Jump to content

Talk:Foreign involvement in the 2006 Lebanon War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mention of Aid not in relation to the current conflict

[edit]

Considering the title of this article I think it is safe to say that providing a comprehensive list of all miltary support that the US gives to Israel is irrelevant to the subject in question. I have kept the passages that refer to miltary aid in the current conflict but I have deleted everything else since it would be original research to tie in all the aid with Israel's operation without a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. IDF is dependent on these aids, and without these aids, such attcks that we've seen wouldn't be possible. These are sourced content and they're relevant to this perticular article, and they should be remain in the article. — Hossein.ir 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all that is original research, second of all it is not even logical. Israel spends 9 billion dollars of its own money on its military (meaning that this doesn't include the US aid) making it one of the best financed militaries in the world. The claim that they could not carry out an attack without American support is patently false, besides even if it was true, you have not provided a single source which ties the comprehensive list of aid to the current conflict, which means it is irrelevant to this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not original research. It's sourced content. Should I give a source for sourced content to make it super-sourced? I can't do this, if it's possible to do this. — Hossein.ir 08:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that the aid isn't sourced, but rather that its relevance to this conflict is questioned. The WP:OR issue is due to its stating that material cannot be included in an article if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? Please quote the reputable source that supports this case (I'm partially pasting from my reply above). As of now, the sourcing has been minimal, while sourcing proving that the discussion of Iranian aid is relevant is in ample supply. I'm certainly interested in what you think, but its been quite a while since I presented this argument, and despite spirited discussion with Paraphelion, it doesn't seem that the criteria have been met. TewfikTalk 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR to present US aid to israel, even if chronologically previous to the conflict, as relating to this conflict, it is a simple fact.
Even so, this great push for "only as related to the current conflict" I belive to be a wrong approach and rather misguided. We include, in the main page of the conflict and in other subpages pleanty of information, see-alsos, ELs and other information from before the conflict, as part of the background information. By seeking to narrow the scope of this very much relevant page by excluding needed and factual information on the background of this conflict, we lessen the quality of the information.--Cerejota 10:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FOr example, using this incredible logic, the only information we can include in the Military aid to hezbollah section would be:
"On August 7, 2006, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Iran answered Hezbollah's August 4 call for "a constant supply of weapons to support its operations against Israel".[7] According to Western diplomatic sources, Iran will supply advanced Russian, Chinese, and Iranian designed Surface-to-air missile systems, in addition to Hezbollah's current stock of Iranian-delivered Strela 2 MANPADS.[8]"
Other sourced material was published during the conflict, but either refers to actions who predate the conflict, or are not certain as to date, which means it is OR if we assume they refer to aid during this conflict.
Needless to say, having this unorthodox and unusual position harms article quality greatly.--Cerejota 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is Tewfik's POV. I can't understand how he calls this original research. It's related to this article. Mentioning the source of F16s that Israel had used during the 2006 war is related to this article, and its name. He's also removed my sourced, related content about Iran's aids, although the news was released in the time of conflict. The funny thing here's that the only remaining us aid in this article talks about the information US had gave to Israel about Iran and Syria military aids to Lebanon. Anyway, the same idea as Tewfik's can be used to remove all the contents of Hezbollah section. --Hossein.ir 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tewfik, please look at the total military aids of US. It's $19,509,734,000. It can not be ignored. --Hossein.ir 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the majority of material dealing with Iranian aid is discussed at length in the media, and is an important factor in political discussions (including in those surrounding the formulation of the various UN SC resolutions). This is amply sourced. Can you present sources discussing US aid? The only such sources I have seen relate to very specific incidences, which are included here. And if we suddenly don't need sources, then why stop at 2001? How can you know that only aid up until 2001 is relevant? Maybe the entirety of aid is relevant. My point being that no source establishes that this specific aid has anything to do with the conflict, and that its presentation here without citing outside analysis (alongside mention of Iranian aid which is subject to such sourced analysis) creates original analysis, like I quoted from NOR above. I apologise if I accidentally removed any sourced claims you made - that is not my intent. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can read this. It's originally from Democracy Now! [1]. Also, considering this fact that US is the greatest supporter of Israel and funded multiple billions of dollars to Israel evey year, including US aids is necessary. BTW, I couldn't find any article in Fox News that describes the role of US in Israel's war against Lebanon. All these articles are Lebanon war's SPECIFIC.

--Hossein.ir 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your attempt to research the issue Hossein, but I have to point out that the sources you supplied still don't justify the current detailed discussion of US aid. As the Asia Times piece is from 2004 and doesn't discuss this conflict, the fact that we had to dig out Democracy Now! and Inter Press Service articles at best demonstrate that the discussion is only held by non-mainstream organs. For such a discussion to deserve the representation it is getting now would require many articles from mainstream sources, which the Iranian aid is documented in (as well as in many political statements, including those relating to the drafting/passing of 1559 and 1701). It may not be fair to Iran, but the reality is that there is much more discussion accorded to its actions than to the US's in this regard. Wikipedia isn't about the truth (as terrible as that sounds), but is just supposed to be a reflection, warts and all, of the world - no more and no less.
I really feel bad about reverting as you've put some work into this (and I know how difficult and time-consuming it is to find good sources), but until the mainstream sources appear, I have no choice. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are ignorant of US media, but "Democracy Now" probably has more people who follow it than Haaretz. It is most decidedly a mainstream source, even if it is to the left-of-center. Inter Press Service is also a legitimate independent news service, that while small compared to giants of the news agencies, is notable enought to warrant inclusion in wikipedia, and is used by many local newspapers and news media accross the world as sources. I am sorry, but you are simply wrong in both counts. Those are WP:RS, and there is no way you can argue otherwise. I quadruple, quintuple dare you to prove they are not mainstream sources. Hell, it is certainly more mainstream that Little Green Footballs and other such unreliable sources you push in other pages... Can't have it both ways Tewfik... sources will question your POV just like they will question mine, and thats no reason to exclude them.--Cerejota 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tewfik insists in not allowing reliably sourced material that is relevant to this article, both by questioning their reliability as sources and by narrowing the scope of what is relevant to an exagerated level, I have removed all material that fits his definition of what should be included in the "Hezbollah" section. --Cerejota 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point continues to be that there is nowhere near the same amount of discussion. The Iranian connection is widely discussed in many mainstream media, as well as being specifically discussed by the principals regarding the formulation of res. 1559 and 1701. And while I dispute that Democracy Now! and IPS are mainstream sources, even according to your understanding that they are, do you really believe that two mentions by such minor organisations justifies the same weight as that of the Iranian connection? If it was indeed such a mainstream discussion, I would think it easier to find many sources that support it.
I'm also unsure of what Haaretz has to do with anything, and I never 'pushed any unreliable sources in other pages,' as you say [nor have I ever used "Little Green Footballs" as a RS for anything other than itself]. I would appreciate if you limit the argument here to the matter at hand, and if you think that I've done something inappropriate elsewhere, you are free to notify me on my Talk and I will discuss on the relevant page. Also, I don't know how you can possibly justify your mass deletion from the page, but based on your edit summary and comments above, it seems like you were doing so to make some point about a perceived logical inconsistency in my argument. Let's please just deal with the issues here in an appropriate manner. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may have reasons for your mass deletions, but other editors doesn't agree with your POV. you're continusely deleting sourced content. If you're talking about the relation of these with the main article, 2 above links(without considering the 3rd, that is somehow old) is enough. Even one source is enough, but I've gave you two. :-) --Hossein.ir 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolute nonsense. Israel is completely dependant on American money and free technological support for its powerful military. It is also completely dependant on American vetos at the UN to prevent sanctions being imposed on it for its violations of the UN Charter (with respect to the right of refugees to return to their homes and with respect to annexing territories acquired by war). This is not a point of debate. This is common knowledge that should be included in a wikipedia article on the conflict. Just as Hezbollah gets a significant amount of support from Iran, as does Israel from the US. If estimated annual aid from Iran to Hizbollah is included, then the estimated annual aid from the US to Israel MUST be included if this article is to be have a NPOV. --Amin123 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge is usually a tell-tale sign of OR. To the extent that there is widely published information about the US-Israel relationship, it should be included at Israel-United States relations. TewfikTalk 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From 11 September onwards

[edit]
There are other sources rather than Fars News if you look better. Democracy Now is not Iran's official news agency. Even now, I can't even understand your reason for mass deletion of sourced, and related content. Do you have even a source that shows Israel did not used great US military aids in the conflict? I've given you multiple sources that shows this. I repeat:"The same reasons as yours can be used to remove all the content about Iran's aids". Also, quoting five times doesn't reduces reliablity of the fact. Thanks.--Hossein.ir 09:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fars News is the first independent news source of Iran. [2] --Hossein.ir 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources presenting a discussion of the US aid to Israel are a solitary wire report (either AP or Reuters - I couldn't find it though it is definitely listed above), a Democracy Now! and IPS report, and the coverage in the Iranian Fars News. This is opposed to numerous stories about aid to Hezbollah in the AP, Reuters, and elsewhere, not to mention comments by US and UK heads of state, especially in the context of authoring 1559 and 1701. The lack of parity between the sources illustrates quite clearly that the vast majority of debate centered on the Hezbollah aid, and not on the aid to Israel. Again, consider that if the debate was really equal, it would be much easier to find equal sourcing for the argument about aid to Israel. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that you don't even read discussions, and you're repeating your POV. There are a lot of news sources out there, but as one source is enough, and I gave you multiple sources, your reasons does not conform to wikipedia guidelines. First, you should prove with a reason based on wikipedia guidelines that quoting multiple sources for the content and its relevance is needed. Talking about wikipedia guidelines is not reasoning. Talking about "original research" does not make an article "original research" or whatever. If you think so, you should give justify your idea. And also, I should say, again, that the same reasoning can be used to remove all the content about Iran's aids, because most of it is no related to this conflict. What do you say about this, and why don't you remove it either?--Hossein.ir 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same cannot be said, because the aid to Hezbollah is widely discussed in mainstream sources, something that is not true of the aid to Israel. WP:NOR states that material cannot be included in an article if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? So far, there is a solitary Reuters story, coverage from Democracy Now!, IPS, and Fars News. The case about aid to Hezbollah has been discussed much more widely across the mainstream media, and by prominent world leaders. I'm not sure what else I can say on this subject. TewfikTalk 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reuters story, coverage from Democracy Now!, IPS, and Fars News". This is called multiple sources, and with these the fact that Israel is armed by US should be included here. So please stop reverting without reasoning. Cheers --Hossein.ir 08:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's show out some news sources, again, and again. Although it's not necessary.

Rice takes a page out of Machiavelli 2006/07/29

Washington’s shameful support for Israel has reached a climax over the past few days. It has expedited the delivery of precision-guided missiles to Israel and blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire after more than two weeks of war, a move which is unprecedented in the history of the Security Council. This brazen policy has reached such extremes that some U.S. congressmen have even demanded an apology from Iraqi Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki for his condemnation of Israel’s brutal attacks on Lebanon. Yet, it would have been surprising if Maliki had said anything other than what he said. They are so disrespectful that they wanted Maliki, the leader of an Arab state, to endorse the attack.

U.S. has given Israel green light to continue assault: Lebanese MP 2006/07/29

“Today, the United States has given Israel free rein to continue its massacre and destruction in Lebanon to show what is happening in the country is the will of the U.S., to which all countries should bow,” he told the Mehr News Agency in a telephone interview. The Zionist regime’s hostility is in line with Washington’s goals in the Middle East, he noted, adding, “With this approach, the U.S. just creates more enemies for itself.”

Now please add Mehr News to all those above. Hossein.ir 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of freedom of the press in Iran? Mehrnews is based in Iran, and likely can not report unsanitized truth, unfortunately. -- Avi 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're talking about something opposite. Fortunately, it's in iran, and it can talk about the fact that "Israel is armed mostly by US aids". As I'm Iranin, I'm supposed to use Iranian news sources, but I'd also given news sources from US and other countries. So, why do you still keep on removing facts about US aids? And If you really belive in what you're talking about, why don't you remove Iran's aids either? Considering your reasons, It should be out of scope either, because it's not related to this specific conflict.--Hossein.ir 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still trying to imply that the discussion about general aid to Israel was a notable part of the conflict, while it is several orders of magnitude removed. That aid exists is not being denied, and there is a wikilink to Israel-United States relations, which is dedicated to the subject. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not trying to do this. I'm doing this. The wikilink is also suitable, and we should add more content there; But right now, considering many sources that talked about the issue, I revert it again, because it's related to this specific article--Hossein.ir 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the page. You have not provided any evidence of this being widely discussed. Whether you believe they are biased or not, the media has more widely covered one side more than the other. And whatever you may think about the US and UK governments, they have specifically framed two UN SC resolutions in reference to one side and not the other. We are supposed to just tell what happened, even if we don't think that it is fair. TewfikTalk 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting without reasoning. We're not talking about what is fair and what's not here. We're writing articles, and telling what's happend. That's all. So, either give us enough reasons for mass deletion of sourced, and related content(rather than repeating answered dabates), or stop reverting.

Please read this talk page Hossein, reasons have been given. Your additions of years of previous aid is out of scope of this article. -- Avi 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I suggest you to have a look at the given links. --217.219.18.80 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky's comments Media, Lebanon & U.S. - Israeli Brutal Operations --217.219.18.80 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if Noam Chomsky is who we need to go to in order to source that position, then we should not include that position. Hossein.ir, please justify the additions with the appropriate sourcing per the extremely lengthy discussion above. I'll be happy to clarify any points, but the major issues are all represented already. TewfikTalk 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read it, again:
I've given enough sources, but as you know, nothing but Israel and US military top-secret documents can PROVE this in a way that noone can disagree. But, right now, in wikipedia, we don't have access to such sources. Because of that, we use news sources, and books that are available for anyon. I can use your own words to justify removing all the content about Iran aids, but I don't, because I think it's your POV, not wikipedia guidelines .BTW, I don't agree with you when you say: "Hardly anyone discusses the aid to Israel in this regard", because even in US and Isreal, there are news sources and others talk about this. Democracy Now, for instance. And in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabi, and almost all of the middle east was talking about this. And with these sources, It can't be called original research. I tell you again, it's obviously natural that you can't hear anything about this from Fox News.
The fact is that you don't even read given sources. You try to find a way to label them. "Boy, it's from Iran, OMG it's Noam Chomsky", etc. It's not reasonig. It's POV.
--Hossein.ir 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attention please

I do not have the time to get personally involved in this case. It would cost me too much time to follow everything properly. But. STOP THE REVERTING. Those who continue reverting will at some point be blocked from either this article or from Wikipedia in general. End the reverting and DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE. In the meantime, revert to last version which everybody agreed on. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should hear from an administrator(ofcourse, someone that's not him/herself involved), otherwise it's not possible to reach to a result.
Hossein.ir 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some people want to push their POV with redirecting multiple editors here, and reverting repeatedly.
Hossein.ir 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once an administrator makes one edit to this article, Hossein, they fail your test . Regardless, your continued additions of material that is not germane to this article is, I am afraid, a classic example of POV pushing. If you would like to add this to the Foreign relations article, or carve out and start a new article about US military aid to Iran, then by all means do so. But any aid not directly supplied for this conflict does not belong here, and your continuing to push it into this article will be viewed as vandalism. Thank you. -- Avi 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"your continuing to push it into this article will be viewed as vandalism". This is a personal attack. If anyone looks at the talk page and the article, he/she will see that you and Tewfik are removing related content, with repeating answered debates again and again. US military aid in recent years are used in this conflict, and sources I've given shows this. What do you mean by "aid not directly supplied for this conflict"? Do you mean that Israel has a seperate military resource for this conflict and others? Your reason seams funny to me. But I can understand this. This is called POV. Keep cool. Cheers. --Hossein.ir 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am afraid you are missing the point. I am not arguing that your information is not true, but that it has as much bearing on this article as do claims of Iran's using children to clear minefields in the Iran-Iraq war. A significant number of editors and admins have toldyou this now, and you are the only one persisting in trying to add information to this article that des not belong. Please stop, that is vandalism. Also, that is not a personal attack, but a statement of wikipedia policy. If you would direct your zeal to creating a parent article about overall information about American aid to Israel, you would be doing yourself and wikipedia a good turn. But this article is not the place for it. Thank you. -- Avi 13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what vandalism is? Repeatedly reverting sourced and related content from the article, and whenever you're encountring 3rr, asking help from friends. "this article is not the place for it". You're wrong. Mentioned aids are used in this conflict, and they should be here. You can read my discussion, as I don't want to repeat myself, but you didn't answer me, Do you mean that Israel has a seperate military resource for this conflict and others? Your reason seams funny to me. And don't talk about other's opinion, as many people here disagree with you. Cheers.
--Hossein.ir 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple. This article is about aid given for use in this conflict, not all aid that has been given in the past five years for which it is feasable that one round of munitions was used. For example, the Zelzals were first used in this conflict, they belong. The US-made cluster bombs used belong. The shipment to Israel that went through Galway? that set off that brouhaha in England belongs. The Syrian munition pieces found in the rubble belong. Data from 2004 appropriations is out of scope. Rather clear. Thanks. -- Avi 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very simple.
Your rule: Data from 2004 appropriations is out of scope.. "Zelzals were first used in this conflict" (but were supplied before) Self contradiction. I agree with you when you say "This article is about aid given for use in this conflict". --Hossein.ir 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the title of this article

[edit]

I am talking about the part "in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The current version by Humus seems fine. This only treats aid in the 2006 conflict and not other periods. If this is indeed the issue, I do not understand what the 'Palestinians' here are complaining about. Current version looks completely NPOV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Mentioning Iran's aids(although there's a great doubt about it and Iran's governments have refused military aids. Iran officials say that Iran's aid is limited to diplomatic and spiritual aids) through all the years is not related to this article. "Current version looks completely NPOV", in youre point of view. Please read WP:NPOV. "I do not understand what the 'Palestinians' here are complaining about". It's because you are using your own view on editing wikipedia articles. Please talk about the issue, not calling others 'Palestinians', etc, as I'm not Palestinian but you're a jew from Israel. I respect jews, but anyway you can not use your POV here. --Hossein.ir 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My POV is completely neutral. This article is about aid in the current conflict. Not about aid in 2005, 2004, 2003 etc. Those years are not treated regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah either, so why should they be listed for Israel? Only the current conflict should be treated. If you want to mention aid to Israel in the years preceding this, you must also mention aid to Lebanon and Hezbollah in those years. Otherwise, it is POV. Further, as you can see from the ', 'Palestinians' is a figurative term here - just to make it easy, I'll refer to the pro-Israelis as 'Israelis' and the pro-Palestinians as 'Palestinians'. And I have no non-neutral POV. I am not here to protect the interests of the Zionists. If you accuse me of having a pro-Zionist POV (after taking note of some things on my userpage and reading through this site which explains my thoughts on the matter), that constitutes anti-Semitism, because I have no such POV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you want to mention aid to Israel in the years preceding this, you must also mention aid to Lebanon and Hezbollah in those years". Oh, you've got the idea. This is what I'm talking about.

"This article is about aid in the current conflict. Not about aid in 2005, 2004, 2003 etc". If it's used in this conflict, it should be mentioned. Otherwise, please remove "annual aids" from Iran& others. But, I think even if you want, you can't, because some members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism want to push their own POV in wikipedia. It's a pleasure to see some members of the project here:

Active contributer of Judaism and related articles, but not on the list:

Hossein, you are mistaken on this count, TewfikTalk 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I contribute to Judaism related articles as much as you Hossein. Unless you mean MidEast issues, in which case I could list you here as well - please keep this about the edits and not the editors.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, I only want them to respect wikipedia guidelines, no matter which group or religion they belong. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 13:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose setting a definite line. For example, 1 January 2006. Any aid to any of the parties involved before that date does not get mentioned. Any aid from after that date does get mentioned. How does that sound? I do not know when the US starts its financial year with regard to foreign military assistance funds etc. It would be most logical to let the article start with that date, the one preceding the beginning of the conflict. I vaguely remember that this might also be 1 October of 1 November. Could also be 1 January. I will try to find out tonight. Hossein, would you agree to this? --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avraham says: "This article is about aid given for use in this conflict". This seems to be a good rule.And I think your rule doesn't work: "1 January 2006. Any aid to any of the parties involved before that date does not get mentioned". In this way, we are implicitly considering Hizbollah and Israel unarmed before that date. Isn't it strange?
Hossein.ir

Yes, that is very strange. But it seems to be the only way to get you guys to COOPERATE instead of FIGHT each other. A clear line needs to be drawn regarding which things can be included and which can not be included. I invite anyone who has a better idea for where to draw this line to make themselves heard. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What goes in should not be based on date per se, but on its being discussed in relation to this conflict (and I urge anyone new to this discussion to review above, as this has been fleshed out in detail). In short, WP:NOR states that material cannot be included in an article if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? There are numerous mainstream sources discussing aid to Hezbollah (a brief listing can also be found above - it includes the wire-services, newspapers, including even the heads of state of the US and UK, especially within the context of their coauthoring 1559 and 1701). The only sources presented above [after weeks of discussion] which focus on aid to Israel (besides the limited events which were widely published and are already included in this entry), are a solitary Reuters piece, a Democracy Now! piece, an IPS piece, and several articles from Fars News. The absence of mainstream sources means that the discussion of aid to Israel was not nearly at the same level of prominence as the discussion of aid to Hezbollah, and thus giving it the same (or more, as the extensive table does) prominence here based on what we think should be constitutes at the minimum original research. Please, lets stop reverting out of this neutral version (and for the record, I'm not a member of Wikiproject Judaism), TewfikTalk 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Absence of mainstream sources" is your opinion. This is not included in WP:NOR, and it seems you're interpreting wikipedia guidelines as you want. And about involving in Wikiproject Judaism, this is not bad or good or anything, I wanted to show that you're editing in a perticular way to push your own POV, that is not neutral. You're saying this again and again, so read it carefully. WP:NOR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." What do you mean by mainstream? the discussion is about a "reputable sources", and all the sources I've mentioned are reputeable. Additionaly all the sources that are used for the content are reputable.--Hossein.ir 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote. People's backgrounds and personal interests vary. By that logic, if someone's a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union, he must be... what? Please, don't make this personal. Leave anything personal (including POV) out. We are all wikipedians and we are here to improve WP based on WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
I'm not judging you by the project you involve, I'm doing a reverse analysis, showing your interest in editing according to your POV that is not neutral. The nice thing here is that User:Jayjg is also a memeber of Wikiproject Judaism, and this shows what's happening. --Hossein.ir 10:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV - says who? I think judging others by the project they are involved in is exactly what you are doing. And where are we going now with this mysterious "reverse analysis"? What's next, banish certain categories of editors? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"banish certain categories of editors?" People who're not involved in the project, isn't it? This is what's happening. A member of the project locked the page that was reverted last time by another member. So, what this means? --Hossein.ir 11:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what this means? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
exactly: "banish certain categories of editors". --Hossein.ir 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some real arguments against inclusion, please?

[edit]

I regard the argumentation *against* inclusion as hollow, and I do not see the need for compromises involving arbitrary dates (January 2006) etc.. For the moment, I will blind out the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism and related editors (including admins) are well represented here. I will call them and other editors that object to inclusion of US aid "opposing editors". Arguments against inclusion of past US aid seem to fall into at least four categories:
1. Size issues:
Obviously, Wiki is not paper.
2. Balance issues:
Hezbollah's arsenal and aid is described based on what common reliable sources deliver, while IDF's arsenal now seems to consist of jet fuel and precision-guided bombs. So while opposing editors complained about balance issues *with* the US aid, we now have a serious problem *without* the US aid.
3. Relevance of past aid for this conflict ("Is pre-200x aid relevant in this conflict?"):
The article states that...

  • Iran provides between $50-100 million annually
  • Hezbollah received Iranian-supplied weaponry, including 11,500 rockets and missiles already in place
  • three thousand Hezbollah militants have undergone training in Iran

These statements obviously do not bear any timestamp. According to the argumentation of the opposing editors, they must also be removed, since relevance of "annual" and "received" aid for this conflict cannot possibly be verified. Obviously, if we did that, we would end up with an article citing only jet fuel and some PGBs. Moreover, the article states that

  • 50 [Hezbollah] pilots have been trained in Iran in the past two years

Opposing editors seem to have no problem with this statement, although it mentions aid over a two year timeframe (and disregarding the fact that Hezbollah did not attack using war planes).
4. Allegations of original research ("Who says that any past aid was used in this conflict?"):
It is widely [3] reported [4] that [5] Israel used UK/US-made helicopters and fighter jets in the 2006 conflict.

[...] F-16s, F-15s and Apaches have been used extensively by Israel in the recent attacks across Lebanon and Gaza, which have resulted in more than 500 civilian casualties to date. Last week Kim Howells, a Foreign Office minister, said the British embassy in Tel Aviv "has confirmed reports that Israel is using F16s in its incursions into Gaza and Lebanon".

So, please, can someone provide some *real* arguments against the inclusion? Thanks. Kosmopolis 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal on date ranges

[edit]

Would it be possible (and acceptable) to:

  1. Write a short section that explained that Israel and Hezbollah obviously developed and maintained their arsenals prior to the outbreak of hostilities, and explaining (briefly and with cites) to what extent Israel's and Hezbollah's existing military hardware depended on foriegn aid (funds, smuggling, etc). This section could also link to articles with more detailed explanations of Israel's and/or Hezbollah's military organization.
  2. With the pre-conflict information on both sides segregated and limited, the majority of the article could focus on aid during the conflict.
  3. If there are reliable sources, maybe the article could also have a short section on aid to Israel, Lebannon, or Hezbollah meant to aid in rebuilding military stockpiles or civilian assets damaged during the conflict.

Thoughts, TheronJ 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an attempt at conspiracy mongering (and its talk page is a strong evidence) and is unworthy of a serious encyclopedia. Is there Military and economic aid in World War I? Military and economic aid in World War II? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about date ranges. To the extent that this page is going to reflect anything, giving equal weight to a discussion of aid to Israel when the vast majority of discussion focused on Hezbollah is simply misleading. TewfikTalk 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that what you consider "the vast majority of discussion" is the vast majority of US- or Israel-based media outlets. In this case you're right, the vast majority was focused on Hezbollah. Kosmopolis 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the vast majority of media outlets all over the globe focused on Hezbollah, including Europe and even parts of the Arab world.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the concept of foreign military aid came to birth when the US had to give up their isolationism after WWII, at the beginning of the Cold War. The idea of foreign economic aid dates back much earlier, btw. Kosmopolis 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard that before and I don't see how it could make sense unless you are specifically talking about American foreign aid, but to argue that the concept of foreign military aid did not exist before WWII is simply not factually accurate, do you have a reliable source for this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an undeniable fact that the US was a major aid donor to the UK and to the USSR during WW2.
Back to the topic. I think this should be either a subsection or a subarticle of article Hezbollah. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise! After unsuccessful attempts here, Kosmopolis created United States military aid to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, I am not responsible for your education in international relations, but you may start with Diplomacy (Kissinger 1994) or study Bismarck. In case I'm wrong: Thanks for correcting my statement. Humus, I don't know where you get the idea that the US donated their stuff (which is the meaning of FMA). Anyway, these issues are not relevant for the discussion at hand. I left you some notes above, please comment on those, too. And which section should be a subarticle to Hezbollah? Kosmopolis (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that Bismark and Kissinger argued that foreign military aid did not exist before the end of WWII? I have a strange feeling that Bismark was not aware about World War II (probably not WWI either), I also think that your statement might very well confuse Louis the XVI after he sent military Aid to the fledgling US during the American Revolutionary war, or FDR after he signed the lend-lease bill, in fact I believe it would probably confuse the 4 billion or so people on the planet that have enough knowledge of history to understand you have not made an accurate statement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, Moshe...Louis XVI. entered the War of Independence himself and allied against Britain. No foreign military aid, whatsoever. And Roosevelt signed the Lend Lease Act, indeed, but where do you get the idea that he gave away his stuff for free? The relevant words are "lend" and "lease"; same mistake as Humus here, sorry. I recommend this CRS briefing as a reality check: [6]. You may also start with Diplomacy (Kissinger 1994) or Bismarck (btw, it's Bismarck). Please comment on the issue, now. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your twisting and turning the actual definition just so you don't feel you are wrong, regardless this tangent has gone on for too long as it has minimal impact to the actual matters at hand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, it was you who tried to prove my assertions wrong. Some see the Lend Lease Act as the beginning of US foreign military aid, while the debate about repayment issues and reverse lend-lease appears to contradict that idea. The Truman doctrine, on the other hand, is a safe bet. However, don't waste your time searching for examples in any pre-WWII period anywhere in the world; instead provide your comments on our issue. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one the went off on a poorly thought out tangent. Anyways, I've already said that I don't see any reason to discuss this anymore, we can move on here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Military aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

[edit]

I've just created Humanitarian and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which outlines humanitarian efforts and the evacuations. Since there is nothing but military aid left here anyway, I propose a rename. Kosmopolis (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of financial aid. The rename would be unsuitable.--Patchouli 07:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headlikeawhole (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Foreign involvement in the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign involvement in the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign involvement in the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign involvement in the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_involvement_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=1250057370"