Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2006 – August 2006

Contents

[edit] Wikisource

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)

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)

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

[edit] Links to the UN resolution

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

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

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

[edit] UN copyright and Wikisource

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)


"Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. " —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] Two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbollah

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

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)

[edit] Undue weight

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)

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)


[edit] Attacks on last day

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)


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)
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)
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)
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)
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? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not oppose your suggestion. --stoopideggs2 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation

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

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)

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)

We could certainly have a section devoted to (claims of) ceasefire violations, but I suspect that it will become extremely long in short order. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Someone please decide on the spelling for Hezbollah

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. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Full Text

I suggest that the full text of the resolution be deleted. Anybody who wants to read it can simply click one of several links. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is this?

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

[edit] Troops

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

--Background--

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

[edit] Debatus link?

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)

[edit] UNIFIL II

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701_2c31.html"