Talk:International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Imported discussion from main article
Separate page needed?
Should we move international reactions to a separate page, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings#Too_many_international_statements --Pifactorial 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think there should be a nice summary of international statements (from the involved parties and big players) with a split-off to a more complete list. On a similar subject, since Wikipedians tend to dislike bulleted lists, think the list should be converted to a table with cells for "Nation", "Spokesperson", and "Statement" to make things uniform? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it is one of the only solid parts of this article, since there is no room for editors themselves to put their sleazy "spin" on it.. Dan Carkner 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, there is clear spin in the existing article. The only country that has held Lebanon responsible for Hizbollah's actions is Israel.
Bosnia
About the article, I am wondering what Bosnia's reaction (bottom of the page) to all of this is doing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.169.203 (talk • contribs)
- It's one of 2 European Muslim countries and a recent victim of a war, why not include it? To me it's probably a more valid reaction/opinion than that of other countries working more of a political angle..Dan Carkner 03:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Next to all the other countries of the world. --Cerejota 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where's the Bosnia entry gone? It disappeared form the International reaction page? Why? ariddles
- Clevelander removed it because it didn't have a reference. Sijo Ripa 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- ...and I couldn't find any other news source to confirm it. It was added by an anon, so I assume that it wasn't too credible. However, nothing's for sure and maybe it was indeed reported. -- Clevelander 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Clevelander removed it because it didn't have a reference. Sijo Ripa 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where's the Bosnia entry gone? It disappeared form the International reaction page? Why? ariddles
Seperate Page Created
A Seperate page for Int'l Reactions was created as of 07:12, 14 July 2006 by Siqbal. Copying discussion on the matter to talk page for that article, please continue all discussion on the matter there. --darkskyz 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
Should reactions be arranged in way that is more standardized and readable? i.e. under each state list the position, name and quote, such as this:
(flag)United States:
President, George Bush: "blah blah blah" (citation)
Scretery of State, Candy Rice: "Yadah yadah yadah" (citation)
and so forth?
Also, could someone cleanup the refrences as much as possible? Try not to have 1-2 sources for each quote but rather 4-5 quotes per source, and use english sources as much as possible? --darkskyz 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Standardized is difficult. Sometimes 1 government is making seemingly contradictory statements at the same time eg. Iraq FM & PM, and Egyptian President's comments dont appear to be sticking to one particular line. But if it can work like that good but context of where and when a statement was made is important too eg. Arab League meeting. 82.29.227.171 10:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
POV
The international reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel.
after reading the actual reactions of world leaders (both arab and non arab countries) the language seems to be a little harsh towards israel and easy on other parties. i saw very few countries that would actually fit that statement.
I'm not sure how I would change it however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.207.29 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 July 2006(UTC)
- This article can hardly be said to be POV, since it is just a collection of statements. Regarding the correctness of the sentence: The international reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel1., it should be easy to verify from the text below. --Battra 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- The disputed phrase should apply to at least EU, the Vatican, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Italy, Russia. Since statements from more than 30 countries are given, I agree that the sentence should be changed in some way. --Battra 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I now adapted the statement and someone else apparently dealt with the below-mentioned problem. Hopefully the POV banner can go now. Harald88 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The lead in sentence is extremely bias against Lebanon. Only Israel has claimed that Lebanon shares responsibility for Hizbollah's actions. It should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.112.57 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- It would seem that Denmark and atleast some US officials share that claim. --darkskyz 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Armenia
Technically, Armenia is in Asia ... but I'm a little reluctant to change it, for fear of initiating some conflict. WilyD 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, isn't Indonesia in Asia too?--213.65.178.19 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think Armenia is at least partially part of the European continent. (For instance it's a member of the Council of Europe) Sijo Ripa 22:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Armenia is considered part of Europe for cultural reasons. However, Indonesia is usually considered part of Asia, so I think at least that should be corrected. -- Clevelander 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's correct. Armenia gets to be part of European activities for historical reasons, but is located entirely within Asia. I don't think anyone considers it not Asian, though. Just as Cyprus is allowed to join the EU, even though it's entirely within Asia. Indonesia is also one I missed - different sources have it split across the two continents or entirely in Asia, so it's harder to call, but most Indonesians live in Asia, capital city is in Asia, et cetera. WilyD 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Armenia is considered part of Europe for cultural reasons. However, Indonesia is usually considered part of Asia, so I think at least that should be corrected. -- Clevelander 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Other than its Geographic location it's European by any other definiton, similar to Cyprus or Georgia.--Eupator 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the Swedish translation?
Sweden
The minister of foreign affairs Jan Eliasson said (translated) "The military offensive of Israel is an extremely dangerous escalation of the situation in the region". He condemned the attack of Hezbollah, but said that the line of proportionality in the reaction had been crossed. "I am deeply critical to that the civilian population has been affected."
I noticed it because the last sentence sounds a bit awkward to me, but I don't want to change it because it could be a good translation, and my grammar ear isn't pitch-perfect. It comes from here and the source appears to be the first 3 paragraphs of the minster's response. TransUtopian 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- As a Swede, I can guarantee that "I am deeply critical to that the civilian population has been affected." is a translation word by word of the Swedish "Jag är djupt kritisk till att civilbefolkningen drabbas.", except for a change to past tense. Maybe "I am deeply critical of the civilian population being affected." is how it should be written? I'll leave that to someone with better grammar. --Battra 10:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Battra. I changed it to "I am deeply critical that the civilian population is being affected." since that sounds more right to me, but I'm not 100% sure. TransUtopian 11:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
UN Resolution 242?
Is the UN Resolution referred to in the United States entry ("Frist also said that the Lebanese government should uphold its responsibility under a United Nations resolution to make sure its territory isn’t being used for Hezbollah or other groups.") United Nations Security Council Resolution 242? It's related, but I don't know if that's the one he's referring to, or a more recent one. TransUtopian 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I belive he is reffering to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, but this is my speculation. He might just as well been reffering to all or part of the various resolutions related with Israeli-Lebanese conflict. --darkskyz 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Move to International dimension of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis?
I suggest such a move for the following reason. There are several international consequences to the crisis, which however are not that relevant to be mentioned broadly on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis page but are nevertheless significant. I had in mind (besides the current "international reaction") the international evacuation efforts and the oil price effect.
Sri Lanka??
Sri Lanka's reaction is listed for some reason under Europe, not Asia. Also, there is no citation and the respose seems strange, is this for real? is there a source for it?
Canada
"Canada sides firmly with Isreal" No wonder it's a conservative goverment...--166.87.255.131 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No crap, Stephen Harper and his parties are Republican Juniors... As close to the GOP as the canadian federal politics would allow them (and stay popular).
- Sounds like he's heard the grumbling at home and is getting a little more measured himself. I updated with his most recent comments. Fishhead64 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this from the article because I was unable to find anything about it at either CBC.ca or Globeandmail.com: Another chartered by the Canadian government was apparently attacked by Israel fighters. Minster of Foreign Affairs, Peter McKay, asked the Israeli Government to investigate the act. Stearnsbrian 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Should opinion polls of citizens' views fall under Reaction by Citizens or by Reactions by National Representatives? The reason I ask is that if it does indeed fall under Reaction by Citizens then there should be a change of the internal title besides just "demonstrations"
Armenian entry could cause dispute?
[Inahet's diff] says "I'm going to revert your edit, I consider your edit to be accurate, but I know that it will cause some dispute, which should be avoided". I have nothing against Inahet and am not very knowledge about this, so why might statements from 2 Armenian government press releases cause dispute sufficient to remove them from the article? They seem authoritative for their country, and the text in a once-over seems accurate. TransUtopian 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you should take a closer look at my edit, I didn't remove the Armenian reaction , I just placed it (along with the Turkish reaction) back under the Europe heading. --Inahet 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, my concern is that people will dispute over whether Turkey and Armenia are part of Europe or whether they are part of Asia etc. so to avoid all that, I think we should just keep these countries in the Europe section as that is the accepted of the two.--Inahet 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, forest for the trees. I noticed the Turkey addition, but not the Armenian move. Whoops! <embarrassed> Sorry about that. TransUtopian 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's okay, don't feel embarrassed, it happens to all of us. --Inahet 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
divided?
"The international reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict have been divided, with most leaders condemning both Hezbollah and Israel."
This first sentence seems a little weird. If most are condemning both, then reactions are not all that much divided, are they?--Paraphelion 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it to "mixed" because it's not the world that's divided per se. To be more specfic, it's the Arab world. -- Clevelander 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion
Under the demonstrations section, I think that instead of noting that anti-Israel rallies occured in specfic Arab states (e.g. Syria, Iraq, etc.), we should just note the rallies that took place throughout the Arab world. It would be less complicated. -- Clevelander 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see what is less complicated about it or any other advantage that outweighs the loss of information.--Paraphelion 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- What would be lost? If we specfically cite the Arab states in which rallies have occured, then I don't see a problem. -- Clevelander 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see what is less complicated about it or any other advantage that outweighs the loss of information.--Paraphelion 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
United States
I noted that there is no documentation showing that AMCITS must pay for their evacuation. Are there any official USG documents or statements specifically saying that evacuees must pay for their own departure? 199.200.252.17 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the transport to Cyprus is free. but the US will not be picking up the tab for flights out of Cyprus to the USA, etc.... However, loans will be available. that is what i read a few days ago. --72.20.207.29 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- As per CNN.com 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act mandates this payment. I'm looking for the specific text. 199.200.252.17 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering how long my colour commentary of Bush munching a buttered roll while talking to Blair would last. About 12 hours, I see. The detail was in the linked AP report, by the way. Fishhead64 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please help ensure that the US section documents 1) US gov support for Israel, 2) US gov efforts to discourage a ceasefire, and 3) US gov opposition to US public opinion. These 3 points are undisputed, but a few posters keep deleting them. Thanks, FightCancer 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I readded details on the US house vote and AIPAC reaction (deleted without explanation), there appeared to be some tampering with the polling data also so you might want to look at that. Thanks 82.29.227.171 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Current tag
I added the current tag. Hope it isnt controversial :D--Cerejota 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Evacuation of foreign nationals
Someone create a page with nations evacuating from Lebanon, please lets start moving the info in this page there, so we can list it as the main article in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I edited the intro paragraph here to reflect this change. Thanks.--Cerejota 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
yes it would be great. i don't know how many brazilians are there but i just read in the newspaper (just under the picture of all burnt kid) that 7 brazilians already were killed by jewish forces (including 2 or 3 children) and the government will also send an airplane to bring other brazilians home. that's an intersting fact because as a brazilian i usually never see brazil in any kind of problem caused by foreign war (just the civil daily war).
Right to self defense
we all know the hipocrisy of this term, we all know the right to self defense stopped just where indiscriminated murder started, and that the israeli are killing tons of people and keeping themselves unharmed (if you make a proportional calculation) so the wikipedia cannot take this as a personal opinion. Reading the article you find it clear that this is also wikipedia's opinion and that is not right.
- Could you reference this comment? It's not in the intro. Fishhead64 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)