Talk:2007 Lebanon conflict/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2007 Lebanon conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Many of whom?

To cite the article: many of whom who fled their homes when Israel was created in 1948. That was 59 years ago. Aren't we rather talking about their descendants? Cheers Io 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It rather should refer also to those who fled Jordania when PLO was expelled after Black September. --213.155.224.232 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cease-fire?

I just read a Swedish newspaper that the group Fatah Al-Islam just agreed to a cease-fire. Link: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=652593

I can translate this into English for those who don't understand:

"The Palestinian group Fatah al-Islam has agreed to a cease fire after two days of battles with the Lebanese army. That was claimed by a representive of the Islamical Jihad on monday evening. The cease-fire is already being observed, and we hope it will be permanent, says Abu Emad al-Refaie, speaker of the Islamic Jihad in Lebanon, to the newsbureau Reuters. According to al-Rafaie Fatah al-Islam will leave its positions in the Palestinian refugee camp Nahr al-Bared..."

Maybe the violence is over?

There have been many media reports of this, though as you have seen there was a recent explosion(s) in Beirut. Hello32020 20:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

why do you think it's important, there was already a ceasefire attempt in the morning. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox News and CNN International state that Lebanese TV says that 4 have been injured from the explosion in Beirut. Hello32020 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"started to eat their own feet"???

What's up with the first sentence?

The 2007 North Lebanon conflict began when fighting broke out between Fatah al-Islam, a Palestinian militant organization, and the Lebanese Armed Forces on May 20, 2007 in Nahr al-Bared, a refugee camp near Tripoli, Lebanon started to eat their own feet.

I don't get it... What does eating feet have to do with this?

24.0.147.173 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me. It's already gone anyway. -Atamasama 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jazeera_20070520

There's two references (i.e., <ref> tags) named "Jazeera_20070520", but none of them actually contains the reference - somebody should probably go ahead and fix that, either by putting the proper reference into the first ref tag, or by removing those. -- Schneelocke 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Elliskev 14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement nears clarified

"In Tripoli, one Fatah al-Islam militant blew himself up, injuring no one." I find it hard to believe he didn't even injure himself. Jon 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth a mention

I think it is worth noting that other local Islamic groups have distanced themselves from Fatah-al-Islam, including Hezbollah.I think naming the battle after the area is sensible, it is generally the norm, no one should infer from this its size or anything else, just the location, and with the date it gives us succinct information on the conflict. Also some people discussing the events as skirmishes etc. they should realise that over 50 people have died in the camp so far, it is the worst fighting in the area since the war ended. This a much bigger figure than US or Brits die in Iraq each day. Also if people are not aware of this area and its troubles it just highlights their ignorance. This is politically a very important event in the area.--Philm101 08:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bombings in Beirut

Can someone please clean up that section. For some reason every time i try to delete some stuff much more gets comepletly erased. Thanks.Doge120 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead Links in PLO paragraph

It looks to me like there was either mispelling or a slight different in some of the names that are dead links. Especally the PLF, there should already be an article about them since they've been around for decades. Jon 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there should be more referencing in the article.--Yozef 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, is this a war?

Or is it a war in the region only if Israel is involved? --HanzoHattori 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be called more of a 'skirmish' or if you want to be more strict an 'arms conflict'. The 'War' with Israel last summer involved cluster bombs, guided missiles and heavy machinery, whether by air force or ground force. This skirmish is in a completely different category than the war with Israel. Shockingly, Hezbollah has a lot to teach us about an organized military fighting a guerrilla style organization, today with the skirmish at Nahr El-Bared. --Yozef 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

no --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opionion these are riots and any conflict at all at this moment. --213.155.224.232 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see in Lebanon they put down exploding rioters with artillery. --HanzoHattori 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

well it is the middle east...enough said. Doge120

It does not appear that this is being referred to as a war at this time. That can change of course, and if it does, we can change the name here as well. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This falls far below my definition of war, but I thought I might add that I'm beginning to hear the phrase "the war up north" too often. —LestatdeLioncour t 08:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Prevent Aid?

How exactly is the Army preventing supplies from entering the refugee camp? Didn't an UN convoy enter but was then under fire by the militants? - Abe

Well they were preventing anything from entering and exiting the camp for a particular day not in this moment. Doge120 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh okey, I see... Thanks for the clarification.

This is not True, the army is securing a safe path for UN supplies into the center camp where Palestinian refugees are located and the ones the most in need. The process may take a bit of time for the army to secure such a path, but the supplies always reaches their front step at the end of the day. Reuters Alert is in touch with Red Cross located and entering around the battle field.--Yozef 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the sentence was taken from whereever the source is, just check it. Also, if you noticed arab news channels, there was (at that time) nothing entering or exiting the camps, remember? And i think we should make this article of high importance like you said. We need more help. Doge120 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance Rating

Isn't LOW a little low for this topic? the WikiProject Lebanon importance scale says for low

"Few readers outside of Lebanon or that are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article."

But this topic as clearly reached at least some level of international recognition, so I put it up to mid importance, please discuss 70.177.12.108 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I initially rated this low during the first few hours of the conflict as, at that time, reports were few and the fighting was very localized with few reported fatalities. Since then, the death toll and fighting have escalated, so a mid importance may be appropriate. This may change in the future, but I'm fine with a mid importance for now. — George Saliba^[talk] 06:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mid-importance soudns fine to me, if the fighitng escalates then obviously were gonna need more ppl. ALso, when the the battles are over in their present form (i.e does not involve other major regional players), i suggest renaming the article, the Battle of Nahr al-Bared with appropriate links thougouht wikipedia (as ppl spell the name of the refugee camp differently). ALso there is no cease-fire in place, i deleted that section, when there is one, well obviously include it. Any reaction from Hezbollah, it seems rather muted? Rgds,Doge120 08:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

where is the source for the number of lebanese soldiers fighting? 195.229.236.213 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah has reacted to this and condemned these attacks along with other parties as the FPM and Aouns party, however they have decided not to take part in this incident and this will only escalate the situation and make it worse. A civil war is something they don't want to join. But it's not being shown on CNN or anywhere else, I don't know but they made a statemen where it was condemned by Hezbollah and his allies along with Future movement Party.

Importance Rating: High

What a sensitive subject. The skirmish at Nahr El bared is most definitely internationally motivated, from either side of the political spectrum you interrogate. Lebanon is currently passing an approval for the setting of a [tribunal] to judge (or condemn) the killing/murder of Former Prime minister Rafik Hariri; all fingers are pointing at Syria (even before the court).

Lebanon, which recently gained its independence in 2006, from a 30 year tutelage, has seen eerie intentions of odd events since February 14, 2005. The day FPM Rafik Hariri has his convoy blown up in open daylight in the newly rebuilt, modern downtown Beirut.

For me the rating of importance of this article is High, if for nothing else, than the close involvement of nations in the last year in Lebanon were: Syria, Israel, France, Britain, and the United States of America.--Yozef 22:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously id like to have an importance rating of high and get many more ppl involved in editing and cleaning up the article. Doge120 13:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I've heard that this is specifically not true – that Palestinians are unable to attain Lebanese citizenship. Can anyone confirm? — George^[talk] 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They are currently not allowed to become naturalized as Lebanese citizens. DOge120

Right you are Doge. —LestatdeLioncour t 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jenin comes to Lebanon

i figure we should consider adding information about media bias from this article - "Jenin comes to Lebanon" - into this article. i might get around to it sometime in the future. see also Battle of Jenin. Jaakobou 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how is this applicable? The alleged bias wouldn't be against the Lebanese government, it would be against Israel. It might belong in some article, but not this one (which has nothing to do with Israel). — George^[talk] 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

being that the current conflict has been mentioned in comparisment with the Jenin "massacre", i think there is room to insert a one (/one and a half) liner about this difference in media and international approach. Jaakobou 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As the source you cited adds nothing to the topic at hand, I would disagree. It belongs in either (a) an article on media bias, or (b) an article about the conflict in which bias in considered to have occurred. — George^[talk] 07:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

you make a good point, i'm keeping it in the maybe in the future pile. Jaakobou 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

anyway it's a good idea to add the battle in the see also section. Also a refugee camp and similar casualties number (so far) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye. It's not a bad idea for a "See Also" probably, as it matches the other articles listed there pretty well. — George^[talk] 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity

i guess there's a huge lack of objectivity in this article, specially in the part of Fatah-el Islam.... i'll quote from the writer "the Islamist "big fat pigs" Fatah-El Islam(??!!)"

whether we agree or not the presence of Fatah El Islam, it remains dangerous in such an encyclopedia to express a movement as "Pigs"... this so unprofessional!

This is unacceptable. Obviously there is some vandalism going on. So, if anyone suspects it plz. take the necessary approach. Its not an issue of objectivity, again its vandalism. Rgds, Doge120 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity needs to be considered in the "Background" portion of the article. The original content made assertions about Israel forcing out the refugees, when records show mayors of Israeli towns went up and down streets and urged Arab residents not to leave. Were some run out? Of course. But it wasn't a campaign, and the article suggests that. Also the article states that Israel is solely responsible for keeping the refugees in camps, when in reality, the Arabs nations (The Arab League) have kept the refugees in their status to maintain a political and media weapon against Israel. Israel absorbed its refugees from Arab Lands. Buffalo1951 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to all for not knowing how to add references to my latest addition in the Background section. The reference is: Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League: In 1948, Azzam Pasha, the former Secretary General, "assured Arabs that the occupation of Palestine, including Tel Aviv, would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states." (Al-Hoda Lebanese daily, New York, June 8, 1951). As soon as I can I will add this to the article for reference. Buffalo1951 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you really read this in the al-Hoda daily? Which library did you find it in? And where did you learn to read Arabic? I strongly suspect that you've never even seen the original quotation, and are simply copying from some pro-Israel advocacy book. Sanguinalis 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your points are valid but arent essential for this specific article. Our aim for the background info. was to provide a small introduction for this topic, nor debate who kicked out, forced out, or left voluntarily Palestine. Arab states are indeed at fault for not knowing how to properly deal with the Palestinians, but again this isnt the theme of this article. And I sincerly doubt your assertions about how Israel wanted the Arabs to stay. It has always been a Zionist goal to "cleanse" the land of Palestine of Arabs, so lets get into this please. If your interested in debating this issue maybe you should refer to articles with more of a focus on Palestinian refugee problems. Thanks, Doge120 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your description of "Zionist" goals lacks objectivity, don't you think? And cleansing has been the Arab goal and remains so today without apology and apparently with the media's blessings. While divergent Jewish groups have always existed in the polyglot society of the British Mandate/Israel, and some wanted to evict as many Arabs as possible--often as a means of self defense from their constant maurading,(The History of the Jews-Paul Johnson) there was an official declaration in the early weeks of the nation from the new Prime Minister for Arabs to stay. Up to the declaration of war, Arabs were entering the country in droves, as the La Syrie daily, August 12, 1934 reported: "30,000-36,000 Syrian migrants (Huranis) entered Palestine during the last few months alone". More of this is found in the book The Claim Of Dispossession (Arieh Avneri, 1982) and in From Time Immemorial (Joan Peters, Harper, 1984). But I degress. The point is that the Background should not make politically charged statements that have been generated by propaganda, and should explain the whole reason they are in Lebanon in the first place.Buffalo1951 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is a reference for the assertion made about the mayor--of Haifa in this case: The Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, and the British commander, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, pleaded with the Arabs to reconsider ... but the Arabs were unmoved ... (Morris, 1948 and After, p 20)

Benny Morris, a so called revisionist historian in Israel, stated this:

Under British mediation, the (Israeli leadership agreed to a ceasefire), offering what the British regarded as generous terms. But then, when faced with Moslem pressure, the largely Christian leadership got cold feet; a ceasefire meant surrender and implied readiness to live under Jewish rule. They would be open to charges of collaboration and treachery. So, to the astonishment of the British and the Jewish military and political leaders gathered on the afternoon of 22 April at the Haifa town hall, the Arab delegation announced that its community would evacuate the city.

So even Morris, not too far from Noam Chomsky, admits this occured. I will find the source on Ben-Gurion.Buffalo1951 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Benny Morris is a good source. He is, after all, the most widely recognized expert on the subject of the Palestinian refugees. In his book Righteous Victims, under the heading "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", he writes

Besides the emergence of the State of Israel, the other major result of the 1948 war was the destruction of Palestinian society and the birth of the refugee problem. About 700,000 Arabs--the figure was later to be a major point of dispute, the Israelis officially speaking of some 520,000, the Palestinians themselves of 900,000-1,000,000--fled or were ejected from the areas that became the Jewish state and resettled in the territories that became known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon, with additional small communities in Egypt, Iraq, and the states of the Arabian Peninsula.

This is how we should summarize the Palestinian refugee issue for the purpose of this article: is suffices to say that they "fled or were ejected from" Israel. It is not necessary to say more than that, the reader can follow a hyperlink to the Palestinian refugee article to find all the differing views of the issue. Sanguinalis 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Camp?

I know that these locations are referred to as "camps" however that term conjures up a temporary setting wtih tents and very little infrastructure. It seems that these place are essentially permanent dwelling places (people have been there for decades) with apartments and roads. I think some kind of explanation by someone with knowledge on this would be very useful. Isaac Crumm 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not much to explain. The widely-accepted term for these "dwelling places" is "refugee camps". This is possibly because when Palestinians first moved in, they actually did live in tents, but eventually they started building houses (or what resemble houses) and the name stuck on. —LestatdeLioncour t 09:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article makes it very obvious. If it is urban warfare, it is much different from "refugee camp" style of warfare.Isaac Crumm 15:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; you've lost me :). I thought you wanted to know why refugee camps are still called "camps". What does it have to do with the article? —LestatdeLioncour t 08:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The point, I believe he is making, is that the term "refugee camps" as an ongoing description of the villages these people live in keeps it a loaded issue politically. Remember that the Palestinians remain the longest refugee population in the world. All other refugees have obtained sanctuary after wars. Some repatriate, but since Palestinians want nothing to do with Israeli society, their option would be to find homes in Arab society, but for the most part they have been denied that option. Using the term camps in this article just charges the issue. Villages would be a better updated term.Buffalo1951 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just remarking that the term "refugee camp" is almost exclusively used to describe these settlements in Lebanon. If you think the term should be changed, please go ahead and do that. —LestatdeLioncour t 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)~

Nahr el-Bared, fighting at which is the major subject of this article, is universally called a refugee camp by the world press. That is the word we must use on Wikipedia, even if some editors personally believe it to be a misnomer. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Note that several of these are from the Israeli press. Sanguinalis 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since 1962...?

Shamir1 added a sentence to the article stating that "since 1962, Palestinians have been categorized as foreigners in Lebanon". His source supports this, but I'm curious what the heck they were considered before 1962? Natives? — George^[talk] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha, found it. Apparently they were reclassified as foreigners even if they had been living there for a long time. Expanding sentence in the article to clarify this. — George^[talk] 09:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I added some {{fact}} requests to this sections. I don't think any of this information is wrong per se, but it needs to be sourced. — George^[talk] 09:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline as a narrative

I see that much of the narrative is becoming a day-by-day timeline. Such an account should probably be split as a Timeline subarticle and its contents summarized on the main entry. El_C 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fighting spreads

News came in that fighting erupted in south Lebanon between army and pro- FI militants. That thing certainly brings to a needed name change, so I'm open for proposals. Here are my:

2007 Lebanon conflict
2007 Lebanese war of the camps
2007 Lebanese refugee camps conflict

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd favor the first myself, until the fighting intensifies elsewhere. From what I read at least, it didn't sound like the fighting at other camps was nearly as major (yet). — George^[talk] 08:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Number one, 2007 Lebanon conflict. Top Gun 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for "2007 Lebanon conflict" too. Hypnosadist 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

seems the fighting in the second camp is enough intense (2 killed), and the events seem connected. I agree on changing name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I don't why it was nominated, being a current event and therefore failing the stability criteria. Alientraveller 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Internal conflict?

Can we really call this an internal conflict (see first paragraph)? Given that Fatah al-Islam only entered Lebanon recently and apparently mostly consists of non-Lebanese and non-Palestinian fighters, it doesn't look too internal to me. What exactly is the reason behind calling it 'internal'? Thanks for clarifying.

These events were initiated by a bank robbery, which is an internal affair, and then extended to a fight between the Lebanese army and a local group. The group has members who come from foreign countries but it is based locally (there is no sign of noticeable presence of them anywhere else). It's like a basketball team with foreign players on the squad, it's still referred to as a local team (i know the analogy is weird, but the idea is the same). So since all the groups involved are local, it is called an internal conflict, until new information suggests otherwise. I hope this explains the idea without going into to much details...--LebaneseHoo 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict events part

Please stop including detailed information there. That goes into the "timeline" article. A whole section can be transformed into one sentence. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Currently in the number of civilians we have a confirmed number of 23 civilians killed in the northern camp, should we not add to that number the one civilian that was killed in Beirut, put the number of 24 killed?Top Gun 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to revert every change done on the page. It seems like the one who is doing that is not updated regarding this conflict.

please sign your comments and name that person so we can resolve the issue. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the 2 Red Cross casualties be seperate, since it is an iternational organization? – Zntrip 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Red Cross casualties should be noted separately, as Zntrip says they are a notable international aid agency with specific rights in combat zones under the GC's. Also more info is better this is an encyclopedia so any relivent data or data classification should be given if it does not violate policy. Hypnosadist 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add them. The civilain casulaties will go down by two than. – Zntrip 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I changed the name as it became more clearer (to me) that fighting was going on in both Tripoli and the refugee camp so it was hard to keep the previous name, as it wasn't very accurate. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a UN troop presence in Lebanon ? Anyone heard anything about that side of the story ? Seems like an imporant "response" that should be mentioned here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are UN troops in Lebanon, but they are for the most part (if not all) in the south of country as a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel. There has been no response until now. Doge120 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to suggest naming this article the 'Battle of Nahr al-Bared and Tripoli' 154.20.161.143 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isnt the current name better for the "Western" audiences. Its a bit clearer in my view, no? Doge120 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

right. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A very strange thing in Lebanon: wars erupt in a couple of hours, without preparations...

-- identity of Fatah Al-Islam --

It could be seen by many that the Fatah Al-Islam is a clump of many Arabs and belong to the Salafis, a Sunni sect. Is there anything else we can add to this at this current moment? --Yozef 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

-- No Updates! --

There has been great updates today in Nahr el Bared. The Army found a storage of weapons, as well a capturing many militants as well as a medic for Fatah Al Islam who gave locations of some militants. The Medic as well as other militants have stated that the military power of Fatah Al Islam has been reduced significantly as the army gets closer to closing the gap with Fatah al Islam.--74.101.87.228 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't like this name. It's far too broad. You're talking about fighting that occurred primarily in a refugee camp, and, to a lesser extent, the city it is closest to. There are literally hundreds of towns and villages in northern Lebanon that saw no fighting whatsoever. At best the fighting occurred in less than 1% of northern Lebanon. What about titling it based on the combatants? Or has the army given the operation any specific name yet? — George Saliba^[talk] 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think much fighting actually occurred in Tripoli. From the sounds of it, the army forces stormed a house with suspected bank robbers, who happened to be militants, and who put up a fight. Doesn't seem like much fighting actually occurred there (not much more so than most shoot-outs between bank robbers and cops I guess). I think I preferred the old name of this article. — George Saliba^[talk] 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

see here: [6]. says, clashes spread through tripoli, so it implies not only the bank robbers got involved. Yesterday, IMO Tripoli was at the centre of events. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to look where this will lead. Maybe 2006–2007 Lebanese political protests is where this all should end in, maybe it's leading to a bigger crisis. Somehow this reminds me on last year... first an eruption of clashes in Gaza and the in Lebanon. --213.155.224.232 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In case it is to be renamed Siege seems more appropriate than battle, as the situation is that currently, a siege. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that Washington Post article is a good source. We're not going to be able to predict the future, so let's leave the title where it is for now. I don't think the conflict will get too large unless one of the major players sides with Fatah al-Islam (i.e., Hezbollah), but you never know. — George Saliba^[talk] 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to name it 2007 North Lebanon riots (and categorisize as a riot) since the origin of this is a simple bank robbery escalating into violence as in 1992 Los Angeles riots, Jaffa riots, 1920 Palestine riots but it depends what will happen in future. --213.155.224.232 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

IDEA: how about we leave the name as is for the time being until the whole thing is over, then we can have a long and lengthy and tiring debate about what to name it. "Siege" sounds good to me if the conflict dosent escalate that is. To be honest we dont know where its heading now. Doge120 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Casualities

Different news seems to distribute different casuality numbers... I just read on http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2144985420070526 that 33 Soldiers, 18 civilians and 25 militants have been killed. I will change to those numbers since I think Reuters is a more realible newspaper? . - Abe

Thanks for the edit. best wishes miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.187.62 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon declares victory

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2175706020070622

-Blue403 03:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather a link to the BBC, as t is stable: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6228766.stm --213.155.231.26 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

UNIFIL

Was it reported/proven that Fatah al-Islam stands behind the attack on the UNIFIL troops? Did the group claim responsibility? --213.155.231.26 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WoT?

Is this a part of the US-called War on Terrorism, the US support the Lebanese and even sent in ammo. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "The War on Terror" a marketing term that few care about? --Leladax 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it is part of the Lebanese War on Terror, which, most likely, the U.S. will not object to. It's about time some other countries (not just U.S. U.K. and Ethiopia) did something to kill these asshats. Isaac Crumm 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not a "marketing term" in this sense, its a military designation under which governmental moves are carried out. Given that the USA is supporting Lebanon militarilly, this could be considered logically a part of the government campaign, however I think we should wait for sources in which the USA specifically states the aid to be done under the camoaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all obviously, its not a merketing term, even though you cant wage war on a noun or a concept (terror) theres something going on which involves more than just al-Qaeda per se (i.e the al-Qaeda ideology of islamic extremism). Second, right, we shouldnt judge too quickly to say that this is part of the US's larger war on terror, lets just wait a bit. Many countries have taken advantage of this term (russia with the chechens, israel with the pales.) to wage their own wars but the current involvement of the US and some arab states is striclty to help the Lebanese army logistically. Lets wait. Doge120 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO it isn't. At the EN:WP you're too inflationous with the use of WoT. --213.155.224.232 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... I'd be careful before calling anything something so ambiguous as the "War on Terror". I think it is a war involving terrorists but as for the US (or strictly speaking the Coalition) war on terror, I think that its hard to judge just yet. I agree with Doge120 t wait. We don't know how much or what involvement there is. As already stated by Doge120, its a very ambiguous word used by many countries to explain conflicts between their forces and insurgents. I believe that it is a war on terror but I may be proven wrong. In time, as the smoke of the battle clears away, we can find out what it is, at the moment theres too much fog of war. Sorry for the puns, I love puns.Tourskin 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I should say a marketing term few sane people care about. It's not different than e.g. Gore saying "Attack on Reason", it's a term used for political debate, with a meaning so abstract it can't be taken literally, and I strongly suspect "War on Terror" won't be taken seriously by most future historians. --Leladax 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nearing two months since the conflict started, how is this status looking -- Permafrost 10:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Power station attack

This may be useful: Islamists rocket power station in north Lebanon — George^[talk] 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Security forces crack Fatah al-Islam sleeper cell

Another interesting article: Security forces crack Fatah al-Islam sleeper cell — George^[talk] 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

al-Abssi not dead

On the page about Fatah-al Islam there sais that he is still alive and this source was provided for it [7]. The Honorable Kermanshahi 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Troop numbers

Seem to show the entire Lebanese army. It is not likely that all of her military assests took part in the combat so this should be mentioned. At present it looks like a massive army of 70,000 + only narrowly defeated a smaller force of 500 men or so. Tourskin 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I started to do a GA review on this, and didn't have time to finish, so I'm putting my first reactions here without changing the nomination status. The article doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria, so it needs a full review, hence my lack of time. However, all of the following points would result in at least a hold, and put together, a fail:

Lead

For an article of this size, I'd expect to see 3 or 4 paragraphs in the lead. See WP:LEAD for more details on what should and should not go in the lead.

References

There should not be spaces between punctuation and references. I believe MOS states that refs should go after the punctuation, but I also seem to remember that's under dispute at the moment - I don't care, but in either case the spaces shouldn't be there, and there are plenty of instances in this article where there are spaces.

Where a reference is an online source, and especially where the URL is long, try and give an alternative title to the reference rather than just the URL. Those long URLs, especially in a 2 column reference section, look messy. Try [<url><space><alternative text>]. Similarly, avoid references that only leave things like [2] in the references section with no clues as to what the reference may be.

Include access date to online refs, so we know when the reference was retrieved (it may have been changed since you last looked).

Try to avoid mid-sentence citations. This isn't, strictly speaking, a problem, but they can cause formatting issues; try and combine them at the end of a sentence or paragraph.

Several paragraphs and sections are entirely lacking citations.

MOS

You should spell out numbers less than ten (some say less than twelve).

Be consistent with times of day. You should have 11:00 PM in the section "Bombings in and around Beirut".

Be consistent with English usage - either use en-GB, or en-US, not both - check instances of "neighbour" versus "neighbor", and use of -ize or -ise suffix, for example.

Use non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units - for example "17 km northeast of Beirut" in section "Bombings in and around Beirut".

Copyedit required

It seems to me that there have been non-native English speakers writing parts of this article. Given the subject matter, that of course is fair enough, but it means the article needs a decent copyedit. For example, the paragraph

The military was hoping to celebrate victory on 1 August, which is Army Day in Lebanon. But there is no victory as of that day and all official ceremonies have been cancelled to respect the fallen soldiers.

- the tense is wrong, beginning a sentence with "But" is wrong, and so on. There are more examples of this sort of problem.

There are several one or two sentence paragraphs, and single paragraph subsections, throughout; these could be combined with a little prose, rather than sticking blindly to the timeline.

The "Reactions" section could probably be transformed into prose, rather than a list of bullet points, pretty easily, and that would make it read much better.

Since the article doesn't quick-fail, it requires a full review, and I have no time just now to look into accuracy, NPOV, and all that sort of stuff; regardless of that, the above would be enough to fail GAC, so if you fix those issues hopefully a later reviewer will find fewer problems to comment on. I think the article can become GA pretty easily, with a small amount of work. Good luck. Carre 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, and following a night's sleep, I've put the review on hold until these fairly easily fixed issues are addressed. Carre 09:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I have now failed this GA nomination, as none of the points mentioned above have been addressed.

In order to help with further improvements to the article, here is the output from an automated peer review script:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 km, use 20 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 km.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 20 km.
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Carre 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

pyrrhic victory

This fits in the definition of pyrrhic victory (see): "A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor." So no dilemma here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source(s) (i.e. without self-referencing Wikipedia ;-)) needs to be provided (preferably demonstrating a consensus) that verifies the assertion that the conflict resulted in a pyrrhic Lebanese victory. The conclusion is essentially original research without attribution. I would suggest selecting a less contentious alternative, such as: "end of siege; recapture of <insert refugee camps>" SoLando (Talk) 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, as only one camp was held by militants (the other having only a skirmish), let's put in end of siege; recapture of Nahr al-Bared --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And there is a significant dilemma. It doesnt even fit the definition given by Wikipedia. A devastating cost to the victor? It hardly came at a devastating cost - the threshold for devastating is quite high. Usually it would include some sort of reprucussion. If I can recall correctly, the original Pyrrhic victory greatly weakened the victor so that they lost the next battle, and war, devastatingly. Or as was said, "one more such victory would utterly undo him." If Lebanon collapses because they lost so many troops in this conflict (which is unlikely,) or if they lose the next battle because they lost so many troops (and keep in mind, 100+ dead isnt devastating to their armed forces, or even a significant amount of the 72,100 deployed) perhaps then it might be considered a Pyrrhic victory. Of course, this too is original research, but my point is that not only would it be "original research" to make such a determination, but any sort of legitimate original research we could carry out points to it not being one. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, it was not only a seige, it included other aspects. The result is a Lebanese victory, thats what the press is stating, and thats what happened. And even saying the result of a seige is "seige ends" is silly, its like saying the result of World War Two was the war ended. Yes, it ended, but this is shown by the end date as opposed to an open ended "-". The result is where you state who defeated who, which, again, would best be summarized via our sources as a Lebanese victory. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

105 days, 163 KIA - one camp only. It should be noted that this was a weak victory. Like we have "decisive victory" we should have "weak victory" --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lebanese victory" is POV. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it POV? The Lebanese army claims victory, while Fatah al-Islam does not; victory doesn't seem to be disputed. As for how strong, or weak, or decisive it is, I think we should wait until we have sources identifying it with one of these specific adjectives, then add it (properly sourced of course). — George^[talk] 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pyrric victory has strong connotations of a victory that is so costly that it has the seeds of defeat or a victory that is disabling to the victor. Look at the origin, it comes from a Greek general who won every battle against the Romans, but it cost him so many troops that he was forced to retreat. Every war has a horrible cost, so that is certainly the case here. Whether or not that cost holds the seeds of defeat or that it is disabling to the victor is highly questionable. If it's going to be on the page it should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim by Seymour Hersh

Shouldn't the claim by Seymour Hersh stating that the US and Saudi Arabia were funding Fatah al-Islam go in it's own place and not the introduction of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.169 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hersh in the Intro?

Why are Seymour Hersh's claims in the introduction of this page. That gives it way more credibility than it deserves. Why are we showing his POV, which is very controversial, and no one else's? That paragraph seems politically motivated as it just uses the OPINION of a single pundit to try to say something. I suggest that part be removed. --Mickel123 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)