Talk:Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies

translated from Hebrew wikipedia --Midrashah (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias; BESA's self-description accepted as fact

As it is now, the "article" is a shallow piece of propaganda with little independent commentary.Arminden (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Sadat" part of the name: controversial?

I cannot imagine many admirers and followers of Sadat accepting his name being used by this type of an Israeli think tank. Any material on that?Arminden (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

BESA and ISIS

In this edit, Wbiases has rewritten the section on the 2016 paper advocating against the total destruction of ISIS. The section has been rewritten to imply that the opinion was Inbar's alone, and since he has since left BESA, the opinions should not be ascribed to the organization. I counter with the argument that Inbar was the director of BESA at the time of the article's publication, and it was published on their website, so any attempts to distance them from the article now may represent a non-neutral point of view. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. That is, If this Fringe write Ben Norton is still his POV... But Inbar's departure has to be noted. Regardless if others agreed on his piece. Norton also intentionally didn't interpret Inbar's idea of a weakened Isis to be monitored obviously by the west. (But that is bedsides the point). Regards, anyhow. Wbiases (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

One more point dear wikidan61. To be fair, there is no way to know exactly Besa's position since 2016. And the big changes in the area since. As to Ben Norton's support for Syrua's Asad and Iran's regimes, he speaks for himself. Wbiases (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wbiases: Norton is not a notable enough writer for him to be labeled a "fringe" writer. At this point, that assessment is your own, unless you can point to reliable sources echoing that sentiment. Inbar's departure can be noted, but it does not alter the fact that, at the time mentioned (2016), BESA published, on its own website, Inbar's opinion piece regarding ISIS, and so they must take ownership of that opinion. Their positions may have changed since then; we'd need evidence of that. The point of the paragraph is to illustrate their position at the specified point in time. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Before we even go into the disputed RS, his sugarcoating Suleimani; , his support for Hezbollah, and Asad regime, his opposition to Biden even after Sanders supports him, are by him. Not by a third source.Wbiases (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wbiases: Your own opinions about Norton as a writer are not relevant here; unless a reliable source has labeled Norton as a "fringe writer", we cannot make that judgment here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikidan. Norton's weight isn't that important, yet, that others should dedicate in defining him. It was only surprising that his piece NPOV is even here. Still, his "normal" and "reliable", support for Hezbollah, sugarcoating Suleimani, Syria's Asad, opposing Syrian opposition, are all from his pen.Wbiases (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wbiases: I will concede that, since Norton's POV is unknown, his reasons in writing his critique could be assumed to be non-neutral. For that reason, we can eliminate the discussion of his response to Inbar's piece. But I still feel it is informative to include Inbar's piece as it illustrates BESA's position (at least, at that point in time) quite well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikidan61. I'll just add, re RS, that Ben Norton wrote his piece AFTER Politico wrote how Salon lost his way... here which includes among others, the related point Re B. Sanders closely related what I mentioned before . Hence, another point, why Ben Norton is a fringe. Not because I said so.Wbiases (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wbiases: The Politico story is irrelevant; it describes events at Salon, but says nothing about Norton. But any continued argument about Norton is moot; I have already conceded that we should eliminate his commentary on the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I specifically said that Norton is not an important figure, at least not yet, I only focused on the stand of Salon at the time that Norton wrote, 3 months after Politico's piece. Especially in relation to B Sanders. Meantime, here is a taste of Norton. Ben Norton: August 11, 2020: 'there are sellout Lebanese "activists" who are absolving Israel and blaming Hezbollah...' No cooment. Wbiases (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikidan61. I think we have some agreement. Thanks. Wbiases (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear wikidani61, the source says this too: "The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State..." [1] . Thanks. Wbiases (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We still can provide the two opinions without removing the Salon article https://www.salon.com/2016/08/23/israeli-think-tank-dont-destroy-isis-its-a-useful-tool-against-iran-hezbollah-syria/ , we can cite BESA as a primary source and say that Inbar asked for further weakening of ISIS without it's destruction and cite Salon as a third party source too , this is how we can keep the article more academic and neutral , for the BESA policy paper was also mentioned by the official website of the Iranian supreme leader https://english.khamenei.ir/news/4133/ISIS-is-US-Saudi-Zionist-agenda-against-Iran-directed-at-fomenting/ , so the paper is relevant and received serious attention , this is why we need to add such third party sources along with the original BESA source as well , otherwise the article in it's current form is no more than a promotional work rather than an encyclopedic work , Thank YouAleviQizilbash (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

1. The fact that the only one writing about it was that lonely extremist controvertial b.n. (before being fired from salon) shows it should not be included. (A side note, b.n. has shown to shift opinions since 2015...). 2. Re third party, Haaretz is included and it is famoys beibg anti Israel. 3. But as a whole: Obviously AleviQizilbash came to this page after and because he seemed to not like what has been said on another subject and you added there "according to besa center" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alawites&diff=prev&oldid=975993674 . Then he came here only to attack. After b.n. has been rejected you went after an old established site to attack there. Pov push all the way. Thanks. Thhings6sz (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no POV push , I'm using both sources in a neutral way for our like or dislike of the sources has nothing to do with the Encyclopedic work , since Salon isn't blacklisted and it's article was already accepted by Salon's editor in chief and never been removed even after Ben Norton's leave of Salon , then we have to publish it too , your personal issues with Ben Norton has nothing to do with the article , also his opinions about Israel , Palestine , Hezbolah , Syria or Iran and Russia are irrelevant to the original article , just like how our opinions about Israel , Palestine , Hezbollah , Iran and Russia are irrelevant . As for the Alawite edit , the source was BESA , I didn't delete it , I just make it sure it's according to BESA , simple and I'm not coming to attack or to push a single POV , unfortunately your method is the one that pushing a single POV and anyone can check the revision history of Begin Sadat article to see my latest revision and your latest revisions and compare between my neutral editing and your promotional editing , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from getting personal or accusing anyone here of being "personal" with that radical "writer". When I edited here I did not remove Haaretz pov. I reviewed most edits here nor are all people who disagree with your pov push all the same. Of course you came only to attack after that edit on alawites ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alawites&diff=prev&oldid=975993674 ) . And only to discredit. Thhings6sz (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You attack the writer based on his opinions about Russia , Iran , Syria none of them has anything to do with the BESA article , so it's a personal issue for sure , and No I didn't came to attack in the first place nor I came just because I dislike or like what BESA said about Alawites , it's your own unprofessional assumption which is already unrelated to the original topic , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

B.n.'s extremism was described here before I came to this page. And it is about ISIS in Syria and b.n. position on hezbollah and Assad's Syria (alliance)- famous. Yes. Related. Thhings6sz (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy that we can't include in Encyclopedic work , it's like discrediting the UN or UN official Jan Kubis and refusing to cite him in any article because he praised Hezbollah ! or because UN doesn't recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist or extremist group https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-lashes-top-un-official-for-praising-hezbollah-deputy-chief/ we can't confuse our emotions of like and dislike against certain writers and remove valid sources because we dislike the political orientation of the writer ! , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not because previouss editors didn't "like". But it is because he is controvertial. In that piece he chose to describe besa center according to HIS opinion. (His terminology is on the extreme also in his tweets) Of vourse your pov is obvious here also with that bds text and sugarcoating Hezbollah. Talking about personal opinions.Thhings6sz (talk)

Yeah sure he can't say his opinion or criticize BESA , and Salon's editor in chief should have never accepted it to be published and he should delete the article,he must abide himself with BESA's promotional work ! you know we must not cite UN or UN officials too like Jan Kubis on anything related to Lebanon or Hezbollah because he is so called " Controversial " (praised Hezbollah and UN doesn't recognize it as terrorist group https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-lashes-top-un-official-for-praising-hezbollah-deputy-chief/ ) and some editors with internet connection may dislike the writer or may dislike the bds website when it's already not blacklisted , then finally accusing me of pushing my POV ! wow , this is very interesting fact about the absurdity of wikipedia in general , Thanks for opening my eyes about this fact , feel free to discredit Norton , Salon , bds , Iranian official websites of Khamenei that mentioned BESA or any other valid source that you dislike ! , No problem , keep your BESA article in it's current promotional propaganda form as you all like , since the whole wikipedia system is toxic , unprofessional , non-academic and absurd anyway , good luck , Have Fun AleviQizilbash (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Haaretz is critical of besa. I see it's still there. Of course one "can say" but you push to include radical text after your edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AleviQizilbash&redlink=1 in a clear trend to discredit. According to your repeated copy paste re Hezbollah this group's "opinion" should also be here... Thhings6sz (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh Yeah , even when Haaretz described BESA's position and orientation as "right wing " you changed it into " Center right" https://www.haaretz.com/1.5067855 , do whatever you like with your corrupted article , I'm out of this childish game AleviQizilbash (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I never edited haaretz part. Please do not lie here.Thhings6sz (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You (plural) Your (Plural )AleviQizilbash (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

COCLUSION From AleviQizilbash [15:34, 6 October 2020] before he said he closes this particular account:

I was just using it as a parable of what Jews ... to prove to user Paradise Chronicle that she is using a logical fallacy ... then I called user paradise ' Islamophobe" over her statement " Yazidis don't like Muslims much " since she used this statement as an excuse to delete all the academic sources that I provided , then User ApplebsTime appeared for the first time during this dispute and sided with her so i called him 'Islamophobe " too...'

In addition he also linked a few people together . To AleviQizilbash: And 'if/when' you come back, if you see something different than your opinion (like your pro-Hezbollah view or other opinions you have) don't go on a single mission only to attack the page cherry-picking most radical diatribe one can find, or after anyone who has a different opinion than you. And when you falsely "accuse" and you realized you lied that I supposedly altered a reference, back off, at least. Take it easy in life and online. All in all. Nothing is personal from me. Teşekkürler. Thhings6sz (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Racist Ben Norton

Why (defined as) racist Ben Norton, unreliable, link, words and or definitions should be removed

Since I was the first to respond after user Alvei..... (weeks after Ben Norton was publicized for his bigotry) posted this Ben Norton link and ideas recently....

From.the following, it seems that Ben Norton is:

Pro China vis-a-vis Uyghur.

Pro Hezbollah.

Anti Israel (and some point yo his anti Jewish bigotry as the drive).

Accused by some Arabs as a bigot too.

Dehumanizing Syrians.

Questionable ethics on journalism and on "facts".

Supporter of brutal Asad regime.

Propagating against the White Helmets.

__

• Coda Media called out for disingormation in a July 2020 piece titled "fringe leftists deny the scale of China’s Uyghur oppression." [2]

• His "ethics" in journalism have to be shed a light upon. At least according to this 2015 case.[3].

• In February 2016, he was challenged on his "facts": "The Selective Skepticism of Salon's Ben Norton factually challenged piece in Salon, Ben Norton displays a dazzling skepticism of information from Israeli sources alongside a great acceptance of unfounded anti-Israel conspiracy theories.

• Norton was fired from Salon in 2016 [Dec 1, 2016 Ben Norton on Twitter: "Salon has let me go." http://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/804313961529221120].

• He is of those bloggers dehumanizing Sryians. As explained in progressive site Haaretz. As Trump shores up Assad's genocidal regime, America's hard left is cheering him on - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz.com.

• Point of view... His propaganda war on the White Helmets in Syria. Claiming in July 2018 it was created by the West for propaganda...

He bashed Canada after it announced Canada supporting White Helmets and was careful to omit the following from Canada's statement:

July 21, 2018 Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada.

The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today released the following statement:

The White Helmets are courageous volunteers and first responders who risk their lives to help their fellow Syrians who have been targeted by senseless violence. When children, women, and men in Syria flee for their lives, the White Helmets run towards danger, towards the rubble, to save the innocent and the wounded. The White Helmets have witnessed vicious atrocities committed by the Assad regime and its backers.

• Ben Norton tweeting on January 3, 2020:.

"Soleimani has an 82% approval rating in Iran, and is a hero in much of the Middle East because he defeated ISIS[.] Meanwhile US client regimes like Saudi Arabia supported ISIS, after the US gave birth to it. The US empire is the world's actual no. 1 bad guy."

• He has been passionately defending against those that condemn Hezbollah, such as in 2017 [4]. And in August 2020 defined as a racist, that his anti Jewish hatred drives him to call Arabs condemning Hezbolah as sellouts."Some People Are So Antisemitic, They Support Hezbollah". August 14, 2020, Algemeiner.

• In June 25, 2019 in a tweet, he implied he doesn't know about uniqueness of the Holocaust. To which user Kaveh replied "Gentiles don't count." Without objection, reaction from Ben.

Quote from an Arab blogger (who shows Ben Norton's shifting statements and flaws): Activists he slammed for using bogus evidence and leftists he derided as ‘tankies’ suddenly became his new best friends as he sucked up to them and pretended he was really with them all along. Norton even resorted to Alt-Right Muslim-bashing anti-terror rhetoric to smear the cause and the people he once defended from such racist attacks. [5].

Issue number 2.

Since Besa Center has been reduced to one single article selected (which asides from Ben Norton no one else is known to write about, at least at the time). A broader picture and context of Besa Center is needed. I69i197496 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your political opinions and Norton's Political opinions have nothing to do with the Begin Sadat Article , we quoted an article written in Salon by a verified and identified Journalist which is a legitimate third party source and already we backed it up with the primary source of BESA , your algemeiner source is written by anonymous called " Elder of Zion" which is an unverified source and Algemeiner has been accused of deepfaking articles before by Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-deepfake-activist-idUSKCN24G15E also Hezbollah isn't universally designated as a terrorist organization nor Assad is universally rejected either , it's Norton opinion just like your rejection of Hezbollah and Assad are your own opinions as well non of your opinions has anything to do with the article or the policy paper mentioned by BESA and Salon .Also blogs aren't sources of information whether Arab or non Arab it doesn't matter , Medium isn't accepted as a source by Wikipedia standards , also the article about ISIS was discussed in the official website of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei , that's why it should be mentioned yet in balanced way which is already fulfilled in the current format . BESA was mentioned also by PACBI , the Palestinian Campaign to boycott Israeli academics and universities https://bdsmovement.net/news/paid-facebook-ad-bar-ilan-universitys-begin-sadat-center-advocates-increased-%E2%80%9Chopelessness%E2%80%9D so we have to quote the sources that mentioned BESA's orientation whether in negative or positive context . Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just rechceked the history. B.N. was rejected. (PS it is obvious you cherry pick --not allowed in wikipdeia-- to discredit an old esrablished site with your repeatedly edit wars and you fail to get it that it still does not make blogger b.n. not controvertial). So your source now is bds radicals and Iranian regime? Who is next? chemical Assad? Obviously yiu came to thus page only to attack since you didn't like this. aka pov. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alawites&diff=prev&oldid=975993674 Thhings6sz (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Our like or dislike of the sources has nothing to do with encyclopedic nature of wikipedia , I've kept both sources the pro and the against while your method is actually the one that pushes a single POV , thank you AleviQizilbash (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

I have Two Requests : 1- This third party source should be added https://www.salon.com/2016/08/23/israeli-think-tank-dont-destroy-isis-its-a-useful-tool-against-iran-hezbollah-syria/ as a citation for this line " supported by the NATO Mediterranean Initiative "

2- The too much primary sources in the 'Position and orientation " section should be cleaned and removed , because the article appears to be promotional rather than encyclopedic and we can't keep citing large number of irrelevant articles from a single primary source while none of them has received any attention from any other non primary source . We have to keep only the ones who received attention and was discussed in other media outlets .

The " position and Orientation section " should be as follows : BESA normally takes a center-right and pro-military viewpoint on policy.[3][4] In 2009, Inbar's paper "The Rise and Fall of the 'Two States for Two Peoples' Paradigm" said that in light of Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip, the best solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict would be to repartition the country with Egypt governing Gaza, Jordan governing the West Bank, and Israel withdrawing from isolated settlements.[4]

In 2016, BESA published a policy paper supporting the continued existence of ISIS[10], albeit in a weakened state. The paper, authored by then-director Inbar[5] (who has since left BESA to establish the Jerusalem Institute of Strategic Studies[11]), described ISIS as a security protection for Israel and the West as well as a useful tool against Syria, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. The policy paper advocated that prolonging the war in Syria "assures the deaths of more bad guys at the hands of other bad guys, Inbar called his own policy "cynical" yet useful and moral"[5]the paper was mentioned and discussed in the official website of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei [12]

In June 2017 BESA published a policy paper advocates increased "hopelessness" for Palestinians [14][15],the BESA paper received a backlash from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel that called on all academics, academic societies and student organizations to intensify the academic boycott of Israeli academics and universities as a response to what they deemed as BESA's brutal call for more Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity [14]

That's all , then we can receive later other contributions backed up with third party sources or received any attention in any other media outlet AleviQizilbash (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the history. It was already rejected the temporary salon particilar "author" (openly pro Asad Hezbollah and Iran) shortly before he was fired over there...in 2016. Then you added a "source" from Iranian regime... Or bds radical "activists" lol. Obviously you came to this page after and because you seemed to not like what has been said on another subject and you added there "according to besa center" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alawites&diff=prev&oldid=975993674 . Then you came here only to attack. After b.n. has been rejected you went after an old established site to attack there. Pov push all the way. Thhings6sz (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Our like or dislike of the sources has nothing to do with encyclopedic nature of wikipedia , I've kept both sources the pro and the against while your method is actually the one that pushes single POV , thank you AleviQizilbash (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

After your description of this center as "lunatic" on another page [12:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)], you showed again your POV. Not to mention your POV regarding Hezbollah. Thhings6sz (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

From AleviQizilbash [15:34, 6 October 2020] before he said he closes this particular account:

I was just using it as a parable of what Jews ... to prove to user Paradise Chronicle that she is using a logical fallacy ... then I called user paradise ' Islamophobe" over her statement " Yazidis don't like Muslims much " since she used this statement as an excuse to delete all the academic sources that I provided , then User ApplebsTime appeared for the first time during this dispute and sided with her so i called him 'Islamophobe " too...'

In addition he also linked a few people together .

To AleviQizilbash:

And 'if/when' you come back, if you see something different than your opinion (like your pro-Hezbollah view or other opinions you have) don't go on a single mission only to attack the page cherry-picking most radical diatribe one can find, or after anyone who has a different opinion than you. And when you falsely "accuse" and you realized you lied that I supposedly altered a reference, back off, at least. Take it easy in life and online. All in all. Nothing is personal from me. Teşekkürler. Thhings6sz (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

The Article needs to be kept inline with it's latest revision done by User:Jackmcbarnsince some users vandalize it . This neutral accepted revision by User:Jackmcbarnshould be applied https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies&oldid=981521740 Thank YouAleviQizilbash (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC) AleviQizilbash (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you came to this page after and because you seemed to not like what has been said on another subject and you added there "according to besa center" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alawites&diff=prev&oldid=975993674 . Then you came here only to attack. After b.n. has been rejected you went after an old established site to attack there. Pov push all the way. Thhings6sz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Our like or dislike of the sources has nothing to do with encyclopedic nature of wikipedia , I've kept both sources the pro and the against while your method is actually the one that pushes single POV , thank you AleviQizilbash (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) AleviQizilbash pov has been rejected a long time ago. (2) He came only to discredit and attack the page after he didn't like something regarding Alawites. (3). Third party NPR view is already there. (4) Yet again, it seems a pattern of pov pushing... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleviQizilbash&diff=prev&oldid=982024195 Thhings6sz (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no POV push , The link you provided was about my first academic contribution to the article of Ismail_al-Jazari where I just cited academic sources about his ethnic background , that's all , while the triggered user deleted all the academic sources and sent me this useless warning . Here is the revision history comparison between my edit of Ismail al Jazari and the edit of the triggered user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismail_al-Jazari&diff=982024044&oldid=982001009 , the alawite thing is your own POV push AleviQizilbash (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't voice any opinion about Alawite. You are mistating repeatedly. But you came here only after your pov edit there. Actually, your description of this center as "lunatic" on another page (12:07, 6 October 2020 - UTC) shows your POV, not to mention your support for Hezbollah. Thhings6sz (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

From AleviQizilbash [15:34, 6 October 2020] before he said he closes this particular account:

I was just using it as a parable of what Jews ... to prove to user Paradise Chronicle that she is using a logical fallacy ... then I called user paradise ' Islamophobe" over her statement " Yazidis don't like Muslims much " since she used this statement as an excuse to delete all the academic sources that I provided , then User ApplebsTime appeared for the first time during this dispute and sided with her so i called him 'Islamophobe " too...'

In addition he also linked a few people together .

To AleviQizilbash:

And 'if/when' you come back, if you see something different than your opinion (like your pro-Hezbollah view or other opinions you have) don't go on a single mission only to attack the page cherry-picking most radical diatribe one can find, or after anyone who has a different opinion than you. And when you falsely "accuse" and you realized you lied that I supposedly altered a reference, back off, at least. Take it easy in life and online. All in all. Nothing is personal from me. Teşekkürler. Thhings6sz (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep protection, reason: AleviQizilbash-Currently blocked w.history of incivility; came to page with one agenda pov;lupmed several users into one;kept cooy-paste-editwarringThhings6sz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)