This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1985 Beirut car bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 8, 2008 and March 8, 2010. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are the numbers in there accurate? A BBC article initially included noted 45 dead and more than 175 injured.
Can some sources be cited for the new, higher, numbers?
The writing is really confusing. Maybe someone could rewrite the article? Also, it's pretty widely accepted now that the sheik was the intended article. Maybe someone could get a source to confirm?
I added a citation for the death toll and consequently adjusted the numbers. Did I do this properly? DreadSam 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)DreadSam
An article with exactly the same text can be found at http://www.lebwar.org/lebanese-war/massacres/lebwar_massacres_id_9.htm . Is this plagiarism? Actually, I think this site bills itself as an encyclopedia, so maybe not. However, on this site, there are no citations with the article either. DreadSam 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)DreadSam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516407.stm Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Being as there were scores of carbombs going off in any given year in Beirut back in that era, perhaps a better title would be "March 8, 1985 Beirut carbombing." Thoughts? Whiskey Pete 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the CIA thing. Not for or against, but the article puts the POV forward that the CIA were unquestionably responsible, when it looks like contentious at best. The citations also looks like it supports the latter assertion, not the former. Sceptre ( talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting published and verifiable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.91.182 ( talk) 08:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a citation for the shared involvement of British intelligence with the CIA? The rest of the article does not mention or explain this and neither do the citation articles. The only relevant information I can find is that Bob Woodward suggests Casey recruited a former SAS officer to work with a team of Lebanese agents on the assassination. Please can you provide citation or remove this.
The article says 'the other notable death was Jihad Mugniyah, the brother of Imad Mugniyah.' However, seeing the assassination attempt failed, wasn't this the only notable death (or at least the first one mentioned in the article? Therefore, am I correct in saying that the the word 'other' in this sentence is incorrect? Mverleg ( talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to the anon who posted them, Blog entries and self published works fail WP:RS. V7-sport ( talk) 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Section is not synthesis because it does not synthesize or draw any conclusions. It merely provides context. Yworo ( talk) 00:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL, so now it's about context when over at the Logan page, which is what this is about it isn't. Tell you what, if you can establish a direct, sourced link to Regan/Ford's order (as I have with the Logan material that you are excluding) and the Beirut car bombing I'll add it for you. Of course it would just underline the hypocrisy of the matters at hand... V7-sport ( talk) 00:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I see you have added it again. You are clearly disrupting WP:POINT as well as wiki-hounding. You are now being tendentious now in several locations and acting in bad faith. V7-sport ( talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the offending passage in 2008. At the time I was replacing text which alleged that Reagan rescinded the no-assassination memo shortly before the Falallah killing, which is false. It looks like I added this text to vanquish the allegation, without establishing its significance with regard to the subject at hand.
As I see it, this section can only remain if it is connected by citation to the event in question. I think this can be done. It seems like any historian considering the event would note that the United States had an explicit policy outlawing assassination, when the event occurred. But I was in error when I built the section off sources and references which do not all explicitly refer to the 1985 Beirut bombing. Any sources that do not discuss the bombing, and rather consider US policy on assassination, should be removed, as I understand it. DBaba ( talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The article now states “While this counterterror assault was carried out by “local operatives” recruited by the Lebanese intelligence agency G-2, it happened within the continuously evolving framework of an American “preemption” counterterror program….”
Having an “evolving American preemption counterterror program” doesn’t mean that the USA or CIA or Reagan or Ford had anything to do with this. Placing those executive orders and trying to tie it into Castro is synthesis because it leads the reader to a conclusion not stated by the source, that the USA was behind the bombing and that the laws being changed by the Regan Administration had something to do with that.
Even your source states: "It remains unclear whether or not the actual choice of Fadlallah as a target and the plan to kill him had its sources and origins in the White House or the local operatives involved, as accounts vary.” And “In the absence of final U.S. approval for the assassination of Fadlallah, recruited “local operatives” apparently became restless and attempted to carry out the mission on their own.ix At a tactical level, the plan seemed to be largely put together by the Lebanese government and perhaps to a lesser degree, the Saudi government.” At the time of the bombing the USA had a “continuously evolving framework” for many, many things which doesn't mean they should all be included here. Further, "Richard J. Chasdi, Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies" writing at the PNSR is hardly an unbiased source.
Pending resolution I’m going to replace the synthesis tag. Now, if you want to take this to mediation, so be it. If you want to continue to have a hissy fit and edit war I’m going to bring it to the 3rr notice board. V7-sport ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1985 Beirut car bombing. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
User RA8080 keeps vandalising the page with paranoid conspiracy nonsense. I'm removing this material, along with dead links, paywall links, unsourced allegations etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.26.171 ( talk) 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I am going to remove the reference to the alleged involvement of British Intelligence as mentioned in the first sentence of this article, as it is not mentioned in the reference and nor is it elaborated on in the following text.
I request that if it is reinserted that a verifiable reference to details of the alleged involvement be included. Thank you. John2o2o2o ( talk) 14:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The assertion that it was organized by the CIA is rather dubious. Aside from common beliefs among some Lebanese communities, most evidence used for this assertion is based on a 12 May 1985 Washington Post article - Robert Fisk cited this in his Pity the Nation, it was also carried by CBS, LA Times, and NY Times - that refers to the mission as runaway and unauthorized. Ties between the CIA and the bombing are undoubted, but the article should probably use less blatant wording.
Such an assertion should definitely have a source at the very least, preferably something reliable. Perhaps something along the lines of "in a failed assassination attempt by a CIA proxy force described as runaway and unauthorized." Wolfie1213 ( talk) 07:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1985 Beirut car bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 8, 2008 and March 8, 2010. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are the numbers in there accurate? A BBC article initially included noted 45 dead and more than 175 injured.
Can some sources be cited for the new, higher, numbers?
The writing is really confusing. Maybe someone could rewrite the article? Also, it's pretty widely accepted now that the sheik was the intended article. Maybe someone could get a source to confirm?
I added a citation for the death toll and consequently adjusted the numbers. Did I do this properly? DreadSam 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)DreadSam
An article with exactly the same text can be found at http://www.lebwar.org/lebanese-war/massacres/lebwar_massacres_id_9.htm . Is this plagiarism? Actually, I think this site bills itself as an encyclopedia, so maybe not. However, on this site, there are no citations with the article either. DreadSam 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)DreadSam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516407.stm Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Being as there were scores of carbombs going off in any given year in Beirut back in that era, perhaps a better title would be "March 8, 1985 Beirut carbombing." Thoughts? Whiskey Pete 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the CIA thing. Not for or against, but the article puts the POV forward that the CIA were unquestionably responsible, when it looks like contentious at best. The citations also looks like it supports the latter assertion, not the former. Sceptre ( talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting published and verifiable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.91.182 ( talk) 08:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a citation for the shared involvement of British intelligence with the CIA? The rest of the article does not mention or explain this and neither do the citation articles. The only relevant information I can find is that Bob Woodward suggests Casey recruited a former SAS officer to work with a team of Lebanese agents on the assassination. Please can you provide citation or remove this.
The article says 'the other notable death was Jihad Mugniyah, the brother of Imad Mugniyah.' However, seeing the assassination attempt failed, wasn't this the only notable death (or at least the first one mentioned in the article? Therefore, am I correct in saying that the the word 'other' in this sentence is incorrect? Mverleg ( talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to the anon who posted them, Blog entries and self published works fail WP:RS. V7-sport ( talk) 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Section is not synthesis because it does not synthesize or draw any conclusions. It merely provides context. Yworo ( talk) 00:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL, so now it's about context when over at the Logan page, which is what this is about it isn't. Tell you what, if you can establish a direct, sourced link to Regan/Ford's order (as I have with the Logan material that you are excluding) and the Beirut car bombing I'll add it for you. Of course it would just underline the hypocrisy of the matters at hand... V7-sport ( talk) 00:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I see you have added it again. You are clearly disrupting WP:POINT as well as wiki-hounding. You are now being tendentious now in several locations and acting in bad faith. V7-sport ( talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the offending passage in 2008. At the time I was replacing text which alleged that Reagan rescinded the no-assassination memo shortly before the Falallah killing, which is false. It looks like I added this text to vanquish the allegation, without establishing its significance with regard to the subject at hand.
As I see it, this section can only remain if it is connected by citation to the event in question. I think this can be done. It seems like any historian considering the event would note that the United States had an explicit policy outlawing assassination, when the event occurred. But I was in error when I built the section off sources and references which do not all explicitly refer to the 1985 Beirut bombing. Any sources that do not discuss the bombing, and rather consider US policy on assassination, should be removed, as I understand it. DBaba ( talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The article now states “While this counterterror assault was carried out by “local operatives” recruited by the Lebanese intelligence agency G-2, it happened within the continuously evolving framework of an American “preemption” counterterror program….”
Having an “evolving American preemption counterterror program” doesn’t mean that the USA or CIA or Reagan or Ford had anything to do with this. Placing those executive orders and trying to tie it into Castro is synthesis because it leads the reader to a conclusion not stated by the source, that the USA was behind the bombing and that the laws being changed by the Regan Administration had something to do with that.
Even your source states: "It remains unclear whether or not the actual choice of Fadlallah as a target and the plan to kill him had its sources and origins in the White House or the local operatives involved, as accounts vary.” And “In the absence of final U.S. approval for the assassination of Fadlallah, recruited “local operatives” apparently became restless and attempted to carry out the mission on their own.ix At a tactical level, the plan seemed to be largely put together by the Lebanese government and perhaps to a lesser degree, the Saudi government.” At the time of the bombing the USA had a “continuously evolving framework” for many, many things which doesn't mean they should all be included here. Further, "Richard J. Chasdi, Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies" writing at the PNSR is hardly an unbiased source.
Pending resolution I’m going to replace the synthesis tag. Now, if you want to take this to mediation, so be it. If you want to continue to have a hissy fit and edit war I’m going to bring it to the 3rr notice board. V7-sport ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1985 Beirut car bombing. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
User RA8080 keeps vandalising the page with paranoid conspiracy nonsense. I'm removing this material, along with dead links, paywall links, unsourced allegations etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.26.171 ( talk) 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I am going to remove the reference to the alleged involvement of British Intelligence as mentioned in the first sentence of this article, as it is not mentioned in the reference and nor is it elaborated on in the following text.
I request that if it is reinserted that a verifiable reference to details of the alleged involvement be included. Thank you. John2o2o2o ( talk) 14:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The assertion that it was organized by the CIA is rather dubious. Aside from common beliefs among some Lebanese communities, most evidence used for this assertion is based on a 12 May 1985 Washington Post article - Robert Fisk cited this in his Pity the Nation, it was also carried by CBS, LA Times, and NY Times - that refers to the mission as runaway and unauthorized. Ties between the CIA and the bombing are undoubted, but the article should probably use less blatant wording.
Such an assertion should definitely have a source at the very least, preferably something reliable. Perhaps something along the lines of "in a failed assassination attempt by a CIA proxy force described as runaway and unauthorized." Wolfie1213 ( talk) 07:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)