Talk:1982 Lebanon War
|
|
| Contents |
Title is POV
We have Operation Litani, why do we not have Operation Peace for the Galilee? What makes this war different than any other war Israel fought? It should be merged with Lebanon Civil War or the title moved to Operation Peace for the Galilee. If thats not good enough, than it should be called the "1982 Lebanon War" .]
I've done a Google Search. These are the results.
1982 Lebanon War has if done by the strictest search "4,950" hits. "[1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%221982+Lebanon+War%22&btnG=Search) 1982 Invasion of Lebanon has doing the strictest possible search has 10,700[2] (http://www.google.com/search?q=%221982+Invasion+of+Lebanon%22&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&start=10&sa=N). The problem is that some encyclopedias duplicate wikipedia articles one to one after the articles are made, increasing the number of hits on goolge. Finally, we have to consider the name intself. In the search it is used pejoratively. We could call WW2 the War of Nazi Aggression, but instead we call it WW2, we use the same standard for 1948 Arab Israeli War vs Israeli War of Independence or Nakba, and we use 1973 War vs Yom Kippur War. I think to continue by this standard, we need to call it by a neutral name and list what both sides call it as wikipedia always does. I am going to move it, and see the response.
Guy Montag 23:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag 02:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Guy, I don't think it is really POV; "Invasion" is not necessarily pejorative - as in the D-day Invasion of Normandy, or the Allied invasion of Sicily.
Sure, but these are battles within a war, a war entitled WW2, not something like Nazi War of Aggresssion.
It is the most usual name in English for the war in my experience, from writers on all sides. Also Wiki does prefer Yom Kippur war to 1973 war. I don't think it is too important either way, just that good faith should be assumed about such IMHO minor points, and that if it is felt necessary to neutralize the name of one war, one should do it for all. Concerning Operation Litani, it, like the War of Attrition, is somewhat forgotten, so I think the argument that the most usual name (with words) should be used is even stronger there. Peace for Galilee would probably not be what most searchers would start with, and it is too distinct an event from the civil war to be merged. --John Z 01:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think 1982 Lebanon War is a neutral term, its also shorter.
Guy Montag 08:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is a June 6 selected anniversary
3 revert rule
Style, I have not violated the 3 revert rule. I NPOVd your many POV edits, restoring some deleted information, but certainly not reverting or changing all, or even the majority of your work. You then reverted my own edits 4 times, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please voluntarily revert to the previous version to undo this breach, and please bring your proposed edits to Talk: . Jayjg 18:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- A revert is a revert is a revert. You reverted my edits first. And look closely, I didn't revert to the same version 4 times. --style 05:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
People, I checked the history page, there are not many point of disagreement, please talk it out in here. For the meanwhile, either leave the orginal page until NPOV is resolved or find a temporary comprised version. Put NPOV notoce if you see right. MathKnight 20:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As a newcomer with some understanding of the international situation at the time, I'm curious; why is there a delete war going on? Is it impossible to agree on NPOV caveats? For instance, in the first section that keeps getting reverted, you could add the following after "…launched from Southern Lebanon.": "The Lebanese representative to the United Nations stated [3] (http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/501%20(1982)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION) that these reasons were a pretext, and many still believe this to be the case. Israel and the United States rejected those claims." This does not say either is a correct viewpoint, just that many people legitimately held (and still hold, if Yuber's and Guy's posts are any indication) views that differ significantly on the reasons Israel took military action. To exclude either in "un-Wiki".
- The Fisk quote, whether we like it or not, is perfectly in line with the NPOV guidelines; deleting is not. Fisk did say that, and it was in specific reference to the subject of this article. Just because we don't like a quote that is relevant is no excuse for censoring it. Simply add a rebuttal quote and put the statement in context.
- The Ben-Gurion mess, on the other hand, has no reasonable foundation. To posit that a 1937 quote (about a nation that did not yet exist) as the basis for an action fifty years later is an unreasonable stretch. There were (and still are) many who believe the leaders of the newly formed Israeli state never accepted the 1947 boarders as reasonable or tolerable, and believed that they would have to fight to gain the land needed to form a viable state amongst hostile neighbours. This is just a lousy (and deliberately inflammatory) quote to use when trying to make that point, and an unfounded tie to the conflict at hand.
- IMHO, the current article along with each historical edit I've seen on either "side", is infused with POV, often to the point of open propagandizing. Bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball between "our" POV version and "their" POV version means that we will never see a valid, encyclopaedic article. Just my opinion, of course. Kevin/Last1in 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Subsequently, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred during Israel's occupation of West Beirut.
This does not belong in the introduction; it is not a critical piece of information about the war, and is one of many massacres committed in the overall Lebanon war, including in those very camps. Jayjg 21:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It does belong in the intro, because it is a important, historic event of greater fame (infamy?) and notability than the war itself. For example, the article on the massacre is _much_ bigger than this article.
- I'll respond to your other edits here. They are all obviously factually incorrect and POV. Palestinians alone did not kill thousands of Lebanese civilians; both sides committed massacres. There was not intense international pressure placed only upon the Palestinians; there was pressure on both sides to achieve peace. And I really don't see how writing "hundreds, possibly thousands" is better than "700-3000" for the massacre casualties. Why are you wasting my time? --style 05:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
- I agree that it does not belong in the introduction. This article is meant to be about a military operation, that had legitimate and long-reaching political causes and effects. Civilians get killed in any war; it's just one of the unfortunate, and all but unavoidable results. This is especially true when the combatants are themselves guerillas, possibly in plain-clothes, hiding amongst civilians, as is nearly always the case with the PLO.
I do not believe that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is "a important, historic event of greater fame (infamy?) and notability than the war itself," as you claim. I had never heard of it before reading this article. LordAmeth 18:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, because it is relevant to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, anti-Israel activists have tried to make it that way. Of course, they ignore the large massacres in this conflict that had nothing to do with Israel, and make absurd claims that a massacre of 800 or so Palestinians by the Phalange is more significant than a war which lasted cost hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced over a million people, etc. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shebaa Farms
Style you keep reverting the change from Sheeba Farms to Shebaa Farms, which is the name of the Wikipedia article. Why? Jayjg 21:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Background
Jayjg, I have added completely new information to this page, there is no duplication, and the background is necessary to explain the context of the 1982 war. It's curious, the previous version's background went back to 1976 but you didn't delete that, Jayjg. And you still haven't explained your previous reverts. --style 18:34, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Discussion
The (current) edit war seems to be over how much background to include. Instead of reverting, how about discussing these issues:
- How much background should be included or excluded?
- Why?
—No-One Jones (m) 19:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The background should deal with events immediately leading up to the conflict, and immediately relevant to it. A POV re-write of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict is not appropriate, particularly as it creates two contradictory version of that history; a see also is quite enough. And if it is appropriate to go back to 1948, why stop there? Why not go back to the 1929 Hebron riots, or the 1917 Balfour declaration, or Saladin, or the Muslim conquest, or the Roman conquest, or the Maccabean victories, or... Jayjg 21:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing this, both of you. All the information in this page is accurate and relevant to the 1982 war, and consistent with historical facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only question is if it would be better on other pages. As a gesture of good faith, I have moved the 1948 background to History of Lebanon and the civil war background to Lebanese Civil War. The other pre-1982 information is important, and should remain on this page to show the history of PLO-Israeli conflict, unless someone has a better page for it. I am also considering creating a more general page, such as Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
--style 01:37, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
I think Style's suggestion of moving much of the detail to more appropriate articles has merit. If the text dealing with Operation Litani were moved into that article and the remainder cut down to some two- or three-sentence summaries, then we might end up with a level of background acceptable to all. —No-One Jones (m) 05:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. Personally, I didn't want to create a new article, as it's difficult enough to contribute to existing articles, but as you think it's a good idea, I've made Operation Litani and put all the pre-1982 information there. I've left one paragraph summarizing the situation in Lebanon in, because I think one parapaph of background is acceptable as it's less than what was there before. (Remarks removed too, per request.)
- IZAK: Nice work with the map, thanks, but I don't see the relevance of the 2000 events regarding resolution 425 to the 1982 war. I've moved your info (slightly edited) to Operation Litani, in accordance with WP norms. --style 08:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the info about the UN Sec Gen's certfication in 2000 that Israel has complied with UN Res 425, an important "official" ending for the 1982 invasion. IZAK 10:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Phosphorus
The paragraph contains important information about Israel's conduct in the war. It does not contain any extraneous details about phosphorus. Why is important information being deleted? And why are citations being deleted? --style 12:05, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- What do you imagine the important information that is "about Israel's conduct", not phosphorus shells, that is being deleted? Please be specific. Jayjg 19:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Firing cluster bombs into civilian areas, where children might play with them. And what do you imagine the important information that is "about phosphorus" that you are repeatedly deleting? Please be specific. --style 23:37, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Um, the version you keep reverting to says nothing about "firing cluster bombs into civilian areas". Try again. Jayjg 00:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That's what is implied if children are playing with them. Why are you deleting the cite, regardless? That is against WP policy. --style 09:11, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
- So you're saying I'm deleting something that's not actually in the text, but is implied by it? The sentence already uses the word "civilian" twice, I don't think that implies military. Jayjg 16:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert Fisk Reference
Is this reference to Robert Fisk really necessary in this article? The paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading. What is the purpose of mentioning this? Why are there no factual statistics accompanying this point? Simply saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a quesitonable account of the events that transpired in this war. Moreover, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US. Is the intention of the author of this article to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee? If not, then perhaps the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.
-ecl26
Responding to your points in order:
- No, the reference to Robert Fisk is not really necessary to this article.
- Yes, the paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading.
- The purpose of mentioning it is to demonize Israel.
- There are no factual statistics accompanying it because Fisk didn't provide any; he was more interested in criticizing Israel than providing factual accounts.
- Yes, saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a questionable account of the events that transpired in this war.
- Yes, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US.
- Yes, the intention of the author of that particular part of the article was to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee?
- Yes, the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.
Hope that was helpful. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anti-Israel POV
Two statements in this article seem to be anti-Israel propoganda to me: 1)n 10 July 1981, after a period of peace, the Israeli air force bombarded Palestinian targets in south Lebanon and later that day Palestinian elements fired artillery and rockets into northern Israel. After a period of peace??? What, the Israelis were the mean guys here??? And 2) Israeli provocations continued from August 1981 to May 1982 during which there were 2125 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters. Provocations??? Sure, the PLO was shelling Israeli villages from Lebanon, but hey, ISRAEL was the provoker, right? 69.58.249.133 12:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's pretty POV. It's a longstanding problem with this article; see Talk: sections above. However, these specific edits are quite new. I'm not sure the editor realizes why this particular narrative is just one POV that should at least be attributed as such, rather than stated as bald fact. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What's the point of weasel words such as "alleges"? Is this a new standard on Wikipedia, that for each source we have to say the source "alleges"? Also, Jayjg, why do you pick out certain quotes that you feel are anti-Israeli and say they come from "dubious" sources. Yuber(talk) 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These quotes have very little to do with the Lebanon War. You are using a quote from 1937 to allege a connection with the Lebanon War, which is false. Secondly, dozens of sources need to be verified. What book did Robert Fisk use? What does a book review have to do with the extent of US involvement in Lebanon? When did this involvement start? Why was there no mention of the Airport bombing of the US marines stationed there?
This article is in need of alot of work.
Guy Montag 21:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't claim links are dead to remove quotes. The link works fine for me. Please cease your censoring of information by your removal of quotes.Yuber(talk) 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What does a quote from 1937 have to do with the Lebanon War? If you can't explain that, it has nothing to do with this article.
Guy Montag 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's entirely relevant. It shows that the desire to occupy southern Lebanon was not in response to PLO activity, but rather rooted in early Zionist aspirations. The quote serves to temper the Israeli claim that the invasion of Lebanon was solely to root out PLO militants.Yuber(talk) 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it shows what you want it to show. It has nothing to do with the invasion of Lebanon, it is not relevant to this article. It is a speech by Ben Gurion in 1937. He wasnt even prime minister at that time. That was still the mandatory period. You are pushing your luck so far down in history to justify a war which happened for different reasons.You have no proof on anything other than your wild imagination.
Guy Montag 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Title of the article
Is Invasion of Lebanon POV? Shouldn't it be a subset of the Lebanon civil war?
Guy Montag 02:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Katyusha Rockets
I too would like to see source for the Katyusha rocket range. It should also be pointed out that the Katyusha article itself is incomplete, as many Katyusha variants (such as the Iranian Fahr-3) sport longer range or increased payloads. It's entirely possible the 40 km range listed here is because Hezbollah used one of those variants.