The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several improvements were introduced but removed without discussion. However the changes introduced have sources, and the motivation explained in the history of the edit. All the changes introduced has been derived from the sources. Changes should be debated here. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The removals, both by me and by the other user, were accompanied by reasoning in the edit summaries. There is not a strict requirement that someone post on the talk page before removing content. Please do not summarily revert such changes; doing so repeatedly risks violating the edit warring policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, but the changes that I added were much more explained that those you and the other user included. Do you really thing that "Rv unsourced; POV crap" is a proper explanation? Here I include a full explanation of the changes, but please debate here the reason for your changes as to my eyes are a bit biased. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The term "extensive" were removed because the source used to justify this word is saying something different. The source of information provided says that: "It should be noted that neither is there a way of knowing where the tunnels filmed in the video are nor how extensive Hezbollah’s tunnel network is" therefore we can't assess about the size. Also according to the article the source (a video) could be released due to psychological war rather than actual facts. Without providing another source about how large is the network the term should be avoided (even if we both think that it is large). AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2) In several parts of the article, in particular, those mentioning the UN news/reports and UNIFIL activities, the information is only partial. Usually when in a reference two pieces of information are considered important, an ethical journalist should not only choose one but mention both. In all the UN commission reports/news cited, several commissioners considered that it is necessary when reporting the 1701 resolution violations include those of both sides. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(3) In the section of the involvement of UNIFIL, and according to the information that I found, only part of the several tunnels claimed by Israel/IDF were confirmed by UN. I gave a reference about that, so I find strange that this statement with a reference is deleted by another person (saying without references), as it seems a key point to mention. Also it is strange to consider this biased as (1) it supports that UNIFIL confirm several of the Israel claimed tunnels (2) it also highlight that not all the tunnels were confirmed. Also further references were added, including a PDF with the UN Security council report which gives to the readers a more solid information. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Also in the section about the involvement of UNIFL it was indicated in the previous version that: "working with both sides to maintain the fragile peace along the border". But this statement is hard to understand if only part of the violations of the 1701 resolution are described. A short sentence explain that, which is what the document of the Security Council of UN (and the previous UN press-news added by other user) that I added is saying. Nothing more. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(5) The sentence "The actual relevance of the tunnels in the context of the Operation Northern Shield has been questioned as well as the motivation of an operation at this scale." includes to references to an external articles. These articles eventually are citing articles/news from Israel newspapers. This is a difficult topic, but several Israeli journalists considered that the Operation Northern Shield has been motivated also (or more) by internal politics that by an actual external(existential) threat. I don't question which side is right, I only give the information that there are other points of view (even inside Israel) AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(6) The section where the information about when the tunnels were build included an statement saying "Hezbollah has invested significantly in tunnel construction since the early 2000s", and later on it is saying: "viewing them as a significant threat to its security." However, wrote like that is missing important information. That the tunnels were build when South Lebanon were occupied by Israel, but even more on that time there were an internal war between South Lebanon Army and Hezbollah. This is adding important information about what was happening when these tunnels began to be built. I don't see any reason why this information is not relevant to the reader. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove something arguing without references as I think the references were properly added. If you think something needs further discussion or references please discuss here. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements according to actual content of references
The term "extensive" is going to be removed because the source used to justify this word is saying something different. The source of information provided says that: "It should be noted that neither is there a way of knowing where the tunnels filmed in the video are nor how extensive Hezbollah’s tunnel network is" therefore we can't assess about the size. Also according to the article the source (a video) could be released due to psychological war rather than actual facts. Without providing another source about how large is the network the term should be avoided. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been added a reference with the UN 1701 resolution that monitor activities close to the blue-line, in particular, armed groups in the South of Lebanon. It has been explained why the tunnels are a violation of this resolution is they are close to the blue-line and uses for military purposes. Also, according to the reference of the Security Council that discussed the Hezbollah tunnels, an explanation of the Lebanon sovereignty in that area is explained. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section describing the role of the UNIFIL and the UN 1701 resolution is explained together with references. A brief mention to the blue-line (important as those tunnels close/crossing to the blue-line are a violation of UN 1701) is added. The UN press news with the confirmation of a 3rd tunnel is added. Note that not all the tunnels claimed by IDF were confirmed by UNIFIL. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
