Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 32

message: I've been going back and forth with User:Tewfik on this for a while, and we've come a long way towards a compromise. I believe, however, that the Palestinian exodus should be mentioned in the background because it did contribute the the demographic shift in Lebanon, and it explains one of the main reasons why the Palestinian refugees would be calling for Israel's destruction. The background as it currently stands makes it sound like the Palestians are refugees from Jordan, and not Israel, and is therefore completely misleading for a reader unfamiliar with the history of the region. Tewfik seems fixated on the idea that the PLO arriving in Lebanon was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War but I can't figure out where he gets that idea from the civil war article. -- Kendrick7 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't argue that the PLO's arrival was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War, as there were demographic tensions in Lebanon from its founding, predating the arrival of any Palestinians. What I do contend is that to the extent that the Palestinian presence in Lebanon was one of several factors, it only became such after the arrival of those expelled from Jordan in the Black September, including many PLO. These points are also made in the Wikipedia articles on the Civil War and Black September, which make almost no mention of the 1948 refugees (I say "almost" because though I did not find any reference, I may have missed a minor point). Again, while I don't dispute that the '48 refugees may have played some role, quoting them in the first line attributes a direct role not asserted elsewhere, and can generally open the door to quoting every indirectly relevant event. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concede, but you have left me with a gloss that is inaccurate. But this can be remedied by cutting the background back from '48 to a farther year in the past since then. -- Kendrick7 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A note to Kosmopolis: please don't refer to edits you disagree with as censorship. There is a well-reasoned discussion on the inclusion of those specific details right here, and cool input would be much more effective at getting across your position. TewfikTalk 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed mention of the 1948 Palestinian refugees from the background, as no source has been presented to show that they were somehow more of a factor in the instability than any other group in what was/is a fractious ethnic spectrum (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Druze - not to mention secular and religious); this as opposed to the refugees that arrived after Black September. Additionally, I reviewed the relevant articles and researching and could find no mention of 100,000s of Palestinians in Southern Lebanon (only 3 of the 12 camps are located there), while that article specifically notes that "Southern Lebanon is known for its large Shia Muslim population, and a considerable Christian minority" (Palestinians are generally Sunni). Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Exodus in background 

message: Action regarding Grammar has been taken place as requested. Please check for accuracy and completeness as well as any typos introduced by word processing software. Neutralaccounting 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fulfillment of Request

message: why do we put "5,000-20,000 militiamen" as the hezbollah number?
* the range was so wide that it isnt informative
* It is cited from a TV, not a good source to determine strength of a guerila group in a war. The previous source was IISS, a research institute which is better Nielswik 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is due to the ambiguity of the source that you are presenting. While we know how many Hezbollah active, available, and reserve fighters there are, we do not know how many participated in the hostilities, since Hezbollah has not published any such numbers. Perhaps we can find a way of relaying this ambiguity in the article without choosing a specific number (unless of course we do find a source of that nature)? TewfikTalk 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Will, I appreciate your efforts, but I wish that you would not call editors names - while you probably don't mean to, this type of attitude sours the working environment, and doesn't actually serve to improve the article. In any event, this still doesn't solve the problem of which numbers to use, though we have already made note of the fact that there was Amal and LCP participation. TewfikTalk 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't want to argue about this - as cutting and entertaining as you might think your remark was, it will only make this a more combative atmosphere; just keep comments limited to edits and not editors. We must be especially vigilant in a text-only atmosphere where the lack of other expression can skew the interpretation of such comments. In terms of Arens, that is fine, but it is still not a definitive number that will settle the issue, and the fact that you don't even accept half of his statement doesn't help its stature. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't find it entertaining, but I thought you were saying that you meant it sarcastically. If you were totally serious, then what I said before applies - please don't call other editors names, but rather deal with the edits. And I'm not sure of what factual basis you have laid out, but like every other number in this page, it must be sourced to an RS. I'm sorry that you view this insistence to be "sparring with [my] fellow editors," as it seems key to preserving neutrality. Good day, TewfikTalk 05:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah number 

message: This AFP article from september 15 says "In the first 15 days after the August 14 ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah war, 52 Lebanese civilians were killed by unexploded cluster bombs, according to the United Nations." Our article says "By 27 September, 14 Lebanese civilians were killed and around 90 wounded in post-ceasefire cluster bomb explosions." Vints 09:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the reference that says 15 is out of date. could someone change it please?Nielswik 09:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cluster bombs 

message: I've done a little reordering:
# Background
# Beginning of conflict
# Israeli action
# Hezbollah action
# Position of Lebanon
# Targets in civilian areas
# Environmental damage
# International action and reaction
# Ceasefire
# Reviews of the conflict
# Media controversy
# Post-ceasefire events
I've merged ceasefire attempts etc. to one section. I've also found it more logical to have Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon in a row, since the article is still called "Israel-Lebanon conflict" and readers might want to know what Lebanon had to do with it, after all; previously, Lebanon had been buried quite below. Then civilians and environment (the fourth and fifth entities in this conflict), and the bystanders, i.e. international community, as an outside entity. After that, the ceasefire (follows up well to international (re)action) and reviews, the media controversy as a side issue during the conflict, and finally post-ceasefire events, since they're chronologically the last and round up the conflict. I'd like to hear your opinion on that. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Maybe post-ceasefire events after ceasefire, though? Iorek85 07:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/01/lebanon.withdrawal/index.html) is saying troops are still in Lebanon...maybe the last post-ceasefire bullet should be changed (saying all troops withdrew)?  The wikipedia main page is all saying the withdrawl is complete, but maybe this isn't for definite?  TJ0513 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I weaved in the UNIFIL statements. Kosmopolis (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli withdrawl 

message: I have made an honest attempt to reduce the quotation chaos in the targeting section.  The edit reduces the section size from 3500 to 3000 Bytes. Both sides are presented equally (ok, Israel has 8% more text, some 100 characters). As far as I can see, all major claims by relevant parties are included, as well as defending claims by the warring parties. Please, stop the edit-war. Let's get on with the article, instead. Your comments are very welcome. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Targets in civilian areas 

message: Tewfik has deleted the description of the Siniora plan from Lebanon's position. Since it is *the* core document of the Lebanese position, this seems non-sensical to me. Your comments are very welcome. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siniora plan in Lebanon's position 

message: Checking recent changes of this article, I've spotted a series of particularly contentious edits by 4.237.227.253 IP. While I don't want to immediately assert them as pure POV pushing, no relevant sources were presented and all edits were overtly biased towards certain POV. On one article he was already spotted misquoting his own source. 
I suggest everyone concerned with the topic to check his edits (all are related to this conflict) and repair changes where they are unverifiable or POV, and stay aware of this user in the future. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious edits by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.237.227.253 4.237.227.253] 

message: Hello, 
Could i have some feeback and any knowledge with regards to the above subject headline. I would apprecaite any information and feelings or information about this subject. 
Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.35.63 (talk • contribs).
Could you possibly elaborate as to what you mean? TewfikTalk 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics and Organisational Effects  

message: Do you really consider this; Analysis: Hezbollah's recovery timetable", UPI. a reliable source. You got to be kidding me.
Why on earth do you let these so called links to pro-Israel/zionism allow to be a source. It's just Propaganda, pure and simple.
But this section is runned by a Jew, Avraham. there goes the Objetivity.  - 62.234.48.231 
::Take your anti-Semitism elsewhere. We are not Muslims and hence do not care for your jihadophile propaganda. Cerebral Warrior 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And takes your anti-Islamism elsewhere Nielswik(talk) 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon comment