User talk:Banzai!

Same track on Hezbollah

Ha! It looks like we had the same idea when renaming the who designates Hezbollah as terrorist. Interestingly enough, I came up with my term without even noticing that you've already have renamed it to a close version of my own. Guy Montag 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you say to renaming the whole section something like "Outside views of Hezbollah," with a short intro about differences of opinion between e.g. Europe/Middle East and North America (and elsewhere as appropriate), and then shuffle everything else into subsections "As terrorist" and "As legitimate"? Thumbs up? —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Banzai about whether "terrorist" should be used in quotes. See the talk page on the article itself for my reasoning. Jonexsyd 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proud as I am, I agree with your disagreement. See article talk. —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actitivies

I think I actually preferred the separation of military and non-military activities in separate H2s Jonexsyd 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, feel free to break it out again--I just wanted to sketch in the broad outlines of the article to make it more organized going forwards. I'm hitting the sack for real. —Banzai! (talk) @ 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah & Jihadist Principles

Banzai, I understand your concern, you have to give us SOMETHING here, someone deleted Islamist organizations and put up a completely innocent Shi'a Islamic hyperlink that says nothing about the mysogonistic behaviour of Shiite Islamic factions. I'm not allowed to use Jihadi, terrorist, fundamentalist, I mean the list goes on and on. Somewhere beyond POV there has to be a sense of truth to this article and ignoring it is just unethical. If you would like to reword this, fine, but I have over 4 speeches by him calling for death to israel and death to america - who calls for this and gets away with it??? That's not npov, that's just ignoring the facts.

The transcripts of the speeches you've linked to have significant omissions that distort Nasrallah’s intent—though at least your sources are conscientious enough to include the ellipses at all—and it’s misleading to characterize him as calling for the death of Israel and of America, for example, when he has always (in the sources I've seen) clarified his intent as to call for the downfall of their governments, respectively, and not their civilian populations. Similarly, you can’t just call a group “terrorist” without introducing severe POV concerns, and that’s especially true of an organization like Hezbollah with an active civilian wing and an expressed aversion to civilian casualties. Finally, where have you gotten the idea that Hezbollah specifically adheres to what you call Shiite Islam’s "misogynistic behaviour"? —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying intent or justifying the downfall of a government does NOT mean that they do not call for the downfall of a government Secondly, rhetoric and actions have to be congruent for any official policy to be understood. For example, Hezbollah says that they were created to end the occupation of Lebanon, but Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. The area of Shabah Farms was annexed from Syria as part of the Golan heights and that's a fact. Third they are financed by an openly holocaust denying anti-semetic regime that calls for it's death daily and fourth, Hezbollah's Al Manar Television openly incites death of Jews and Israel using Jihadist principles continuously - that's 24-7. The fact that you do not take the time to view their television is not my reference problem, that's ignorance on the part of anyone who does not view their programming. By doing this, you are conciously remaining ignorant in order to hold on to a belief that Hezbollah is just playing patty-cakes in Hezbollah land.

Like the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and all the other Terrorist organizations in the region, Hezbollah is a political pawn created and funded by Muslim governments to terrorize Israelis, brainwash Lebanese, and die in the name of Allah. Hezbollah is just one front. They are a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States, Britain and Israel. In the interests of one's country - and in my opinion, the world at large - American, British or Israeli governments have a moral obligation to their own countries to attack, divide or conquer anyone that finances or harbors them.Labaneh 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I've watched Al-Manar TV, and I've seen Nasrallah speak. You have to view his rhetoric in the context of his intended audience. Your so-called sources smearing Al-Manar as pure, unbridled evil remind me of Hollywood advertising: Ebert says "This [...] is [...] a [...] good [...] movie." Give me a break.

And on another note, PLO are terrorists? Who are you calling ignorant? Do you vote Likud? Israel Beytenu? Does it make you happy to see Israel turned into a suicide bomber, of late? Because that's really the only way to describe you, your rhetoric, and your apparent "kill the brownies" philosophy: suicidal. Why do you hate Israel? —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to hear his holocaust-denying, Jew-and-Israel Hating, Pro-Jihad-Self-Martyrdom-loving and hate-based speaches in the context that he is upset at Israeli occupation of Syrian land? Fine, put it in context, but don't ignore it. Israelis are not suicide bombers - we don't send our children to become martyrs, we send them unhappily to defeat self-proclaimed enemies that stockpile tens-of-thousands of missiles on our boarders. We started this war reluctantly so that we can live on without the fear of this front getting so armed that we can't go outside....and you know something...some of us dont want to go and those of us that don't get a few months in prison, a slap on the wrist and they move on with their lives. They don't get butchered in the streets for saying something against public policy.Labaneh 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a New Yorker, actually, but I’ve had wonderful times in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and I’ve seen awe-inspiring architecture and urban planning in Beirut; I could tell you mouth-watering tales of debauchery from the latter. And I'm sorry to hear you're content to secure Israel's short-term security at the expense of its long-term prospects for survival, as a generation of young Lebanese who were lukewarm towards Hezbollah, at best, and who had nothing against Israel to begin with—indeed, who were so enthusiastic last year in expressing their appreciation for the United States, your longtime ally—are now turning against us (Israel and America both) for your policy of what amounts to collective punishment. I’m sorry you didn’t realize that a people under attack would begin supporting the only organization fighting back in their defense, even if that organization is a Shi’a militia. I’m sorry for your bloodthirsty hawkishness, because your mentors in the Knesset (or possibly just Olmert alone) who share your views have started down a path that ensures I’ll never be safe from terrorist attacks when I visit that region again. (Oh, and neither will you as long as you live there. Isn’t that what you wanted?) —Banzai! (talk) @ 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, though, and I mean that sincerely. I’m just very sad your nation is pursuing such a shortsighted, self-destructive policy, and baffled by your support for it. —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, with increasing democratization, Hizballah (and Hamas) have had to moderate their positions in order to maintain public appeal; in fact, Hamas was on the verge of an agreement with Fatah to form a coalition government—until Israel moved its military back into Gaza and the West Bank, reminding Hamas why it’s a militant group to begin with. From the above, I’m not sure whether you’re aware of this. That’s simple ignorance, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and easily cured.

But insofar as the lesson, I can’t be sure whether you, personally, will ever learn. Left alone, Hizballah and Hamas move slowly to moderate positions, making coexistence possible. What causes them to radicalize is, first, unjust imprisonments without trial in Israeli prisons, and second, Israeli bombs. Your failure to learn this lesson could be fatal to you and me both. —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banzai,

'Left alone' is what Hamas and Hezbollah have been doing for decades. We had to build a 20 foot wall to stop suicide bombings from killing civilians - do we need to build the same on the Lebanese front? There is a JIHADIST war in this world and by your comments I think you see it too. The difference between you and I is I believe we have to actively fight it, and you think ignoring it and benevolence will lead to benevolence in kind. So be it, we differ in opinions, but that doesn't stop Hezbollah from being a Jihadist organization with a political platform of anhilliating me in Jerusalem and you in New York.

And for the record, the ONLY time Nasrallah has moderated his views is since this war has begun. Please please please prove to me I'm wrong. You can find his speaches on this horribly biased website that translates Muslim television: memri.org, please let me know if you find a different source that translates these channels. Labaneh 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has "left alone" Hizballah and Hamas for decades? Are you kidding? Is that the common Israeli perspective? —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi,

please pay attention to the talk page. And write your idea--Sa.vakilian 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've done well, I think. :-) —Banzai! (talk) @ 05:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK

Your posting of links as shown in this diff on your usersubpage is harassment, plain and simple. I am going to delete that userpage. Do not harass other editors here like this again, or you'll be blocked from editing.--MONGO 08:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that page, so I assume you're referring to the external links I got from Googling "Netscott," right? —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the link to encyclopedia dramatica and some other site...if you must keep track of Netscott, please simply tone it down next time. Do not link to personally identifying off-wiki sites or other sites that attack him..especially if he doesn't like it. He's not doing that kind of thing to you.--MONGO 08:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Would it be OK to keep that page (sans offsite links) as an archive of his blanked conversations? I’d just keep track of the diffs, but I’m worried they might disappear, as did the one you posted before. —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best if the two of you simply aviod each other for a couple days...by that time, none of this will matter and you'll both be happy.--MONGO 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that’s perfectly reasonable. I’m about to upload an image, so here’s to hoping he doesn’t jump on me (citing his bizarre misinterpretation of WP:V) like he’s been jumping on everyone else uploading images around here. —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable is good. If Netscott objects to your image upload, do not make it personal, and do not wave WP:DICK at him. Take it to mediation, or ask a knowledgable third party for an opinion. (Not me, I am no expert on image use.) The attack page is gone; Mongo's suggestion to avoid each other is a good one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalproof is not a bot

Recently as a note to an edit in the Hezbollah article you wrote: Why is some bot reverting my edits? (was: "Reinsert 'even among Israel and its traditional Western allies,' so as not to encourage the reader to imagine it's the usual suspects, i.e. Syria and Iran)). I reverted your edit using Vandalproof software because you cut referenced factual content but did not replace it elsewhere within the article. I see you have kept the material but made it more NPOV. That was a good improvement, congratulations. --Dave 11:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's great, but several editors and I have been working together on the article for a few days now and we're all pretty familiar with its contents. The material I cut was redundant, almost word-for-word, with a paragraph in a later section of the article. When I cut it the second time, I moved it to the summary of that section, so now it's in the article twice. Which if you ask me is of questionable value—but, given the work I did on the summary, hopefully slightly more useful than it sounds. "Vandalproof" might not be a bot, but it ain't no Shakespeare neither. —Banzai! (talk) @ 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I stomped on a work in progress. I know I don't like it when people do that to me. Editing a controversial article is always a difficult task. Good luck with it. --Dave 11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no hard feelings. :-) And I apologize for coming off like a snit, which, after rereading the above, I admit I did. Best of luck. —Banzai! (talk) @ 11:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

please use the article talk page rather than the revert button to discuss removing my citation needed tags Elizmr 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Hezbollah article

There is a debate about the structure [1]. Please read all of this part and tell us your idea in each case.--Sa.vakilian 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SolidereMasterPlan_PROMO_PDF.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SolidereMasterPlan_PROMO_PDF.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]