![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Notyourashta: If you agree, I would suggest that we discuss rewording etc. on the talk page in the future. As it stands, I think that the article mostly reflects the sources. I just want to explain my latest adjustment, and request some other (minor) changes.
What do you think? Applodion ( talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasonable response, Appolodion. I agree that in the future we should discuss how to proceed with edits made to the page in the most accurate and well-sourced manner. Regarding your edits:
1) I noticed at one point the edit said simply "unidentified gunmen" - this edit is by far the best and most impartial in the introduction, I 100% agree that the gunmen should be mentioned, and the way this was reworded is factual without claims. Adding the LF in there, however, is still extending allegations into a summarization of events and I still believe that's out of place in this specific section. Its important to list it throughout the rest of the document, but it already is located in several places where it's more proper, cogent and relevant. I do think claims are important, given this, they don't typically go into a summarization of real-time events. If any information changes along the way I am welcome to any changes, but I believe evidence should first be given. My advice would be to leave it as: "unidentified gunmen." If an official source releases any information about LF supporters or officials being present or ordering armed movement, I would go ahead and just add it for certain; without any "alleged" qualifiers. This way, it is, or it isn't (as far as the introduction.) This is my suggestion.
2) Summarizing what these groups are is a good idea to provide much-needed context; my only concern is it may be too much background information and thus derail the main focus of the page. I think if these descriptions can be brief and clarifying, this is a good idea so we don't have to cram so much clarifying vocabulary into the incident section. I would suggest a paragraph summarizing all, or sections with a few sentences. Alternatively, linking the page(s) allows readers to access additional reading and contextual information, but that might also be too dense. Let's discuss further.
3) This rewording is proper, if added I will not dispute it. It accurately claims that some of these were fighters while still leaving room for others not to be. I accept and encourage it. Notyourashta ( talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
To reiterate we are completely in agreement about point #1, it is factual and accurate, you did a great job. Thus, I think we can go ahead and change it back as miscellaneous unsubstantiated changes are still being pushed for the intro. I will standby for your action. Notyourashta ( talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Great, yes I did see that article myself! I didn't cite it because after I did, I was warned by Wikipedia that it isn't a wiki-friendly link; glad to see it is. It has interesting information. Notyourashta ( talk) 23:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Background is both brief and cogent, provides important context for the reader to properly understand the events that occured and why they did. It doesn't overshadow at all, great work. Notyourashta ( talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Why are people trying to excuse Samir Geagea and Lebanese Forces? By all accounts, Hezbollah and Amal were the victims here, not the perpetuators. We might also use this ( Archive), this( archive) and this articles; presently the article relies far to heavily on the rather dubious FDD's Long War Journal-source, a source which has been called neo-con, Huldra ( talk) 23:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Applodion is 100% right, accusations are not facts: the introduction is a place for fact-based events that actually occured. When it is verified that LF supporters, hired personnel, or officials were 1) present and 2) armed in a military capacity, *then* it can go into the introduction. For now the current situation remains: the area where the confrontation took place is, as far as currently available evidence shows, is a purely civilian area. Notyourashta ( talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I will also add what I mentioned previously, which is, in the proper areas, this article already states that the LF was alleged to be present, and by whom it was alleged. However, these mentions take place in the proper areas, such as the combatants/belligerents section, and the incident section. Reporting on currently available facts neutrally is the least biased method to academically present a situation, particularly when the sources used are vast and diverse. Adding in intro would not only be redundant but (currently) inaccurate. Notyourashta ( talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone disputes that "the clashes" started with snipers firing on the (until then; peaceful) protesters? And does anyone claim that Lebanese Forces or Lebanese Armed Forces had any casualities?Pleas bring a WP:RS for that, or the "unknown" under "Casualties and losses" goes out.
Also; why was the Bloomberg News report removed? ( Six Killed in Armed Clashes Over Beirut Port Blast Investigation, Dana Khraiche, October 14, 2021) Presently the article rely on dubious neo-com sources ...but Bloomberg is removed?? Btw, the Bloomberd source says that "“The clash first took place by sniper fire and the first casualty was a shot to the head,” Interior Minister Bassam Al-Mawlawi told reporters after meeting with security forces. Huldra ( talk) 22:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Notyourashta: If you agree, I would suggest that we discuss rewording etc. on the talk page in the future. As it stands, I think that the article mostly reflects the sources. I just want to explain my latest adjustment, and request some other (minor) changes.
What do you think? Applodion ( talk) 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasonable response, Appolodion. I agree that in the future we should discuss how to proceed with edits made to the page in the most accurate and well-sourced manner. Regarding your edits:
1) I noticed at one point the edit said simply "unidentified gunmen" - this edit is by far the best and most impartial in the introduction, I 100% agree that the gunmen should be mentioned, and the way this was reworded is factual without claims. Adding the LF in there, however, is still extending allegations into a summarization of events and I still believe that's out of place in this specific section. Its important to list it throughout the rest of the document, but it already is located in several places where it's more proper, cogent and relevant. I do think claims are important, given this, they don't typically go into a summarization of real-time events. If any information changes along the way I am welcome to any changes, but I believe evidence should first be given. My advice would be to leave it as: "unidentified gunmen." If an official source releases any information about LF supporters or officials being present or ordering armed movement, I would go ahead and just add it for certain; without any "alleged" qualifiers. This way, it is, or it isn't (as far as the introduction.) This is my suggestion.
2) Summarizing what these groups are is a good idea to provide much-needed context; my only concern is it may be too much background information and thus derail the main focus of the page. I think if these descriptions can be brief and clarifying, this is a good idea so we don't have to cram so much clarifying vocabulary into the incident section. I would suggest a paragraph summarizing all, or sections with a few sentences. Alternatively, linking the page(s) allows readers to access additional reading and contextual information, but that might also be too dense. Let's discuss further.
3) This rewording is proper, if added I will not dispute it. It accurately claims that some of these were fighters while still leaving room for others not to be. I accept and encourage it. Notyourashta ( talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
To reiterate we are completely in agreement about point #1, it is factual and accurate, you did a great job. Thus, I think we can go ahead and change it back as miscellaneous unsubstantiated changes are still being pushed for the intro. I will standby for your action. Notyourashta ( talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Great, yes I did see that article myself! I didn't cite it because after I did, I was warned by Wikipedia that it isn't a wiki-friendly link; glad to see it is. It has interesting information. Notyourashta ( talk) 23:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Background is both brief and cogent, provides important context for the reader to properly understand the events that occured and why they did. It doesn't overshadow at all, great work. Notyourashta ( talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Why are people trying to excuse Samir Geagea and Lebanese Forces? By all accounts, Hezbollah and Amal were the victims here, not the perpetuators. We might also use this ( Archive), this( archive) and this articles; presently the article relies far to heavily on the rather dubious FDD's Long War Journal-source, a source which has been called neo-con, Huldra ( talk) 23:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Applodion is 100% right, accusations are not facts: the introduction is a place for fact-based events that actually occured. When it is verified that LF supporters, hired personnel, or officials were 1) present and 2) armed in a military capacity, *then* it can go into the introduction. For now the current situation remains: the area where the confrontation took place is, as far as currently available evidence shows, is a purely civilian area. Notyourashta ( talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I will also add what I mentioned previously, which is, in the proper areas, this article already states that the LF was alleged to be present, and by whom it was alleged. However, these mentions take place in the proper areas, such as the combatants/belligerents section, and the incident section. Reporting on currently available facts neutrally is the least biased method to academically present a situation, particularly when the sources used are vast and diverse. Adding in intro would not only be redundant but (currently) inaccurate. Notyourashta ( talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone disputes that "the clashes" started with snipers firing on the (until then; peaceful) protesters? And does anyone claim that Lebanese Forces or Lebanese Armed Forces had any casualities?Pleas bring a WP:RS for that, or the "unknown" under "Casualties and losses" goes out.
Also; why was the Bloomberg News report removed? ( Six Killed in Armed Clashes Over Beirut Port Blast Investigation, Dana Khraiche, October 14, 2021) Presently the article rely on dubious neo-com sources ...but Bloomberg is removed?? Btw, the Bloomberd source says that "“The clash first took place by sniper fire and the first casualty was a shot to the head,” Interior Minister Bassam Al-Mawlawi told reporters after meeting with security forces. Huldra ( talk) 22:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)