Talk:Lebanon

History section

Am working on history section. It'll probably take me a few edits today and maybe tomorrow to finish.Steven Clark Bennett 10:11, 18 November 2007 (CST)

Expanded the history section some more. I'll finish the rest over the next few days and do the other sections (which won't be nearly as in-depth as the history was). Any history editors, as well as any Lebanese users, are welcome to comment and make suggestions.Steven Clark Bennett 17:51, 18 November 2007 (CST)

Took a bit longer break than I expected. Did the other sections (except Economy, which I'll get to). Split History into pre and post WWI. I shrunk the pre-1918 section down. Hopefully, the post-1918 section will be the main focus of the article once I have it written-which should be in (hopefully) another week or so. Again, all comments welcome.Steven Clark Bennett 23:41, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Finally done! I've given every section some content. I'll definately be revising this article to make it flow better, but I've basically added all the content I plan on putting in. I got a lot of my information from Wikipedia, but I parapharased and mixed in information from other sources. Nothing in here was copied. Steven Clark Bennett 03:25, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Good work!! I added a bibliography. Richard Jensen 03:44, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks! Steven Clark Bennett 18:59, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Status

Did some tinkering-decided to eliminate most of the acronyms for militias, because they might confuse general readers, which is who this article is for. Added some background info to Civil War section and moved the bibliography to its subpage. I'm thinking of changing this article's status from developing to developed (its one of the longer country articles here), but I want to give other contributers a chance to comment first. Steven Clark Bennett 18:54, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Does this article need a WP flag turned on? Reference 9 says some info from WP. A very nice article! David E. Volk 09:31, 8 April 2008 (CDT)

Umm, all, the whole point of CZ is that WP is not reliable. So listing WP as a reference is, in my opinion, not acceptable. Sure, most WP article contain much useful information, and I often use them as places to go to find sources I can use and cite here - but that's all they should be, IMO. J. Noel Chiappa 10:03, 8 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, I used some information from WP to write the civil war section, but the bulk of it came from Faces of Lebanon. I seem to remember turning on the WP flag when I posted that section-I don't know if someone removed it.Steven Clark Bennett 12:10, 8 April 2008 (CDT)

Using WP as a source for text is OK, provided that everything in that borrowed text is known to be correct, or checked against other sources, etc. As long as nobody is relying on Wikipedia for the accuracy of anything. J. Noel Chiappa 18:01, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

So-back to my original question-does this qualify as a developed article, in the opinion of everyone here? Don't want to make a unilateral decision on this without consulting other readers first. Steven Clark Bennett 17:37, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Hezbollah

Hey- I just changed the description of Hezbollah in the intro from "Islamist terrorist organization" to "militia." I realize this is not the best choice of words for an organization with military and political elements, but "terrorist" had to go in order to keep the article neutral. Brian P. Long 17:41, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Hmm, that's probably not an unreasonably description of them - although "movement" might be a better word (or maybe some combination of both), since it's more than just a party or a militia. "Islamist", used in the sense of Islamist, already (accurately) implies a lot about their ideological beliefs - although that term itself is rather imprecise, since it covers a wide range of ground. J. Noel Chiappa 17:58, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Brian, some would say that insisting on not using the word "terrorist" is precisely to introduce bias and reduce neutrality. "Neutral" does not mean, here, "the description that is least judgmental," but rather, "a description on which virtually everyone can agree." The fact is that there simply is no such (brief) description. Therefore, using both terms, and adding a clarificatory note, finesses the difficulty and achieves as much neutrality as can be achieved on such a question. --Larry Sanger 13:05, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Hypothetically, if the US is the only country that considers some organization "terrorists" while the other major parts of the world do not, does that still make them terrorists? --Robert W King 14:39, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, the commonly accepted definition of "terrorism" is performing attacks on civilians or civilian property for political purposes. I would say Hezbollah certainly qualifies Steven Clark Bennett 21:40, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Perhaps, but the reason I personally don't like to use the word "terrorism" (even though my personal definition, 'deliberate violent attacks on civilians', is close to yours) is that it's just so over-used, it has been totally debased (sort of like 'chilling', in the US political scene). World-wide, it now seems that whenever any entity wants to denigrate its opponents, they label them "terrorists".

If everyone only used it for 'deliberate violent attacks on civilians', it wouldn't be anywhere near so bad, but it seems to have degenerated into 'we don't like you, so we'll call you "terrorists"' - it even gets used in political debates now. J. Noel Chiappa 01:56, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

Whether Hezbollah, or Hamas, or the Mahdi Army, or the Tamil Tigers is a terrorist organization is a complicated, charged issue. My issue was not so much with what determination you make about Hezbollah vis-a-vis terrorism, but rather that in the particular context, saying that the war was "between Israel and Hezbollah, an Islamist terrorist organization" is to frame the war in Israeli terms, and decidedly non-neutral. I think it has become pretty clear that there is no way we are going to sum up the debate about Hezbollah in a appositive phrase-- footnoted or not-- that manages to present the war neutrally. I think we should axe the phrase.

I also want to point out that I think the rest of the article manages to do an admirable job of balancing these competing goals; it's just the intro which was written in unsubtle terms. Brian P. Long 12:13, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

I wasn't commenting on the article tweaks as much as I was on the specific word "terrorist" (and earlier the correct characterization of Hezbollah as a militia/movement/etc).

By the way, you just accomplished an extremely rare feat - you sent me to my dictionary! (For "appositive".) J. Noel Chiappa 16:20, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, I have a compromise-lets call Hezbollah an "armed Islamist group." I would argue that they are terrorists (and that doesn't make me pro-Israeli-I think Israel's attack in 2006 was at best a massive overreaction that did way more damage than anything else, and I tend to be against Israel in general). However, I understand the need to preserve neutrality, and I hope my solution is a workable compromise.Steven Clark Bennett 17:07, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

Steven, you managed to do something which I had just said was impossible. I don't know if Larry agrees, but I think "armed Islamist group" does nicely in the immediate context. Nice work on the article, by the way. Brian P. Long 19:37, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

Thanks Steven Clark Bennett 20:05, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

I also like "armed Islamist group". It's not a perfect description of Hezbollah, but it's probably as close as one can get in 3 words, I think. J. Noel Chiappa 10:32, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

I think it's the perfect choice that doesn't imply any allegience toward one belief or another. I dare say it's probably the best neutral description. --Robert W King 10:40, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

It's probably perfectly neutral, but I do think "group" may not be the perfect descriptive word, since they are almost a shadow state (with their own armed forces, social welfare organizations, etc). Still, "group" will do for now. J. Noel Chiappa 15:34, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

You have a point. "Organization" is probably a little more descriptive (it implies a more formal, well, organization and structure). Steven Clark Bennett 16:39, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Wikipedia

I noticed in one of the notes in this article the following: Some info taken from Wikipedia. This is completely unacceptable. The whole point of Citizendium is to be reliable, because Wikipedia is not. Using WP as a source for text is OK, provided that everything in that borrowed text is known by the author to be correct, or checked against other sources, etc. However, it's utterly inappropriate to cite it as a reference. (If Wikipedia was used as a source of any text, check the 'Content is from Wikipedia', which will produce the appropriate credit.) J. Noel Chiappa 16:48, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Ok-I checked the content box, and I noticed the wikipedia citation had already been removed. Steven Clark Bennett 17:35, 15 April 2008 (CDT)