User talk:Nableezy/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Your userbox

You've said a couple of times that I have "an inability to understand what the userbox is about". I'm keen that you enlighten me, then. To reiterate, the userbox:

• Advocates "violent resistance"
• Is in the colours of Hezbollah
• Links to a discussion that is about userboxes expressing support for Hezbollah
• Indicates there is at least one particular group the owner of the UBX would like to name, but cannot.

You can see how the logical conclusion of this is that whoever uses this UBX is, therefore, a supporter of Hezbollah but cannot have a UBX which says so. Indeed, this seems to be the obvious conclusion.

However, I seem to have "an inability" to understand it – so please let me know what the correct meaning of it is. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it a. recognizes the right to violently resists foreign occupation and aggression, aggression being a war crime, and said right being widely supported in the international community b. yes, because it is protesting the political correctness that at the time allowed for a userbox expressing support for one combatant, Israel, and disallowed expressing support for another, Hezbollah, c. yes, because it is protesting a discussion in which a group of largely, statistically speaking, white males from a small subset of countries to determine what political views are acceptable on a global project, and d. does not say I would like to be able to support any particular group, rather it again criticizes the idea that political correctness should be the barometer to determine what are acceptable views for a global project. Of note, currently a user would be allowed to express support for Hezbollah, WP:UP has changed in the decade I've had that box up. The userbox is about Wikipedia, not about Hezbollah.

Finally, are you of the view that say a supporter of Israel should be welcomed but a supporter of Hezbollah should not be? Why? What is the objective criteria that you are using to make such a determination? How do you figure that a user can express support for say Ukraine's right to resist Russian aggression and occupation but not Hezbollah's? nableezy - 15:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I thank you for your clarification that it's about Wikipedia policy and not support for Hezbollah itself. I remain unconvinced that is the entirity of its meaning, however.

I do not believe Hezbollah, Israel, and Ukraine to all be equatable in the examples you provided. Aside from the fact that two of these are countries while the other is an ideological organisation, the most major issue here is that Hezbollah is often recognised as a terrorist organisation. — Czello ^(music) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It is "often" recognized as that by a small set of countries. The overwhelming majority of the world does not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hell, more countries have accused Israel of committing genocide than have recognized Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. So your view is that some set of western countries should be the standard here? But the countries that have accused Israel of an ongoing genocide what, dont count? nableezy - 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, Hezbollah and Israel aren't comparable as one is a country and the other is an ideological organisation. It's possible to be an Israeli and even a patriotic one but oppose its actions. Hezbollah, however, is an organisation that is fundamentally antisemitic and seeks the destruction of Israel. I find it difficult to equate a supporter of Hezbollah to a Ukrainian resisting Russian imperialism – morally, at least. — Czello ^(music) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a member of the Lebanese government, rendering moot that objection. What you find difficult is a function of your own background and biases, and this is a global project. Expecting others to agree to your personal views is not reasonable on a global project, sorry. As far as is not comparable, I agree. Only one of them has been accused of genocide by states and by at least one UN Special Rapporteur. It aint Hezbollah btw. nableezy - 15:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a member of the Lebanese government isn't the issue. Again, you're conflating a nation with an organisation. Going back to your example of Israel – it'd be more accurate to compare them to Likud for that analogy to work.

Please don't assume my background and biases. Ultimately you're missing my point – comparing a nation to a political/ideological organisation (one which has bigotry built into it) is a fallacy. That's why support of an organisation like Hezbollah should not be accepted on this project. We have policies around similar movements. — Czello ^(music) 20:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Israel arose from an assertion a people, the Jews, were a nation, out of the political, social and economic organizations it then preceded to develop in another land. And much of this was driven by ethnocentrism (bigotry against the indigenous population) and a good deal of pre-state terrorism. That is the example set before organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, - created or facilitated directly as a result of Israeli actions (and indeed Hezbollah's leaders have often extended their hospitality to Jewish thinkers, like Noam Chomsky, for insights into the nature of the society they find themselves opposed to, which opposes them) - who, wrongly, are attempting something similar. Therefore your distinction falls flat on its face. Comparative historians know this. You don't see it. In any case, every few years people barge in here and complain pointlessly about this infobox, and as usual the objection will be shown the door. I suggest you edit articles, and not repeat a grievance over this that has a long if intermittent, and boring history.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This, again, misses my point - and by talking about Israel we're descending into whataboutism. The userbox is about Hezbollah and ultimately endorses them. That is the issue. Any criticisms of Israel should be taken to where they're relevant. And I edit articles plenty, though thank you for the suggestion. — Czello ^(music) 21:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You're free to not understand what has been said in reply to your point. Enough. If you want to get beyond dumbdowned clichés and actually grasp what Hezbollah is, read Augustus R. Norton's Hezbollah: A Short History,Princeton University Press, 2007 and Joseph Daher's Hezbollah: The Political Economy of Lebanon's Party of God, Pluto Press 2016, for starters. Then by all means use them and competent sources to edit Hezbollah-related articles, rather than backchatting here. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Im not assuming your background or bias only remarking that all of our biases and backgrounds are reflected in how we view things. nableezy - 21:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no place on Wikipedia that ones personal criticism of Israel or Hezbollah is appropriate, the point of the used box is that it is hypocritical and biased to allow for expressions of support for one but not the other. This is not a project that only considers western views as valid. If you think Hezbollahs ideology has bigotry built in to it but Israel and all of its Zionist political parties do not then good for you. I disagree with you, but that isn’t really all that important. This isn’t, last I checked, a Zionist project, or a pro-Western one. If it becomes one I’ll pack my bags, but there is no morally and intellectually consistent framing here that would allow for expressions of support for Israel and not for Hezbollah. Or Hamas for that matter. And as such my userbox exists to protest the imposition of what a group of largely white western men thinks is politically acceptable. I’ve explained the purpose of the userbox several times now, and as Wikipedia user talk pages are also not for soapboxing I’d like to stop discussing irrelevant things like ones personal views of hezbollah or Israel. nableezy - 21:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)