User talk:George/Archives/2007

Lebanon calls

Hey! I thought you might want to participate in the disucssion at Lebanon's talk page over the edits made by Jaakobou that you reverted. Cheers! —LestatdeLioncourt 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've added my thoughts to the ongoing discussion. — George ^[talk] 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou

Of course, George. Do be careful; violating the 3RR rule could get you blocked. I've requested page protection while we resolve the dispute. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm hoping. I'll take a look at what's taking place at the talk page right now. —LestatdeLioncourt 07:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about requesting unprotection. We've given Jaakobou the chance. It's been two days and he hasn't posted any comment. Wait more or unprotect? —LestatdeLioncourt 20:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re

Hi! #Using the numbers repeatedly is redundant, confusing, and can be misleading. I'm sure most users can add three and five in their heads to count to eight. It would also help cut down on the length a bit.

Yes, but the idea is 1) to separate the two sub-incidents, and 2) the words in parantheses just says what they did (that they killed 5, for example), and the last part says that the killed were Israeli soldiers. It says what Hezbollah did, and ends with what Israel lost. I think it should be okay to understand.

#It is incorrect grammatically to use numerals that small in a sentence. 3 should be three, 5 should be five, etc.

The casus belli is not a sentence, and in most cases it is not a formal sentence in other articles. It is more on a point-by-point basis.

#I believe the shelling should be listed before the raid, as those are the order they occurred in. This is significant as the shelling was a diversion for the raid. They were both cross-border, so I'm not sure why you take issue with switching the order.

I kept shelling in front, I switched the cross-border part. "Cross-border" is usually accompanied with "raid". It seems the other way might infer that Hezbollah was across the border as they were shelling. The important thing to note is that they were shelling Israel.

#Using the parentheses throughout is confusing, and doesn't really achieve anything more than listing the numbers outright would.

How is: Hezbollah shelling of Israel and cross-border raid killing three IDF soldiers and kidnapping two others, and shooting at IDF rescue force killing five more.

That ok? Let me know. Thanks. --Shamir1 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shamir1. This looks much better. I'm quite happy with your revised sentence grammatically. — George ^[talk] 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How did you make your page?

Your page is soooooooo cool. How did you do the whole "about me" thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I m dude2002 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi I m dude2002, I'm glad you like it. The code makes use of the userboxtop and userboxbottom templates. If you go to my talk page, and click the "edit this page" tab at the top, it will show you the code I'm using. Hope that helps. — George ^[talk] 09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is there a list of all the user categories? I m dude2002 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a decent collection in the Gallery section of WP:UBX. — George ^[talk] 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Honest mistake

Sorry, it was an honest mistake. It was based on the earlier edit, I forgot to remove it. As you can see, I have let it go anyway. Thanks. --Shamir1 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A small request

Hello George. I am sorry if I'm being too intrusive, but could I please have your email address? If you do give it to me, you should delete it right after you save the page, to avoid spam. I will find it in the page history. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting Lebanon

I asked Jaakobou to continue the discussion going on at Lebanon's talk page. He said that he has exams coming up and that he won't be able to contribute much to the discussion, so I proposed unprotecting the article until he is able to fully participate, provided that he and you agree not to make any edits regarding the disputed issues. Is that OK with you? —LestatdeLioncourt 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cas number

Hi, I have not reverted your edit but let me explain why I changed it before to over 1,200 people killed. I added the lowest figure of each which gave me (if I remember correctly) 1,197. Then, we have foreign citizens to consider (some may have been dual), but in either case it would probably be "over 1,200" as stated before. Also, keep in mind that the 1,191 death toll is from the Higher Relief Council source as you can see. The Lebanese government source is 1,123 (including unidentified victims), and the Associated Press is 1,035. Thanks. --Shamir1 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that just before you told me! I thought it would be better to write just the government sources in the boxes and put the others below, but now that I see that, you can change it. Also, I emailed the Lebanese Ministry of Health but it was sent back to me. I sent it to the only English-speaking address it seemed, but it does not work. It is also hard to find the info on their site because of their format--all pages have the same url. My Arabic is not strong enough to contact them on their other addresses, anyway you can? Thanks, and I do appreciate your effort. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Lebanon conflict

Hi again! The news reports are news reports are probably based on other sources (most likely the HRC). As much as I would love to know correctly how many of each were killed, I have also read too many articles (online and in print) that explicitly talk about the impossibility of determining an actual civilian number. That does not make any difference anyway. The point is that it would be a claim (a worthy claim) that most victims were civilians since it contradicts with other sources. For example, let's take the Lebanese sources who say that Hezbollah had buried over 700 guerrillas and have many more to go. The lowest possible number for that claim would be 701, which is the majority if compared to the highest possible 1,191 (HRC estimate). Estimates from the IDF and the UN would have it close to half or possibly over.

Please understand that I am not refuting these claims, but just stating that we cannot present those points as facts. I am still gathering more information on those number issues.

Somewhat off-topic, I am deeply saddened by the fighting in Beirut recently, I dont know if youve seen the news.

Thanks, and I appreciate your dedication to the article. --Shamir1 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to determine and its a difficult subject. Undoubtably, many civilians were killed, and no one is eliminating the possibility of whether they were a majority of victims. Those articles are based on reports, which would be based on each government, and they news stories, not investigations. They also, however, do not distinguish how many civilians killed or even the approximate portion. The IDF estimate is an important factor. An estimate of 600 Hezbollahs could be the majority. This is all a possibility and an important issue, and is not far from the UN official's estimate (which was also made in the light of somewhat lower estimates). It wouldn't be fair to say that one's claim is less worthy when they are both possibly equally as important. If the numbers of Israeli civilians contradicted with another group's findings or by another authority, that would also run into a NPOV dispute.

Thanks for being cooperative. --Shamir1 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2006-present Lebanese revolt

Thank you for your advice, however it is quite clear that Israel's armed forces surpasses that of Hizbullah

                  M.B.G

I don't disagree specifically, but when you make such claims you need to cite references that agree. Also, the revert was more about your claim that "all" sectors of Lebanon thought more highly of Hezbollah, as this just isn't true. — George ^[talk] 10:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry george i must of looked at a wrong source.

Salam. Dear George, I think we have agreed with moving timeline from Lebanon article to 2006-present Lebanese revolt and put a summary there.--Sa.vakilian 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon RfC

Just so you know, I felt that your interpretation of NPOV, i.e. "Civilian and militant death totals are a matter of some debate - see [[link to section of article where discussion takes place]]" would be the least biased/POV link for the infobox. Although it may then be difficult to write a consensus NPOV section in the article explaining this.

Good luck with it; if you need anything else just drop me a line. Jem 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good evening (GMT time); I have accepted the above case - requested by you - on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I am prepared to commence mediation as soon as possible. I would like to start by enquiring if you wish for mediation to be conducted at the Mediation Cabal subpage, or on the article talk page.

Any further questions can be directed at my talkpage where I will happily answer, so long as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifying the references

Salam Alaykum

Could you please help us in Talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the references ?--Sa.vakilian 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sheba

it is cool now. I edited since the Golan 9at least now) is not "In Syria". It was captured in 67 by Israel but there rae those who claim it should remain part of Israel . Zeq 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1

Good morning (GMT time); I've posted an update at my talk page which I think will be of some interest to you.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Smskk

Take a look at that user's page. Notice any similarities to yours? Looking through the history reinforces this thought.

I'm a little concerned about this (I think it's trolling), especially because that user vandalized Walid Jumblatt. --N Shar 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon debate

Hey George, I just wanted to apologize for not contributing to your debate at the Lebanon article. I am just too tired. I want to let you know that you have my full support in any decision you make there. Thanks. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done

I have semi-protected your page. Cheers, ~ Arjun 14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Shebba farms

Sorry for not being around. the current "between Lebanon and the Golan Heights" is reasonable to me. thanks. Amoruso 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We need your help

Hi, How are you?

Please come and help us to finish verification of Hezbollah references.talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the references--Sa.vakilian 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can co-work on the lead and intro of Hezbollah. I think you're more NPOV than me in this case, although I try not to be affected by my tendency toward Hezbollah.

I've removed all of the references which don't exist anymore. I put {{check}} after the case which I found too biased. I want to know your idea in this case. Maybe some of the references are irrelevant. --Sa.vakilian 10:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... what do you think?

Hello GS: I want to ask about you Lcnj. He is behaving very bizarrely with me lately. I don't know him in person although now he knows my name, my old address in Lebanon and my old cell phone number (the new owner told me he called and threatened--we keep in touch in order to see if I still get any phone calls from friends who don't know that I left Lebanon) Anyway, I thought you should know him more because you worked with him on Lebanon related articles. Is he always like this (ownership issues, "winner gets to right history" approach, and rude to new comers)... or is just that my initial (J) just excites him so much that it brings out his bitter side? :-) Please erase this comment from here when you read it and answer me by emailing me on my talk page. Kindly advise on how I should deal with such a type. Thanks George! --Jixavius ^@ 22:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jixavius: WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????? - Enough LIES, CONDESENDING REMARKS (my initial (J) just excites him so much that it brings out his bitter side? :-) ), FALSE accusations and personal attacks... You are repeatedly violating Personal attack. This is your LAST WARNING to cease and desist. Worldedixor 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See what i mean? :s --Jixavius ^@ 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going out of town for the weekend. Hopefully the two of you can work out your differences. I'll try to catch up when I get back. — George ^[talk] 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Salam. Do you have a template for political parties of Lebanon, which shows their political and religious tendencies.--Sa.vakilian 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't, but it's not a bad idea (if one doesn't exist). I may look into creating one when I get back from vacation this weekend. — George ^[talk] 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jihad

Hello George ;-) Can I please have your help and support in the vote on the article about Jihad? Thanks GS! --Jixavius ^@ 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon map

Loved the new map you added :)... I just have a couple of suggestions: 1) Crop out everything beyond the Lebanese border, so you just have Lebanon by itself. 2) Give the Lebanese border some shading (black fading out to white, against the white background). I think this way the map would look even better. Sorry for dumping all the work on you :), but I've been incredibly busy lately. Toodles. —LestatdeLioncourt 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i would recommend the word"hello" at the begining

hello,

what changes that i have made on Lebanon page?!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.150.8.67 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Mediation_Location

You are agreed the above dispute is resolved? anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Award

Thanks for your attempts to keep articles NPOV.--Sa.vakilian 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And another

The Original Barnstar
For your civility in the Mediation Cabal case, WP:MEDCABAL/Israel-Lebanon conflict, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award George the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk]

Awarded: 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon conflict

Nice work on the separate casualties section. Much better than the old way we had it. Great idea. Iorek85 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also a good idea, but I think it would be easier just to rename the 'attacks on civilians' section to 'war crimes allegations'. The problem being the contentious use of the word 'war crimes', and the various debates around what constitutes a war crime. (Nothing, if you accept all the legalese and defences by both sides...). I wouldn't add it as a new section, mainly because I'm worried about the length of the article. Perhaps just 'controversy'? Iorek85 02:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaftoun

Hi, Thank you for editing the Kaftoun page. Regards, faresjm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.36.32.45 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

You had it coming

		The Template Barnstar
		For your wonderful work on Template:Lebanon_Labelled_Map. Blew me away! —LestatdeLioncourt 14:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination as a good article

Salam. I think Hezbollah has reached to good article criteria and I want to nominate it. Please write your idea in talk:Hezbollah#Good article nomination--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Bot tagging

Hi Reedy. Your bot tagged Beirut as part of WikiProject Israel. Beirut is, of course, the captial of Lebanon, not Israel, so I assume this was just a mistagging. — George ^[talk] 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am just automatically tagging all pages in categories/subcategories of Israel. So there may be a few that are in-appropriate. If this is the case, feel free to remove them. So yeah, its a mis-tagging (as the bot is just doing it manually), sorry for the inconvience. Thanks, Reedy Boy 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Anthony cfc#Question about WP:RFCU

Good evening (GMT time); hope you're well! I've replied to your post regarding WP:RFCU; a link to the post is available in this comment's headline.

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Walid Jumblatt

Please stop editing the Walid Jumblatt article as it is considered vandalism, if you continue to do so. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smskk (talk • contribs) 01:42, February 9, 2007.

Walid Jumblat

Hello, this is Walid Jumblatt's cousin. I am editing his page based on factual information. He is actually Israeli. You do not know what you are talking about. Now stop "fixing" his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.112.152 (talk) 21:20, February 9, 2007

Photos from Almanar

Salam. We've used 2 photos from Almanar in Hezbollah article comprising Image:Raad-image1.jpg and Image:Nasrallah on al-Manar television.jpg. These may cause some problems during GA reviewing. Can you please add "Fair use rationale for Hezbollah" to them like Image:Gladiator ver1.jpg, Image:Bbconescotlandidentnew.jpg or Image:Foxnewsalert.png.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Al-Manar

Somebody nominated Al-Manar as a good article but it should be improved. I wrote my idea in talk:Al-Manar. Can you please help us with it?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

George, the "Second Lebanon War" is what it is called in Israel and is what it is to Israel although news sources still call it the "war between Israel in Hezbollah". I wrote a comment on the discussion page. I dont find this to be the appropriate title. --Shamir1 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if i made you feel that way. I wasnt suggesting that it was you, however I have been absent from the discussion for a while and dont really know how to go by it. I just dont think that the title reflects the war or how sources have reported it. --Shamir1 02:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, George. Regarding the note you left on my talk page... To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia rule that mentions the word "hearsay". When I read the sentence in question in the article, I followed the link and read the reference. You are correct when you say that the referenced source uses almost the exact same wording. I was just my opinion, probably unsupported by Wiki policy, that referencing a source which says that some other unidentified sources said something borders on being weasel-y. In addition, I felt that the sentence I removed introduced a POV slant to the paragraph it was in, to wit:

Amnesty International alleged that the IDF used white phosphorus shells in Lebanon. -- FACT

Israel later admitted to the use of white phosphorus, but stated that it only used the incendiary against militants. -- FACT

However, several foreign media outlets reported Lebanese civilians with burns characteristic of white phosphorus attacks during the conflict. -- FACT, but... I felt the wording and position of this sentence implied that the Israeli statement was untrue. But civilians with w.p. burns does not mean that these weapons were targeted at civilians.

Anyway, that was the reasoning that went into deleting that one little sentence. 99 times out of 100 when I see something like that in Wikipedia, I shake my head and leave it alone; this time, for no particular reason, I acted. If you feel that the article would be fairer and more accurate with the sentence restored, by all means, restore it. Cheers, Opelio 07:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi George

You are wkilayerying with simple facts. Please don't. The article was much clearer and more accurate before your last revert. Please move discussion to talk page. Zeq 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

War article

Hi George. I was reading The Telegraph and came across some articles. One that is not recent and one that is. Teheran fund pays war compensation to Hizbollah families and Rise in radical Islam last straw for Lebanon's Christians. Apparently, the war has prompted 7% of Lebanon's Maronites to emigrate. Off topic, if you dont mind me asking, are u Maronite? --Shamir1 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you still have the emigration statistics? I think it would it be interesting to see. --Shamir1 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly concerned about the emigration, not the reason per se. Christian Lebanese have had a higher rate of emigration since the early 20th century. However, 7% of the population emigrating is considerably large to say the least. What I was interested in seeing was the statistics about Shiite Lebanese, if that was included with what you mentioned. --Shamir1 05:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Lol, in the future, we should make sure we don't make (completely unrelated) edits on different pages within half an hour of each other. And under no circumstances must we agree with each other. :) I have to give him some respect for the effort he went to, though. That's a lot of diffs he cited. Iorek85 21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

2006-7 Lebanon political protests

As far as you know? No one has touched this article for two and half months. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well now you tell me. Well, I can't see it going on for another 7 months... if it does, I guess we can move it to x-2008 xx. I'm sure someone will fix the tenses back.... -- Kendrick7^talk 06:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful link; I confess I didn't look at google news at all before making the changes. but perhaps my spidey-sense had it right. I would suggest deadlocked == over and deadlocked protesters == people living in tents. And people living in tents in the Middle East is certainly current, but not, as it were, an event. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the article really suggestive of a crisis. Though were I a politician trying to stay in power or a publisher trying to sell newspapers, I suppose I would be beating that drum. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

George...

Did you start the Hezbollah page? Come man, you can't speak of personal attacks and turn around and label Hezbollah as Anti-Semetic as a whole. Read the quote by Qussayr, he clearly says that they don't distinguish by religion and that it's Zionism that they oppose. This other guy made it sound like hezbollah hates jews, but doesn't hate the jews that hate jews, how does that make sense??? It's nearly impossible to write something on that page without someone going in and changing it to make it sound better for Israel.Ahmadhusseini 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok George, Being civil now... but tell me how does one add something, which isn't dimeaning to other's point of view and only explains the issue, in this case the Hezbollah page, adn not get it changed??? How are people running around, pretty much adding things they heard on Limbaugh, and Hannity and get away with it?? Please explain Ahmadhusseini 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Salam, I think we will have some problems with this guy. I try to speak with him in Persian and learn him how he should work here. However I apologize you because I know you try to be NPOV. God bless you--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check my edition in Hezbollah article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. And what's your idea about On the other hand some newspapers have claimed Hassan Nasrallah has made anti-Jewish statements such as "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[71][verification needed][72][verification needed] The managing editor of the Beirut Daily Star, which published the quotation, has however since called into question the accuracy of the quotation as well as the honesty of the reporter.[73][verification needed]

I'll remove verification needed if others accept some newspapers have claimed.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find my former debates in talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the sections:I think you mean 75 and 76. We've debated on this quotation at least 5 times but they were useless. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Thus I add {{check}} tag after them. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

War article

Please correct each fact. I will assume your argument for each point.

The most commonly used news magazine is Time, and they use Israel-Hizballah war.
Your argument: That there is a Time article that refers to the war as Lebanon's war in the story headline.
Please explain: how it amounts to anything considering a) that the same article refers to the war as the Hizballah-Israel conflict, b) more Time articles calls it as the Israel-Hizballah war/conflict, c) the most recent Time article calls it the Israel-Hizballah war.

BBC is commonly used, and in a permanent source of theirs they call it the Israeli-Hezbollah war.
Your argument: That it is a poll
Please explain: a) why you are totally disregarding the source simply because it is a poll, b) the difference, as it is what BBC calls the war to survey the public.

The Washington Post has a separate page of coverage on the war, and they call the war The Israeli-Hezbollah War.
Your argument: That the page it directs to is entitled: Crisis in the Middle East.
Please explain: a) the difference whatsover, as the link is clearly written the Israeli-Hezbollah War, which is a permanent WPost link, and not part of the news story; b) why the similar Israeli-Palestinian Conflict link on the Post directs us to a page entitled Conflict in the Middle East. Really make a difference? Come on.

The San Francisco Chronicle has the same such page with the same title of the war. Your argument: Presumably none.

Human Rights Watch, in an official document and recent country report for Lebanon, calls it the Israel-Hezbollah war. Your argument: That HRW has pages with the subject headline Israel/Lebanon.
Please explain: a) why you are linking the title for the human rights that are being watched in Israel/Lebanon to the title for the war; b) how having the subject headline Israel/Lebanon for the general coverage of Israel/Lebanon even amounts to the name of the 2006 war, c) why you are completely disregarding an HRW official document and country report for Lebanon that is their most recent and researched article.

The Congressional Research Service, the public policy arm of the United States Congress, calls it the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. Your argument: That the CRS "often" calls it the war in Lebanon Please explain: a) how one time (after calling it the summer 2006 war a few times, and then adding the words in Lebanon once) amounts to "often"; b) why the several more and multiple Israel-Hezbollah war references are disregarded; c) why the fact that the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war was introduced as such is disregarded.

For the record, the RfC has been requested. --Shamir1 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that I answered each of your numbered points before my 'riddled' paragraph. --Shamir1 06:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll use numbers here, to try to keep this organized. First, please note that I'm only going to deal with sources that state "Israel-Hezbollah war" or similar. I do not your opinion that usage of "war between Israel and Hezbollah" means the same thing.

1. Okay, for TIME, first a couple notes. It is inaccurate to call it the "most commonly used news magazine," as this is simply untrue. It is the largest circulated weekly magazine in the United States. While I know that you're probably not going to see the differences between those, they're absolutely huge. Yours says it's the most used news sources in the world in magazine form, while in reality it is the largest circulation weekly magazine in the United States. The relevance has to do with giving the source undue weight. Now, to evaluate your claims one-by-one.

OK, really i am typing and thinking quickly. If I miss a word, it makes no difference to the discussion, if I were editing it would, but not in talk.

1. • First, you claim that the same article refers to it as the "Israel-Hezbollah conflict." This is absolutely true, but misses the point. The point is that there is no consensus for the name "Israel-Hezbollah war." I absolutely agree that it is used sometimes, but I very much disagree that it used often enough or consistently enough to constitute a consensus. My point is that the TIME articles use half a dozen different terms when referring to the war, including "war between Israel and Hizballah", "the July-August war with Israel", "last summer's 34-day war between Israel and... Hizballah", "the summer's war", "the summer's war with Israel", "war in Lebanon", and, indeed, "Lebanon's War", and I don't think there's any consensus among them. This denotes absolutely no consensus for the name.

I explained to you the headline issue. For that you should look at the text which will say something similar or expand on it more correctly. Naturally, I did not take the date (July/Summer) titles into account, although perhaps I should have. In the majority of cases, they refer to the war as something to do with Israel and Hezbollah. Not as much with Lebanon. This is the case with the most recent Time article. Your refusal to acknowledge "the war between Israel and Hezbollah" as "Israel-Hezbollah war", after much explainig, is quite nonsense. Most of the time anyway, I am using it with sources that also already saw Israel-Hezbollah war.

1. • Second, please don't say things like "more Times articles call it." This requires us evaluating every article to state this as a fact, and short of evaluating it as such as a fact, it's just unnecessary exaggeration to try and make a point.

There are more, I looked at each Time article and how they refer to the war.

1. Okay, for the BBC poll, and this is fundamental, polls are not sources. I am not ignoring your source, because you have no source. You have a poll. The fundamental difference is that while BBC articles are vetted, reviewed by editors who make edits and corrections, and written by journalists who research what they're reporting on, poll have no such editorial oversight. This is a critical aspect of being a reliable source.

As for the research that is gathered from a poll, they may or may not have such editorial oversight, I actually dont know but wouldnt assume such for BBC. As for the research itself, the prepared questions and language, that is for a fact fundamentally untrue.

1. As for the Washington Post, what about a link makes it "permanent"? Neither the article nor the link have changed since they were written, so the word "permanent" has absolutely zero meaning. Furthermore the sources are old, and may, therefore, be tainted by recentism. They support the title you support, however, again, two random links to a page with a completely different title do not show consensus among scholars in any way whatsoever.

The permanence of it means that it is not a written-up news story. It is an organized coverage and completion of the events. And they call these event the Israeli-Hezbollah War. There is NO denying it. If you want to argue for recentism that for some reason it is written differently elsewhere you would have to find a more recent article where that is written differently. You cannot just say theyre "old". However, that war page was completed after the war, so there is no argument. The page it is directed to has a different title, but okay its different. First of all, "Crisis in the Middle East" is not the title of a war. That page was completed after the war, and thus those relevant articles were linked to it after the war. Here is another one,[1] that includes that box, and here is one [2] that uses the phrase Israeli-Hezbollah war in the article text. (It does not have the box because the general story is not related to the war.)

I have no problem with the San Francisco chronicle article. It supports your argument. Again, one article means littles as far as consensus among scholars which doesn't exist. It's also not a very important source, being the 14th largest in America.

Listen, dont be difficult. That page is the general page on the war. The Washington Post has a general page on the Israeli West Bank barrier. There, they call the structure a barrier. On some articles, they have called it a fence, in others a wall. Which one takes dominance? Of course the permanent and general page on it, not an individual news story.

1. Yes, HRW calls it the "Israel-Hezbollah war" at points, and at other points it labels it differently. Just as Wikipedia article titles are important, so too are titles for documents, reports, and articles. The fact that they chose to use "Israel/Lebanon" in the title denotes to me that neither name is more or less appropriate that the other. Again, lacking consensus among all the articles and reports out there on a specific name, of course different sources will use different names. I do not dispute this; I only dispute that there is any sort of consensus for it. I disregard nothing, but I take everything into account with regard to the greater whole, and I see not definitive consensus. Also, please don't inject OR like calling it their "most researched" article, as even if it is the most recent, we have no way of knowing this to be true.

I explained some of this above. This is a country report of Lebanon. Not an individual news story. They use the phrase Israel-Hezbollah war in this official document, which is at least quite recent if not the most recent, which I assume it is after searching the site. Obviously, this would take dominance as it is general coverage; the bulk of the research collected by HRW is put into this report, while the others are individual reports and news stories. The most baseless claim they you can continue to assert is the use of "Israel/Lebanon". How on earth does that name the war? How? Really, that is ridiculous. They are addressing the issues in Israel/Lebanon and you allege that they are naming the war that? Please.

As for misidentifying sources on your side: WINEP is not a special interest group or connected to any one. As for "injecting" OR: SourceWatch does not represent what is "widely" considered or anything at all for that matter. Besides their own political allegiance, SourceWatch is completely un-moderated and can be written by literally anyone.

1. Regarding, Congressional Research Service, again, you're misidentifying your source. It is not the "public policy arm of the U.S. Congress." It is the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress. This is like confusing the CEO of a company with the researcher who was working on the companies latest drug; they are two extremely different things. I misspoke here: I should have said that it very often uses names other than "Israel-Hezbollah war." This varying usage of the name again illustrates that there is no consensus among scholars on a name.

Once again, excuse me for missing a word as a type/think quickly. Again, you are making things more difficult than they are. I found each reference to the war. The first one, taking precedence, is 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. It continues with that name, and sometimes summer 2006 war. When I am writing (for school or other matters), after I feel the reader is comfortable and familiar enough with the word, I may shorten it to just "2006 war" or the such, as they did. This is how they wrote it: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war (1st), summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel (2nd), 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war (3rd), summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war (4th), summer 2006 war (5th), summer 2006 war in Lebanon (6th), 2006 war (7th). That is pretty consistent.

--Shamir1 07:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

George

I see that you keep removing the rocket fire into Israel. I have asked for mediation on this issue. The rocket fire is fact and must be included every day as this is an every day timeline. The article is certainly not neutral without it. 87.74.79.183 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Cyclod - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case page, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[cfc] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New structure of Al-Manar

Hi, I rearranged Al-Manar. Please tell us your idea :Talk:Al-Manar#Rearrangement--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Manar was failed. Please add your viewpoint about its lingual aspect and WP:MOS in its talk page and. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon in Arabic

The accents as you may already know signify vowels, so you'll basically just need to add in all the missing vowels:

الجُمهُورِيَّة اللُبنانِيَّة

Obviously, you can notice that I am using a different, larger font (Traditional Arabic; if you don't have it on your computer, it will probably just appear in Times New Roman). I don't know if all the accents will be easily visible with smaller fonts. —LestatdeLioncourt 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal Lebanon

Hello George. Do you have any idea who replaced the beautiful picture of the cedars of Lebanon by the map that shows the Shi'a influence areas in Portal Lebanon? Thanks. -- Jixavius 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah:GA on hold

The article Hezbollah ... has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hezbollah for things needed to be addressed. LordHarris 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please help us with Hezbollah. We can reach GA criteria En sha Allah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I appreciate your editions in Hezbollah article which led to achievement GA criteria. Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon and "Greater Syria"

Did you know that ( before 1916 Lebanon was a part of Greater Syria ). it is truth. Please give one reasn why you delet it. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brazzouk (talk • contribs) 21:05, May 1, 2007.

In the name of Allah, most merciful ever merciful

Dear Mr saliba i invite you to research with me on the following topic

"Islam and Terrorism"

I have personal access to 25000 online journals e.g sciencedirect etc

Lets help maintain the neutrality of Wikipedia

May Allah bless you with each and everything you want in both the worlds

Hasnain Haider

How can you specifically a date to a nation and label it as its identity since then. You chose 1916. I could have easily selected a date before Jesus Christ or before the Hijra of the Prophet. More specifically to the Phoenician culture, here is an odd identity to give to Lebanese. It is not imported into Lebanon like Arabophonie or Francophonie or Ottaman or even Byzintine dominations. Phoenicians is a 'locally nourished and breaded civilization and culture'. The identity of Lebanese, us up the Lebanese. labeling them as Lebanese, already makes them united, against anything not Lebanese. --Yozef 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon debate

Are you sure anything is gained at this point by further discussing the issue of the article name? In my opinion, we should let Shamir1 try to get support for his idea. if he can, fine; until then, the burden of proof is on him. This discussion, it seems to me, is just going around and around. thanks. --Sm8900 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi George. Do you have an email address? If so could you please email me at my user page? I have some thoughts about the mediation which I'd like to express. thanks. --Sm8900 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. i removed Jayjg's name from the list. I understand about requiring all parties to agree before starting the mediation, but it seems silly if all parties have agreed and only one has declined to respond. So I would suggest that we should simply go ahead. thanks very much for all your help. feel free to write to me anytime at my talk page. thanks. see you. --Sm8900 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. do whatever you think best. my only thought is that he is a fairly active editor, so if he wanted to be involved, he would probably say. in the absence of any active opinion by him, I figured it was ok to leave him off the list, unless he wrote specifically to join. and of course, doing so did not detract rom any ability for him to comment in the future. however, I support anything which you may want to do. thanks. --Sm8900 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

Cheers for the heads up. He really, really wants the name changed! Iorek85 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War

I agree that it doesn't belong in the main entry, and that there isn't a direct connection, but that is the nature of this whole section. Its not perfect, but I don;t think there is a better address right now. Do you? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I take no responsibility for the content since I only moved it. If it is amazing, then blame Screen stalker ;-) Tewfik^Talk 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

traslate this from french to english!

George , our flag is the official flag of Lebanon! I work for the Lebanese governement.

Language

Hi George, I appreciate the effort you made, but I can't say that I really think the chronology idea works, especially since some of the "capture"s are used in Israel's position, while it clearly rejects that language. I'm always open to finding better wording, but I don't think that embracing one side's narrative is really the best way to do that. While I realise that you were trying to find a compromise, I don't feel that the additions of kidnap add very much to the one side, but the substitution of "capture" do dramatically alter the entry's position. Without attacking him in any way, it is telling for me that Abufijli's initial changes came along with a substitution of "border villages" to "army positions", which is revealing as to what the real intent is here, and ultimately, I feel that the "abduct" compromise is the ideal one, and I don't think that because one side continues to make noise we should keep moving the line. Tewfik^Talk 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of not edit-warring, perhaps you could effect the reversion? I appreciate that Abufijli feels strongly, but there have been editors that felt strongly on the other side as well, and our position was to find an intermediate compromise. If we tried to alter the consensus every time someone disagreed, especially when they are relatively new users, and with an obvious agenda, we would be spending far more of of our time arguing than we should be. Perhaps if everyone was as earnest as you things would be different, but I just don't see this approach working any time soon ;-) Tewfik^Talk 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was odd. I kept checking to see if you were online, and when I saw you weren't I decided not to wait...funny how that worked out. Tewfik^Talk 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

george, we are a governmental organisation, One asks you not to try to change the modifications against your flag and our lebanese flag, if you do, you will see the consequences. Don't play with us. this is the second warning .

Re : You recent rever to ...

Hi Georges,

I saw your message on my discussion page.

I didn't notice that you made rate-changes to an important number of lebanon-related articles (and not only to the one of the FPM). I think that a unique criteria must be applied to all (maybe it's the number of google results as you suggest). But i also think that the articles of people like Michel Aoun, Samir Geagea, ... and others should be rated middle-importance (and not low) , because they played important roles in the recent history of Lebanon. Regards, Captainm 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing

I was interested in continuing from mediation as I didnt see how much importance Italiavivi played. I stayed out of his own little dilemma but thought it very annoying that he try to make decisions that are really up to the mediator. I think we can agree on that. Also, the mediation never actually finished, so I thought there might still be a possibility. You let me know. --Shamir1 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On a final note, I dont mind commentators and insight, but I I prefer that Italiavivi not be there. I dont think we'd be missing anything without him, and believe things could continue more swiftly. --Shamir1 11:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didnt intend to block him and wasnt thinking about anything like that, but I just wouldnt like him there. I am frustrated when something that was potentially progressive ended nowhere for really no reason. --Shamir1 11:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

nice wording

I like your edit George it seems to encompass the idea quite nicely ... why not insert it? Just put it in the article, see what happens. I think it is a very reasonable statement and should stand. (Everything in the universe is at this moment both moving at near light speed and simultaneously not moving at all, all just a matter of reference frames ... the frames you choose in which the observed is moving relativistically experience length and time contraction, and those you choose that are stationary do not. Therefore moving clocks slow, moving distances contract in the direction of motion. Clocks at rest do not slow. But, alas, we are not speaking of clocks at rest. I believe the phrase was, "... when in motion." So, if we speak of moving clocks, we must speak of them actually slowing, and actually contracting in the direction of travel, not speak of them as appearing to slow and contract but not actually slowing and contracting, n'est-ce pas?) tarotcards 2007.07.23.14.00.41 Thirded Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reference Albert Einstein

Op Khiam post

Hi, I answered to your question here: Talk:Attacks_on_United_Nations_personnel_during_the_2006_Lebanon_War#Images_of_UN_patrol_base. The Finnish Army site says it is the destroyed "Khiam observation post". They had one casualty, who is pictured on that site, so I'd be pretty sure they know what they're putting on the site. I also uploaded another image, see on the talk page. But indeed the image released by the UN looks different, it is rather greyish, instead of white. But perhaps the Finnish army images are older, since UN has been in Lebanon for a long time already, who knows.. --Pudeo⺮ 12:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Family history email me if you like. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuing mediation

Hi! "If one of the parties named rejects mediation, mediation does not occur. You may wish to talk to the mediators involved about the possibility of opening a new mediation about the naming only. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)" Sounds good? Please let me know so we can take care of these concerns together. I dont think there is much to disagree on. --Shamir1 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we're both going to be unavailable until about the same time. Keep me updated. --Shamir1 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:2007 Lebanon conflict

I think few will have the time and will to insert those stories in the article, I think you should do it yourself, best to the timeline article. :-) :P

Anyway, one few questions. Are you a Lebanese Christian? I'm asking this because I saw Christians during a rally in Lebanon waving the three-finger salute. Damn, I cannot find any images now. Do you know if that has some connotations to the holy trinity or something else?? Thank you --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Settlements in the Bint Jbeil

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Settlements in the Bint Jbeil, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Settlements in the Bint Jbeil has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Settlements in the Bint Jbeil, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes

The material I'm adding is unbiased and factual. Hariri lobbied Syria for the Premiership and the Assad regime installed him PM in 1992 under the Syrian occupation. These are facts and not my own personal opinion. As for the illegimate children, it's been reported by several media outlets such as New TV and the BBC.

Hi George! Add me at [email protected] ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.140.245 (talk) 12:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

== Seattle Jewish Federation ==

George, I really appreciate your participation in a dialogue over this article. Of everyone who has disagreed with me on that page, you have really set yourself apart by your courtesy and honest good faith. I wish we agreed on the tag, but as we don't I am very glad that we're dealing with it like adults. As soon as I figure out how to give someone a barnstar I will give you one. Alexwoods 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're back

I guess we can get started on what wasnt finished last time. Get back to me. Thanks. --Shamir1 05:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does not need to match the current article title, but George, with all of the letters capitalized, it infers that that is an official name. It is not and even in news reports that use that phrase write "Lebanon war". --Shamir1 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also content with the current naming of the subsection as "2006 Lebanon War" so long as the article is called that, but a title of a section is different from what is used in the middle of a sentence. --Shamir1 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurds in Lebanon

Hi George, would you be kind as to have a look at the article as I believe you know far more about Lebanon than I. It looks highly POV and OR. Pocopocopocopoco 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Israeli-Arab Human Shields

Hello George, I'm a bit puzzled by your position on this issue for the reason that it seems to me that the HRW report actually rejects that notion outright (We found no evidence that Israeli authorities or the IDF intended to use civilians in northern Israel in this fashion during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah., meaning that it is only the claim of Azmi Bishara, something which the current passage does not reflect ("others", unless the Counterpunch article qualifies as something other than WP:FRINGE). It would make far more sense to me to include it in the sub article. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the report, including the quotes you highlighted, deals with whether Israel took proper measures to protect its civilians generally (as in However, the prohibition on shielding is distinct from the requirement that all warring parties take “constant care” to protect civilians during the conduct of military operations by, among other things, taking all feasible precautions to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.). OTOH, Bishara and the passage allege shielding, which HRW rejects explicitly. Similarly, the second and third quotes deal with the separate topic of discrimination, alleging that less effort is made to take “constant care”; they do not mention any charge of "shielding". So far as I can tell, with the exception of the explicit rejection, the HRW report and the allegations by various groups documented therein do not deal at all with Bishara's charge. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've reverted me on the rationale that there are "other sources", yet I think I've shown that nowhere in the HRW report is such a charge mentioned, either attributed to HRW or any other group. Beyond that, I believe that the whole point of "convicted" is to comply with BLP - that information is not disputed in the least - perhaps you meant to only remove "alleged terrorist" which I readded with the rest? As for civilians, I meant to revert this, which I see now I didn't... Tewfik^Talk 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we are bound to keep missing each other ;-) Vis-a-vis “constant care”, HRW seems to reject that as well (Given that indiscriminate fire, there is no reason to believe that Israel's placement of certain military assets within these cities added appreciably to the risk facing their residents), albeit with far more equivocating. Regardless, the shielding is just the one fellow, whose alleged association with Hezbollah is a germane juxtaposition. More importantly is that when it is just the one fellow, we return to the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE issues you previously recognised; such information might be relevant, but there is a whole subarticle for such second-tier bits, and its current position in the main stands out to me as absurd. I'll try to address the rest when I have a some more time to concentrate. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the "other people" are alleging anti-Arab discrimination in allocation of 'protection' resources, but not anything related to the laws of war. Perhaps I'll add this to the article on Arab citizens of Israel and/or wherever else such issues go, but the relation of that information to the war seems to me quite distant. Tewfik^Talk 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The "obligation...to take all feasible precautions to protect the nearby population" seems to be provided as background, as HRW always does in such papers. The closest to a direct charge is "the incidents described above raise questions", which stems from HRW, while it also discusses previously "extensive efforts...[that]...almost certainly helped to reduce...casualties". The "other people," "Arabs in several Galilee towns and villages...have protested", refers to Land Day, which had nothing to do with the Laws of War, while "Arab citizens and nongovernmental organizations" also refers to discrimination. Regardless, I'm not quite seeing why this information's place is anywhere other than in the subarticle as upon rereading it still seems quite incongruous to me... Tewfik^Talk 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Hi George. Before arbitration, what do you think about changing the name back to what it was called in the beginning -- 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict -- at least in the meantime? I think things can go a bit easier for us. Let me know. Thanks. --Shamir1 08:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, since you are a user with whom I think I can get along with otherwise, I propose a peace treaty: calling the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, with an addition of something like "also called the Israel-Hezbollah War..." I am still thinking about this, I probably will not change my mind (although it is possible), but the thinking is good. Let's talk? --Shamir1 08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)