Talk:Hezbollah attack Israel; Israeli forces cross over into southern Lebanon

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Jambalaya in topic Late editing
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've modified some technical inaccuracies in the article, specifically:

  • the event has not occured in the disputed Sheeba farms region which is in the Golan area, but instead in the Galil area, about in the middle of the Galil section of the border, some 60 Km west of the Sheeba farms region.
  • According to official IDF press release, 2 soldiers were kidnapped, 3 dead and 2 wounded, and not the exagerated numbers that were erronously quoted. Do note that a 2 vehicle IDF patrol is usually composed of 7 to 10 soldiers, so the previous quoted numbers cannot possibly be correct.

Sources: 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

In search of kidnapped soldiers ?

This conveys the message that Israel is once again just acting out of self-defence, like most indoctrinated people in the West think. I suggest the title could be changed in a more neutral Israel enters southern Lebanon. The search for the kidnapped soldiers is the motivation cited by the Israeli government and should be questioned. Is it common sense or rational to launch a massive military campaign to deliver two individuals ? Of course not, it endangers their lives.

Let us not use the Israeli discourse (nor that of Hamas or Hizbullah) as the standard one. One of the main reasons the conflict hasn't been solved after a century is that the Zionist-Israeli version of the story is still the one that's being fed to North American and European audiences.

Please leave your id. You can do this with four ~ wiggly lines. That's the best way to get your point listened too. As it happens I was about to come in here to make the same point. It is important to mention in the article Israel believes the soldiers were "kidnapped" - that's the language they use on the IDF website. But in the title we need to be more careful, perhaps add the word "claim" or substitute with another word. Ealturner 16:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Kidnapping" is just a more emotional (POV) word for "capture". However, the IDF website uses the word "abducted" as far as I can see. "Capture" is a good, neutral word. --Jambalaya 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Captured is not neutral. However you will find if you look around the word kidnap used, at least on the English version of the site I read. "Israel says the soldiers were kidnapped" is okay as it's Israel saying it. Not wikinews. From the Hezbollah perspective the soldiers were captured, like a war. Ealturner 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

New title[edit]

Israel enters southern Lebanon in search of soldiers - same title minus "kidnapped" - word not needed. Ealturner 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good adjustment. Also, I do not accept as fact the reasons given for these troop movements into other countries/territories; especially in light of the infrastructure damage in Gaza which does not seem consistent with their stated reason for going into that territory; at least imo. Israel holds thousands of prisoners and if Hamas were to invade Israel and say it was in search of captured Palestinians; we would not accept that stated motivation as being fact. The title needs to reflect that Israel says that's why they went in. I will try this; "Israel;Entering southern Lebanon to search for Israeli soldiers" . Neutralizer 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
don't use the word "entering" - passive? Also don't use a semi-colon, it's ugly Ealturner 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neutralizer, you wrote //NPOV (see talk); we must not present Israeli claims as to their motivation as being factual// I don't see how your change changes the meaning at all. It just makes a more ugly title??? Ealturner 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

ok, so who has something against the title: Israel:"Entering southern Lebanon to search for Israeli soldiers"

slight change from the original title but should ease the arguments. TiB 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think Israel enters southern Lebanon in search of soldiers is good; grammatically and POV-wise. ~ clearthought 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The way I read it, "in search of soldiers" seems to be implying that some soldiers (israeli? lebanese?) have wandered across the border and got lost or something. Which cannot be argues is really not the case. -- Noop 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
How about: Israel: "Entering southern Lebanon in search of captured soldiers"

TiB - Can't sign - not home.


Wow, guys; I'm trying to avoid a NPOV tag but the article was much more Israeli POV than I expected; it was almost like an Israeli press release (no offense intended), imo. I doubt Ealturner and I will agree so hopefully other editors will get involved. Neutralizer 16:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fucking up the redirects with your ingenious headlines --Jambalaya 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
If it was me, please provide links so I can fix them. Thanks,Neutralizer 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nevermind, I'm doing my part in screwing up too :-P But we should agree on a headline asap. How about just "Israel enters southern Lebanon" ? --Jambalaya 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree this title change. It is not NPOV to present Israeli claims as fact. Also, Ealturner, it would seem that of late you are becoming increasingly aggressive which is in turn making it difficult for other editors to collaborate with you on project. At first I was under the impression that it was only me you had (if at all) any issues with, but now it seems that you are being somewhat rude in your interactions with other editors as well. I would advise you to cool off a bit lest you run into trouble for your activities. Thanks. PVJ(Talk) 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
PVJ "you are becoming increasingly aggressive" is a personal attack don't do it. "rude in your interactions with other editors" - this is not the place to throw accusations around. Ealturner 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


Ok; I had meant before to show that the entry into Lebanon was claimed to be for a certain purpose rather than stating that it was for that purpose. This title may not be right either but hopefully someone can think of a title which does not seem to support Israel's attack on Lebannon as being solely a prisoner retrieval tactic. Neutralizer 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

How exactly is the word "invasion" non POV? Whats wrong with "enter" as it was? TiB 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Israel claims its invasion of southern Lebanon is justified" We nearly had a great title... why this? It's biased in tone as it presupposes someone has said the invasion - POV! - was unjustified. It's not an invasion either, on the dictionary definition. You must know that after the last article we discussed the correct definition of invasion. Invasion = plunder and conquest. Israel say they are looking for soldiers = .POVEalturner 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
In any case, the Israelis claim they are looking for soldiers. Claims can very often be different from facts, many countries claim many different reasons for their actions overseas, we need to reflect the fact that the Israeli statement in neither cent-percent true nor cent-percent false. PVJ(Talk) 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
"we need to reflect the fact that the Israeli statement in neither cent-percent true nor cent-percent false" I agree with this. However the news needs to report the news. This requires we use qualifying words like "claim" or "says" to attribute any possible POV to a source, rather than wikinews Ealturner 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

IDF Source added confirms IDF believe 2 were "kidnapped"[edit]

Any objections for me to write "Israel claims they were kidnapped"? Ealturner 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps I am seeing this too differently from the rest. To me it's obvious that NPOV precludes presenting any government's stated motives for attacks or invasion as if that is the factual motive in a headline or even in the content of an article. We saw with Gaza that quite soon there was other motives (weakening Hamas) presented as being the real reason Israel swept into the territory so we can't be presenting any stated motive as being fact. We must always use qualifiers like "claim" or "alleged" or "stated"; I think. Neutralizer 17:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Great example; "Iraqi group claim deaths of U.S. soldiers avenge rape, murder of Iraqi girl"... see, we make it clear that this so called motive is only claimed; suppose we had just put "Iraqi group killed U.S. soldiers to avenge rape, murder of Iraqi girl"? That would have been the wrong way to present it. Does anyone see what I'm trying to say here? I know I don't communicate that well most of the time, but I'm trying. Neutralizer 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I proposed "Israel enters southern Lebanon" earlier. Anyone got any views on that one? --Jambalaya 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wrong, Neutralizer you need to understand that government statements are PART OF THE NEWS. Whether wrong or right we report it, albeit we say they "claim" so that we tell the reader it is a POV statement. Ealturner 17:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, but why does the article's content not include the word "claim" in several important references? Ok, someone edited the word out; I will reinsert the word "claim". Neutralizer 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not everyone knows that POV statements must be attributed? Sometimes I miss statements that should be attributed. I tend to pick up some statements more quickly than others. Not deliberately, but a benefit of collaboration is other people will pick up the mistake if I don't.  :) Ealturner 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


Please see my question about two existing article at Talk:Israel_is_entering_southern_Lebanon_to_search_for_Israeli_soldiers --Szajd 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's been forked :-S Someone should delete one of them! --Jambalaya 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Additional Information[edit]

I would like to see the article mentions that Hezbolla bombarded Israeli towns Wednesday morning during the armed clash on the border. I think its not NPOV to only mention Israeli bombardment of Lebanese civilian targets without also mentioning that Hezbolla engaged in such an activity as well. Noop 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the additional information can be correctly sourced, the words attributed and the information is relevant to the article it should already be in the article. It seems to me it is relevant rockets landed in Israeli towns during the Hezbollah incursion. However it would be POV to say Hezbollah hit the towns deliberately so be careful with words. Ealturner 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
From sources already cited in the article: ( - "On Wednesday morning, Hezbollah launched dozens of Katyusha rockets and mortar bombs at the Israeli town of Shlomi"; (,7340,L-3274258,00.html) - "Western Galilee residents woke up to loud sounds of exchanges of fire on both sides of the border. Explosions were heard on the central and eastern [Galilee] zones. Six people were injured on the western area of the border" -- Noop 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
What, you just expect violent militants like the people in Hezbollah to not fight back? Anyway, isn't it POV if we take our side with an article from a strongly Israeli site like Ynet News? Just wondering. ~ clearthought 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
(a) The rather factual presentation of actual aimed fire at Israeli civilians is from BBC. The YNet article is much more opaque about the causes of injuries. (b) I'm not expecting anything, I'm just saying that all information should be present. (c) isn't it POV to hide information ? -- Noop 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is not hezbollah who is retaliating but the israelis. Hezbollah attacked first. 19:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

//Anyway, isn't it POV if we take our side with an article from a strongly Israeli site like Ynet News?// No. You make the error of assuming there are "credible" and "non-credible" news sources. There are no credible news sources. They're all commercial. They're all biased. Ealturner 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is true in certain parts of the world, but some of us actually got non-commercial news outlets. --Jambalaya 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I'll bite :-) - news sources that aren't commercial? so they are either - government sponsored (immediately should be considered biased), or voluntury - operated by people who are passionate about the subject they report about. From the listed three types, which would prefer to have reporting on much disputed and heated issues ? -- Noop 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'd say it depends on the spesific outlet, not the type of outlet. :-) --Jambalaya 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah! now you peeked my interest :-) which exactly are we talking about ? -- Noop 20:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, the BBC would be a good example. It gets parts of its funding through the British government and through licensing and yet it's one of the world's most trusted news organizations. --Jambalaya 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jambalaya - BBC is commerical and bias. As you just said it's run on licence fee and the British goverment. I don't know why you'd think it's different to any other. Perhaps you like its content more? That's your opinion. Ealturner 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
//(c) isn't it POV to hide information ?// That's right, censorship is biased. So long as information is relevant, attributed and EVERYTHING is sourced - A.R.S.E - it can go in the article. PS: I just made that acronym up! Don't say naughty words. Ealturner 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suggest the following change: second paragraph "...near Zar'it, while mortars and long-rage rockets were fired into Israeli territory". I think I demonstrated that it is mentioned in sources already cited. Your opinion? -- Noop 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mention the Israeli town of "Shlomi" was hit - that's the "new" news you've found in the BBC article. Be specific. Ealturner 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok - then: "...near Zar'it, while mortars and long-rage rockets were fired at the Israeli town Shlomi and nearby settlements.". I've heard interview on the radio and TV with locals claiming Hezbollah fire at other locations, but of course I can't cite them :-p, but I don't mind that much - this isn't new information, it is simply missing from Wikinews' otherwise rather comprehensive report. -- Noop 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Those facts are sourced. However you might say "while Israel says mortars and rockets were fired"... add Israel says because it may be POV that Hezbollah deliberately attacked those places. Maybe a rocket went off course? Not all facts known from Hez side. Ealturner 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'd rather not qualify the fact that bombs where launched, being a fact and all (for some crowds, "XXXXX says" == "reporter thinks its untrue". I don't want to go there). The BBC article clearly mentions several dozens (hardly a mistake). I think its ok if we can say that "shots have been fired although its not clear if they were aimed at civilians", but I can't think of a good phrasing for that ATM. -- Noop 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, don't mention civilians - it's speculation to say they were targeted. Just mention the facts - the towns were hit. Also I'd rather only write the news - don't write news that's "not clear" - it creates confusion with the reader. Do I believe it or don't I? Anyway, I've added a line about the towns now. Read it and see what you think :) Ealturner 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I believe this is adequate. Thank you. -- Noop 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Meanwhile back in Gaza...[edit]

"Separately, Israel escalated its Gaza assault, killing 23 people.

Israeli attacks in the central Gaza town of Deir Al-Balah killed 12 people, while two people were killed in separate incidents elsewhere in Gaza.

Israel also dropped a quarter-ton bomb on a home in Gaza City before dawn to try to kill top Hamas fugitives. Palestinian hospital officials said the blast killed nine members of a family — seven children and two parents."


--Jambalaya 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is worthy of its own article. As this article concerns Lebanon and Hezbollah. The two are not necessarily related as Hezbollah and Gaza strip have different terroritories and political ambitions. Ealturner 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I know. I was just shaking my head over what the world missed while being kept busy :-) --Jambalaya 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why do we want to be projecting the impression that the attack on Lebannon and Gaza are solely search and rescue missions? Isn't that exactly what we've been doing? Even this headline gives that impression. Neutralizer 21:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
In the house was Mohammad Def, one of the most wanted people in gaza. I guess it was a calculated risk.

TiB 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neutralizer Israel claims that is what it is doing. What other reasons would Israel be there btw? Hezbollah have admitted capturing the soldiers. The title needs to reflect what the article is about. Please put other title suggestions in here to discuss before unilaterally changing the title. There is already a concensus on this one. Ealturner 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

If this isn't an "attack"; what is?[edit]

Shouldn't this be called what it is; a major invasion or attack? "Two civilians were killed in an air raid on one of the bridges, while 23 others have been injured. Israeli artillery and gunboats also attacked other targets on Lebanese soil." It might be a retaliatory attack, but it's clearly an attack; not an "entry",imo. Neutralizer 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

An incursion. --Jambalaya 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neutralizer, just for argument's sake as I take your comment as an open question. Invasion has a specific definition, plunder and conquest. You can say Allied Forces invaded Kuwait / Iraq because the intention was conquest (some might argue plunder too, though I suppose "rescuing an economic basket case" can come under plunder.) Nobody is saying that is happening in Lebanon. I'm pretty sure even Hezbollah isn't saying Israel is attempting to conquer and plunder Lebanon. And do you think world/US would stand by and let Israel do that even if Israel wanted? Ealturner 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do not agree with the premise that invasion is always for plunder and conquest; (it might just be for political upheavel) and even if it is(for plunder and conquest) we do not know if that occurred until after the fact. Neutralizer 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
so when doctors perform an invasive procedure on patients... Doldrums 13:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

And do you think world/US would stand by and let Israel do that even if Israel wanted

I don't theink the U.S has any authority in this regard. In any case, since the U.S is currently "liberating" another oil-rich Middle-Eastern country, I doubt they will feel have any urgent desire to "free" Lebanon. PVJ(Talk) 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Title - Part 2[edit]

Can somone point me to the source where someone actually said "Entering southern Lebanon to search for Israeli soliders". Currently the title is stated like that's a quote from someone as its, ummm, quoted. --R2b2 22:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know; it's not accurate. I still think this "Israel claims its invasion of southern Lebanon is justified" is a clear and NPOV title, but several editors seem to want to have a title that portrays Israel's attack as a search and rescue mission. Neutralizer 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think that sounds a bit like a story about the story. One story concentrating on Israel's justification for the raid, while another story deals with the details of the raid. Besides, "invades" is more POV than "enters". --Jambalaya 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neutralizer, read what I said above about the term invasion. It's unacceptable as in factually wrong and POV. Don't bring it up when it doesn't fit the definition. Ealturner 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems no-one can point to a source so I'm assuming it's been incorrectly quoted. Something as simple as Israeli forces cross over into southern Lebanon would probably do for a headline wouldn't it? Why they are would be the purpose of the leading paragraph(s)... (by the way, my spelling might be a bit off :) ) --R2b2 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Israeli forces cross over into southern Lebanon This is fine by me. Simple title that describes what happened. Ealturner 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Me too; let's do it. Neutralizer 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Excellent. Like the new title. And not an invasion in sight... :P Ealturner 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The title does not fully describe what happened. Ealturner 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


I think you have it right; yet I think the title lead-in would be clearer by stating that the search is for "missing soldiers." States intent without taking a position. paddy 01:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure which thing you think is right :) Could you elaborate? --R2b2 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


I think we have to at some point address the "hitting a fly with a sledgehammer" issue. The idea that because a soldier is kidnapped justifies a full scale invasion of the country the kidnappers came from is dumbwitted. I suggest we not continue to fall for that line regardless of how romantic it may seem. Neutralizer 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You don't achieve "balance" by sitting on the one end of the scales you think needs more weight (unless those weights are attributed). //full scale invasion of the country// You're sensationalising again. Nobody is "falling for the Israel POV" - Israel POV is, as it should be, attributed to Israel. Please point out where this isn't the case and we'll deal with it. Ealturner 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree anyone is sitting on a scale nor that anyone other than Israeli or Hezbolah spokespeople are sensationalizing so perhaps we can start by assuming noone here has an agenda. I assume Hezbolah and Israel have an agenda in what they say but I do not think anyone here is sensationalizing nor sitting on a scale. Neutralizer 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neutralizer has made the mainpage tagline non-neutral point of view. I've done my 3 reverts. The tagline has no mention of Hezbollah's attack on Israel. It needs mention because that is why Israel attacked. On second thoughts perhaps the new title isn't so great. Ealturner 02:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Title should state fact Israel was attacked[edit]

In bending over backwards to be fair I've missed the fact Israel was attacked.

//Israeli forces cross over into southern Lebanon// WHY? The title will need to look something like this:

Hezbollah attacks Israel; Israeli forces cross over into southern Lebanon Ealturner 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the title. The mainpage tagline still is not NPOV and needs editing. Ealturner 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the change, I think its important to state who attacked first, it puts things into perspective. also, I don't see how Zidane's apology is worth such a big headline. I think its more appropriate to put it on the right side as a smaller headline.TiB 10:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hezbollah in govt?[edit]

wp Lebanese government of July 2005 lists the "political affiliation" of some members of the present government as Hezbollah. Doldrums 06:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hezbollah had a seat in the cabinet. 12:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hezbollah in Gov't[edit]

The rv edit comment was cut off so I'm not sure why I was reverted. It is important to state that Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government coalition (and currently has 2 sitting ministers) in the section where the Lebanese government dissociates itself from the events. Cheers, Tewfik 06:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Late editing[edit]

Couldn't the latest edit be including in a more recent story? The source is dated July 18, so it's a bit late to use it in a WN-story dated July 12. --Jambalaya 13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok I understand your problem. May be it4s not good to include this source in this article, but then it nedds to be neutralised.

The article does not need neutralised, it is over a week old and should not be getting edited. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do not see anywere these rules you just invented yet. This is about neutralisation. I agree that no new information from the last few days should be added to this article, but it is still allowed to neutralise it. And it needs to, because the informations it contains are not necessarily true (the fact that Hizbollah crossed the border to kidnap the two soldiers) So, even if you don't want this "information" to be removed, the minimum would be to tell it using the conditional form. PREVIOUS UNSIGNED COMMENT BY User:

These are not rules I just invented, they are a conservative interpretation of the archive conventions. And, as an admin performing a second revert I asked for a second opinion, and the article was protected.
I'm sure there's stories we have that are plain wrong, and they'll stay that way. We're not an encyclopedia and sometimes we screw up. Anyway, now the situation is you have to explain the edit you want, justify it, and ask for a review on the admin alert page. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I've tried to talk about it to the one who blocked this article. Apparently he is very quick to use his privileges as an administrator, but there is nobody at the phone anymore then when it is about finding a solution and talk. I'm very upset. I understand this article is old and care should be taken while editing it, and I'm ready to talk about it here if someone wishes to, but I do not accept this abusive blocking from someone who disapeared as quick as he came. I've posted a new message on his "talk" page, a little bit more aggresive this time. It is not in order to insult him, it is just to see if he will react according to the usual moto of many administrators: "as long as you stay quiet I don't give a fuck what you say, and when you become impatient, I say it is inadmissible".

Can't you read what Brianmc just wrote? It's a ROUTINE to archive old articles. Move on. --Jambalaya 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply