Talk:Kahan Commission

Added Kahan Commission definition

Again, I attempted to be concise and balanced, while avoiding ahistorical reductionism. I welcome educated opinion from all sides. Thanks. El_C

• To whomever changed the Report of the Kahan Commission section into a default External Links, I changed the title back to its original form. These are not merely external links (though wikipedians are free to add a section with such links, i.e. links which offer a discussion of the event) bellow that. These two links only provide the report submitted by the Kahan Commission. Thanks. El_C

• Also, with respect to dates, changed-back the revised first paragraph to the British method which I employ throughout the article (all my articles, in fact). I am certain we all agree that an article should remain consistent on that front one way or another. El_C

Just FYI, you can always check a page's history to see who's made a particular change. In this case, you would have found out that the changes you mention were made by yours truly :-) That said, they weren't done maliciously or to add to any "ahistorical reductionism". In fact, changing the last section (now entitled "Report of the Kahan Commission") to "External links" was done with some purpose. Links to pages outside of Wikipedia are by definition external links. When an author merely enumerates some external links without providing any supportive information or context, these links are most appropriately placed under an "External links" heading so the user knows that the pages exist outside Wikipedia. If you want to write a paragraph (or a few) about the report of the commission, feel free and by all means please put it underneath a "Report of the Kahan Commission" heading. But a mere list of links belongs in the external links section.

I apologize for absent-mindedly Americanizing the dates as I was turning them into wikilinks. These things happen. However, it is a good idea to turn dates into wikilinks since the Wikipedia software can recognize and render them according to users' preferences -- see the "Date format" tab in Special:Preferences.) --Diberri | Talk 04:53, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

--- What? No, I made no statements regarding malice or reductionism on your part or on anyone's parts. Never have I implied it either. These are just the notices of having written the articles which I impropperly placed in the discussion field of the main article, and moved them here where they belonged once I understood my error (both preceded your earliest revision to this topic).

• But I do take exception to your use complete sentences revision of the first sentence, and I am reverting it back to the original form. It might not be a complete sentence for an essay, but it is for an ecnyclopedia entry. I formulated it as such for a reason.
  • Please see Wikipedia:How to start a page#General principles. In particular, it mentions that you should start an article with a complete sentence. Wikipedia is not paper, so there's no need to be excessively concise. --Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hah. I am not being excessively concise (nor defensive!). I am attempting to avoid run-on sentences in the first paragraph, and I have a particular sequence in mind. You have your style, I have mine and (I would not enforce my style on an article you author unless I find it grossly problematic, which my first sentence is not), the object either way is clarity. I may be new to wikipedia, but I am not new to writing this sort of material. El_C
      • I certainly don't want to force my writing style upon you. Mine is just an opinion based on general observations about Wikipedia's style. My only point is that Wikipedia tends to use complete sentences, and I think that's a good thing overall. --Diberri | Talk 20:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I missed your comment here. Let me reiterate once again: for our purposes here, it is a complete sentence.
          • It is not an appropriate first sentence in a Wikipedia article (and the same thing could be said in a complete sentence with some trivial rewording). Please have a look at other articles to see how they should be started. — Kate | Talk 05:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

• Appreciate you correcting any typos or spelling errors you might find in the article.

• Point taken about the links being external (I could just copy&paste the entire report into a wikipedia entry titled as such, but what's the point? ), but I do wish to qualify that these only include the report itself. So if the rule is that these should always be called External Links, and that is the only permitable term, then the qualification will be in the links description, I suppose.
  • Yes, that's the general rule (to place ext. links in an "external links" section). I agree; there's no point in copy/pasting verbatim text into Wikipedia. But a summary of the report and some context would be very nice. Alternatively, you could provide annotations to the list of external links, which is always helpful. --Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good idea. By all means, feel free. I might have to retrace my steps and make some corrections for other articles I authored.

• Wikilink away, I guess. I just find that an excess of these is cosmetically distracting and not too pertinent. For now, I will not add these to any articles I author (nor to any articles you author, or any articles for that matter), but I am open to be persuaded otherwise - frankly, I don't quite understand the process or see the value behind it (and since I mostly write oblique articles, that is, African history topics, I stand little chance of being wikilinked -or read- anyway, yay! :p ). El_C
  • You certainly don't have to add them, but I like turning dates into wikilinks because they make users' experience just a bit nicer since they can read the dates in their desired format. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates for more discussion. --Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I just like writing the articles, I honestly could not care less about wikilinking dates. If you could summarize the value behind that perhaps I will. For now, sorry, I have no time to read another discussion, as I am writing and reading this in haste (I am reading and writing too many wikidiscussions today as it is, at any rate). Respectfully, one instance of your wikilinking of the dates is breaking the continuity of my original first paragraph (which is always a decisive prargraph). I reverted back again to 16-18 September rather than 16 September—18 September. I find it breaks the flow of the sentence and makes it appear convoluted. I request that you do not revert back to your revision and leave my original 16-18 September (leaving your remaining wikilinking of these dates intact — sure I find the underlined blueness distracting — I do, of course, use wikilinking (in every single that article I have written), but I do try to be selective about it for reasons already stated. As always, I welcome any thoughts you have on anything I said here.El_C
      • If you find them distracting, feel free to leave them out. However, links to dates are nice since those pages contain a list of closeby events which can provide additional context to your article. It's up to you. I must admit, I've made too big a deal out of the date formatting issue. --Diberri | Talk 20:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

On Complete Sentences:

I've enjoyed our discussion about wikilinks for dates and using complete sentences in articles. Just so you know, and so you don't simply revert my edits on sight, I'm going to remove the sentence fragment at Kahan Commission and replace it with a complete sentence that gets the same idea across. Hopefully, you'll appreciate that I consulted with other wikipedians at the Village pump before making this decision. The general consensus is that Wikipedia should use complete sentences (where complete sentence is objectively defined). Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

• I already mentioned that your revision is problematic. If you wish to discuss how a fragmant sentence should be objectively defined (in which type of writings, according to which criteria), I am, of course, more than willing to oblige and I invite you to do so. I appreciate that you have consulted with other wikipedians, but I need to see more direct evidence that this first sentence, in fact, constitutes a fragmanet, here, in this article (and that your revision is superior). Please, -cease- your reversions until we discuss this, so as to avoid an edit war. I am reverting it back to the original, and I am hopeful that you would restrain yourself from any further revisions to the opening sentence until further discussion between us (as well as other members of the community) could be facilitated. As it stands, it is my opinion that your revision makes for a convoluted first sentence. Disagree with my opinion? We can discuss that, but to use your own words, please do not edit on sight. As always, I kept your other recent (and quite helpful) additions. El_C
  • It is not an appropriate first sentence in a Wikipedia article (and the same thing could be said in a complete sentence with some trivial rewording). Please have a look at other articles to see how they should be started. — Kate | Talk 05:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
    • With all due respect to you also, Kate, that is your opinion. I understand that you see your opinion as authoritative, but I elect to take it as an opinion nontheless. Now, wikipedia is a dynamic affair (which is not at all to say that it should be without relatively consistent scholarly, grammatically, etc. standards) not all styles are the same. You see it as an unencyclopedic sentence fragmant, I beg to differ. Now, I am, as always, open to be persauded otherwise, since (both of) you seem to have been reduced to forwarding your case through mere inuendo, you might be able to understand why I am as of yet unpersuaded that (both of) you are correct here. El_C
      • I don't think Kate is trying to assert hers as an authoritative opinion. She is merely restating Wikipedia's generally accepted (though widely unspoken) style guideline to use complete sentences in articles. Moreover, she's directing you to other articles so that you can convince yourself of this style, since it's not really in writing anywhere except for here. As for a definition: I am not a linguist, but it suffices to say that complete sentences must have both a subject and a verb. Your sentence fragment has neither. --Diberri | Talk 08:24, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
        • El_C, a fragment is a fragment, and they should be avoided in Wikipedia. If you can locate another Wikipedia article that starts like that, feel free to point them out and we can discuss. Meanwhile, check out 9/11_Commission and Warren_Commission for articles with similar flavor to this one that start with complete sentences. Perhaps it's not in the Manual of Style because it is assumed that complete sentences are the goal of any Wikipedia article. 147.8.224.157 08:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's what I meant - obviously my opinion isn't authorative by itself, but it is representative of Wikipedia in general (see above articles for comparable examples). The current sentence fragment looks like it's meant to be part of the title, or something similar (except it isn't). — Kate | Talk 08:31, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

• A fragmant is a fragmant indeed, but one should avoid being condescending, ip. Kate, wikipedia is dynamic, this mean stylistic differences (including those not representative of the totality) could exist and still be encyclopedic. There's standardization and then there is being monolithic.

European Commission

A) 1st sentence: The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) is the executive of the European Union.

B) 2nd sentence: The Commission is headed by a President (since 1999, Romano Prodi of Italy). Its primary roles are to propose legislation and to carry it out.

With A the function ('executive of the European Union') is added to the name and formal name. In the case of the Kahan Commission, the formal name in itself gives an indication as to its function, the remaining difference is stylistically minor.

Kahan Commission

A) 1st sentence: Formally, the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut (וועדת חקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות).

B) 2nd sentence: The Kahan Commission (וועדת כאהן) was established by the Israeli government on 28 September 1982, to investigate the Sabra and Shatila Massacre (16-18 September, 1982).

El_C

• • Yes, but to keep some semblance of consistency, and to prevent Wikipedia becoming a mess of articles formatted in completely different ways, we have certain standards and guidelines for how certain things should be done (hence the existence of the Manual of Style; relevant quote: One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit.). — Kate | Talk 08:48, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

• • • Kate, again with all respect, if you wish to persuade me you need to employ substance, not polemics. Now, I have cited the European Commission example, but you are continuing to resort to rhetoric (i.e 'semblance of consistency') and to quote the Manual of Style in a manner (i.e. 'if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use') that could be interperted either way (i.e. One way is often as good as another). No one is going to do it the same all the time, compare the EC with the FCC, etc., for example. The object is clarity and comprehensibility of prose, narrative, etc. Imagine if one set out to correct all entries that s/he view as mere stylistic exceptions, it would be a tragic waste of a wikipedia contributor's energy. El_C

• • • • El_C, I don't think anyone here has been intentionally rude. In fact, your articles and contributions have been great, as they fill in content here which is badly needed. We're simply saying that there are certain style guidelines we stick to so that Wikipedia can provide a good usability and look-and-feel. One of the goals eventually is to make a 1.0, printed or CD-ROM version of the Wikipedia, and part of that effort will be making articles consistent in style. So we feel it's better to start now than to let it go, and have to hunt it down later. Hope you can see the benefit in that. Cheers. Fuzheado | Talk 09:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Discourtesy in virtue of action, not words. While I do genuinely appreciate the kind words, I am not pleased with this latest development. It was my understanding, sir, that one should not revert back something which is disputed while a discussion remains ongoing and unresolved. [B]etter to start now than to let it go, you say. Who said you are to let it go? But instead of contributing to the discussion, you choose to break the rules and unilaterally edit under the guise of a royal we. Then we recieve your comments as some sort of a concluded (from above) afterthought. You have neglected to address the concrete example I provided with respect to the European Commission, and this was (or rather, became) central to my argument. The sad thing is that it is quite plausible that I would have ended agreeing with your position. But I am not going to engage in edit wars. So, you people win. A dubious victory won by violating wikipedia rules under the pretext of trying to uphold them. So long. El_C

Pre-Arbitration Committee:

No, I changed my mind. I am not going to give in to bullying. Why should I continue to waste my words if my concerns are not being addressed by someone who persists in editing items in dispute? I will issue a request for the Arbitration Committee to intervene, unless Fuzheado is to cease from seemingly engaging in an edit war prior to consensus being reached on the contested passage. It would read:

---User:Fuzheado---

I requested for a discussion to be facilitated so as to avoid a looming edit war on a disputed passage (grammar, not content) in the Kahan Commission article, but User:Fuzheado continues to revert and to revise, and seems inclined on only joining the discussion after making editorial changes which he then announces as foregone conclusion to the afroementioned dispute. El_C

I suspect the arbcom's response would be "try mediation". Prior to that, would you agree to a poll on which version of the lead sentence(s) should be used? — Kate | Talk 15:48, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

El_C, I'm glad you've decided to stay and not leave in anger. However, please try to be more calm about this. Arbitration, et al. is engaged when the three revert rule has been violated and when there has been bad faith. "Fuzheado continues to revert and revise?" How can that be? I have made only one real edit to this article (two consecutive edits which I consider together). You'll also see all the comments here are in the spirit of being constructive and cooperative. You won't get the attention of any arbitration or mediation committee on that, I can guarantee. Meanwhile, please see your talk page. Please see how Wikipedia works and try to take in what the community hath built through positive collaboration. Fuzheado | Talk 17:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please read closely.

It is more accurate to say that I am frustrated and dissapointed. How many experts in the English language do you think it will take to change my mind? Really, not many. But I was trying to arrive at a consensus with respect to the stylistic form of the article's opening sentence through a dialogue that is reciprocal. [As an aside, you will notice that I reverted your quotes back to italics, that was in fact my first choice, but I found italics give it a better look; trivial stuff though.]

But not a single person has yet to address my European Commission example. I don't see why we would need a poll, or mediation, not to mention arbitration (which I only really stated as such to stop further arbitrary revisions to a contested article), if people just engage in dialogue. It just dosen't seem like a two-way thing here. If people refrain from condecsending demanour and speak to me as a human being, without obliquely sending me to the Manual of Style, without the pedgogic lectures, etc., then they might find that I am not that difficult of a person. The discussion is already underway, and useful things have been said, it is unfortunate though that it needed to consist of such an adversarial tone.

That Village Pump thread should only serve as a notice, it is too distracting having the same conversation in two diffrent pages. I am going to paste with abandonment from there -to- here. All further comments on the Kahan Commission article should be directed here, at Talk:Kahan_Commission. I think that makes sense.

Let us deal first with the Commission's formal name. In the Village Pump discussion, Niteowlneils wrote:

[M]y doubting of whether that is a formal name is largely due to the usage at www.mfa.gov.il, (which at the moment times out) (which I believe is one of the sources you provide in the article) ... [T]hus my preference for 'also known as' [as opposed to formally known as]

• Yes, it indeed often times out which -is- why I cited also next to it the same report hosted by www.caabu.org (why would I list two sources for the same identical report? ).

• And, the one in print (with an introduction by Abba Eban) is from 1983, so it is unlikely to have been influenced by the IMoFA's website (www.mfa.gov.il). In Weldon library, UWO (one the largest libraries in Ontario, Canada), it lists it in their databse as (quoting, from English) :

" Va‘adat ha-hakirah la-hakirat ha-eru‘im be-mahanot ha-pelitim be-Berut. Din ve-heshbon ha-Va adah la-hakirat ha-eru im be-mahanot ha-pelitim be-Beirut. English. " (וועדת החקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות i.e.)

This translates into: the commission of inquiry into the events at the refugee camps in Beirut. Obviously, it is not a literal translation (which would read ...the investigation into the events in..., which would make no sense and is simply bad translation). Of course, feel free to call the IMoFA to clarify, but for now it is safe to assume that this is indeed the formal title of the Commission - with the informal one named after the Commission chairperson, which is a common practice (i.e. The Warren Commission -known officially as The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy) - of course, we acknowledge that people search for the official TPCotAoPK title/description far less than they do WC, but an encylopedia must have both. As for their respective order, I adress that bellow.

Derrick Coetzee writes:

Also, it makes vicious overuse of capitalization.

• Perhaps ecessive. But vicious, now that is a excessive. What I attempted to accomplish was to highlight the words that matter most: Commission - Inquiry - Events - Refugee - Camps - Beirut (there are no capitalizations in Hebrew, so it is somewhat at the translator's discretion), and if it is the consensus that it is incorrect, then it is changed accordingly.

Derrick Coetzee also writes:

[I]t tells me nothing about said Commission

• With all due respect, the name the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, is quite descriptive in and of itself.

Derrick Coetzee also wrote:

I'd say rewrite anything this person wrote from scratch, and tell me if they keep reverting it.

• I took offence to that, but s/he explained it was in jest. I do appreciate the clarification and I retract my hitherto statements (though I admit that I remain unamused).

Back to Niteowlneils, who writes:

[T]he uncommon name shouldn't lead anyway (2700 hits to 190).

• The reader already most likely came across the article by searching the common (informal, shorter, etc.) name. Wikipedia dosen't need to be exactly like Britanica et al. (though it is a seminal basis), there's flexibility and then there's inconsistency. The reader sees a title which reads: Kahan Commission and now s/he either sees Kahan Commission again followed by the formal name in the opening sentence, or the formal name followed by the informal one. Why is one way so superior to the other? The en.wikipedia is in simple english, but it isn't simple.wikipedia, and we are likely assured that the reader will figure it out either way. One could say formality precedes commonality or vice versa, it makes little difference, as baffling as it may appear, my argument to retain this order is based exactly on that (stylistic freedom).

Finally, Niteowlneils writes:

[I]t is not complete enough for the first sentence of an article.

• If this ends up being the consensus here, then it is changed as such. Already last night, I left in (supplanted) the comma and abandoned the period as it became obvious I'm in the overwhelming minority with regards to that (sole person, in fact).

My main charge, and the principal reason I am no longer inclined on seeing this dispute taken to its logical conclusion, is that many here (I'll leave it as that) wish to have their word (and even unilaterally impose their will) without getting entirely involved. They are too impatient to read and respond to contrasting views. It is not equitable treatment. I placed a lot of thought into the manner in which the article was written, and I do not think I am asking too much of people who wish to change certain areas in it which I object to, to deal with my objection(s). I am always open to persuasion, logical, science, etc., it should work both ways. El_C

---

Some responses, though I think we're finding middle ground.

1. Your European Commission point. I'm not sure what the point was. That article starts out with a proper English sentence, which is what I (and others) have expressed as desirable.

1. It has indeed been a "two way street" here, with copious dialogue and explanation of views. I've complimented your work, we've discussed things, and I've made really only one edit to this article.

1. Your characterizing things as "obliquely sending me to the Manual of Style" and providing "pedgogic lectures" is unfair. You say you are "always open to persuasion, logical, science, etc." However, when someone tries to explain something and says "See X for more information" you quickly find it offensive. Meanwhile, blatantly inaccurate statements like "Fuzheado is engaging in an edit war," I have let pass without comment. A bit thicker skin is required on Wikipedia.

1. If you think this is acrimonious, you would be appalled to see a real edit war on Wikipedia. :) On the Richter scale of "edit wars" this one rates less than a 2.0. For 6.0 or higher, see Gdansk, Fox News or John Kerry.

Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

• Thanks for your reply.

1. I suppose what I meant to illustrate by the EC example is that a sentence of introduction could be brief. My own is a sentence fragment (and that also a sentence fragment, is it not? Linguo must conserve battery power). That seems clear now. I suppose what I meant was for it to serve as a sort of quasisubtitle. If this isn't a legitimate practice in wikipedia then obviously I stand corrected.

1. Fair enough. I suppose it could be seen in the context of the experience I was having with other articles that day. So point taken. You have to appreciate though, that your edit followed my appeal, it is right there in the article's revision history:

Please cease reverting the 1st sentence (as it risks turning into an edit war - I have no wish to participate in these) - as I said earlier, this should be up for discussion prior to any addit edits.

1. So, then, you showed up and edited the exact same thing that was the subject of discussion. So I took it to mean an edit war. You could see why, I hope. I am glad to learn this isn't the case, but at the time it did not seem this way. I have been giving you unduely hard time for that in my 'read closely' comments above, not because I think you engaged in an edit war (it's clear to me now that you didn't), but it did not seem to me that you really regreted doing so (in an already somewhat tense situation, that is). I would like to put all that behind us. As for me getting impatient with the referals, well, I just wanted a concrete explanation of why people thought my opening sentence was unfeasable and it appeared to me the suggestion was to just follow the party line. Reading those other references, they simply did not help me realize the flaws alluded to.

1. Luckily for me, I write about non-controversial topics, like this one. Hah! Which incidentally, could use quite a bit of expansion, one that likely falls beyond the scope of my familiarity with the subject (i.e. relationship of Barak to Zamir and charges of conflict of interest, or how some the right in Israel today views the "leftist" Kahan Commission. Really fascinating stuff). So I do wholeheartedly invite and hope for more contributions. Copyediting (heh, looks like I really need it), sure, but most of all expansion. More details about the Kahan Commission event (the interviews, for example, and, significantly, lack thereof) and more insights about how it is viewed in the present by Israeli and Palestinian and others accross their own respective boards (whitewash, treachary, etc.). But, yes, not too acrimonious, I hope, though it did get a bit intense at times. As said, it my hope we could put this behind us and channel our energies instead at improving the content and form of the article. I think (hope) my diatribe above provided some substance along with all the whining.

So now, we attempt to reach consensus. Let us begin with the opening sentence as it currently (comma) stands. Do you like it? Do you dislike it? If it is the latter, how do you envision it being. So please, provide (generic) your prefered opening sentence for the article bellow (and second sentence if you feel it is pertinent). And from there, we could move on to the remaining portions of the article if anyone sees anything in its form (or content) that they find to be problematic. One item at a time. It should not take us long to find common ground. El_C

Opening Sentence

Hit me with it. El_C

No hitting necessary. :) The lead is fine. I would have liked the colloquial name first, for readability's sake, such as with Columbia_University, but that's a point that can be settled on later.

As for the European Commission, the lead sentence is not a fragment: "The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) is the executive of the European Union." It has a subject and verb.

I'm glad we have come a preliminary agreement on the first sentence. Fuzheado | Talk 07:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer something along the lines of:

The Kahan Commission, formally the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, was established ...

Also, I find the Hebrew names a little distracting. If they're useful and necessary, then of course leave them in; otherwise, I'd suggest we remove them and simply provide interwiki links to he:. --Diberri | Talk 17:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I also prefer Diberri's version, as mentioned above, because it comes right to the point quickly, and then provides details on the formal name afterwards. I'd like to see the Hebrew stay on this page, since I'm an advocate of putting in significant translations, but I do agree that it is hard to read, having to jump past all the Hebrew letters. Fuzheado | Talk 03:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Fuzheado, the Hebrew parts are the Commission's formal and informal names. I do not object to these being omitted, or for suggestions on how to better place these in the article.

• I approve of the changes you proposed for the opening sentence, Diberri. Feel free to apply these as stated above. El_C

It looks like User:Taxman beat me to it. I'm happy that we reached a consensus. --Diberri | Talk 19:33, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, RE: Hebrew

User:Taxman, the sentence depicting the formal name of the Commission in Hebrew is (technically) tricky to combine. When it resided along one line (as was in the original), this was'nt a problem (thus, never noticed by me), but with it overlapping two lines, it makes very strange inversions. The result is that the revision you made reads very oddly (and incorrectly) in Hebrew. For the benfit of English readers, these are as follows:

וועדת כאהן == 'Kahan Commission.'

וועדת חקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות = 'Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut.'

---

Your revision of the Hebrew, in Egnlish reads:

וועדת כאהן וועדת + חקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות = "(Commission Kahan Commission), (ission into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut)"

It is totally flawed, as I am sure you will acknowledge, and I am reverting back to it displaying the informal name in Hebrew parenthasized immediately following the English one, and nothing for the formal one for now. Any thoughts? El_C

Oh dear, sorry, I guess I did not pay careful attention to the Hebrew parts, not knowing what they meant of course. As to the presentation of the material, I would recommend the formal name of the commission in English and Hebrew simply be moved to another sentence. The formal name of the commission is not critical to what it is, and thus does not need to be in the first sentance I don't think. Moving both to the second sentence would solve both the readability and the completeness issues. - Taxman 18:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I preassumed that you were fluent in Hebrew, otherwise I would have given you a hard time for tinkering with Hebrew sentences. ;) At any rate, I am inclined to leave the opening paragraph as it is now; unless the whole inversion issue somehow becomes technically explicable (and I have spent 5 minutes on it, until deciding I have better things to do with my time, i.e. I failed), after all, the fomral name in Hebrew isn't that essential to the article. As always, I am open to suggestions, but please, I am requesting that any revisions be outlined here prior to making any actual edits so that we can discuss/refine/etc. these. El_C

Hmmm. Are you suggesting that we discuss all changes before making them to the article? That idea goes against the be bold mantra. IMO, discussion is only necessary if editors can reasonably expect their changes to be controversial. Otherwise, I say edit away. --Diberri | Talk 17:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The 'reasonably expect to be controversial' is a pretty good standard until people are really causing trouble, like pushing POV or something. Otherwise there is way too much talk and way oo little editing and added material. For ex., this article has way too long a talk page, for way to short an article. - Taxman 17:23, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, that is my request, which you are free to ignore. El_C