Talk:Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Pictures[edit]

Why are there only pictures of Israeli victims. The pictures are uncalled for and unnecessary. They create a sense that only Israelis are victims and not the Lebanonese. It thus destroys the neutrality of the article. I will remove the pictures. --HAM-- 08/04/06

Shock[edit]

I raise doubts that 875 israelis have been treated for the medical condition known as shock. Such conditions are generally brought about by serious wounds, allergic reactions or heart attacks. If the shock has been brought about by wounds, it should have been reflected in the data on israeli wounded; and if the the shocks were brought about by allergic shocks -- and Hezbollah (to my knowledge) are not using chemical weapons -- this figure is irrelevant. Further, it does not seem likely that so many people would all suffer from shock due to heart attack, or similar conditions. Rather, it seems more likely (at least to me) that Meital Yasur-Beit Or (the author of the article in Ynet) was refering to trauma or stress reactions. PJ 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I didn't include the figure in the table. I don't know about the strict definition of shock, or the one the paper used, so you're welcome to remove it. I don't mind either way. --Iorek85 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the hyperlink to the article on "shock", unless someone can substantiate the claim that the 875 israelis were treated for this medical condition. Moreover, if this claim cannot be substantiated, I am personally hesitant whether we should including this data at all, since we have no idea what it actually means to treat someone for shock (since we do not know what condition "shock" is meant to refer to). It should further be noted that the data is from an israeli newspaper, and that it does not include any reference to any source, which makes the information found in the article questionable. PJ 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the hyperlink to the article on "shock", since it otherwise would imply that the 875 israelis all have been treated for the medical condition known as "shock" -- a claim that is unsubstantiated and quite unlikely. PJ 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, but why are the different categories of wounded Israeli civilians listed in such detail and not the Lebanese? I imagine that it's because the Israeli government makes these figures available... but if so does it not comparatively 'minimise' the Lebanese casualties?

I would imagine that because of the large number of Lebanese civilian casualties and the immense difficulty that humanitarian elements face in trying to get to certain areas in South Lebanon (because of the danger to their lives as well as the destroyed roads and infrastructure) providing such details becomes near impossible. In spite of this, there have been numerous reports of strange symptoms among the injured such as charred limbs and severe burns as a result of what Lebanese officials and international humanitarian elements are calling chemical weapons including white phosphorous agents. This has been reported extensively by the Lebanese media as well as international media. Perhaps this information should be included with the Lebanese casualty figures, the same way the “degree” of wounds is included in the Israeli casualty figures. ~~Mirsad August 10, 2006

Kiryat Shmona & Nahariya[edit]

Someone, please verify or modify the following claim: "Many civilians have left their homes in northern Israel and went south. Some Israeli cities and villages near the Israeli-Lebanese border have been deserted, such as Kiryat Shmona and Nahariya, from fear of rockets and mortar fire." What I have found is the following, in the Israeli newpaper Jerusalem Post: "Of the town's [Kiryat Shmona] 25,000 citizens, only around 5,000 are estimated to still be here" (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291951803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull); and "Nahariya has a population of 56,000. The municipality has no statistics on how many people have fled south but the residents who remain behind confirm that well over half the population has left" (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291974295&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). PJ 08:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualty questions[edit]

Do we only include those from bomb attacks and shellings by the IDF? Do we also include those who got killed in accidents?

http://newsinfo.inq7.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=13378

No, unless the accident was caused by military actions. --Iorek85 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hezbollah casualties[edit]

why should hezbollah and amal casualties be separated from lebanese casualties? They are lebanese citizens right? ______________

You are absolutely right. So we now have to apply this to all wars. By this count, all soldiers are civilians. Therefore, al casualties of wars throughout history are civilians. Thank god we are getting somewhere with this definition.

Wounded Israelis[edit]

(The following refers to the data as found in the grid.) The claim that over 1,300 israelis have been wounded may very well be accurate. However, it is not borne out by the cited source. According to the source, Ynet, 1293 israelis have been hurt or injured. Further, the claim that 189 israeli soldiers have been wounded, is not substantiate by the provided sources either. According to the first source, "Mideast Casualties at a Glance", nine soldiers have been wounded and 326 civilians. The second source, the KBCI link, appears to be dead. Please explain or make the appropriate changes. PJ 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be helpful, and appropriate I would say, if the cited sources are in english. If the claim that 58 israeli soliders have died cannot be found in an article written in english, then I would say that the veracity of that claim is questionable. PJ 11:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, under the heading "Israeli", it says: "Israeli 57 Israeli soldiers have been killed (including one pilot, killed in a collision between two helicopters, and two in another helicopter crash, also 4 servicemen were killed after INS Hanit was hit), 183 more wounded." The sources cited (refernece 8 and 36) link to the same article, viz. "Mideast Casualties at a Glance" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800730.html). This article, as also mentioned above, do not support the claim being made. According to the article: "25 Israelis have been killed, among them 8 soldiers, according to authorities there. Nine soldiers have been wounded, and 326 civilians." I find it rather scandolous that every piece of data pertaining to israeli casualties appears to be frivolous. Somebody seems to be pushing an agenda here. PJ 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the sources do not indicate that 200 israeli soldiers have been wounded but 9. Until you find another source, we need to change this number to the number in the source in use. I have therefore changed the the number of wounded israeli soldiers from 200 to 9. PJ 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the sources do not indicate that 57 israeli solidiers have died, but 8. Until you find another source, we need to change this number to the number in the source in use. I have therefore changed the the number of dead israeli soldiers from 57 to 8. According to the data grid, 66 israeli soldiers are dead. However, this source is in hebrew and ought to be replaced, I believe, with a source in english. PJ 06:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be more useful if you'd just leave it and either use the hebrew reference, or put ^{[citation needed]} there instead of insterting a three week old figure. --Iorek85 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I does not make sense for me to put ^{[citation needed]} there, since there already was a source cited. The problem was that the figures were dishonestly cited; they did not correpond with the figures actually mentioned in the sources. All I did was to change the data so that it matches the cited sources (i.e. I did not insert any other sources). If someone wants to change the figures, they need to provide the article with other sources and cite them correctly. Furthermore, I do not think that we shold use Hebrew sources unless we have to. If we do, there is no way for a non-Hebrew speaking person to check the accuracy of the sources. And we cannot expect from a user of the English version of Wikipedia to know Hebrew. So, to the extent that we can, we should use sources in English. And I am sure, that there are plenty of data in english, that we do not need to use Hebrew sources. PJ 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, I do not see how the cited sources support the claim that 214 israeli soldiers have been wounded. The first source states that 9 israeli soldiers have been wounded, and the second source appears to be dead. What is going on here?!PJ 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the number of wounded israeli soldiers so that it coresponds with the cited sources. If this data is obsolete and needs to be updated, please use new sources (preferably in english). Because the sources must substantiate the data provided in the Wikipedia article. PJ 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The number "9" IDF-soldiers wounder is a bit funny, when U can read in media, that just in fightings on August 12, 70 israeli soldiers were injured (BBC), and Sky News is telling about "more than 100 wounded (just on saturday) --imi2 04:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I have written above. It is very likely that the number of israeli soldiers wounded exceeds 9. However, it is very important that we cite our sources correctly. And the sources cited for that particular data stated that 9 soldiers have been wounded. Again, if you can find a newer and trustworthy source stating a higher number of wounded israeli soldiers, then of course we need to update this article to reflect that. So, I am all for that. Nevertheless, we should not under any circumstances falsify our sources or misrepresent data, as was the case when the article stated 200 while citing one inaccessible source and another source indicating that 9 soldiers have been wounded! PJ 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

US Death[edit]

Under the casualties list for the United States, it is listed that one military person, a American serving in the IDF, was killed. He should not be listed as an american. Under US law, joining a foriegn army is understood as saying that you no longer want to be a US citizen. So the moment he enlisted into the IDF, his US citizenship was voided, and he can no longer be considered a citizen. So technicly, he did not die as an americain, but only as an israeli. Im not trying to be mean, but its the law, he wasnt American. --Dimigw 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, nevermind, i did a little more research, apparently that law does not apply to Israel. Every other country yes, but you can fight in the Israeli army and still keep your citizenship.--Dimigw 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't he be under the military column, not civilian? I'd change it, but I'm afraid I'd break the formatting out of stupidity. --W0lfie 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Levin should not be counted twice--as an Israeli soldier killed in combat and as a "Foreign civilian casualt[y]." I am removing him from the latter category.--DieWeibeRose 09:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel killed most of these people[edit]

it should be noted that who killed who.Khosrow II 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon dead[edit]

Who will put faces of Lebanese dead and their pictures, there must be some dead after August 13 no doubt in israel from wounds, if somebody can find out directly from israel that would be grat. Even though hezbollah started this, let's remember israel bombed, killed and attacked Palestinians and hezbollah folks many times in the past. As far as the hezbollah hiding in the bushes and in civilian compounts, big deal... do they have rockets, powerful planes, technology to hide somewhere else, what else could have they done?

Total[edit]

Total wounded numbers does not sum correctly — PatoDonald 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Total victory for the forces of wikipedia quality!--Cerejota 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Communist Party[edit]

I have removed the casualties because they are not mentioned in any of the sources I have read. I also did it in the infobox in the main article where the article given as source didn't have any mention. Please be responsible with sourcing. If you restore, please provide sources.--Cerejota 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie chart[edit]

(In re to [1]) Since this is a page on the casualties of the conflict, I see no reason for the pie chart to be removed by blatant pro-Israel IP users' POV-pushing agenda. ~ clearthought 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) See this ongoing discussion for background info on the pie chart and the IP users who, and I'm being blunt, seem to want the truth to be suppressed. ~ clearthought 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That chart adds no new information for the article and only was put in order to promote one of the sides. Don't be a hypocrite your goal is very clear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.113.92 (talk • contribs)

And what goal is that? The one keeping you, a strongly pro-Israel IP user, from suppressing the same casualty figures but only in chart form? ~ clearthought 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your goal is promoting one of the sides, My goal is keeping the article neutral and not one-sided, and I am keeping a strongly pro-Hezbollah user from promoting his side.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.113.92 (talk • contribs)

It is laughable for you to label me "pro-Hezbollah" when you don't want any info showing the reality of the casualties inflicted during this conflict. Show one example of me being for Hezbollah. I think that what both sides have done and are doing is despicable and shows many fallacies for both relative antagonists and protagonists in international and overall human relations. I just think that if we are to show what Israel records of the number of Hezbollah militants killed, we should do the same — in the spirit of fairness — for how man IDF troops Hezbollah claims to have killed... which just shows my striving for fairness and objectivity for what I have been saying all along in this pie chart/casualty representation debate. ~ clearthought 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that there is a disagreement on the number of casualties. The numbers are written in that article. I totally accept it. Unfortunately, you don't. You want to take the claims of one side and to emphasize them.

You accept what Israel tells you, and are too afraid to sign your own posts. Anyway, if you actually read my arguments on this page and here you would see why your beliefs are totally false and how you are slandering my accepting of the figures on this article. We should use the confirmed (or near-confirmed) figures from the appropriate side of the conflict, however questionable they may be, because using the opposing side's figures as default would be even more questionable and irrational action. ~ clearthought 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give some comments on the issue.

First of all, it has nothing to do with the pie chart specifically. It is nothing more but an illustration of figures that are listed in the table. They shouldn't be treated separately.

Second, both versions are probably inaccurate. Still in the chart we should use the official figures both for Hezbollah and Lebanon casualties, each confirmed by corresponding side.

However, most of all the chart shows the proportion of military and civilian casualties. So I would suggest to remake the chart. First, placing civilian casualties next to each other, and add information about foreign casualties (total). Just as purely image-related comment, it would also help to increase the image resolution (but crop it tighter), just because some numbers are barely visible in this resolution. The comments about neutrality have some validity, but changing "Hezbollah" to "Hezbollah (confirmed)", to show that the figure might be false, will fix that. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feed back. I will attempt to implement your suggestions but I must admit I am not exactly a charting expert. For what it's worth, I made a concious choice to put Israeli military and civilian together and Lebanese military and civilian together in the spreadsheet. I will try to change it to put the civilian entries together and the Israeli military and hezbollah together and lastly the UN and Lebanese military together if that seems more appropriate? Carbonate 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice feedback, CP/M. One can't claim a pie chart based on the information used in the article is POV pushing at all. You do have to list your sources, though, clearthought, and it might get less opposition if you used the confirmed Hezbollah casualties by the IDF (not their claimed 770, but the 400 or so). Iorek85 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you both (CP/M and Iorek85) and thank you both for your mediation in this discussion. I did not create this chart (and, if I had, I would have done several things differently, i.e. the suggestions above). I left a message on Carbonate's (the creator of the chart) talk page asking him about his sources. As I mentioned before [2] summarizes the bulk of my points made on this topic. I do wish that User:84.228.113.92 would stop their POV-pushing for IDF [and only IDF] figures and stop trying to censor the representation of the known figures in this article and the main conflict article. ~ clearthought 00:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I uploaded a new version of the chart with a lengthy summary of all the changes that was coviently cut off. I also removed a vandal's contribution's about where I took my figures from. I think I have all of CP/M's suggestions in there, please let me know if you have any more. Just to clarify, hezbollah's numbers come from them (I don't belive the IDF's for a second) and the last two slices have been pulled out of the pie slightly to keep the lables from overlapping. More details are in the file summary if you can find it... Carbonate 07:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, and I don't believe the Hezbollah numbers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.129.2 (talk • contribs)

Good for you — that's your POV, please do not impose it, like other editors, onto this encyclopedia. How much more trustworthy can you call the IDF numbers than the Hezbollah numbers when Israel is having so many troubles with the war and their citizen base is disconsolate about the matter; in such a situation, I would not be surprised if Israel or any party to this conflict (i.e. Hezbollah) messed with the real facts. But, we are not, as fairly uneducated (not experiencing the conflict, I mean) third parties, in our right position to judge whether we should use IDF numbers for Hezbollah casualties when we use (understandably) IDF numbers for IDF casualties! ~ clearthought 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the 3 IP address that have recently reverted the pie chart with 3RR warnings. They all come from the same ISP and all the postings have had a similar style including consistant failure to sign with quadruple ~'s. If this is the same person, they have already violated the 3RR but I will assume good faith at this point and hold off on a formal posting. I would like to call for a calming down period with this chart in the article so that others may see it and comment on it. Carbonate 10:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't your placing of the pie chart back isn't considering 3RR?

Because that was not a revert. I would also point out that you have reverted against another author and have not filled out an edit summary in any of them. You have also not signed a single comment in the discussion which in very annoying. I noticed that in your latest edit, you did not revert but put included a false statement in the description of the chart which I will not address today. I again suggest we let this article stand for discussion as it is. I would like to hear CP/M's comments on the updated chart please. Carbonate 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better than it was. Only, probably, lacking foreign civilians (50), and too low resolution of the main image. Maybe the description could include note that IDF source is used for IDF and Hezbollah' for them. Probably that's all major details. To 83.130.19.249: are there any more problems? As said above, both IDF and Hezbollah have larger numbers for enemy casualties, but we use the official ones for both. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And because he only reverted it twice. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ ! ~ clearthought 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know the rules. How do I sign comments?

edit: test 83.130.19.249 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rules: Wikipedia help. Sign comments by typing four waves (i.e. ~~~~). ~ clearthought 15:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion about this chart in the main article. I've removed it for now, becuase it is inherently POV, in addition to being created in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. It's creator states the chart is needed in order "to show what these numbers really mean" - this violates WP:POINT & WP:SOAP. The problem with using a chart when we have two sets of casualty figures, each disputed by the other side is that while a table can give both sets, and the reader can decide which is more credible, the chart inherently is capable of showing only on set graphically. Please do not add this chart to the article again.Isarig 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your staunch opinion seems to only be shared by a handful of anon users who obviously do not know the rules as they don't even sign their posts (even after being requested to do so). Therefore, you are representing pretty much a one-person opinion, against, seemingly, mine, CP\M, Carbonate, and established users. If you think the chart is POV, why aren't you attacking the numbers too? You probably think that we should just go with the IDF numbers and disregard the civilian numbers as they are 'hard to differentiate' from Hezbollah ones! Maybe you should make an encyclopedia that has no anti-Israel (or anti-Fox News) sentiment... then you could stop imposing your POV on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be nearly objective (I doubt you even understand the concept). ~ clearthought 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, There is a larger opposition than that. Also, you keep ignoring his explanations about the POV violation of the pie chart. 83.130.19.249 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because his "explanations" have nothing to do with any WP:POV or WP:POINT rules, it is just his fervour for not having a visual representation of the casualties because it makes whom it looks like he supports (Israel) look not-too-good. In reality, both sides of this conflict have acted horribly, but that does not dismiss the fact that if we hold the IDF to their regard in saying how many of their soldiers have been killed, we should do the same for the amount of Hezbollah fighters Hezbollah says have died, not how many the IDF says, or else we would be in the near-paradoxal situation of using Hezbollah's figures for how many IDF troops they say have been killed! The only one with POV is Isarig, as can be seen in his edits I outlined somewhere in this discussion. So I ask you again, what POV violation? Isarig has yet to say that any real violation of any real rule has occurred with the addition of this chart to the relevant article (this one). ~ clearthought 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV has been addressed by using each sides numbers for their own casualties. This makes it nuetral. How exactly does a graph of the numbers in the article contitute a soap box? The only thing that is different is the way the data is being presented. You need to prove your allegations, you can't just say "you disagrree with the numbers" as that is you POV. Until you do, this chart will stay in. I will be filing a 3RR violation against the anonymous IP who yet again omited an edit summary, although I appreciate them at least having started to sign their comments. Carbonate 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that does not address POV, for 2 reasons. (1) It relies on the POV that both sides are equally reliable, a POV I (and many other editors) reject and (2) It ends up still showing only one set of numbers, whereas the article lists 2 sets for Hezbollah. A pie chart in and of itself is of course not a soap box. What is a soapbox, by definition, are statements such as "I created the chart to show what these numbers really mean". The charts creator, by his own admission, did not add new material, did not do anything to improve the factual quality of the encyclopedia, but wanted to make a POV-pushing statement about what the figures "really mean". This is exactly what WP:SOAP was written to prevent. Isarig 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is distorting this whole issue. Carbonate used the figures from this article! It seems to me you have a problem with the truth and express it by falsely pointing things out to be POV or soapbox. ~ clearthought 15:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Carbonate used some of the figures from the article, but not others. that is pretty much the definition of POV-pushing. You are encouraged to review WP:NPA. Isarig 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and second the 3RR violation nom on this article and possibly the main conflict article as well (I will need to go over the history). It seems as if some of the anon users were the same person under maybe something like an IP proxy, some edits and statements (and other actions) seem way to close in time and similar. ~ clearthought 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several comments about this under the discussion on the main page. A brief summary: as the chart exists now, it is not neutral. The Israeli claims of their own numbers do not seem to be challenged by anyone, however the Hezbollah claim based-numbers are disputed. Presenting the two as equally valid is misleading. I suggested that we find a way of representing the conflicting claims on the chart, but in the meantime I do not think that it is fair to include this image. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by CP/M would seem to differ with your assement. It may not be perfect, but every attempt is being made to make it better. As I see it you have two options, make your own chart if you can do better or make suggestions and I will consider implementing them. Graphical representation of this data improves its encyclopedic value. Carbonate 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new version of the chart. It adds foreign nationals as requested by CP/M and moves PFLP in to a new group with the other organizations no one has ever heard about called "Other Groups". Numbers have been adjusted to reflect the rebalancing and I have also tried to increase the resolution. I have also added a note under the legend that states "Figures used are provided by their respective parties." so that the source of the information is made more clear inside the chart. Again, some of the last slices were pulled out slightly to keep the lables from overlapping. I would now like to have comments on this new version tho I don't anticipate making many more of these... Carbonate 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new chart looks good to me. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would have a problem with this chart; it is just saying what is already on the page but in graph form. Thank you Carbonate. ~ clearthought 15:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain it to you again, then: The pie chart is POV because (1) It relies on the POV that both sides are equally reliable, a POV I (and many other editors) reject and (2) It ends up still showing only one set of numbers, whereas the article lists 2 sets for Hezbollah. A pie chart in and of itself is of course not a soap box. What is a soapbox, by definition, are statements such as "I created the chart to show what these numbers really mean". The charts creator, by his own admission, did not add new material, did not do anything to improve the factual quality of the encyclopedia, but wanted to make a POV-pushing statement about what the figures "really mean". This is exactly what WP:SOAP was written to prevent. Isarig 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me explain, every bit of information has a point of view. The ONLY requirement is that that point of view be neutral. I have made every effort to make it so. By your own admission, you are expressing your POV by reverting AND you have done NOTHING to show that your's is neutral. I know from your past edits that you are in fact not neutral but pro-Israel and as such you have a substantial burden to show your edits are neutral. I thank you for detailing that this content in not WP:OR (which is an argument I think you have used previously). Carbonate 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He prevented you from promoting your POV in this article in order to keep the article neutral. You haven't responded to his main argument - WP:SOAP, I think that you are not able to do that since your chart is really violating it. 84.228.122.158 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this chart would be far more acceptable if it incorporated the IDF's confirmed number ~400, which has also been suggested by Dianelos and Iorek85. Perhaps a hashed area of the total Lebanese slice would convey the dispute. Of course it should also include sources etc. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that IDF numbers should be used for their casualties, hezbollah's casualties and israel's casualties. Explain to me how that is neutral. Carbonate 08:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except the numbers of Hezbollah's casualties, nobody has questioned those numbers. 84.228.122.158 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that no one has questioned the IDF's of Hezbollah's casualties?Carbonate 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a stupid question (don't bite, ok) but how do we know if someone is a Hezbollah fighter or a civilian if they don't wear uniforms? And aren't Hezbollah fighters considered civilians anyway because they are not part of the Lebanese military? And don't some Arab sources consider any adult in Israel to be a member of the military because of the military service that is mandatory for many? It seems as though any presentation of numbers here should include the issues of the difficulty of counting and how a civilian is actually defined. Elizmr 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key to that question is who is "we"? If by we you mean the people in Lebanon, then I would say that most people know who in their family are and are not in Hezbollah; who among their neighbours support or participate; who among those at church/mosque/whatever are involved directly or indirectly.

But if by we you mean the IDF, then that is a very good question. Some might conclude that the IDF lables everyone driving a truck or van down the highway to be in Hezbollah as they are obviously carring weapons. I certianly would not be able to tell a civilian from a militant if you put them side by side. This is why the IDF numbers are so rediculous, and also why the Hezbollah numbers are so much more believable. Hezbollah certianly knows how many people they lost. Carbonate 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "we", I meant us, Wikipedia editors. YOur first argument is of course reasonable, but since Hezbollah also benefits in terms of world opinion if the numbers of civillian deaths are higher, I would say that their numbers are subject to bias. I'm not sure there is actually a good unbiased accurate source of real numbers here. I think a pie chart makes the accuracy of the data look better than it actually is and would be misleading to present without a discussion of the potential sources of bias in the numbers represented. Elizmr

Of course what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The IDF benefits if its casualties are fewer than Hezbollah's. The number of civilians is not what Twefik and Isarig are concerned about, they are worried that Hezbollah's slice is smaller than than the IDF's and want it increased to 400. Carbonate 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thank you not to speak for me, or to claim you know what I am concerned about, especially since you are not doing a good job of it. I do not want the Hezbollah slice increased to 400 or any other number - I want this POV chart out of WP, period. I've explained why numerous times, but here we go again: Some of the numbers in the article are disputed. Others have a range to them. The table (or any other textual format) deals with that by presenting ALL numbers and ranges, and leaves it to the reader to decide which sources can be trusted, and which are more likely to be correct. The pie chart inherently can't do that. It must choose one number, and present that number as a 'slice'. ANY selection of ONE set of numbers is bound to be POV. You may hold the POV that a certain methodology for selection of that single set (e.g: let each side report its own casualties) is fair - but that is your POV, which others, including myself, dispute. On top of this, the chart adds no value to the encyclopedia, as it just represents (in a skewed, POV way) numbers that are already in the article. And indeed, the raison d'etre for the chart is, according to its creator (you) is "to show what these numbers really mean" - this is an explict and blatant violation of WP:SOAP - which was written precisely to prevent such things from making their way into the encyclopedia. There is no need "to show what these numbers really mean" - everyone can read the article, and decide what these numbers mean. Isarig 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You conviently omit the fact that there is only one item that has two sets of numbers and it is the IDF ones that are unverifiable estimates. Carbonate 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims above are false , but more importantly, entirly irrelevant to the argument I've made. Please address the argument. Isarig 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did, the only numbers with +'s after them are the IDF's and they are unverifiable guesses. The rest of the numbers are reletively concrete (and although they are still changing as bodies are pulled from the rubble of Lebanon, they are now reasonably stable). There is only one figure that is correct as people can not be both alive and dead. The chart does in fact dismiss IDF's claims on Hezbollah's casualities but as I said before, they are unverifiable claims. Carbonate 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It does not matter if there are 5 items with dual numbers, or only 1 - if there is at least one such item, the pie chart needs to select, and such a selection is inherently POV. I am glad you at long last admit that "The chart does in fact dismiss IDF's claims on Hezbollah's casualities". On the basis of that admission, I think we're done, as even you have admitted it is pushing a certain POV. Isarig 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the chart should not be in Wikipedia for the reasons I cited above and agree with Isarig. Garbage in, garbage out and garbage doesn't belong in an encylcopedia. IMO, there is no real information here, and the whole article violates WP:SOAP and should be deleted. But if it is going to be here, the basis of the counts, their accuracy, and possible ranges all need to be discussed. Elizmr 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and others don't agree. The only question is if the chart is neutral which, with the help of others honest and constructive critisims, it is. Carbonate 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments of several users on both this page and the main article's Talk have seriously disputed the neutrality, mine included. Tewfik^Talk 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your style, when you don't have an answer, you ignore. Keep on doing that. 84.228.122.240 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel a need to rewrite my arguments from above, especially as they've been more or less repeated by other users. And seriously, lets all just stay cool. Tewfik^Talk 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise suggestion[edit]

While any numbers might be somewhat tweaked, this is not something easy to hide in a closely observed conflict. Most probably both figures are close to being correct, but just use different definitions of militants. Hezbollah clearly reports how many actual members has it lost, while IDF probably reports adult male body count on sites or facilities used by Hezbollah, which might include cooperating civiliand, militants not in Hezbollah, or other people. Since IDF reported Hezbollah casualties number is approximately equal to total number of adult men killed, and IDF also reports less civilians to be killed than Lebanon does, it is quite clear that the difference lies in definition.

This means that we can represent both numbers of the chart in the following way: Hezbollah losses are put next to civilian, and we draw an additional line inside civilian casualties sector (and use a bit different filler) to show number as reported by IDF. Well, I think everyone is familiar with that way from math classes. It might require a bit of manual editing, but very simple one. The resulting chart will represent both figures equally.

What do you think of this? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above, accompanied by a clear explanatory discussion as above, would be a good compromise. The "civilian" piece of the pie should be next to the "hezbollah" piece of the pie so that the are of controversy---how adult males on sites used by hezbollah are counted---is clearly delineated in the figure. If the figure is just presented without this explanation, then neutrality will not be achieved. Elizmr 14:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your reasoning, but I am ok with the suggested compromise. I don't think it is true that "Hezbollah clearly reports how many actual members has it lost" - it has been widely reported by neutral 3rd party sources thet Hezbollah deliberately chose not to accurately report its losses, as part of its psychological warfare effort. The suggestion that the ' IDF probably reports adult male body count on sites or facilities used by Hezbollah' is just specualtion on your part. Nevertheless, if the end result is that the total number of Lebanese killed ends up being shown in the pie as around 1200, and there is clear representation of the IDF claims that around 700 of those are hezbollah, I'll be Ok with the chart. Isarig 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Israel doesn't use psychological warfare? All sides and powers want to look good so they tweak a few figures, nothing new with that. ~ clearthought 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of this kind ? No. You'll find it's quite difficult to hide the "true" number of military casualties in a democratic society with a free press, while it is relatively easy to do with the casualties of a non-governmental, semi-clandestine organization. See the discussion of how we differentiate "civilian" from "non-civilian" Lebanese casualties as just one example of how easy it is to obfuscate the numbers. Isarig 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clearly can state that's just my speculation, until sources are found. However, given that almost one third of the Lebanese civilian casualties were children under 13 years of age (as written in the main article), it leaves out less than 900 people - if 500 are counted as Hezbollah, it seems very plausible that this count represents all males over 13 (and probably some women as well if it is 700).

Probably the same sources may be used as we have for Human Rights Watch [...] They blamed Israel for systematically failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, which may constitute a war crime, and have accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes [...], to explain that. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable compromise, as after all the issue is that the pie accepted one side over another. It should be clear, however, that this slice is "confirmed" by the IDF, and not "claimed," which is the ~700 figure. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea for a compromise. Thanks CM\M for being a voice of reason in a sea of irrationality. Nice to be back editing at Wikipedia after a one-week break! ~ clearthought 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open request for mediation. This issue should be discussed there. Carbonate 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are both refusing mediation? Carbonate 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be mediated, when it seems we have reached an acceptable compromise here, without it? Isarig 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your above comments, Isarig, I am amazed that you think that a compromise has been reached between you and [most of] the rest of us. ~ clearthought 03:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a bit specifically on the issues? While MedCom is often useful, it's relatively slow and reluctant to take most cases, so discussing it here could be faster. As an alternative, you can file RfC or MedCab request. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that he doesn't like me, or some of my comments. he's already stated that your compromise ideas is a good one yesterday. Isarig 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that there is a statement of "No Personal Attacks" in your user page while each of your messages here consists of mostly personal attacks. Can you remove that statement please?80.230.239.216 12:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Read 5 lines up - there's a certain clearthought there who wrote "I think this is a good idea for a compromise". Perhaps you should post something at WP:ANI as it looks like there's someone who is impersonating you. Isarig 04:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion CP/M. While it was a good one, I doubt it would have been acceptable in any format that the other parties would have implemented had they choosen to do so. The problem with it is that it would give undue weight to the IDF who are baised. As neither Isarig nor Tewfik choose to produce such a chart, I am putting the one I created back in. Carbonate 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not the way it works. I don't have to come up with my own POV and OR chart to counter yours. Yours is POV and OR, and it's out. (Unless of course you'd like me to put up a chart that has the 700+ Hezbollah fighters killed, according to a neutral 3rd party, and subtract that 700 from the 1000+ Lebanese "civilians". Something tells me that a pie chart in which the biggest slice is "Hezbollah killed" won't "show what these numbers really mean", according to you). Isarig 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is NPOV. It is not OR. You refused mediation. You have refused to present a compromise chart. Carbonate 07:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not NPOV as decribed (at lenghth) on this page. I have not refused mediation - I said it is redundant since we had agreed on a compromise here. You just won't accept that compromise. Isarig 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could consider balancing weight of the figures. For instance, make clear that IDF estimates are not officially confirmed, and just show them with a clearly drawn arc outside; however, discarding them completely is also not correct. If there are technical issues, I can make the chart myself. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF numbers are not estimates, there are 400+ who are identified by name, plus an additional estimated 300 dead. But you are missing something here. There are recent reports, by neutral 3rd parties, not the IDF nor Hezboallh, that the number of Hezbollah dead is more than 700. Are you willing to put in a pie chart that has 700 Hezb dead, (1167-700=4167) Lebanese civialn dead? Isarig 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, sorry, I didn't mean to express POV - I just don't keep up with the news on the topic. I came here to attempt informal mediation and could do what the parties would agree on.

p.s. Just checked the source; if it is the ref. #2, then it isn't a reliable source, as the Kuwait newspaper article makes only a passing mention about casualties, not even claiming correctness of the figures, just mentioning "someone said", which doesn't constitute a serious statement; WP should rely on more reliable sources, not less reliable, and "someone said" is considered substandart by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kuwait newspaper is a reliable source. It made that claim, it's in. Please don't censor information just because you don't like the numbers. Isarig 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers? It's not about strange numbers, it's about sources which merely make a passing mention that "some Lebanese sources say", not pointing the real source; information that was looked upon as dubious opinion of someone by the original source shouldn't magically become presented as commonly accepted truth in Wikipedia. It's just about that. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the original source did not look upon this number as dubious. Please don't invent stuff to suit your POV. The source presnted these numbers without qualification. Whether or not it did so in passing (a claim you have also just made up) is irrelevant. The Kuwaity paper is a WP:RS and the number stays. Isarig 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made up? The source http://www.kuwaittimes.net/navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=1677308013 said exactly the following:

When questioned about the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah told Lebanese news station NTV on Aug. 27, "We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a confrontation at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not." Hezbollah's first rocket attack on Haifa, not the kidnapping, compelled Israel to engage in an invasion for which it was not necessarily prepared. Nasrallah knew when he pushed hostilities to that point that Hezbollah was provoking Israel into a full-scale war, and he had his forces ready and entrenched to resist the onslaught. Hezbollah's motives for reigniting hostilities with Israel followed a careful strategy to re-legitimise the resistance movement, demonstrate Iran's extensive reach in the region and provide a diplomatic opening for Syria. Such an explanation, however, does not sit well with those Lebanese citizens who lost their homes, businesses, friends and family members in 35 days of continued Israeli bombardments. Nasrallah's apologetic interview is part of his damage-control strategy to win back any popular support in Lebanon that was lost in the fighting. As more and more Lebanese are returning to homes buried in rubble, resentment against Hezbollah's leader is running through the south and Shiites are questioning whether sheltering Hezbollah fighters and weapons during the conflict was worth inviting a barrage of Israeli air strikes. To reach out to his core Shiite constituency in the south, Nasrallah must now demonstrate that Israel had been searching for an excuse to go to war with Lebanon and that the need to maintain Hezbollah as a potent militant force to resist Israeli aggression is stronger than ever. And what better way to buy political support in Lebanon than with cold hard cash? Hezbollah is handing out an average of $12,000 as compensation for the conflict to each of the approximately 35,000 Lebanese households in the south and in Beirut's southern suburbs. This is an extraordinary amount of cash that has been primarily financed through a hefty $400m donation by Iran. Hezbollah is essentially carving out a position for itself to be the most powerful landlord in the south, where it will use rent payments to increase its control of land, fund its own political campaigns and acquire legitimate funding for future arms purposes. Most of this cash is flowing through southern Lebanon in an aggressive Hezbollah-led reconstruction effort designed to maintain its support base among its Shiite constituency. The Lebanese government, politically incapable of stemming the flow of Iranian reconstruction money into Lebanon, has been conspicuously absent from the south since the ceasefire went into effect, giving Hezbollah plenty of room to put its social arm to work. Hezbollah has formed local committees in every village in the south to assess the damage and assist people in filing for compensation from Hezbollah's coffers. For example, a villager living in Al Abbasiyya in the south had only one glass window broken. A specialised Hezbollah committee that dealt only with broken windows visited his house and insisted on compensating him for the window. The following day, another Hezbollah committee paid $3,000 to reinvigorate the villager's lawn, which had dried out during the conflict. In addition to extracting political sympathy, Hezbollah is also seeking to consolidate loyalties among Shiites in the south for the time when Israel climbs out of its political rut and Hezbollah fighters again need shelter and arms south of the Litani River. Nasrallah is fully aware that Israel views the ceasefire as the halftime show before it returns to substantially cripple Hezbollah forces and reverse the perception that Hezbollah is the first Arab force to impose a military defeat on the Jewish state. With this in mind, Hezbollah is doing whatever it can to deprive Israel of an excuse to restart hostilities in Lebanon. Hezbollah has already reached an understanding with the Lebanese army that allows the militants to relocate their weapons northward to their strongholds in the Bekaa Valley while maintaining underground cells in the south. Hezbollah has even used bulldozers to block tunnels and bunkers and flatten bases in the area in the south to show its commitment to the ceasefire. With Hezbollah creating favourable conditions for a peacekeeping force, Israel faces a difficult time in resuming a military campaign, as foreign troops will be sprawled throughout the south while Hezbollah behaves responsibly. And Hezbollah could definitely use the break. Sources in Lebanon claim Hezbollah has buried more than 700 fighters so far, with many more to go. Hezbollah needs the ceasefire period to physically recover from its losses and recover public support. Meanwhile, the Shiite nexus of Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime is using the cease-fire period as a window of opportunity to solidify the perception of Hezbollah's victory while Israel remains entangled in domestic politics. - Stratfor

- Making only a small mention of casualties, and not claiming that they know casualties were 700, but rather attributing them to the omnipresent Anonymous Source. I think IDF estimates are way more credible. Just my two cents. I'm not going to fight for it, it's not my conflict; just note it for other editors to decide. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out where in the above the numbers are being described as "dubious" as you had claimed, I'd appreciate it. Isarig 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources claim that X is true" is not equal to "X is true". It is a way to make a statement with taking no accountability or responsibility for it. While it is not inherently bad thing, situation "Source Y claims that some unspecified source says that X is true" should not be represented as "X is true". CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is other sources that say simmilar numbers http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060906-045027-8532r http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/22/wmid122.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid404.xml Shrike 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these direct? That's better. It would be nice to reference these sources instead of proxy. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to acquint yourself with WP:V, a policy you have invoked in the past, but are unfamiliar with. On WP, we are interested in verifiability, not truth. ALL we report on WP is of the form "Sources claim that X is true", because that is verifiable. Thus in this case we have source Y (Kuwiat newspaper) claims that X (Hezb casualties > 700) is True. That's what goes in the article. We do not know that X is true, and we do not know that Z (Hezb casualties are 70, as claimed by Hezb) is true, but we can verify that a WP:RS siad so, so we report both, as per WP:V. Isarig 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I've advocated exactly that: keeping sources presented as they are. If proxy is used as a reference, it should be noted appropriately, not by attesting their claims. In this situation the editorial from a newspaper is a proxy, as the author just claims that some unspecified sources say smth.; every chain link should be noted, so we can't just trust the author (source is acceptable, but not highly credible) and attach the claim to the unspecified sources he mentions; the information should only be presented in form that according to Kuwait newspaper, there are sources making claim X. That's all. We're dealing with fuzzy logic, and links in the chain are important. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, check out WP:NPOV while you are telling others to see various Wikipedian standards. ~ clearthought 01:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with WP:NPOV, which is why I object to your OR and POV chart. Isarig 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDF numbers fail to qualify as reliable sources. 70.73.235.202 11:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Hezballah numbers are?Anyway there is 3rd party neutral sources that mentioned in the article to verify IDF numbers.Shrike 13:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no trouble backing your statements up. Please stop removing the chart. It follows the consensus under the compromise, which you were not a party to Shrike, and uses terms such as "(confirmed)" to please — if I may — your side in this debate (which you, Shrike, seem to think is one-sided in your favour). ~ clearthought 01:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He;s already provided the needed cites. The chart will not be included in this article, sinc eit only provides one set of fgures, which are disputed. 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is a really cocky, autocratic statement of what you see as your self-given authority over anyone and everyone else. Both Hezbollah and IRD figures are disputed; on the chart, there is language such as "confirmed" to commit to the unassured nature of these numbers (i.e. by stating that some numbers — whether included or not — are not confirmed). ~ clearthought 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has not provided any sources other than those that quote IDF. What nutral third party has confirmed the IDF's numbers? Even the Israeli government is investigating the IDF and its conduct of the war. The IDF claims of enemy kills shouldn't even be in the article at all as they are clearly in a conflict of interest. Carbonate 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

take the time to read the given references, as making clearly flase assertions such as "He has not provided any sources other than those that quote IDF" hurt your credibility and make it hard to assume good faith with respect to your edits. Refernce 2 in the article is the Guardian, which quotes a UN official saying 500+, and reference 3 is the Kuwiat Times, quoting Lebanese sources saying 700+. I find it humorous to hear you say the IDF figures shouldn;t be in the article because of 'conflict of interest", and at the same time you insist that a chart which uses only Hezb figures is NPOV. Isarig 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true. The IDF numbers are used for their casualties. Hezbollah's numbers are only used for their own in exactly the same way. This is what makes the chart neutral as both sides are equally represented. You want to push your POV by including the IDFs numbers for both, but I haven't heard you concerned that Hezbollah's kills be represented. You keep saying that the chart in POV pushing when in fact it is you that is pushing the pro-israel view. Carbonate 08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over this many times. We now have 3rd party sources that give estimates of Hezb casualties in the 500-700 range, just as the IDF claims. If you want to put a chart up in which Hezb casualties are shown as 700, and the number of Lebanese civilians killed is correspondingly reduced to 1100-700=400, I'll be ok with that. Failing that, this POV chart is out. Isarig 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you talking about? The civilian casualties are confirmed to be civilians. The number of suspected hezbollah killed is in no way to be subtracted from that. Are you so obsessed with justifying Israel's killing of innocent people? Carbonate 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to remain civil. The 1187 number is for TOTAL Lebanese casualties, according to the cited sources. If 700 of these are Hezbollah, it follows that only ~400 are civilian. You are also encoyurgaed to review WP:AGF and stop soapboxing. Isarig 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to know the funny part of Isarig's last assertion? The 3rd party estimates revolve around secret burial of hezbollah combatants. By insisting that the 700 be subtracted from the 1100 he has invalidated the reference! Carbonate 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. neither sources makes reference to 'secret' burials. Try reading them before commenting. Isarig 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is not POV, because it says Hezbollah (confirmed) to show that it is Hezbollah casualties confirmed by hezbollah. The 1187 thing is civilian number, because their identity has been confirmed, and it couldn't be hizbullah fighterNielswik_(talk) 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 1187 number is total Lebanese dead. read th esources. Th echart is POV vecuase what Hezbollah confirmed is disputed - other sources claim a number 10x as high as what Hezbollah confirmed. using only the Hezbollah numbers is a POV. Isarig 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this, from pro-Israeli media [3]:

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, with 30% comprised of children under the age of 12, attesting to Israeli reports that Hizbullah continues to operate from deep inside civilian population centers.

It says 1,025 civilians died. If you insisted that 1187 including both civilians and Hezbolah, maximum possible number of Hezbollah dead is 1187-1025=162 much lower than what israel claim. The chart is not POV since we add (confirmed) comment on hezbollah's casualties it means it is the number of hezbollah confirmed dead. Furthermore, it also uses IDF-confirmed number for IDF death. Nielswik_(talk) 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also add "(confirmed)" to the Israeli Soldiers heading? // Liftarn

Idf dead[edit]

Now listen as 119, but Hezbolla claims 130, the point is, there were many wounded. This will not change now, but can we be sure 119 is correct? It's important to know this, some casualties are not reported, especially if they work for mossad or if certain soldiers were conducting secret operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.108 (talk)

Mossad dont work with soldiers, they don't conduct military operations at all. Mossad work inside enemy population and if they were exposed and killed we would certanly hear about it. I also dont see any point in hiding 11 casualties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.110.38.112 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Quite true. Israel generals may be lying, since they lied very often Nielswik_(talk) 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Pie chart is very controversial[edit]

The pie chart needed sourcing and proper captioning. I placed the contradict tag on the article because the percentages did not match the figures in the current article, and I could not see how to get them to match the September 9th version either, but was hoping another editor with more expertise would resolve it. User Clintonesque removed the chart, which seems a poor way to resolve the problem. One suggestion would be a new chart using figures sourced in a similar way to the table. Another might be two charts, one the IDF view, the other the Hezbollah view. I'm not entering a revert war here, but wish to repeat that removing without discussing is not productive. -Wikianon 03:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point about this chart, which is not about missing sources nor proper captioning. Please read the discussions above. The main issues are as follows: (1) The chart adds nothing to the information in the article - in fact, as you noted, it contradicts some of it (2) It was added to the article in explict vioaltion of WP:POINT, by an editor who wanted to make the (disputed) point that most of the casualties were Lebanese civilians (3) most importantly, the chart, being a pie chart, can only present one set of numbers. In this case we have multiple such sets, since the figures (specifically, the Hezbollah casualties and the Lebanese civilian casualties) are disputed, and range from 74 Hezb dead to 700+ Hezb dead, and correspondingly, from about 1100 Lebanese civilians dead to leas than 400 Lebanese civilans dead. Picking any one set of these numbers is inherently POV. Isarig 03:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, don't insist on 400 civilian casualties, see my comment on "compromise suggestion" sectionNielswik_(talk) 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insisting on anything - I am happy with the table that has multiple claims - Hezb says 74, UN says 500, Israel says 440 identified and 700 estimated, and lebanese sources say 700+. readers can evaluate these competing claims, and decide which one is more credible. It is you and Carbonate who are insisting on using only the Hezb figures in the chart. Isarig 04:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is fully sourced and congruent with the table as of its date of creation. It is time for those who kept the chart off the page while the request for mediation was open to back off. The chart will go up and stay up for a month to give people a chance to comment on it. After that time, I will discuss any further changes that would help improve its neutrality. It is time for those who rejected the mediation to back off as per Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. Carbonate 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not run WP, nor this page, and statements like "The chart will go up and stay up for a month" might make you feel good for a couple of minutes, but will have little effect on reality. The chart is POV for reasons described above, and you need to address those concerns rather than resorting to your bullying ways of repeatedly erisnerting it over multiple editors' objections, with edit summaries telling people to "back off". Isarig 22:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pie-chart by definition can only represent one set of numbers, and in any event the Lebanese numbers are not actually sourced, but are the product of original research on this page. Beyond that, this whole revert-war is ridiculous considering that the last time people tried to add this, a compromise was reached in a multilateral discussion (attested by the words above). Tewfik^Talk 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey try to say something about this from Israeli media Nielswik_(talk) 09:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or this AFP article which clearly say 1287 Lebanese killed and at least 1140 of them are confirmed to be civilians. If we substract thsi number, and also 43 Lebanese army and police and 17 Amal militia, then we have at most 87 hezbollah. Nielswik_(talk) 09:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just report claims of Lebanon Goverment. It doesn't mean that this claims are actually true. There is other set of number that reported by other sources (Lebanese, UN and etc).They are valid too. Because Pie chart could represent only one set of numbers its repressing only one POV .Shrike 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese police is neutral because it wasnt involved in the conflict and is very reliable. At least it won't say hezbollah is civilian Nielswik_(talk) 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon was a part of the confilict so of course its not natural.We should accept UN number that talks about 500+ Hizballa dead.Shrike 18:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon did nothing except being turned into rubble. It won't say Hezbollahs are civilians, right?Nielswik_(talk) 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon was an active participant in the hostilities, and even if it wasn't, it is of course not a neutral party here. Regardless, that is no tthe issue. The issue is that you can't use a chart which presents only one set of numbers when these nubers are disputed. Isarig 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chart seems to have an agenda and is not a WP:NPOV appropriate way of showing the material (that already exists...). At any case, it also didn't have the correct number of hizballah killed and "other groups" is of course not an accurate description. Amoruso 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to add the chart in won;t make it either more neutral or more accepted. There are neutral accepted numbers noted on the page alongside both POVs' data. If a pie-chart is necessary for any reason, then it can follow the compromise reached above. Tewfik^Talk 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the pie chart on this page: World War II casualties. I think this kind of visual data can be useful, if we can get neutral figures. Hopefully in a few years time that will be possible. Martin 11:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian killed[edit]

And why did you revert the paragraph about an Indonesian killed?Nielswik_(talk) 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was mistake sorry.Shrike 18:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isarig, let me know what problem you have with an Indonesian killedNielswik_(talk) 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists attempting to manipulate this page[edit]

We must continue to monitor their contributions as they attempt to spread their propaganda. eternalsleeper

This Page is sickening[edit]

12 of my cousins died , 11 out 185 homes remained standing , i dont see why no one asked us about shock therapy( the fumes of this israeli arrognance is disgusting ) , and on the usage of wounded , come one you have to be kidding me , i think the world or atleast 5 % of it realizes what is said in the usage of wounded by variations...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.226.66 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the Israeli civilian casualties are somewhat inflated. There are way too many more "wounded" than could possibly be true. From US Army statistics it can be concluded that for every dead there will be three wounded, of which one will never fully recover (seriously wounded) and two will recover within months (lightly wounded) given medical care. There is nothing magic about this 3:1 relationship, it is merely a manifestation of the way explosives work, doing most of its damage close to the impact. MX44 09:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply because of the Weapons that Hezbollah purpeosely used. A wounded man during a war makes much more trouble than ten dead ones. Hezbollah was interested in wounding, not killing ppl. Just read a little about the war. It's all known, just doesn't express in tables like this. 62.214.198.46 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page included both the sum and the breakdown side by side. I've elminated this by leaving in the full breakdown. Also a lot of these figures were out of date, so I moved some figures and sources in from the main article. — George^[talk] 09:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, you upped the number of Lebanese civilians wounded, leaving the number of Hezbollah wounded still at zero (which is not very likely.) Is this an effect of confused reporting, so that in reality those casualties actually should have been accounted to Hezbollah? MX44 10:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I upped the number of Lebanese citizens wounded, not civilians (see the note underneath them - the Lebanese government doesn't release details on the breakdown of these figures). We don't have any figures for Hezbollah's wounded, so it should indeed be left blank for now. This chart should likely be reformatted at some point. The breakdown of civilian versus military deaths is extremely confusing in this conflict, given the mixing of militants and civilians in figures, and the lack of accurate estimates. I might look into displaying the data differently in the coming days. — George^[talk] 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ... OK! MX44 10:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

According to the page itself you cant say that majority of killed were Lebanese civilians. Between 250-700 Hezbollah militants were killed out of 1191 Lebanese citizens.--Shrike 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement should not have been included without citations, though it's also improper to remove it without first requesting citations. I've replaced it with a new statement, with sufficient citations of course, while noting that the issue is somewhat disputed (although I've never seen it disputed anywhere but on Wikipedia). — George^[talk] 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its already stated in the article on lebanise death toll section.Why it should emphasised as part of the intro?--Shrike 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An introduction is a summary, not an emphasis. I agree the introduction should be expanded, and I fully invite you to do so. — George^[talk] 09:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you didn't answered my concerns. The part about Lebanese dead emphasized in the intro .Why? It’s already mentioned in the article in relevant section.--Shrike 15:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, it is not an attempt to emphasize anything, but to summarize the article. It is not a full summary of the article, and as such the introduction should be expanded to include summary information on Israeli civilian and military casualties, Hezbollah casualties, as well as Lebanese army and third party (UN) casualties during the conflict. — George^[talk] 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until its done the undue wieght given to Lebanise civilian.I will delete it from the intro becouse such information already exist in the article.--Shrike 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should probably look up what the policy on undue weight is, as it has to do with giving minority opinions too much information. Second, since apparently you're too busy to expand this section yourself, I'll do so instead. — George^[talk] 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intoduction has been expanded to include the various groups. I've left out most of the references, as we generally avoid tagging too many in introductions. If there are specific things you feel require citations, please feel free to tag them. — George^[talk] 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060902024622/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20286580-2703,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20286580-2703,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151006114415/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5214046.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5214046.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kuwaittimes.net/navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=1677308013

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919004135/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://5tv.com.ua/newsline/188/0/28422/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C20867%2C20286580-2703%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lebanon-israel.info/

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) 01:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. 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) 15:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article obscure the number of dead Lebanese civilans? Why isn't Human Rights Watch cited?[edit]

The Israeli section clearly says how many civilians have died.

There is no such section for the Lebanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.195.202 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]