Talk:War crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War

Image copyright problem with Image:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png

The image Image:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png 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. --20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jan Egland quote abused

The statement from Jan Egland does not belong in the article, it does not refer to war-crimes and looks as if it has been used out of context by the Jerusalem Post. Then it's been then further clipped in the article to distort it's meaning. According to JPost, he siad "Consistently, from the Hizbullah heartland, my message was that Hizbullah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children." Leaving out the word "consistently" gives a false impression, in fact his statement is more of an attempt to prove his even handed-ness towards Hizbollah. Unless we have the whole thing it's impossible to know what he said. Even if Jan Egeland's statement belonged, it would not belong in the lead alongside measured statements. 86.180.56.216 (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Title?

Does anyone else feel that the title of this article is not quite appropriate? 'Possible war crimes' just seems a bit vague to me - it suggests 'these events may be war crimes, they may not, but we're listing them here anyway'. That's not precise enough for an encyclopaedic article. How about renaming it to something like Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War, or War crimes allegations in the 2006 Lebanon War, or similar? That would emphasise the fact that this article should only list allegations supported by reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just noticed that the first of those suggested titles actually was the previous title of this article! I'll take the matter up with User:Round the Horne, who moved it. Robofish (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

...And it turns out he's indefinitely blocked. Well, I'll just leave these comments here, and if anyone sees them and agrees, feel free to say so below. Robofish (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 DoneGreyshark09 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is The New Republic a reliable source?

Everyone in the world says it is. If nobody disagrees, I will restore the material cited to TNR within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War → War crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War – That a war crime has occurred is a fact, not an allegation. See MOS:ALLEGED

Also, other articles do not have the word "Allegations of". Parham wiki (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

— Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed. Not all (or even most) of the allegations in the article appear to be confirmed conclusions of definite war crimes (e.g. by a suitable international court or even, in some cases, by the party expressing the alleged allegation). MOS:ALLEGED doesn't really seem to support this. The article needs a lot of review and cleanup. I took a quick look at War crimes in Afghanistan. I found four places in it that used the word "convicted". In this article, there are none. However, I'll admit that I couldn't find any other articles with the title "Allegations of war crimes ..." or "Alleged war crimes ...". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War → War crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War – The prime reason is WP:CONSISTENCY with virtually all other articles about war crimes: War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war, War crimes in the Kosovo War, War crimes in World War I, War crimes in the Tigray War, War crimes in the Korean War, War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War, War crimes in the Syrian civil war, War crimes in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, etc., etc. Not a single article, except this one, uses the term "alleged" or "allegations".

The second reason is that the current title borders editorialising. Wikipedia titles denote topics/concepts/events/phenomena, not our opinions about them. Thus, we have Frexit, not: "Theoretical Frexit"; Danish withdrawal from the European Union, not: "Proposed Danish withdrawal from the European Union"; Korean reunification, not: "Ideas of Korean reunification"; Flat Earth, not: "Disproven flat earth theory"; and so on. The article title must not be seen in the categories of true/false – a page title is there to denote a topic, and not to pass a judgment about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 16:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak-ish oppose while this argument is advanced better than the 6-month-old one by @Reading Beans above, I still think that the degree of vagueness applicable to the accusations here (often inconclusive proof, no convictions, etc.) justifies a disparate treatment between this article and others with the consistent names, per the arguments made by @BarrelProof above. The use of 'allegation' or 'alleged' can be appropriate, and I believe this to be such a case. FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I see where you're getting from, but let's just look at such articles as Flat Earth, Frexit or Alternative cancer treatments which also don't contain any sort of conclusive proof that these things are true or have happened. Yet the vagueness of such concepts doesn't have to be put in the title. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Reading Beans did not make any proposal above. They only relisted the discussion. Best, Reading Beans 06:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you’re right :) FortunateSons (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Still needs more input Lightoil (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - purely for consistency. At present this is the only "Allegations of War Crimes... etc" article I can find, at least from a brief search. While the majority of the examples listed above use much stronger and more confident verbiage in the lead, the body text varies between using some variant "allegations" to outright factually declaring, based on whose opinion it is, but generally they all lean fairly well on those opinions, as they should. While it isn't our place to say whether the crimes were alleged or factual, we can at least be consistent, and the article itself is really where such language belongs. I don't see this as being clickbaity, especially as the lead is fairly informative on the status of the allegations. ASUKITE 15:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.