Talk:1985 Beirut car bombings

Untitled

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?

Citation

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

Plagiarism?

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

Good catch, although I believe the opposite has happened. It's impossible to determine definitively which came first, but if you look at http://www.lebwar.org/lebanese-war/massacres/, you'll notice that that article is timestamped with "18-Nov-2006 09:07". Now obviously that doesn't prove anything, but then you might also see that http://www.lebwar.org/lebanese-war/massacres/lebwar_massacres_id_8.htm is the same text as 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Now that article developed slowly over the years, and it's almost inconceivable that it slowly matured into a plagiarized version of Lebwar.org (mostly it's inconceivable in that I can't conceive of why someone would do that--there's nothing technically infeasible about the prospect).

Another point to consider is that lebwar.org is pretty much an Arabic-language site, and yet there are two full-fledge English pages that have identical copy as the Wikipedia. If the whole site were like those articles, or there were a number of other articles on the site, I'd be more inclined to think that the text had been copied to the Wikipedia. Given that those articles stand out the way they do, I'm more inclined to think that they are mirroring Wikipedia content as so many other online encyclopedias do. Jun-Dai 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Proposed renaming

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'd only be in favor of that if we had other articles on other car-bombs in Beirut in that year. If the notability of this one dwarves the other significantly enough that they would not likely be considered viable as an article, then I don't think the disambiguation is necessary. As a point of comparison, I'm sure there were other attacks on September 11, 2001, but the Wikipedia powers-that-be felt no need for further precision on the topic, and I'm not sure we need any here. Another way to think of it is whether more than, say, 1 in 50 (or some other arbitrary number) people are going to come to this article looking for a different one, then we'd be in need of disambiguation. Jun-Dai 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and RS

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)

I second that. The recent inclusion of Saudi funding seems dubious and not well sourced as well. i've removed the offending clause because it seems like an exceptional claim and one that has no sourcing at all. I can't track the person who inserted it originally, but whoever they are - please add a good source to back up this claim, either with or without saudi funding. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:40, 6 August 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.

Textual detail

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)

Blog postings fail WP:RS

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)

Historic relevance

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)

The section doesn't even mention the Beirut car bombing, it's inclusion IS synthesis because it adds 2 unrelated items together so that the reader will draw a conclusion. Stop wiki-hounding. V7-sport (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, read WP:SYN. Listing facts and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion is what is permitted. Stating such a conclusion is what's prohibited. Synthesis requires an explicit "therefore" clause. Yworo (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So where does that passage mention the Beirut car bombing? V7-sport (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, it's historic context. Yworo (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Historic context? So is the battle of Waterloo. Does it belong in this article as well? The passage does not directly relate to the article at hand, it s included to lead the reader into a conclusion that isn't backed by references. V7-sport (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If everything that it states is sourced, and it doesn't state a conclusion, that's not prohibited. Yworo (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate relevance by connecting to the topic at hand with reliable sources. Adding it is OR. V7-sport (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's simple. It's context that gives the background to Reagan's denials. It explains why he would have to issue such a denial. Yworo (talk) 00:36, 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)

Nope, it's simply not synthesis. Reagan's denial is mentioned, it's appropriate to mention Reagan's Executive Order. Yworo (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the sourced link to Reagan/Ford's order and the topic of this page? V7-sport (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've believe the topics are thoroughly discussed together in Newsweek, vol. 110, from 1987, where a thorough analysis of who dun what was reported. I'll see if I can get the details. Yworo (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Be careful what you ask for, that article is likely to have a lot of info not yet detailed in this article which I suspect you are not going to like. Yworo (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Have at it, seriously, it might make a better article but more importantly, it may make you feel like you are "winning". There still isn't a link between the executive orders and the topic of this page though. Including it here is still "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"...""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."V7-sport (talk) 02:52, 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)

It would be perfectly acceptable to me to reduce the whole subsection to such a statement about US having such a policy which Reagan strengthened and integrating that into the subsequent section. It is an essential part of the context, but doesn't need to be described at the length it currently is. Yworo (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It would still be synthesis unless it directly addresses the topic at hand. And no... It isn't an essential part of the context, it just has been placed there so that the reader will "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".V7-sport (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A citation which discusses the incident in the context of the 1983 United States embassy bombing and Executive Order 12333 has been supplied. Yworo (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The section doesn't even mention the Beirut car bombing, it's inclusion IS synthesis because it adds 2 unrelated items together so that the reader will draw a conclusion.V7-sport (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The source provided is titled: "An Analysis of Counterterror Practice Failure: The Case of the Fadlallah Assassination Attempt" and it discusses the event in the context of the CIA preemptive counter-terror program in Lebanon and specifically discusses concerns that the program violated the Executive Order. No false claims of synthesis can possibly be taken seriously now. Yworo (talk) 19:59, 31 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.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Everyone knows Reagan strengthened, not weakened, the policy. I've made this clear in the article for those who aren't aware of that and might possibly read in something unintended due to their ignorance. Yworo (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

I could care less about Castro. That was written by another editor and I agree it's inessential detail and have removed it. As for Chasdi, he certainly qualifies as a reliable source:

"Distinguished Fellow. Dr. Chasdi has written three books, several academic articles and encyclopedia entries. His first book, Serenade of Suffering : A Portrait of Middle East Terrorism, 1968-1993 (Lexington Books 1999) received Choice magazine's "Outstanding Academic Title" award in the field of international relations in 2000. His second book is entitled, Tapestry of Terror: A Portrait of Middle East Terrorism, 1994-1999 (Lexington Books, 2002) while his latest book is a seven nation-state cross comparative study about counterterror practice effectiveness entitled, Counterterror Offensives for the Ghost War World: The Rudiments of Counterterrorism Policy (Lexington Books, 2010). Dr. Chasdi has made academic presentations in Turkey and Canada about Middle East terrorism and counterterror practices. [1]

Regards, Yworo (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821215232/http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory materials

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)

Please see WP:PAYWALL. A paywall does not prevent a source from being cited here. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

British Intelligence Involvement

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)

Biased Use of Sources

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)