sides near the southern Lebanese village of Adeisseh, was located south of the Blue Line inside Israel’s borders. Flayer (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel cut down the tree on the lebanese side of the border[edit]

Look at this image: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the numerous sources, you'll see this explained easily enough. The border is a line on a map. The fence does not follow the exact line on the map, it occasionally runs at a distance within Israeli territory. The location of this incident is one such place. Both sides of the fence are in Israeli territory, the border runs at a distance to the north. This has been certified by UNIFIL. Poliocretes (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous in the article but here's one. The Blue line referred to in the article is the actual border. Poliocretes (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is supported by an anonymous testimony from LEBANESE military. Hardly reliable. UNIFIL and international observers have dismissed the Lebanese claim that Israel crossed their border, and even if they did the military was warned in advance by UNIFIL that the IDF was doing maintenance on their fence. Ariel and satellite footage exists at IDFspokesperson and hopefully soon we'll be able to add the pictures to the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were warned, but the UNIFIL and Lebanese still asked them to delay it. The IDF ignored them. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article - UNIFIL asked for a delay and Israel waited it out several hours. But anyways, nothing to do with the original discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems quite silly. The papers I've read so far say the UNIFIL observers on the ground confirmed that they were on the Israeli side of the Blue line. Why would they lie? The UN has in recent years been quite outspoken against Israel in recent years and yet they are confirming what they are saying here. Additionally the Lebanese' own Information Minister Tarek Mitri confirmed that the incident occurred on the Israeli side of the Blue line.[5] Why would he lie? From the articles I've read, the initial reports were saying that the Lebanese were claiming that the Israeli's were trying to cut down a tree on the Lebanese side of the border, but were being unclear (probably deliberately) that they were really refering to their percieved border between Israel and Lebanon and not the Blue line. Strikes me as something of a disingenuous word game. Sorry to say that it seems to be trickling down to wikipedia in my opinion.Chhe (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is anything "trickling down"? The current article features pretty much every Israeli claim and viewpoint, with heavy emphasis on it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge image[edit]

Is the huge image in the article really necessary? There's a reason why we have clickable thumbnails. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That looks bad and the same image at the top of the page doesn't look good either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, seems to have been removed. --Kslotte (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "planned and authorized" language in the lede[edit]

Dear all,

NoMoreNGuy, in his typically agressive and biased style of editing, is trying to include the following language in the lede :

For which he cites an article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Reading this article we find that it quotes Lebanese officials as simply saying "The soldiers received clear orders to open fire".

It follows that quote with a whole bunch of speculation from "A senior diplomatic source, who spoke to the Herald on condition of anonymity,".

I contend that we should not be using material from what is already a dubious source (the Syd Mor Her is well known for political bias), and that if we do, we certainly should use material it attributes to "A senior diplomatic source, who spoke to the Herald on condition of anonymity,".

Anyone who thinks this is accurate reporting of the facts might want to consider a job at Fox News.

While I'm personally not convinced that this incident didn't involve forethought, the cited article doesn't support the assertion. Please find another, or leave the material out. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald certainly isn't an unreliable source and the evidence they present in the article seems to go beyond mere speculation in my opinion. Additionally they aren't the only newspaper citing evidence that the attack was planned. Look at these sources [6][7]. I do however think that the wording should be changed to "in an attack authorized and alleged to have been planned by senior Lebanese army commanders" for the following reason. This article [8] cites that Ehud Barak doesn't think that the attack was planned. Most quotes and interviews I've seen though from Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovitch, MK Shaul Mofaz, etc. seem to think the attack was planned and cite evidence that is hard to overlook. I think this enough reason to change the wording to alleged though.Chhe (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Chhe - I read [9]. I presume the following is the text you are saying "cites evidence that the attack was planned" -
I thinks it's fairly obvious that this isn't evidence. It's just quoting speculation from a biased source. I didn't read the WSJ article, b/c I dislike sources known for politcal agendas in their editorials.
Do you have a source that presents actual evidence rather than just speculation?
Re "alledged" - Prefer we avoid this. There have been a lot of "allegations" in this inicident. Should we include the Lebanese "allegation" that the Israelis were over the line even though pretty much everyone else says they were not? NickCT (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph of the SMH article says:

Senior Lebanese army commanders planned and authorised the cross-border shooting on Tuesday that killed an Israel Defence Forces colonel who was supervising the removal of a tree within Israeli territory, the Lebanese press has reported.

This was the third time you removed this information because you DONTLIKEIT despite the fact that the text I inserted into the article accurately reflects what a reliable source published.
Your personal interpretation of the rest of the article is irrelevant.
If you have a problem with SMH, take it to WP:RSN. You don't get to decide on your own that well respected newspapers are not reliable.
On an administrative note, if you once again refer to me in an uncivil manner as you did above, I'm going directly to AE. I've seen you do this to countless other users who let it slide but let this be your warning that I'm going to report you if you do it again, and we both know I won't have to look to far into your contributions to find plenty of examples that show this is a pattern with you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear, from this source and others, that the Lebanese "planning and authorization" mentioned in the SMH consisted of orders to open fire on Israeli troops perceived to have crossed into Lebanese territory. The Lebanese troops thought the Israelis had crossed the border when they hung over the border fence, possibly (probably) not realizing that it didn't demarcate the UN-demarcated border in that area, and followed their orders. It's really rather silly, and much ado about nothing, but shouldn't be taken out of context the way it was so as to not mislead the reader. ← George talk 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal opinion on what the Lebanese troops thought. The SMH makes a very clear statement which it uses to open its article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually my personal opinion, it's the prevailing thought of how the incident unfolded (which is quite different from my own opinion of what happened, thank you). The problem is that SMH cites a Lebanese newspaper citing a Lebanese Major General, then draws a conclusion independent of what either the Maj-Gen said, or what the Lebanese newspaper reported. Including analysis is fine, but it has to be structured correctly, such as:
  • Jason Koutsoukis wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Lebanese newspaper as-Safir quoted a Lebanese general as telling a UN-brokered meeting that "the shooting was the result of a command decision and could be repeated," or...
  • Jason Koutsoukis wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that Lebanese military officials had "planned and authorised" the shooting.
Or we could just cite as-Safir directly for the general's comment, which is probably the best approach, but as-Safir didn't say what Koutsoukis said they did, at least not in the article I found. The as-Safir article I saw said something more along the lines of "Israel was informed that Lebanese troops operate under an order to immediately open fire on any Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory" (paraphrased translation). Do you have a different as-Safir article on the subject that says something different? ← George talk 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "prevailing thought" is that any LAF sniper can decide to take out an Israeli officer because he thinks they crossed the border?
I believe the prevailing thought is that violent actions along the already volatile Israel-Lebanon border are taken by the highest level of command, a fact the Lebanese admit, and the fact that only the officers (and not, say, the soldier who was over the fence) were shot indicates planning.
Anyway, if you want to attribute it to SMH, that's fine by me. I don't think it's necessary (or common) to attribute to a random reporter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take primary issue with the word "planned". It implies forethought. The issue is whether the Lebanese planned days in advance to shoot, or whether some commander on the ground said "Hey, those guys are over the fence. I command you to shoot them" (i.e. commanded but not planned). I think it's pretty clear that the SMH article quotes Lebanese officials as saying the latter is true, then it goes on to speculate that former is true as well.
I think there is scope for compromise language here. How about "authorized" (to make it clear that it wasn't a rogue sniper), but not "planned" (to remove the WP:FRINGE element from the lead)?NickCT (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was WP:BOLD. Let me know if the language seems like an acceptable compromise! NickCT (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not what the source says. It implies they asked for authorization rather than were commanded beforehand to do it.
We have a reliable source that says they "planned" it, and that's what we're going to put in the article per WP:V. If you want to attribute it to SMH, go ahead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@NMMNG - Having difficulty understanding what you mean when you say "It implies they asked for authorization....". Isn't the important point that they recieved authorization from senior commanders? Would you prefer if it read "after being ordered to do so by senior Lebanese army commanders."?
I'm sure you see the issue with the word "planned". It makes it seem a little conspiritorial and could be misconstrued. "planned" implies advance planning, which is not what the SMH article is saying. You're essentially cherry picking from the article the language that implies your POV. NickCT (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case NMMNG can't see the issue with the term "planned", how about this source that says the "Israel pre-planned" the 2006 war? Or this one, which says "Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago"? This exact same issue - reliable sources describing military actions as being "planned" when describing contingencies being planned for - was discussed in the 2006 Lebanon War article, repeatedly, and then, as now, I argued against flatly stating that Israel "planned" for the war, because it's extremely misleading when taken out of context. You'll note that the 2006 Lebanon War article doesn't mention that Israel "planned" for the war. Do you really want to see that changed? Because it would be disingenuous to argue for using the term in this article, while keeping it out of that one. ← George talk 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm using the exact terminology SMH is using in their lead paragraph. It's you who's trying to interpret the rest of the article to explain why its own lead is incorrect. We can use their exact wording if you prefer.
George, I did not participate in that discussion on the Gaza War article. There's a difference between "planning" in the sense of "if they do this, we do that" and "planning" in the sense of "lets bring half a dozen reporters to watch Israel trimming a tree on their side of the Blue Line", if you get my drift. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct, there is a difference, but after reading the SHM article alongside other sources, it becomes apparent that the sort of "planning" was in the sense of "if they do this, we do that." It's really the perfect corollary to the BBC writing that Israel "pre-planned" its attack on Lebanon in 2006. Certain editors latched onto that as evidence in a reliable source that Israel planned the whole thing as an excuse to attack Lebanon. Let's not do the same here. ← George talk 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think I'm interpretting the rest of the article to try and get a better explination of what the lead actually means. You are just taking the ambiguous language in lead, and quoting it directly in a manner that makes it say something that the article does not support.
Look NMMNG, I think you know we're playing with language here. I think you're aware that this pre-planning speculation is just speculation (and slightly conspiritorial speculation at that). It seems to me as though you are insisting on language you know to be deceptive, and that you are simply sticking your head in sand shouting "it's what the RS says" to any counter agruments. Now, we've come to consensus in the past. Can we not strike a cooperative cord here? NickCT (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am using the same language the RS is using. That's WP:V. You're trying to interpret what the RS meant. That's WP:OR. Do you have any policy based objections to including this? That you think the reader might come to a conclusion which you personally don't agree with is not a good enough reason you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm having a hard time verifying it. The idea that a Lebanese General said that they "planned" the shooting of the Israeli soldiers (in the nefarious sense you outlined above) is a WP:REDFLAG claim, and will need heavy sourcing for inclusion as a statement of fact. I can't find anything to verify the nefarious usage of the term (not even in as-Safir, which the author cites), though it can be included if cited directly to the author of the article (which I believe is something you agreed was reasonable). Perhaps then we should do that, including it attributed directly to the author, though I would say it belongs somewhere in the body at that point, rather than the lead. ← George talk 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ George. Disappointed by No More Mr Nice Guy. Do you actually believe what you're arguing NMMNG or do you just delight in using policy to push an agenda? NickCT (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no, I don't have a policy based argument".
George, how is it a REDFLAG? A newspaper not substantiating something it says with a direct quote is not a REDFLAG, and that's basically what your argument boils down to (your trying to shift the goalposts to "a Lebanese General said..." is not going to work. Nobody is trying to put those words in the article). You're basically arguing that the quotes in the article don't support the lead. If that were a requirement most of the stuff sourced to newspapers would be gone from this encyclopedia (not that I necessarily think that would be a bad thing, but it's not how this place works). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would know that a controversial claim like that needs attribution in the e txt, and should not be presented as a fact in the article, unless many credible sources say the same. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG - I think we both agree that "planned" can mean two different things, as you mentioned earlier - planning in case something happens (planning to do something in the event that you are attacked), and planning to make something happen (planning to attack someone else). I think, based on your comment earlier (and yes, I do get your drift), that we also both agree that the SMH article is implying the latter, more offensive type of planning. WP:REDFLAG statements include ones made by someone that "seem out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended." The SMH article opens by saying that "Senior Lebanese army commanders planned... the cross-border shooting," citing a Lebanese paper quoting a Lebanese General as its source. The actual quotations cited from the General don't say that, and the statement itself raises a WP:REDFLAG as out of character and controversial. We also have quotations that directly refute the SMH analysis, in which the Lebanese army states that they had merely planned for the scenario in which Israeli soldiers crossed into Lebanese territory (the former, contingency planning version), not actually planned to attack. ← George talk 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a REDFLAG. Surely you aren't claiming that newspapers awlays (or even usually) base statements they make in the lead solely on information that appears later in the article? You are speculating about what information SMH has. That's not our job. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@No More Mr Nice Guy - By your line of argument, if some RS makes the claim "Little green men found on Mars", and then goes on to explain it's talking about body-painted midgets marching through Mars, Pennsylvania, we can explicitly state in a WP article that "Little green men have been found on mars". Isn't the fallacy of this argument obvious? NickCT (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only fallacy here is your above straw man. I am not suggesting to exclude something that article specifically says. It is you who is suggesting to include something that it doesn't say by adding your own interpretation. Still waiting for some policy based objection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy - "you who is suggesting to include something that it doesn't say " - But I'm merely arguing that the word "planned" isn't supported by the article. How is that trying to "include something"? Additionally, I don't think my analogy is a straw man. Your point seems to be, "We can directly quote the lead of a RS ignoring content later in the RS that qualifies the lead". I simply provided an example where that would be ridiculous. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article specifically says "planned and authorized". Your assertion that it isn't supported by the article is your own interpretation. You are trying to add your personal thoughts as to what "planned" means, based on what the article doesn't say. That's WP:OR.
Still waiting for a policy based reason not to add this. I'm getting tired of going around in circles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - Cutting to the chase here, do you actually personally believe its likely this incident involved "malice of forethought" (i.e. do you think some Lebanese generals got together a month ago and said "Hey! Let's go shoot at some Israeli troops while they're pruning trees!")? If the answer is yes, do you think that evidence exists in RS to support that position and can you provide it (beyond the SMH article)? If the answer is no, then do you not see how the word "planning" could suggest "malice of forethought"?
What is your obsession with maintaining language that several editors have expressed doubts about? This seems like a tempest in a teacup.
And let's cease with the whole policy based shinenigans. I'm not into fantasy lawyering. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that what you or I think happened has any relevance here. It doesn't. All that matters is policy. If you think that's "fantasy lawyering" I suggest you stop editing articles. Seriously.
Now back to policy. The SMH article says something. The SMH is a WP:RS. Therefor we can put what the SMH says in this article, per WP:V. That you think the body of the SMH article does not support the lead is WP:OR.
Of the three editors who have objections to this information, two (and myself) have agreed to add it with attribution. So that leaves only you. Unless you have something other than your personal opinion to offer here, it seems like we're done and I'll edit accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I asked what you thought simply because I'm trying to understand your POV, not because I think we should be editting articles based on what we think happened. I find it a little odd that you're not willing to say that language your arguing for is accurate.
Regardless, I was never oppossed to including the language with attribution. However, I think you're aware that if we attribute it in such a way to make it perfectly clear what the SMH article includes, its going to put some very wordy language in the lede. It's going to look awkward. Is that what you really want? Is it worth sacrificing the concision of this article just to include the word "planned"? NickCT (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So first SMH was not a reliable source. Then SMH didn't say what the lead paragraph said. Now adding "according to the Sydney Morning Herald" is very wordy and looks awkward? This could be funny if it didn't happen so often. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more accurate to say "according to a senior diplomatic official interviewed by the SMH on condition of anonymity...." NickCT (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you think policy is "fantasy lawyering", but you really should read WP:V. Material is attributed to a RS, not to where you think the RS got the information. In this case - "according to the SMH". I didn't realize that when you said you think it would be wordy and look awkward you meant that you would deliberately make it so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMH attributes the "planned" claim to "a senior diplomatic official interviewed by the SMH on condition of anonymity". Given the highly speculative nature of the claim, I think it would be wrong to simply say "According to the SMH", no? The SMH isn't explicity stating that the "planning" happened, but rather that someone told them the "planning" happened. By-the-by, I think it's worth mentioning that if there is good evidence that this was somekind of plot, you should be able to find other RS that support the position. If you were to provide a single source from a mainstream outlet, I would quickly be quiet. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMH is a mainstream outlet, and they reported it. Do I need to quote the lead paragraph again? As I said before, if you have a problem with the source, feel free to take it to WP:RS/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. This discussion seems to be getting circular. We need to seek other opinions. Do you want me to do an RfC? Meanwhile I'd be content with restoring the "planned" language as long as there was a "disputed/under discussion" tag. Does that sound fair? NickCT (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. We already have two other opinions above. You're the only person who objects to attributing it to SMH. There's no need for an RfC or a tag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've kind of gotten lost in all this discussion, but just to be clear, I support the inclusion of the "planned" terminology with attribution, but as a general rule I don't like things that require attribution in the lead (not just in this case, but in most cases). I'm not exactly sure I understand what the two of you disagree on either. I would suggest a two-pronged solution - keep the "planned" terminology, but add attribution to the SMH, and then move the attributed viewpoint to appropriate section in the body of the article. Do either of you disagree with that proposal, and if so, which part do you disagree with (the terminology, the attribution, the location)? ← George talk 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey George, not surprised you've got lost. This has been a long rambling conversation. Re attribution; the article is basicly quoting "a senior diplomatic official interviewed by the SMH on condition of anonymity" as the basis for this "planned" thing. I'd like that official to be attributed.
I strongly agree with what you say about attributing in the lead. The lead should really contain bare, undisputed facts in a concise manner.
Re moving to the body; I wouldn't mind moving it to the body, but I believe there is already a lot of material in the body that offer similar speculation. I think it might be redundant. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be in the lead, attributed to SMH, Nick's interpretation of WP:LEAD notwithstanding. Not sure how he got from "The lead should [...] summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies" to only "undisputed facts". Am I "fantasy lawyering" again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a few things. NMMNG is correct - the lead should summarize information in the article, including notable controversies. Whether or not the attack was "planned" has a section of the article dedicated to it, and while one could argue the notability of the controversy itself, as it stands I think it should get a summary mention in the lead. However, I don't think an attributed quote to the guy who wrote the SMH article is a good summary, and would prefer that the quotes from that article go into that section.
NickCT is also correct - the SMH article does not state that the attack was planned as fact. It reports that three different people made the "planned" allegation—"a senior diplomatic source", "former IDF chief-of-staff General Amnon Lipkin-Shahak", and "Guy Bechor, a senior analyst of Israeli-Arab affairs at the Interdisciplinary Centre at Herziiya"—but it does not state it as fact in an unattributed manner. It also attributes a statement by "Major-General Abdul Rahman Chehaitly of the Lebanese army" from a Lebanese paper as-Safir, which states that the general "told the meeting the shooting was the result of a command decision and could be repeated." This sort of second-hand attribution is generally bad, and should be attributed to the as-Safir article directly.
So, my suggestion would be to:
  1. Include an unattributed summary of the "Allegations of planned ambush" section in the lead. (e.g., Several Israeli officials and analysts have alleged that the Lebanese army planned the attack.) This could be attributed to the SMH article without an inline attribution.
  2. Include attributed quotes to the specific allegations made by the "senior diplomatic source", General Lipkin-Shahak, and senior analyst Guy Bechor in the "Allegations of planned ambush" section, all citing the SMH article as the source. (e.g., IDF General Lipkin-Shahak said that "it appeared certain that senior Lebanese army commanders had planned the attack.")
  3. Include an attributed quote of Lebanese General Chehaitly's comments in the "Lebanese accounts" section, cited to the as-Safir article.
Thoughts? ← George talk 22:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
  • SMH reports that the "Lebanese press" reported that the attack was planned. That it only goes on to quote as-Safir doesn't mean this is the full extent of the reporting in the Lebanese press.
  • Why do you assume the "senior diplomatic source" is Israeli? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for yet another mis-characterization of my argument NMMRNG. I didn't suggest the lead shouldn't note controversies. Of course it should. But I'm really not sure this whole "planned" thing constitutes a notable controversy, as much as just an unsubstantiated allegation.
But anyway, to George's proposals. 1) If we want to put into the lead something like "several Israeli and anonymous sources have accused the Lebanese of planning in advance to initiate the incident", I would be fine with that. I think it's a little silly as hundreds of accusations have been lobbed back and forth, and I'm not sure what makes this one more notable than the others. 2) If you want to create a section that summarizes all the allegations of pre-planning, I'm also fine with that. However again, not sure how much this offers readers interested in understanding the event. 3) I see no reason not to include Chehaitly's comments. NickCT (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG - The only problem with attributing it to "the Lebanese press" at large, as the SMH article does (while only citing one paper), is that there are literally dozens of sources from the Lebanese press which state the exact opposite. I've looked through the as-Safir articles from the day of the shooting until the day the SMH article came out, and, to be quite honest, none of the articles I saw said anything remotely close to what Koutsoukis wrote. In fact, a couple said the exact opposite (that the Lebanese soldiers were operating under orders to fire at any Israeli troops crossing the border, without waiting to get approval from their commanders). I'm having a bit of a hard time resolving that discrepancy, and maybe something was lost in translation from Koutsoukis' reading of the Arabic newspaper, but maybe there's some creative way to work around the discrepancies (while avoiding something silly like "Koutsoukis alleged that the Lebanese press reported that the Lebanese army had planned the attack, while the Daily Star, al-Manar, al-Hayat, as-Safir, etc. etc. all wrote that the attack was not planned, and that Lebanese soldiers were operating under standing orders to fire at anyone crossing the border."). And you're correct, while it is heavily implied that the "senior diplomatic source" is Israeli, and it's most likely, given that Koutsoukis is based out of Jerusalem, it is never explicitly stated. Really I was trying to avoid just suggesting the vague-to-the-point-of-useless "Some people have alleged that the Lebanese army planned the attack." Again, I'm open to suggestions on that, though we should try to identify who, exactly, has alleged that so we can best describe them.
NickCT - (1) Hopefully we can work out some wording then to summarize the position in the lead. If you think it isn't a notable controversy, that's a valid argument, but also a much more complicated question that might require an RfC. (2) There already is such a section in the article. (3) Me neither, and I don't think anyone objects to quoting him. It's more a question of who else to quote. ← George talk 06:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting to attribute it to the Lebanese press. I'm just saying that the fact SMH is quoting just one newspaper doesn't mean that's their only source for the statement they're making in the lead paragraph. For the nth time, I think it should be attributed to SMH. Like we do in similar cases all the time.
Your suggestion that Lebanese forces were operating under orders to fire at any Israeli forces crossing the border without getting approval from their commanders certainly fits the "planned and approved" language SMH is using. Also, I'm sure you know that you personally not finding something in the Lebanese press is not exactly a policy based argument not to include it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that clear cut. Although there are many middle eastern newspapers reporting that the incident wasn't planned, there is logic behind the Israeli's claim that the incident was premeditated. They weren't just pulling it out of thin air. The newspaper articles I've read cited their evidence for why they believed this was true and most of these points could easily be verified by articles from NYT and other newspapers I suspect NickCT might agree are verifiable sources. This included:
  • Many journalists and photographers were called to the scene prior to the incident occurring. Why would they do this? For the purpose of having them watch the Israelis prune some trees? I think you would have to be pretty gullible to believe that they called these journalists to this tiny town just for that especially when you consider that this is apparently a common occurrence for the Israeli's to periodically prune trees around the blue line?
  • The two IDF soldiers were shot by snipers from far away even though from what I've read such precision rifles aren't standard issue for the Lebanese military. Which suggests that these people had to be specially called in to this small border town. For what reason? If we are to believe the Lebanese account it was for the purpose of monitoring some soldiers pruning trees. Sounds suspicious to me.
  • There was a several hour delay between the time the Israelis told UNIFIL that they were going to cut down the tree to their beginning to do so. So we know that the Lebanese military certainly had time to plan. Its also known that the Israeli prune trees along the blue line periodically and contact UNIFIL when they do so. So its at least known that the Lebanese army knows that this is a common occurrence.
  • Prior to the incident their were reports of growing tension between Israel and Lebanon.
  • This isn't the first time they had done something similar to this before. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war there was a lot of small planned border attacks against Israel as part of the war. As time progressed the group doing the attacking seemed to shift to Hezbollah with rockets being fired in and planned border attacks. And in more recent years the Doha Agreement was signed where the Lebanese government became more integrated with Hezbollah (the group previously attacking Israel).
Now, I'm not saying that the article should flat out say that the attack was planned as No More Mr Nice Guy seems to want. What I am suggesting is that we use the word "allegedly planned" when characterizing the attack since in all do respect there is quite a bit of credibility gap needed to be filled if one is to believe the Lebanese account that this incident wasn't planned. The difference between the Lebanese account and the Israeli's is that one has been confirmed by an independent organization on the ground namely UNIFIL and the other has accredited as being wrong by them. The fact that alot of these Lebanese newspapers were still reporting the Lebanese version of the incident as the truth despite what UNIFIL said clearly makes them incredible. From the evidence I've read so far, the Israeli's claim that this incident was planned may very well be true. I agree that it doesn't meet the standards for saying flat out that its true, but it certainly meets the standards for telling readers a belief being reported to be held by many Israeli military officials. Also to answer NickCT's previous post asking if it would equally be ok to list the lebanese claims my answer is of course. Telling what one group claims isn't the problem. The problem is listing these claims and not listing immediately after anything that would indicate that such a claim was untrue. I think the same could equally be said of the Israeli's claim that this was planned, but to the best of my ability I haven't been able to find anything in the news articles that would seem to contradict this, but I have seen quite a bit that would make me skeptical of the Lebanese version of events. The readers should just be given the known facts and let them come to their own conclusions whatever that may be.Chhe (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Chhe's sentiments above. There are certainly a lot of reasons to perhaps be suspicious about whether there may have been pre-meditation. One counterpoint I might make though is that one could say there are a lot of reasons to think Kennedy wasn't assassinated by Oswald. I'm not against saying that there was speculation about Lebanese pre-meditation in the lead, similar to how conspiracy theories are noted in John F. Kennedy assassination's lead. But it must be clear that it is speculation and not demonstrated/accepted fact. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG - Hmm, when reliable source A reports that "B said C", we don't write that A said C, we write that B said C, and cite A as the source. In the case where B is also a reliable source, it is nicer to actually find it, then just write C citing B as the source, but if we can't find B we have to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, not being able to verify something controversial (such as the Lebanese press reporting that the Lebanese army "planned and authorised" the attack) in more than a single reliable source is a policy-based issue that affects how we include the material. I'm fine with saying "The SMH reported that the Lebanese press said that the Lebanese army had 'planned and authorised' the attack." I'm fine with saying "The SMH reported that as-Safir, a Lebanese newspaper, wrote that Lebanese General Chehaitly said '(General's quite here)'".
Now, you wrote that "(George's) suggestion that Lebanese forces were operating under orders to fire at any Israeli forces crossing the border without getting approval from their commanders certainly fits the 'planned and approved' language SMH is using." I'm a bit confused. If you truly believe that, then you don't object to using "operating under orders to fire at any Israeli forces crossing the border without getting approval from their commanders" in place of "planned and approved"? If you really think they mean the same thing, and other editors take issue with the latter, it seems like the simplest, least controversial solution would be to just use a less controversial wording (like my suggestion) that, by your analysis, means the same thing, no? ← George talk 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Planned and authorized" covers both "had standing orders to shoot" and "had a plan to whack an Israeli officer". Some editors want to water down the language so it only fits the former and not the latter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire discussion. There is a clear cut reliable source stating it was "planned." I'm not impressed with all the shenanigens put forth to remove the word. In general, an independant reliable source from as far away as possible from Lebanon should be given greater credence than not-so-independant sources within Lebanon that clearly have an interest in downplaying the level of the army's egregiousness.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG - Okay, it sounds like you want to leave the language open so the point remains vague for the reader. Makes sense, though because the wording may be misleading (depending on one's perspective) we'll still need to cite it to who said it. (e.g., "The SMH wrote that the Lebanese press reported that the attack was 'planned and authorised' by the Lebanese army."). And I'd still prefer if we could find the original source so we don't have to do this indirect source dance.
brewcrewer - It's true that there is a clear cut reliable source stating that three people and "the Lebanese press" said it was "planned". But what policy makes you think that a Jerusalem-based correspondent from an Australian newspaper "should be given greater credence" than reliable sources from within Lebanon, when discussing the Lebanese press' account of the incident (given that the SMH article itself cites the "Lebanese press" for the "planned" statement)? ← George talk 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct. The SMH used both the Lebanese press and other sources for "planned and authorized". I see no reason to attribute it beyond SMH. I don't know if there are any guidelines covering this, but you don't usually see stuff like "X wrote that Y claimed based on information from Z that A happened". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going off of the citing sources guideline - more specifically, the Say where you got it section, which states, in part:

"It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one. For example, a webpage may provide information that the page's author attributes to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your source is the webpage, not the book. You should also make clear, where appropriate, that the webpage cited the book. It can be important to be clear about this for two reasons: (a) because the credibility of your edit rests on the webpage, which may have misinterpreted the book, and (b) because it is sometimes preferable to cite the original source, especially where the issue is a contentious one... It is often better to read the original source material yourself, in which case you can simply cite the original source."

(Emphasis mine) I definitely agree that we should avoid overly confusing "X said that Y said that Z said..." language, but as I said, I'm unable to find the original source in order to cite it directly, and I'm concerned with both reasons (a) and (b) identified as why to include that the source was citing another source. Thoughts? ← George talk 18:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Largely agree with the above. It was in the spirit of "You should also make clear, where appropriate, that the webpage cited the book." that I proposed the "according to a senior diplomatic official interviewed by the SMH on condition of anonymity...." language. In the case of contentious speculation, I think it's best to make it crystal clear where a claim is coming from, and I believe Georgre's reference to policy supports that idea. NickCT (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now they retreat[edit]

Lebanon army commander General Jean Kahwaji said Thursday that the fatal incident, which took place last week on the Israel-Lebanon border and left one Israeli officer and four Lebanese dead, would not repeat itself. Flayer (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many Lebanese killed?[edit]

Re this edit;

It seems that the two sources referenced for the number of Lebanese troops killed disagree. Can someone point to some other sources? NickCT (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL's involvement[edit]

See the article UNIFIL's section on this incident. It contains a detalied description of UNIFIL's involvement, which even included clashes with local Lebanese villagers demanding that they stay and fight. This is noteworthy, and needs a section of it's own.--RM (Be my friend) 01:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmed"[edit]

This word implies that the UN in general, and UNIFIL in particular, are inherently and unquestionably truthful, and that their word must be taken as gospel. I, for one, disagree. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:5044:E834:E690:8B04 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Israel–Lebanon_border_clash&oldid=1196568497"