Talk:2021 Beirut clashes

Rewording and changes

@Notyourashta: If you agree, I would suggest that we discuss rewording etc. on the talk page in the future. As it stands, I think that the article mostly reflects the sources. I just want to explain my latest adjustment, and request some other (minor) changes.

1. First of all, your concern about allegations in the lead are certainly valid; however, all sources say that unidentified gunmen shot at the demonstrators. Therefore, I changed it to "between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, unidentified gunmen, and the Lebanese Armed Forces" in the lead. I hope that you find this acceptable.

2. We have repeatedly discussed the issue of how to describe Hezbollah, and I fear we might have misunderstood each other. I am not opposed to calling Hezbollah armed or paramilitary - they certainly are. My concern is that describing Hezbollah as "militia" makes them look like a run-of-the-mill armed gang, even though they are actually a de facto army. I would suggest that we add short summaries of what Hezbollah, Amal, and the Lebanese Forces actually are to the background section. Thus, we avoid confusion.

3. Currently, the "incident" section states "On 14 October 2021, protests were held in the Tayouneh neighborhood of Beirut by mostly Shia Muslim Hezbollah fighters and the Amal Movement, calling for the removal of Tarek Bitar, the judge appointed to investigate the Beirut port explosion" - I think that this wording is awkward. I previously removed "fighters", "militia", and "militants" here because it seemed like an over-simplification, but you correctly argued that many demonstrators were armed. Thus, I suggest the following rewording: "On 14 October 2021, protests were held in the Tayouneh neighborhood of Beirut by supporters of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement; several of the demonstrators were armed. They were calling for the removal of Tarek Bitar, the judge appointed to investigate the Beirut port explosion." (The Shia Muslim part can be moved to the background, as suggested above).

What do you think? Applodion (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable response, Appolodion. I agree that in the future we should discuss how to proceed with edits made to the page in the most accurate and well-sourced manner. Regarding your edits:

1) I noticed at one point the edit said simply "unidentified gunmen" - this edit is by far the best and most impartial in the introduction, I 100% agree that the gunmen should be mentioned, and the way this was reworded is factual without claims. Adding the LF in there, however, is still extending allegations into a summarization of events and I still believe that's out of place in this specific section. Its important to list it throughout the rest of the document, but it already is located in several places where it's more proper, cogent and relevant. I do think claims are important, given this, they don't typically go into a summarization of real-time events. If any information changes along the way I am welcome to any changes, but I believe evidence should first be given. My advice would be to leave it as: "unidentified gunmen." If an official source releases any information about LF supporters or officials being present or ordering armed movement, I would go ahead and just add it for certain; without any "alleged" qualifiers. This way, it is, or it isn't (as far as the introduction.) This is my suggestion.

2) Summarizing what these groups are is a good idea to provide much-needed context; my only concern is it may be too much background information and thus derail the main focus of the page. I think if these descriptions can be brief and clarifying, this is a good idea so we don't have to cram so much clarifying vocabulary into the incident section. I would suggest a paragraph summarizing all, or sections with a few sentences. Alternatively, linking the page(s) allows readers to access additional reading and contextual information, but that might also be too dense. Let's discuss further.

3) This rewording is proper, if added I will not dispute it. It accurately claims that some of these were fighters while still leaving room for others not to be. I accept and encourage it. Notyourashta (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate we are completely in agreement about point #1, it is factual and accurate, you did a great job. Thus, I think we can go ahead and change it back as miscellaneous unsubstantiated changes are still being pushed for the intro. I will standby for your action. Notyourashta (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Notyourashta: Thanks for the response. I will work on the agreed changes tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Notyourashta: I have expanded the article. I also found this source by DW which reports that the unidentified gunmen also attacked the Armed Forces and used RPGs; I have added this to the article as well. Applodion (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, yes I did see that article myself! I didn't cite it because after I did, I was warned by Wikipedia that it isn't a wiki-friendly link; glad to see it is. It has interesting information. Notyourashta (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Background is both brief and cogent, provides important context for the reader to properly understand the events that occured and why they did. It doesn't overshadow at all, great work. Notyourashta (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Why are people trying to excuse Samir Geagea and Lebanese Forces? By all accounts, Hezbollah and Amal were the victims here, not the perpetuators. We might also use this (Archive), this(archive) and this articles; presently the article relies far to heavily on the rather dubious FDD's Long War Journal-source, a source which has been called neo-con, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem remains that the identity of the gunmen who attacked the demonstrators remains unclear. The LF seems likely, but we still lack a confirmation. In addition, IMO, the article is currently quite neutral, pointing out that the demonstrators were shot at at first, but also responded by shooting back, as it is generally reported. Furthermore, the Long War Journal is mostly used as additional source, not as main one - It is also no mere "neo-con" source; if you read their articles on Afghanistan and Syria, you can see that they are very critical of politics generally associated with neoconservatism in regards to foreign policy. Feel free to add more sources, as long they are reliable. I would also encourage you to discuss changes which you want to make here. As seen above, this way we can achieve a solution and agreeable version of the article together. Applodion (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Applodion is 100% right, accusations are not facts: the introduction is a place for fact-based events that actually occured. When it is verified that LF supporters, hired personnel, or officials were 1) present and 2) armed in a military capacity, *then* it can go into the introduction. For now the current situation remains: the area where the confrontation took place is, as far as currently available evidence shows, is a purely civilian area. Notyourashta (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I will also add what I mentioned previously, which is, in the proper areas, this article already states that the LF was alleged to be present, and by whom it was alleged. However, these mentions take place in the proper areas, such as the combatants/belligerents section, and the incident section. Reporting on currently available facts neutrally is the least biased method to academically present a situation, particularly when the sources used are vast and diverse. Adding in intro would not only be redundant but (currently) inaccurate. Notyourashta (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias, continued

Does anyone disputes that "the clashes" started with snipers firing on the (until then; peaceful) protesters? And does anyone claim that Lebanese Forces or Lebanese Armed Forces had any casualities?Pleas bring a WP:RS for that, or the "unknown" under "Casualties and losses" goes out.

Also; why was the Bloomberg News report removed? ( Six Killed in Armed Clashes Over Beirut Port Blast Investigation, Dana Khraiche, October 14, 2021) Presently the article rely on dubious neo-com sources ...but Bloomberg is removed?? Btw, the Bloomberd source says that "“The clash first took place by sniper fire and the first casualty was a shot to the head,” Interior Minister Bassam Al-Mawlawi told reporters after meeting with security forces. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We have no definitive sources on losses for the Lebanese Forces or Lebanese Armed Forces, but there were reports of injuries which would automatically mean that "0 casualties" is wrong. Secondly, as the article outlines, we do not know who started the attack. There were claims that the attackers were soldiers, for example, or a Syrian of unknown allegiance. It is NOT confirmed that the sniper was part of the Lebanese Forces (though this is the most likely scenario). The Bloomberg source was removed because a) it added nothing new to the article and b) because it was used to portray rumours as a fact. Applodion (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we can change "casualties" to "killed", to make it clear. (The sources do not mention the severity of the injured; it could be minor).

And presently we have sub-par sources like FDD's Long War Journal (basically a blog for the Israel lobby in the US, with a dubious reputation for accuracy), The National (Abu Dhabi) (owned by royals of UAE; not exactly neutral observers when it comes to Hizbollah (to put it diplomatically)), while Bloomberg is out? Sorry, this cannot be accepted. Can we first agree to remove sub-par sources?

Until these issues are fixed, this article merits a POV template. Huldra (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but this is basically just your opinion. These sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia, thus they can stay. Applodion (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Pr WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT; you should not have removed the POV template, as the issues are not resolved. Huldra (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The tag was not rooted in a discussion though, but your personal opinion on the sources. WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT does not apply to tags slapped onto articles without proper reason. Naturally, however, feel free to expand the article with additional sources, including those giving an alternate view. As I stated before, the Bloomberg source was not removed because it was problematic, but because it added nothing useful to the article. It basically said the same several other sources already included. Either way, we could also attribute the sources in the text. IMO, this often helps to clarify potential biases of sources without removing them (such as "The National, an UAE newspaper, reported that..."). In this regard, though, I honestly could not find any case of the The National or LWJ being used for contentious issues in this article; they generally seem to used for stuff reported by several other sources as well. Applodion (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)