User talk:Jonexsyd
Hi, just wanted to say “thank you” for going back and fixing all the broken references I’ve been leaving in my wake. Going to bed now—the article’s yours to wreck. :-) Have at it! —Banzai! (talk) @ 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm thinking about spending five minutes or so doing a major reorganization of the Hezbollah article, aimed mostly at subsuming several sections (media operations, politics, social services, military) under an "Activities" section and putting the different paragraphs of "Introduction" into their more appropriate sections, such as the main "History" title. Let me know what you think? Shall I go ahead and do it? —Banzai! (talk) @ 09:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me, though you might want to get buy-in from some others. Jonexsyd 09:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm going ahead with it. I'm sure "some others" will chip in later. :-) —Banzai! (talk) @ 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How does it look? —Banzai! (talk) @ 09:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks sane to me Jonexsyd 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Labenah's Comments Regarding My Revisions
Edits I made were pertinent to Hezbollah's ideology and was well referenced. What gives?
--- They were blatantly not neutral and you provided exactly no justification in any form for deleting the text that was there previously.
Jonexsyd 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Jonexsyd, I'm sure there's a mistake. I presented facts with VIDEO references from actual speeches recorded by Hezbollah, broadcast on official Hezbollah Al Manar Television calling for the death of America and Israel and citing various reasons why - I believe the dates spanned from 2000 to date. I also added many quotes from each of Iran's leadership calling for similar action because Hezbollah is closely affiliated. Why is this taken as bias opinion? Did you check the references? Just because someone is anti-semetic doesn't make this article biased.
Labenah,
I think it is fine for you to document evidence that supports your position. But you have to present with a neutral point of view, without emotive language.
My suggestion would be that you introduce your changes without deleting or editing other text and try to use a neutral point of view. The article already makes quite a few claims which present Hezbollah in a negative light. You will observe that these are written from a neutral point of view, which is what Wikipedia demands.
If you want to edit the other text because you feel it does not meet Wikipedia's standards, then, of course, it is your right to do that. However, you have to prepared to justify why you are doing it in terms of Wikipedia's editorial standards - not because you disagree with it or because you think it presents a false view. Remember, Wikipedia is not primarily about truth - it is about verifiability and a neutral point of view.
I look forward to your future edits - but please, try to keep it neutral.
Jonexsyd 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Re Pape's book
Hi Jonexsyd. I've not read the book and i suppose you did. However, i did add links to the mentionned acts. If you have more details or have the book, pls add them. If not than it's a pity. -- Szvest 11:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
And I did not remove the specific acts you noted. Please do not revert the fair and neutral statement of Pape's analysis of Hezbollah's 3 suicide bombing campaigns. You may or may not dispute whether Pape's analysis is correct, but the fact is, that is what his analysis is. I invite you to read his book.
Jonexsyd 11:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not discussing whether Pape is right or not. Now that you noted them. Could you please cite the page numbers for readers? Cheers -- Szvest 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apreciated. -- Szvest 12:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Change To Suicide Terrorist Act Terminology
Thanks!
Perhaps a sentence needs to be included there saying that Pape considers all suicide attacks including against military targets terrorist attacks. At least, that seems to be the case... Count Iblis 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am not that really characterises his position. There is some discussion about this in his book, but I don't have it handy at this time.