Nowadays, Talk:January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident is a topic that has gained great relevance in various areas. Its impact has been such that more and more people are interested in learning more about Talk:January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident and its implications. From its origins to its present day, Talk:January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident has been the subject of analysis and debate, showing its influence on society, culture and the economy. In this article, we will further explore the phenomenon of Talk:January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident and its many facets, with the goal of better understanding its scope and possible repercussions in the future.
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
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.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
In the Lebanon reactions section I have put the qualifier "claimed", as this is much more NPOV and in line with the U.N's, among others, disagreement as to it being Lebanese territory. Irondome (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
By cross fire
Spain’s foreign affairs minister, José Manuel García-Margallo, called on the UN to carry out an “immediate, exhaustive and complete” investigation of what had happened. As soon as this was done, he said, “he would not hesitate to bring those responsible to justice.”
García-Margallo said he had received a phone call from his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, who offered his condolences. The Israeli ambassador to Madrid had also called to offer condolences and apologies, García-Margallo said. Spain calls for UN inquiry into death of Spanish peacekeeper in Lebanon Ashifa Kassam,'Spain calls for UN inquiry into death of Spanish peacekeeper in Lebanon,'The Guardian 29 January 2015
I.e. perhaps this is wrong, but the source says the Israeli ambassador to Spain offered, not condolescences only, but an apology. One never apologizes for a death attributed to cross-fire. Apology implies responsibility. Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
"Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon talked with his Spanish counterpart, Pedro Morenés, and conveyed his condolences to the soldier's family and to the Spanish people. Ya'alon told Morenes that Hezbollah attacked an Israeli force with anti-tank missiles, and that the Spanish soldier, who was manning a post between the sides, was killed when the Israeli army returned fire." That is pretty clear. The present "in cross fire" is outrageous. "Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman blamed Hezbollah for the death of the peacekeeper." is also unacceptably misleading and not a correct report of the source. Zerotalk21:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@202.161.64.247: We really don't care what CIA and Mossad refers to Hezbollah, since we're not writing reports for them, rather we're editing a free encyclopedia with its own rules. We adhere to reliable sources for determining which term should be used and in this case 'Hezbollah' is the title selected for the GA. As for the Golan heights see this source and Golan Heights. --Mhhosseintalk13:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
While there are linguistic merits for Hizballah - the English COMMONNAME is clearly Hezbollah. As for the Golan - the NYT is calling it Israeli-controlled Golan and describes the area as The Israeli soldiers were killed at Shebaa Farms — known in Israel as Mont Dov — a strip claimed by Israel, Lebanon and sometimes Syria near the intersection of all three and adjacent to the Golan Heights - which currently isn't properly reflected in the article.. Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein:WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM, WP:QUOTEFARM. Is the reader's understanding of the incident significantly enhanced by learning that the Spanish prime minister sent his condolences because a Spanish UN peacekeeper had been killed? Obviously not -- we expect the Spanish prime minister to send his condolences in such a situation. It would only be significant if he had not sent his condolences. All of the significant reactions, for example the Israeli view, the Iranian view, the UN view et cetera, are already mentioned in the main body of the article. A lengthy Reactions section with obvious reactions and unnecessary flag icons is really not needed.
I have no objection if you wish to write about significant reactions , but it would be better presented as an Aftermath section which discusses how different parties' reactions had reliably sourced impact on the region or the conflict. MPS1992 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit request 21 September 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Shouldn't the intro state this incident was a response to an "alleged Israeli attack" given the lack of confirmation and other parties claiming to be the propagators of said attack?
Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied. 7thcavalier (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)