Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 36

message: I'm curious what the intended meaning of this statement is, in the two locations it is used. It seems like it would be self-evident if the sources the figures cite go back to Israeli government pages. It currently seems to be POV, almost meant to cast doubt on the source of the figures just because they come from the Israeli government and not some third party. Thoughts? — George Saliba [talk] 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be the intent, though I believe it actually appeared during the aforementioned discussions determining the Lebanese casualty count. Either way, I'm not sure whether there is any reason to keep it. TewfikTalk 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we remove both lines. I can see how they may have made sense at one point, but to me they seem to just belittle the Israeli death toll presently. I'm going to leave them for now, to allow others time to discuss the issue if they have other views on the matter, but I'll probably eventually look into removing them. Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems even more odd. The source used comes from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Why do you guys think everything here is against you? Has anyone thought it may just NOT be POV? --Shamir1 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think you may be a little to quick to jump to conclusions my friend. All I'm saying is that the way it's written makes the statement almost sound like an anti-Israeli weasel word, saying that somehow the figures aren't good because it is the Israeli government that says so, and not an independent group (which I don't agree with, that's just what it can be interpretted to mean). I'm not Israeli, so I don't really think it has anything to do with against me personally. — George Saliba [talk] 06:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  all figures confirmed by the Israeli government? 

message: If Bush declared it to be part of the war, there's no problem in adding it. How is it any different from the use of the box against the Taliban etc ? It's not and it appears in the original article. I don't see any grounds for the removal of it. Cheers, Amoruso 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion above. Iorek85 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terror in box

message: I know this has been discussed before. But it is extremely biased to have 2 pictures showing Lebanese/Hezbollah suffering, but only 1 of Israeli suffering. If it is so important to have a picture of an Israeli tank, then please post a picture of Hezbollah firing a missile and there are plenty of those pictures. Remember POV...if you can't find a Hezbollah one, then remove the Israeli tank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borgmore (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, where did the vast majority of the damage occur? And how is a tank firing showing Lebanese suffering? Iorek85 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Iorek85 on this issue. I don't even see how the other pictures in question show suffering. Indirect suffering? Maybe, but smoke in the distance doesn't even tell me what is smoking (regarding the Lebanon picture), and the picture of the Israeli building that was hit doesn't really tell me much either – what was this building used for, did people live here, etc. The vagueness of these images alone makes them seem pretty neutral to me (without the labels, I couldn't tell you which was where to be honest). — George Saliba [talk] 02:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures are not intended to evoke sympathy for anyone. If one would like to make another picture that included Hezbollah firing mortar shells or rockets, that is okay, but so is the one that is currently posted. I defend the current photo, but, Iorek85, wishing to keep it because of where "the vast majority of damage" occured is the wrong reason. --Shamir1 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Shouldn't the picture attempt to accurately portray the conflict as much as possible? (This is, of course, a side note, since the tank doesn't show any bias). Iorek85 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It is a war conflict. (I did not say the tank shows bias.) It portrays the conflict, not necessarily the damage. The pictures are not there to portray damage and for people to say, "Oh, that's so sad..." Again, I do not have a problem with the picture. --Shamir1 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was mostly just referring to the original posters assertion that the images evoked sympathy. I just don't see it, and I agree that doing so wasn't the intention. I don't really see anything wrong with the existing picture from a neutrality standpoint, but I agree too that an equally neutral image that also shows Hezbollah firing rockets is perfectly fine. If someone wants to create an image that they feel is a better depiction of the event, and put it before the editors for consideration, more power to them. Personally I think there's more important issues to deal with. — George Saliba [talk] 03:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats the problem with trying to have an image that conveys everything equally. It never will. You cant objectively decide a quota, like 3 images of this side, 1 of that, or 15 of this, 3 of that. Any ratio will be based on a POV, and therefore the goal cannot be to create an image that meets a ratio or quota. It should just be a good image, an eye catching one. One that leads off an article well and fits better then others in the position. I dont really think the current one does, because I dont really like the whole split image look going on. But thats a different matter entirely. The current image does not violate NPOV for the way it shows things. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Main Picture 

message: A link that might be worth incorpororating in to the article:  --76.214.141.233 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US investigating Israeli cluster bomb usage 

message: So who is a source if not Lebanon government?Even if news agencies don't say it directly the only source that I can think of it is a government.And this proven by first source that 1000 death figure is according to Lebanon government.Shrike 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there's a few problems with this. Just because the only source you can think of is the government, does not mean that that is the only source that collects figures. For instance, one of the references mentions that both HRW and the AP have been collecting their own figures. It's entirely possible other groups have as well. For us to make the assumption that various references are getting their figures from the Lebanese government, when those references do not cite the Lebanese government as their source, is pure original research. We cannot make such assumptions, period. Also, your claim that "this [is] proven by the... 1000 death figure" does not hold any weight, as the figures in the various references vary from 1,000 to 1,500, while the government has one figure of 1,191. Furthermore, the statement is not a claim regarding how many people were killed. It is a statement that the majority were civilians, based on various sources. To cite the Lebanese government as the source of the civilian degree of the death toll is simply inaccurate, as the references cited do not list the Lebanese government as their source, and, at least as far as I know, the Lebanese government has no official figures regarding the civilian nature of the death toll. — George Saliba [talk] 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition to what George said, AP completed their own counts, the U.N and HRC and others have completed their own counts/estimates. Most notably if you read here "by government agencies, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press.". Also, the AP claim that the Lebanese government only used the term marytrs is under dispute, considering all of the articles we've referenced claim specifically civilian numbers. Iorek85 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check to see if my compromise rewording is to your liking. I've changed it to:News reports indicated that most of those killed were civilians, but official Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, and Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing.I think it's neutral and accurate. Thoughts? — George Saliba [talk] 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 death figure

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3829967.stm
Reaper7 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iorek85 is exactly correct – it doesn't belong here. If you want to integrate it somewhere, consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. — George Saliba [talk] 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I put this in the media controversy section or will it be deleted by israeli members? 

message: Someone has placed the words "I LOVE LAMP" in the middle of a sentence in the fourth paragraph of the article...I'm pretty sure this is vandalism, but I can't figure out how to remove the error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.251.34 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love lamp:vandalism 

message: From the emails I received there are 120 deas soldiers, can we verify that, the government hides facts on special forces, like russians and their pathetic war in chechnya, the government hides figures, especially when it comes to special units.
Also, total dead of 1129 with palestine, can we verify it, can we get exact figures for both israel and palestine?
I simply want just numbers on both sides!
Boxingwear
:I think you're looking at the wrong article talk page. Maybe you're looking for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? — George Saliba [talk] 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead

message: The paragraph on the 19 August 2006 raid in the Bekaa Valley has forgotten to mention that IDF troops attacked while wearing the uniform of the Lebanese Army, thus committing the war crime of Perfidy.
See: [Boston Globe],
[BBC News],
[Washington Post],
[ Newsday],
[Times].
Earlier reports indicated that Israel had used this trick on 5 August as well,
see: [Washington Post]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we don't really have the authority to interpret international law, though it may be a good idea to make mention of the uniforms in the paragraph dedicated to the raid. I'll try to insert it when the page is unprotected. TewfikTalk 08:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, after further review of the current article text, it appears that there already is such an interpretation in there, but on the other side: "In response to some of this criticism, Israel has stated that it did, wherever possible, attempt to distinguish between protected persons and combatents, but that due to Hezbollah militants being in civilian clothing (thus committing the war crime of perfidy) this was not always possible." That claim of perfidy should likely also be removed unless it can be sourced. — George Saliba [talk] 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfidy

message: This section is the location of this article's mediation; this is simply an alternative site to hosting it at the Mediation Cabal's case page on this article. All editors are invited to participate in discussion; however, you must remain civil and level-headed at all times.Yours, Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: we are now awaiting User:Shamir1's summary, before proceeding with the mediation. Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good evening (GMT time); nice to hear from you Shamir - it's excellent to find out that you are involved with this Mediation, and I thank you for joining us. I'd just like to request that everybody make known (in the same format as the initial statements) what they would like to see changed. This would help me to draw up any possible compromises, as well as get an idea what each editor views as inaccuracies in the article. The ultimate motive in this is to help reach a resolution to the dispute at a faster pace. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers of the dead vary, and that is less of an issue. The real 'issue' is that there are no civilian totals. For some reason and I do not know why (and I hope I am not pointing fingers), Iorek85 seems to believe that there are. That is not true. There are sources that give a number of citizens and state that most of them were civilians. There is a world of difference between the two. George.Saliba gave news reports that make the claim about most being civilians. The Associated Press report did not make that claim but said WHO was making that claim (ex. Leb gov't HRC). The Amnesty International report is not their own, they are reporting the data of the Lebanese HRC. BBC reports indicate their data is according to Lebanon. It is not encyclopedic to write: "News reports indicate..." The news reports do not indicate or take a stance, they report. Of George.Saliba's reports, their sources are Lebanese. That is fine, but it would have to be said that it is Lebanon's claim that that is so. There are even more sources, including many recent ones that explicitly distinguish it as Lebanon's claim. Please see above (sources include the New York Times, ABC, CNN, FOX, BBC, CBC, AP, AFP). Thanks. --Shamir1 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It would appear that Shamir1 isn't happy with the "News reports indicate..." (interpretting indicate to mean taking a stance). While I don't agree with his contention that all reports cite the Lebanese government, I do agree that some probably do. So, what about replacing the three current statements with the simpler:The Lebanese government claims that most of those killed were civilians, but only officially releases citizen death toll figures.My thinking goes like this: (1) At least some of the news reports cite the Lebanese government, so let's cite them. It's not complete, but it's also not false. (2) The wording of the second sentence seems less contentious, and better explains the heading of the section ("citizen"). (3) I don't think the "Hezbollah... wears civilian clothing" sentence is worth keeping (in this infobox at least). I don't think it's wrong per se, but I'm not sure of it's relevency given that the preceding sentence says almost the same thing (who cares about the cause, when we just listed the result?), it seems like more of a detail that belongs in the main article body, and personally I thought it was pretty obvious (we already state that they're a guerilla group). — George Saliba [talk] 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with this suggestion too. I think it's a glass half full/glass half empty distinction (the figure were citizens, and most were civilians, versus the figure is civilian, but some of them were Hezbollah fighters). As for the source, I agree with Iorek85 that the source isn't always the Lebanese government, but I don't think everyone will want to compromise on that point. I'm also ok with the current wording, although it is a bit long. — George Saliba [talk] 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with George's proposal, or the way it stands now. It doesn't seem as if the meaning is changed significantly either way, though I can appreciate the attempt to incorporate Shamir's partially correct point. TewfikTalk 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are all agreed on George's proposal? Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still satisfied with my proposal, for what it's worth. :) The article was recently unprotected, and editors immediately went after this statement. I'm going to try to keep the status quo wording until we can get consensus on this proposed version (or any other proposed version for that matter), or the page gets re-protected (as it looks like editors immediately went into edit-war mode). Do people think I should just insert this proposed version and see where the chips fall? I'm okay with that also. — George Saliba [talk] 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it completely implemented, or implemented at all? If not, shall you implement or shall I? anthonycfc [talk] 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and implemented the statement. I've cut down the references a bit, although I don't know if any of the references actually cite the Lebanese government (which is how this whole discussion began). Oh well. — George Saliba [talk] 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So everybody is agreed the dispute is resoled? Are there any more edits anybody wishes to implement? anthonycfc [talk] 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation successful; dispute resolved. Thanks to all for their positive contributions and civility. anthonycfc [talk] 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation|Mediation]] Location 

message: I'd like to kick-start the mediation by inviting all the users directly involved with the dispute to give a brief summary of the dispute as they see it, and exactly what they would like to get out of the mediation, or what they'd like to see changed. Please do stay civil, and try not to point the finger of blame at anybody. The summary should be content- not editor-orientated at this time. Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: we are now awaiting User:Shamir1's summary, before proceeding with the mediation. Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good evening (GMT time); nice to hear from you Shamir - it's excellent to find out that you are involved with this Mediation, and I thank you for joining us. I'd just like to request that everybody make known (in the same format as the initial statements) what they would like to see changed. This would help me to draw up any possible compromises, as well as get an idea what each editor views as inaccuracies in the article. The ultimate motive in this is to help reach a resolution to the dispute at a faster pace. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers of the dead vary, and that is less of an issue. The real 'issue' is that there are no civilian totals. For some reason and I do not know why (and I hope I am not pointing fingers), Iorek85 seems to believe that there are. That is not true. There are sources that give a number of citizens and state that most of them were civilians. There is a world of difference between the two. George.Saliba gave news reports that make the claim about most being civilians. The Associated Press report did not make that claim but said WHO was making that claim (ex. Leb gov't HRC). The Amnesty International report is not their own, they are reporting the data of the Lebanese HRC. BBC reports indicate their data is according to Lebanon. It is not encyclopedic to write: "News reports indicate..." The news reports do not indicate or take a stance, they report. Of George.Saliba's reports, their sources are Lebanese. That is fine, but it would have to be said that it is Lebanon's claim that that is so. There are even more sources, including many recent ones that explicitly distinguish it as Lebanon's claim. Please see above (sources include the New York Times, ABC, CNN, FOX, BBC, CBC, AP, AFP). Thanks. --Shamir1 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It would appear that Shamir1 isn't happy with the "News reports indicate..." (interpretting indicate to mean taking a stance). While I don't agree with his contention that all reports cite the Lebanese government, I do agree that some probably do. So, what about replacing the three current statements with the simpler:The Lebanese government claims that most of those killed were civilians, but only officially releases citizen death toll figures.My thinking goes like this: (1) At least some of the news reports cite the Lebanese government, so let's cite them. It's not complete, but it's also not false. (2) The wording of the second sentence seems less contentious, and better explains the heading of the section ("citizen"). (3) I don't think the "Hezbollah... wears civilian clothing" sentence is worth keeping (in this infobox at least). I don't think it's wrong per se, but I'm not sure of it's relevency given that the preceding sentence says almost the same thing (who cares about the cause, when we just listed the result?), it seems like more of a detail that belongs in the main article body, and personally I thought it was pretty obvious (we already state that they're a guerilla group). — George Saliba [talk] 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with this suggestion too. I think it's a glass half full/glass half empty distinction (the figure were citizens, and most were civilians, versus the figure is civilian, but some of them were Hezbollah fighters). As for the source, I agree with Iorek85 that the source isn't always the Lebanese government, but I don't think everyone will want to compromise on that point. I'm also ok with the current wording, although it is a bit long. — George Saliba [talk] 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with George's proposal, or the way it stands now. It doesn't seem as if the meaning is changed significantly either way, though I can appreciate the attempt to incorporate Shamir's partially correct point. TewfikTalk 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are all agreed on George's proposal? Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still satisfied with my proposal, for what it's worth. :) The article was recently unprotected, and editors immediately went after this statement. I'm going to try to keep the status quo wording until we can get consensus on this proposed version (or any other proposed version for that matter), or the page gets re-protected (as it looks like editors immediately went into edit-war mode). Do people think I should just insert this proposed version and see where the chips fall? I'm okay with that also. — George Saliba [talk] 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it completely implemented, or implemented at all? If not, shall you implement or shall I? anthonycfc [talk] 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and implemented the statement. I've cut down the references a bit, although I don't know if any of the references actually cite the Lebanese government (which is how this whole discussion began). Oh well. — George Saliba [talk] 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So everybody is agreed the dispute is resoled? Are there any more edits anybody wishes to implement? anthonycfc [talk] 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation successful; dispute resolved. Thanks to all for their positive contributions and civility. anthonycfc [talk] 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation

message: From my perspective, the dispute revolves around whether or not to include a note regarding the "majority civilian" nature of the death toll in the conflict's infobox. I feel that it is verifiably accurate, and would help balance neutrality with two other notes in the infobox (namely the Lebanese government's inability to distinguish civilian from combatant, and Hezbollah's use of civilian clothing). I'm happy with the wording in the current, protected version of the article, but I'm aware that others may disagree. I'm open to variations on the current version, including changing the wording of "News reports indicate..." if that is a problem, or just summarizing all three statements into one expressing the complexity of the situation. I'm hoping mediation can help us to resolve the issue, so that we can unprotect the article, and move on to other improvements. — George Saliba [talk] 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:George.Saliba|George Saliba]]

message: I agree with George. While there are other side issues (such as there only being one source that supports Shamir's claim that the Lebanese government doesn't give civilian totals, and that there are other, non news sources that state majority civilian sources), the primary one here is that multiple sources claim majority civilian casualties, and I think that should be reflected in the infobox (and in the separate article) because not doing so makes the article unbalanced. Iorek85 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: we are now awaiting User:Shamir1's summary, before proceeding with the mediation. Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Iorek85|Iorek85]]

message: News media typically relies on local authorities for their data unless they specify otherwise. I have shown that most of the news reports that even George.Saliba uses, the news agency uses sources from Lebanon. I have no idea where Iorek85 made the ludicrous claim that it is my claim that the Lebanese government does not give civilian totals. That is not my claim or anyone's claim it is a fact. The Associated Press states it explicitly, and aside from that they do not give a civilian number anyway. I have shown above using some of the most prominent names in news with mostly recent reports that the media clearly states it is Lebanon's claim that most were civilians. That should be noted.  --Shamir1 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Shamir1|Shamir1]]

message: :Good evening (GMT time); nice to hear from you Shamir - it's excellent to find out that you are involved with this Mediation, and I thank you for joining us. I'd just like to request that everybody make known (in the same format as the initial statements) what they would like to see changed. This would help me to draw up any possible compromises, as well as get an idea what each editor views as inaccuracies in the article. The ultimate motive in this is to help reach a resolution to the dispute at a faster pace. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers of the dead vary, and that is less of an issue. The real 'issue' is that there are no civilian totals. For some reason and I do not know why (and I hope I am not pointing fingers), Iorek85 seems to believe that there are. That is not true. There are sources that give a number of citizens and state that most of them were civilians. There is a world of difference between the two. George.Saliba gave news reports that make the claim about most being civilians. The Associated Press report did not make that claim but said WHO was making that claim (ex. Leb gov't HRC). The Amnesty International report is not their own, they are reporting the data of the Lebanese HRC. BBC reports indicate their data is according to Lebanon. It is not encyclopedic to write: "News reports indicate..." The news reports do not indicate or take a stance, they report. Of George.Saliba's reports, their sources are Lebanese. That is fine, but it would have to be said that it is Lebanon's claim that that is so. There are even more sources, including many recent ones that explicitly distinguish it as Lebanon's claim. Please see above (sources include the New York Times, ABC, CNN, FOX, BBC, CBC, AP, AFP). Thanks. --Shamir1 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It would appear that Shamir1 isn't happy with the "News reports indicate..." (interpretting indicate to mean taking a stance). While I don't agree with his contention that all reports cite the Lebanese government, I do agree that some probably do. So, what about replacing the three current statements with the simpler:The Lebanese government claims that most of those killed were civilians, but only officially releases citizen death toll figures.My thinking goes like this: (1) At least some of the news reports cite the Lebanese government, so let's cite them. It's not complete, but it's also not false. (2) The wording of the second sentence seems less contentious, and better explains the heading of the section ("citizen"). (3) I don't think the "Hezbollah... wears civilian clothing" sentence is worth keeping (in this infobox at least). I don't think it's wrong per se, but I'm not sure of it's relevency given that the preceding sentence says almost the same thing (who cares about the cause, when we just listed the result?), it seems like more of a detail that belongs in the main article body, and personally I thought it was pretty obvious (we already state that they're a guerilla group). — George Saliba [talk] 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with this suggestion too. I think it's a glass half full/glass half empty distinction (the figure were citizens, and most were civilians, versus the figure is civilian, but some of them were Hezbollah fighters). As for the source, I agree with Iorek85 that the source isn't always the Lebanese government, but I don't think everyone will want to compromise on that point. I'm also ok with the current wording, although it is a bit long. — George Saliba [talk] 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with George's proposal, or the way it stands now. It doesn't seem as if the meaning is changed significantly either way, though I can appreciate the attempt to incorporate Shamir's partially correct point. TewfikTalk 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are all agreed on George's proposal? Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still satisfied with my proposal, for what it's worth. :) The article was recently unprotected, and editors immediately went after this statement. I'm going to try to keep the status quo wording until we can get consensus on this proposed version (or any other proposed version for that matter), or the page gets re-protected (as it looks like editors immediately went into edit-war mode). Do people think I should just insert this proposed version and see where the chips fall? I'm okay with that also. — George Saliba [talk] 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it completely implemented, or implemented at all? If not, shall you implement or shall I? anthonycfc [talk] 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and implemented the statement. I've cut down the references a bit, although I don't know if any of the references actually cite the Lebanese government (which is how this whole discussion began). Oh well. — George Saliba [talk] 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So everybody is agreed the dispute is resoled? Are there any more edits anybody wishes to implement? anthonycfc [talk] 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation successful; dispute resolved. Thanks to all for their positive contributions and civility. anthonycfc [talk] 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion