This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lebanon-related articles 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.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
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.
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)reply
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)reply
...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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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 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. —
kashmīrīTALK 00:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.SilverLocust💬 16:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Lightoil (
talk)
17:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
ASUKITE15:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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.