Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701

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

Wikisource[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Please note that the included full text is of the draft resolution taken on 12 August. When the adopted draft has been reformatted and re-published by the UN as a proper resolution, that text should be added to all the existing UN resolutions in Wikisource, and the current text should be replaced by a link to that text. Thomas Blomberg 17:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of resolutions is @ wikisource:Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolutions, so this particular resolution should be located at wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution/1701, then we can use the template on the right in the article. jaco♫plane 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's a draft doesn't mean it belongs here and not in Wikisource. — Timwi 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the UN resolution[edit]

Why is there three links to the resolution 1701 draft? The links are identical. Michagal 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Timwi 09:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to resolution 1701 is broken. Quinty 15 August 2006

UN copyright and Wikisource[edit]

As an admin at English Wikisource, I would like to remind that ALL works published at the UN Headquarters in New York after 1 March 1989 are automatically copyrighted by American law by default, so Wikisource cannot have them for 95 years since publication. However, case-by-case exemption may be granted if it can be proved that the United States Government has prepared the underlying texts.--Jusjih 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.221.8 (talk • contribs)

Fair use is possible here, but please exercise good judgement with regard to the amount of others' work. Fair use is prohibited at Wikisource due to virtual impossibility to have valid claims.--Jusjih 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbollah[edit]

Please add something about the fact that the resolution doesn't force any actions concerning the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbollah at the beggining of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M vitaly (talk • contribs)

It is original research for us to make that connection (and thus not allowed) but if a reliable source claims a noteable person said something to that effect, including it would be allowed. WAS 4.250 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? No? The resolution is written right there. It would not be original research to say such, it would be republication of a confirmed fact from a reliable source. In fact, I think I'll add it in right now.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

I think undue weight is given in the article concerning Hizbollah, but since they started this latest tiff, maybe I'm wrong about that. WAS 4.250 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as it unravels you may see that if anything perhaps not enough has been said about Hizbollah. Just my thought. --Epeefleche 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Attacks on last day[edit]

I think the 32 Israeli soldiers (not sure about that number, though) were killed in the last *2* days, not one. And if this is mentioned, it should also include how many Hizballah men were killed (something like 50-80 according to IDF). Perhaps I'll look for that info later, but if someone already knows... Also, the 250 rockets may have been from a day earlier. 88.154.223.21 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, the facts seem to be contorted. Further, this section (specifically the second paragraph regarding deaths) does not adhere to NPOV and remains unbalanced in an attempt to provoke pathos from the reader.
1 - There are no sources cited for the last few statements. Except for medics-- the same professionals Anderson Cooper cited in his blog about two weeks ago for their use of propaganda.
2 - Lack of parallel syntax. For example, "at least nine Lebanese civilians died in one of the strikes," .vs.. "killed one person in Israel." Why not, "Nine people died in Lebanon," or, "at least one Israeli civilians died in one of the strikes"? The use of "at least", "civilians", and "one of the strikes", are examples of unnecessary use of pathos.
3 - Following the line of parallel syntax (or lack thereof), the article does not mention Hezbollah-militant deaths.
4 - The syntax and diction of the description of Hezbollah’s fighting ("forces fought the fiercest engagements of the conflict, killing 32 Israeli soldiers") attempt to heroize its efforts. In complete disregard to neutrality, the sentence highlights the death of 32 people as victories. If this sentence remains, at least put an exclamation mark at the end of it.
I hope that you contribute to this article and respond.--User:Stoopideggs2 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The systemic bias of the media is reflected here because we need reliable sources. 2: The person killed in Israel was most likely civilian, but we need a source for that. As for the medics, what they mean by dead civilians is probably people not wearing uniforms when they received help. Since most Hezballah fighters don't wear uniforms when fighting (only when parading), it's hard to distinguish between non-combattants and combattants wearing civilian attire. 3: Say that Hezballah did not release any casualty figures. 4: Here, just state how many Israeli soldiers were actually killed (by combining information from Israel and Hezballah). "Fiercest fighting" could perhaps be removed. --GunnarRene 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Is occupation ("...Israel expanded its occupation...") the correct word to use, in context? (Rhetorical question). Regardless of the imagery that allusions to "expansion" and "occupation" evoke, this segment of the sentence is redundant because the previous sentence already states that Israel "...Did not cease offensive actions..." More appropriate and neutral, and less vague would be something along the lines of, "...Israel continued its military advances into southern Lebanon..."
Or, "Israel intensified its military operations into..." is better.--192.193.221.144 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 - The first two sentences transition from Aug 13 to Aug 14 (at 0800, no less) to Aug 13 to Aug 14 (at 0745, no more). If this confines to the accepted formatting, then fine by me.
3 - Back to parallel syntax and diction, I do not understand why the initial paragraph indicates that the "Lebanese cabinet voted unanimously," while conversely, "The Israeli government accepted." This should be fixed.
4 - I will correct the comma splice in the first sentence of the second full paragraph. ("The Israeli...into effect.").
5 - Citations remain desperately unaccounted for.
The consistent implementation of underlying pathos and rhetorical aberrations require an administrator's review. --Stoopideggs2 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there any mention of the hostilities on the last day anyway? This is an article about Res 1701, not about the crisis/war/whatever. I suggest that virtually all the items in dispute in this section are extraneous to the article. "The ceasefire came into effect at 8am local time on August 14." Why is any of the other information relevant? [email protected] 21:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose your suggestion. --stoopideggs2 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation[edit]

The cease-fire has just been violated, where do we put that. --Deenoe 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for the news to develop more so we can get a complete look at the backlash from the parties of the ceasefire, as well as the reaction from the media and the pundits. In brief, I think we just need to see how it plays out the next couple days then really delve into the topic. Until then, a brief statement could be put in the intro and another applicable area. ~ clearthought 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lebanese government is demanding that the UN address Israel's commando raid, stating that it is a violation of the ceasefire. They also threatened to stop sending into southern Lebanon. Sounds important. Triumph's Hour 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could certainly have a section devoted to (claims of) ceasefire violations, but I suspect that it will become extremely long in short order. [email protected] 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- There is a problem here. The article goes "Two days later, fifteen Lebanese civilians from Kfar Shuba, carrying Lebanese and Hizbullah flags, crossed into the Israeli occupied Shebaa Farms. The IDF took no action to the provocation, but stressed that it was a violation of Resolution 1701. The United Nations confirmed that Hezbollah violated the resolution and that the group is rearming." - Thing is, since Israel is illegally occupying the Shebaa farms, that are generally considered Lebanese (or Syrian), it was the Israelis who violated the resolution by continued occupation; not the 15 Lebanese civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlätzmeister (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "background" larger than the rest of the article?[edit]

Can someone break it up into appropriate sections? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better alternative would be massive cuts. This article is way too long. [email protected] 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm going to start trimming away at it. --GHcool 02:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please decide on the spelling for Hezbollah[edit]

Someone with knowledge on the right spelling please correct it. In the latest articles it is spelled in a myriad of ways which is inappropriate for a source of reliable information.

There's no correct spelling, since it's a transliteration from the Arabic. I suspect that each user has his favoured spelling, based on the style manual at his favoured source. The "official" Wikipedia spelling would be "Hezbollah", I guess, since that's the title of their article, but I'm sure there will be some who dispute this. I have no problems with various alternative spellings. [email protected] 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full Text[edit]

I suggest that the full text of the resolution be deleted. Anybody who wants to read it can simply click one of several links. [email protected] 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is this?[edit]

Some joker added Austria-Hungary and East Germany to the nations potentially sending troops... seems to be a couple of years retarted!

Troops[edit]

France is boosting their contingent to 2000 troops from 200 due to national and international political pressure. ralian 07:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Background--

I think that we should move this section towards the end ... thoughts? --Epeefleche 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debatus link?[edit]

I established a wiki calle Debatus - www.debatus.com - "for refining and structuring argumentation and debate". There is a substantial debate article on the site on UN Resolution 1701 - "Is UN SC Resolution 1701 and the ceasefire it brokers between Hezbollah and Israel likely to succeed in its objectives? (was it reasonable)?" I was not able to make the "external link" to the site myself on the UN SC Res 1701 page because I created Debatus, which makes sense. I think that this link should be posted by someone else, though, because the merits of the content on this subject are very high on the site, and it is a natural extension of Wikipedia's mission over to argumentation and debate. What does everyone else think? Could a concensus be built for someone to make that "external link"? Brooks Lindsay 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL II[edit]

It seems that the term UNIFIL II is widespread used in the press, but I miss that as an official term within the UN (or, so far, haven't found a source). --213.155.224.232 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "wikisource1701" :
    • [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701]
    • [[s:UN Security Council Resolution/1701|UN Security Council Resolution/1701]]
  • "CNN-08-12" :
    • {{cite news|title=Security Council passes proposal to end Mideast conflict|date=[[2006-08-12]]|publisher=CNN|url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/12/mideast.main/index.html}}
    • {{cite news|title=Hezbollah leader agrees to cease-fire, with reservations|date=[[2006-08-12]]|publisher=CNN|url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/12/mideast.main/index.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed these. --Otus scops (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

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. Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

I'm actively checking and fixing links at the moment - I'd appreciate it if people didn't update this page for an hour or so. (It's not the end of the world if you do - just more work for me.) Finished. --Otus scops (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200701/kt2007011518124268040.htm "350 S. Korean Troops to Keep Peace in Lebanon"

I can't find it in archive.org or webcite.

The KT archive is currently not working (2014-04-19), but might be fixed - this would be the preferable option. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/search/search_main.asp

Less good, but possibly acceptable, the text appears to be here: http://www.10452lccc.com/daily%20news%20bulletin/january.english16.07.htm (archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20071011073850/http://10452lccc.com/daily%20news%20bulletin/january.english16.07.htm)

--Otus scops (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Aftermath section[edit]

I have removed the propaganda image from the IDF Flickr account, and updated the information based on the 2015 report here. Please try to find something neutral to add, and if you can't find it, try to find something which addresses both sides. The propaganda image is simply talking about Lebanese (not Hezbollah's - that is silly - the responsibility lies with govt. of Lebanon) violations. As the UN report notes, there are almost daily violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli flights. Kindly have some respect for WP:NPOV and not add such propaganda willy-nilly. Especially pictures, which are worth a thousand words, proverbially. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 04:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2019[edit]

In the section, Alleged Lebanese violations, Kfar Shuba to village has an article Kfarchouba. UniSail2 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ I have created a redirect from Kfar Shuba to Kfarchouba. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events[edit]

During the recent events in southern Lebanon, Israel allegedly violated 1701 by bombing areas near the border and should be noted in both Alleged Israeli violations Hezbollah violations area.

President Aoun: Israel’s use of its air force to target Lebanese villages is the first of its kind since 2006 and indicates the presence of escalating aggressive intentions that coincide with the continuous threats against Lebanon and its sovereignty. What happened is a flagrant and dangerous violation of Security Council Resolution 1701 and a direct threat to security and stability in the south.

Saad Hariri: The situation on the border with the Israeli enemy is very, very dangerous and an unprecedented threat to Resolution 1701 Using the south as a platform for regional conflicts with uncalculated results and repercussions is a step into the unknown that puts all of Lebanon in the crosshairs of the wars of others on its land.

Israel uses drones daily in lebanese sovereign territories and I think that should also be noted in the Alleged Israeli violations area. Prodrummer619 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024[edit]

In the Hezbollah subsection under Disarmament of armed groups in Lebanon, should the hyperlink to United Nations Secretary-General and Kofi Annan be in the third paragraph where Annan is first mentioned instead of the fifth paragraph. Mrprotest (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Also reworded a bit to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Liu1126 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701&oldid=1209549796"