Talk:Battle of Ayta ash-Shab/Archives/2012/March

questionable source

What the hell is this source that is cited throughout the article and who added it in?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I added this source. as-Safir is a leftist pan-Arab daily Lebanese newspaper. Unfortunately it is in Arabic. I believe it to be the most reliable third party source on the number of Hezbollah fatalities. Not because it was higher than any other third party source but because it supplied the names of those killed. This source also supplied a list of civilian fatalities that was lower than most other reliable sources.

Please see the following note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Ayta_ash-Shab/Archives/2012/February#A_note_on_the_number_of_casualties_2

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Casualties section

Most of this section has to little to with the battle but talk about general results of the war and thus is beyond scope of this article.It should be trimmed.--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the section deals exclusively with the battle of Ayta. All reliable third-party sources approximately agree about the number of Hezbollah fatalities (8-11). The IDF claim of 40 fatalities stands out. This is a general pattern. Whenever we have reliable third-party sources the IDF claims appear to be exaggerated.

Hezbollah similarly did not report the full scope of its casualties during the war but later admitted that around 250 fighters were killed in the war. Israel similarly reduced its claims after the war to around 600.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=44808

I therefore added two mainstream Israeli media sources that explained this general phenomenon (see below). We thus have good reasons to expect IDF claims to be exaggerated. It is therefore highly relevant for this article.

Some time ago you deleted a sentence from this paragraph claiming it constituted "POV pushing WP:OR."

According to the Yedioth Achronoth "Encyclopedia" of the Second Lebanon War, Lebanese sources put the number of Hezbollah fatalities during the war to 300 while Israeli sources claim that 700 were killed. This difference was, according to Yedioth Achronoth, mainly explained by the distinction made by the Lebanese between "combatant" and "civilian" members of Hezbollah.[57] [There may also be other reasons why Israel seemingly exaggerated Hezbollah casualties.] On August 6 Haaretz reported the IDF placing the number of Hezbollah fighters killed at 400, but added that "armies fighting guerrilla forces tend to exaggerate the fatalities of the enemy.

Could you please explain how this sentence could violate both WP:NPV and WP:OR?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This specifically have nothing to do with the battle.The sources that was brought don't speak about the battle so its WP:OR

According to the Yedioth Achronoth "Encyclopedia" of the Second Lebanon War, Lebanese sources put the number of Hezbollah fatalities during the war to 300 while Israeli sources claim that 700 were killed. This difference was, according to Yedioth Achronoth, mainly explained by the distinction made by the Lebanese between "combatant" and "civilian" members of Hezbollah.[57] . On August 6 Haaretz reported the IDF placing the number of Hezbollah fighters killed at 400, but added that "armies fighting guerrilla forces tend to exaggerate the fatalities of the enemy."[22]--Shrike (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with original research. We have already established quite clearly (using "reliable, third-party, published sources" - WP:RS) that the IDF numbers most probably were exaggerations. The two quotes from Haaretz and Yedioth merely point out the possible reasons for this. It is true that both of them discuss the war in general and not specifically the battle of Ayta but it was one of the main battles in this war.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because they discuss the war in general they can't be part of the article.Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

From the WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (and as presented).".--Shrike (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If we had used the two "general" sources to prove something "specific" it would be a case of WP:OR. But we are not doing that. We have other "specific" sources (as-Safir/Assaf/Rosen/Yediot) that show that the IDF numbers were exaggerated in the specific case of Ayta.

But if it is true, as Yedioth claims, that Israel generally in the Lebanon war did not differentiate between combatant and non-combatant Hezbollah members this piece of information is highly relevant whenever IDF claims of Hizbollah casualties are discussed. Likewise it is relevant to point out in this context that a mainstream Israeli paper like Haaretz clearly expressed doubt of official Israeli figures of Hezbollah casualties in the war, even if it did not mention those of Ayta ash-Sha'b specifically. It is OK as long as the sources are quoted correctly and one does not imply something that is not in the sources.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No its not directly connected it doesn't mention the battle so we can't use this sources it seems that the debate goes in circles so I will ask input of uninvolded editors--Shrike (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)