Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 35

message: I'm really stumped as to what's the best word here. Shall we try WP:RFC to get some fresh perspectives? Raymond Arritt 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good --Mtjs0 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment? 

message: what role does this organisation plays in the war?Yousaf465
:There used to be a reference next to the listing that said that some Somalian members of this organization fought alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon. I've never heard it elsewhere, but I don't remember the credibility of the source. I'll try to dig it up. — George Saliba [talk] 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. I'll re-add it to the page. It would be good to get further references to support this probably, as this is still the only site I've heard report this information. — George Saliba [talk] 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, I've found the original report to the UN that first mentioned this group in Lebanon. However, it's worth noting that it appears to be heavily disputed. Anyone have thoughts on how to handle this? My personal thought is that it should be mentioned in some section of the article, with appropriate references to the dispute, but not listed as a combatant in the infobox until there is more consensus among experts. — George Saliba [talk] 16:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Courts Union 

message: For this to pass GA the following,
* Don't wikilink solo years, ex 1975
* Way too many references in the lead. Remember it is a summary of the article, the death count and all the events will be referenced in the body.
* References go right after a full-stop and comma, not in the middle of a setence, also no spaces between references, ex [45] [46] [47] [48]
* Is it possible to where you have 4 references to have one? makes it easier to read
* In the 'Reviews of the conflict' move one of the images down, too crowded
* Awful lot of external links, try remove a few
* I think the semi-protection will have to go as it fails the GA criteria of not being stable.
I also suggest you request a Peer Review. Goodluck M3tal H3ad 07:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to review. We can certainly take care of the stylistic points which you mentioned. There are usually multiple references because the point in question would otherwise be highly contentious, and past attempts to reduce the referencing for such statements lead to challenging and readdition of the citations. The multiple external links are the result of a drawn out mediation, and while I believe there would not be much of an issue with trimming them, they are all of high quality. As for the semi-protection, the GA criteria (point 5) says that semi-protection is not a disqualifier when targeted against vandalism, which is the reason for this sp. I hope that you can take these points into consideration, and let us know what you think. Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never knew that about semi-protection, thankyou. From what you said and taking a look at the external links, the links and multiple references should be fine. Main problem is the placing of references and the number of them in the lead. Goodluck M3tal H3ad 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Well writen, but to many references. Recommend break up into smaller articles
Try to simplify and could pass
King of Anonymity 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned above why that is, and you'll notice that there are a plethora of subarticles. I don't mean to be offensive, but it would probably be best if someone a little more experienced could take a look. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't it targeting? --Banana04131 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pass 

message: Is there other evidence for that statement? Otherwise the death toll is 184 as reported in this 3 part article(links below). Since that is how many funerals were held. 70 for resistance fighters, and the rest were non combatants most likely. About a 1 to 1 exchange rate. Some clarfication needed. Thank you.
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasGolladay (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  250 dead not supported by Al-Manar or other Hezbollah publications.