This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
There are several duplicated information in the body of the article. We should remove one of them to reduce the size of the article.
Please add other cases to this list.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the citations being made using the version of the manifesto currently cited in the article. The currently cited manifesto carries a note at the bottom:
"This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is
possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985. The organization's spokesman, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Amin read the Program at the al-Ouzai Mosque in west Beirut and afterwards it was published as an open letter "to all the Opressed in Lebanon and the World". It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for
the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996."
If true that they didn't publish versions of this program after 1996, that should be noted. Did Hezbollah change their goals? Also, it's worth noting that this version of the manifesto is being put out by a pro-Israel advocacy organization. I would prefer if we can find a version of this manifesto from a reliable source and replace the current one. In the meantime, I don't think we should be citing specific phrases [1] [2] from the passage that wasn't printed in the original copy. ← George [ talk 11:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember that we made this part a pressure release valve for the lead when this article was extremely controversial and there was edit war in every case( Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead#Introduction). But ow disagreements has settled down so I propose merging it in the other sections to reduce the size of the article.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As you can see in Talk:Hezbollah/Archive_10#Category:Islamist_terrorism there wasn't any consensus to add this article to the category so I remove it until we reach consensus.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the category "Islamic Terrorism", as none of the alledged terror attacks have any religious motives. If Hezbollah were an organization like Al Qa'ida in Iraq targetting Sunnis in Lebanon, then that would clearly fall under Islamic terrorism. But to say that Islamic terrorism is merely terrorism carried out by an organization that is also Islamic is nonsensical. I mean, then you could make categories for Jewish terrorism and list terror attacks against the British by Zionists. You could say that because Mc Veigh was a Christian, the attack in Oklahoma was an example of "Christian terrorism". Completely nonsensical, i.m.o., unless the religion was really the primary motivation. If McVeigh's primary reason really was religion, then that designation would make much more sense, and it would then not sound all that stupid anymore to call it that way. Count Iblis 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(Un-indent) Categories does not elaborate. Used in this way, they turn into Wikipedia opinions. This is bad. Saying that some consider Hezbollah terrorist, then stating who they are is good (we do this in the article). Smacking a TERRORIST sign on it, without further explanation, is bad. Categories are very useful, but look up all the debates on the word and the use of the word terrorist and you will see that it is hard to find consensus. It is safe to say that using the Category:Shiite organizations is appropriate regardless of where you are from - it is appropriate and undisputed. mceder ( u t c) 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
bQuestions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:
If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
Does the category fit into the overall category system? Categories that don't fit are often deleted. To familiarize yourself with the types of categories that routinely get deleted read Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
Question 1 is irrelevant. Question 2, the answer is a clear yes. There are enough reliable sources to make it clear why this article is in that category. It is no minority view that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Question 3, the answer is yes; it does fit into the overall categorization system. Yahel Guhan 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It is already a part of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, which is simply an NPOV categorization of designated terrorist organizations. Category:Islamist terrorism is unnecessary and borders on a point-making exercise, as it makes the declarative that Hezbollah is an Islamic terrorist organization. That is precisely what we should be avoiding here. Tarc 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following this discussion lately. I just want to repeat one point I made some time ago, namely that there hasn't been a single terror attack that has been proven to be perpetrated by Hezbollah. All we have are allegations of attacks like in Argentina. Also attacks on military targets by Hezbollah have been labeled terrorist attacks by Israel and the US. The case of Hezbollah is thus a bit different than the case of, say, Hamas where it is clear that the group has committed terror attacks. Count Iblis 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, please explain why you removed this cat. Yahel Guhan 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently 101 kb long. I some trims here and there would probably help. I propose the following could be trimmed:
-- GHcool 18:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just trimmed the "Ideology" section and merged the trimmed stuff with Hezbollah ideology. Hopefully you all will agree that I summarized the major points fairly. -- GHcool 03:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, one can argue about the way it should be mentioned. But it is no option not to mention it at all. Especially in a case where the article about X devotes a lot of space to a conflict with Y in which (mostly accusations of) of attacks by X on Y are mentioned and a lot by Y-friendly sources are used to back that up. How on Earth can it be that in the article on X itself not a single sentence was devoted to the undisputed fact that Y killed the leader of X? Count Iblis 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Iblis's edits appear to be very well in-line with policy and common sense. Hezbollah and its leaders have been the target of terrorist-style carbombs, assassinations, etc. These should of course be mentioned. There is a related dispute over whether we can say "terrorism" or "terrorist" without attributing these as allegations or claims, which has at least the possibility of being substantive. But the bias being displayed against Israel-unfriendly information here is both infuriating and kind of amusing. For instance, here is someone reverting Iblis with the summary "rv. removial of sourced content" when that is actually what he's DOING, not what he's REVERTING. Sad and strange. < eleland/ talk edits> 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
| :-))-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
There are several duplicated information in the body of the article. We should remove one of them to reduce the size of the article.
Please add other cases to this list.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the citations being made using the version of the manifesto currently cited in the article. The currently cited manifesto carries a note at the bottom:
"This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is
possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985. The organization's spokesman, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Amin read the Program at the al-Ouzai Mosque in west Beirut and afterwards it was published as an open letter "to all the Opressed in Lebanon and the World". It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for
the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996."
If true that they didn't publish versions of this program after 1996, that should be noted. Did Hezbollah change their goals? Also, it's worth noting that this version of the manifesto is being put out by a pro-Israel advocacy organization. I would prefer if we can find a version of this manifesto from a reliable source and replace the current one. In the meantime, I don't think we should be citing specific phrases [1] [2] from the passage that wasn't printed in the original copy. ← George [ talk 11:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember that we made this part a pressure release valve for the lead when this article was extremely controversial and there was edit war in every case( Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead#Introduction). But ow disagreements has settled down so I propose merging it in the other sections to reduce the size of the article.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As you can see in Talk:Hezbollah/Archive_10#Category:Islamist_terrorism there wasn't any consensus to add this article to the category so I remove it until we reach consensus.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the category "Islamic Terrorism", as none of the alledged terror attacks have any religious motives. If Hezbollah were an organization like Al Qa'ida in Iraq targetting Sunnis in Lebanon, then that would clearly fall under Islamic terrorism. But to say that Islamic terrorism is merely terrorism carried out by an organization that is also Islamic is nonsensical. I mean, then you could make categories for Jewish terrorism and list terror attacks against the British by Zionists. You could say that because Mc Veigh was a Christian, the attack in Oklahoma was an example of "Christian terrorism". Completely nonsensical, i.m.o., unless the religion was really the primary motivation. If McVeigh's primary reason really was religion, then that designation would make much more sense, and it would then not sound all that stupid anymore to call it that way. Count Iblis 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(Un-indent) Categories does not elaborate. Used in this way, they turn into Wikipedia opinions. This is bad. Saying that some consider Hezbollah terrorist, then stating who they are is good (we do this in the article). Smacking a TERRORIST sign on it, without further explanation, is bad. Categories are very useful, but look up all the debates on the word and the use of the word terrorist and you will see that it is hard to find consensus. It is safe to say that using the Category:Shiite organizations is appropriate regardless of where you are from - it is appropriate and undisputed. mceder ( u t c) 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
bQuestions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:
If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
Does the category fit into the overall category system? Categories that don't fit are often deleted. To familiarize yourself with the types of categories that routinely get deleted read Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
Question 1 is irrelevant. Question 2, the answer is a clear yes. There are enough reliable sources to make it clear why this article is in that category. It is no minority view that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Question 3, the answer is yes; it does fit into the overall categorization system. Yahel Guhan 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It is already a part of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, which is simply an NPOV categorization of designated terrorist organizations. Category:Islamist terrorism is unnecessary and borders on a point-making exercise, as it makes the declarative that Hezbollah is an Islamic terrorist organization. That is precisely what we should be avoiding here. Tarc 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following this discussion lately. I just want to repeat one point I made some time ago, namely that there hasn't been a single terror attack that has been proven to be perpetrated by Hezbollah. All we have are allegations of attacks like in Argentina. Also attacks on military targets by Hezbollah have been labeled terrorist attacks by Israel and the US. The case of Hezbollah is thus a bit different than the case of, say, Hamas where it is clear that the group has committed terror attacks. Count Iblis 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, please explain why you removed this cat. Yahel Guhan 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently 101 kb long. I some trims here and there would probably help. I propose the following could be trimmed:
-- GHcool 18:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just trimmed the "Ideology" section and merged the trimmed stuff with Hezbollah ideology. Hopefully you all will agree that I summarized the major points fairly. -- GHcool 03:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, one can argue about the way it should be mentioned. But it is no option not to mention it at all. Especially in a case where the article about X devotes a lot of space to a conflict with Y in which (mostly accusations of) of attacks by X on Y are mentioned and a lot by Y-friendly sources are used to back that up. How on Earth can it be that in the article on X itself not a single sentence was devoted to the undisputed fact that Y killed the leader of X? Count Iblis 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Iblis's edits appear to be very well in-line with policy and common sense. Hezbollah and its leaders have been the target of terrorist-style carbombs, assassinations, etc. These should of course be mentioned. There is a related dispute over whether we can say "terrorism" or "terrorist" without attributing these as allegations or claims, which has at least the possibility of being substantive. But the bias being displayed against Israel-unfriendly information here is both infuriating and kind of amusing. For instance, here is someone reverting Iblis with the summary "rv. removial of sourced content" when that is actually what he's DOING, not what he's REVERTING. Sad and strange. < eleland/ talk edits> 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
| :-))-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)