Jump to content

Talk:Imam al-Mahdi Scouts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.220.13.184 (talk) at 05:58, 9 September 2008 (→Nature of the Group). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

discussion on al-Mahdi Scouts from Scout WikiProject

Fox News on January 1, 2007 had a report on the al-Mahdi Scouts, a youth wing of the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The really interesting thing is, outwardly, they look very much like traditional Scouts, with the normal uniforms (light and medium blue, white, yellow and purple for different groups) and badges and all. The flags being flown from cars and along the roadside showed the emblem, again a traditional fleur-de-lis, whose petals are left-to-right green/white/red, and in the top center of which is a hand with an out-turned palm, possibly the Hand of Fatima, and supported on left and right by single scimitars. Can anyone support/document this? In itself it would be a most interesting article. Chris 07:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this organization exists but its status in Scouting is unknown: There are no reliable sources on the members of the Fédération du Scoutisme Libanais - according to some sources this militant anti-zionist organization is a member of the federation and of WOSM. We had hot discussions on this topic in some German Scouting boards resulting in questioning WOSM about this organization. This was in last August, but there is no final answer yet. Quote: We well received your message and we forwarded it to the Lebanese federation through Georges Ghorayeb, also member of the World Scout Committee (Cc to this message). Please understand that our brother Scouts are currently busy with relief work. I hope we will be able to give you the accurate information very soon.
Some links:
Hope this helps. --jergen 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jergen! I am pretty sure, based on the news report, that this is more a political organization which has taken on the names/symbols... of Scouting, but in truth is probably more of a Political or military youth organisation. I'll get to work on it as I get time. Chris 10:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone knows Lebanese: al-Mahdi Scouts in the Internet Archive --Egel Reaction? 10:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the Group

The article is misleading. If I were a Lebanese Muslim parent and read the Wikipedia article, I might get the impression this is a good place to send my kids. Yet there are pictures of little kids in camouflage uniform in the materials linked from this article. Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organization by just about everyone, but the word "terrorist" doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article. According to Roz el Youssef, the kids are trained in military tactics from a young age. According to information appearing in the calendar put out by this group, over 120 of these "scouts" have died in Hezbollah actions, including suicide bombings -- it is not clear of those are graduates or kids still in the movement. That gives a better idea of what this group is. According to Ronen Bergman's "Point of No Return" (in Hebrew - coming out in English in April) "In the camps, the youth undergo basic training in weaponry alongside physical education classes and disciplinary drill."(Ronen Bergman, Nekudat Ha'al Hazor, Kinneret, Zmora Bitan, 2007, p.404) At least, there should be some pictures of those kids and the quote from Roz el Yousef that is in one of the references given. Mewnews (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to inject POV into the article just because it suits you. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. If the nature of the group is not clear to a reader from phrases like youth wing of the Hezbollah and instructs tens of thousands of children and teenagers in military tactics and indoctrinates them, then the reader likely has problems with English anyway. We don't need to politicize the article to please you, we've worked very hard to keep it apolitical. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris is precisely correct, Mewnews. You also need sources for all those claims and you only provide one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chris and Rlevse. And of course sources are needed. So I´ve a question to you Mewnews: Is the book "Point of No Return" written by Ronen Bergman all about Imam al-Mahdi Scouts or is this just one topic of the book?-Phips (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has POV in it. The quotes that I took were from the articles listed as sources. The article selectively quoted only from the Al - Jazeera article and not from the terrorism center article. The article ignores its own sources. The motto under the Fleur de Lis symbol is not translated either, but the translation was given in the terrorism center article. You are precisely right that this should not be a blog. But it is written like one. The article specifically lists the supposedly innocuous activities of the group based on the Al Jazeera article.
Activities include camping, community service projects such as helping the disabled and cleaning places of worship, computing, fishing, team sports, boxing, reading classes, learning administrative skills, learning about Islam and protecting the environment.
How can someone NOT understand from that that this is a group of happy campers? Did anyone expect that when these people are interviewed they will say anything else about themselves?? The above quote about activities is given as factual. It is not attributed to al-Jazeera or anyone else. Which of you are willing to claim that it is an accurate picture of this group, based on your knowledge?? Why is Al-Jazeera a better source than the others?? Mewnews (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quote in bold from the article was originally written by me. When I came across a news article that had information about this group, I added it to existing material, because there didn't seem to be a lot of information about this group available and that by adding the information I could glean I thought I would be helping to make the article better than before. I knew that the report would have a bias (like every news item) and that the group would present themselves how they want to be seen and avoid controversial issues, and that I myself have my own biases. I think the group can reasonably do all these activities as well as the military ones mentioned elsewhere in the article. I didn't see any reason why the activities I listed were controverial, so I didn't add a reference to that particular sentence. I did remember to explicitly state the source of scoutmaster's statement about joining the armed resistance, so people can judge for themselves what biases might be acting on this heated topic. I didn't go and read the sources quoted by the article and add more information from them. That's how the "selective referencing" arose. It wasn't a premeditated attempt on anyone's part. I don't have personal experience of this group, but if I did it wouldn't matter. I know that no original research is allowed on wikipedia and that anyone can ask where any information originates. I'm sorry I have upset you and that my work hasn't improved the article in your opinion. I hope future iterations of this article will be improvements in your opinion. Kingbird (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingbird you did a fine job, and it's not original research if you extract it from different sources. No need to apologize to Mewnews, don't feed the trolls. No amount of reason gets through to some. The article adequately portrays both viewpoints, Mewnews just wants to be contentious at this point. You've made the article better and we are thankful for you!Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Lebanese and during my last trip to Lebanon last year I visited the scouts(I have a cousin in the scouts) and what you see is exactly what it is. These scouts are like any other scouts, just because they like the Ayatollah doesn't mean that they train combat and warfare. You have to keep in mind that the article should remain neutral and based on facts, not what someone believes that they are doing. None of the people that I know who have been members of the scouts are members of Hezbollah's military wing, even though they do support Hezbollah(keep in mind that the majority of the Lebanese also do support Hezbollah). What also you have to keep in mind is the situation that the region is in, things are done differently than here. On last thing, The German psychologist and researcher on fanaticism Peter Conzen compared Imam al-Mahdi Scouts and Hitler Youth, saying that both associations defraud children of their youth is very misleading. Lucias21 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another point of view. The Al Jazerra view is also presented, however there seems to be a great deal more citations to the contrary. If you can provide images, audio, and transcripts of your "vacation" then you can provide citatation your "experiences." I'm sure that the article is exaggerated and all these Hezbollah youth do is tie knots and bake cakes in the hot coals of a cozy campfire.

recent edit conflict

per this diff: [1]

I'm not following the edit summary reasoning for the revert on my work. Please clarify. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per this diff: [2]

Requesting an explanation to the use of "Imam al-Mahdi Scouts' status in Scouting is unknown." is this based on any of the cited sources? JaakobouChalk Talk 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact, because the lack of material forthcoming from the Lebanese federation makes their status in that organization unknown, and WOSM documents do not list them as a member org. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the source about this, can you please link it here so we can add it to the article? The phrasing of the paragraph is problematic and without sources, the material cannot stay. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph states the facts as they stand-the status is unverified. If you have better wording that conveys the facts, or conversely if you have verification of the necessary fact, then by all means present your wording here. Otherwise it stays as is, several editors without agendas have contributed to this, and worked very hard to come up with the variant we have. If you can add beneficially to the imformation, that would be welcome. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo,
With all due respect to "several editors without agendas", WP:V is a core principal of wikipedia and we need a source that says "status in Scouting is unknown" or something similar, in order to include such a comment. If you insist, I'm willing to open a WP:3O on the issue.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 04:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than resorting to proceedures too soon, why don't we label the statement with a request for a reference (there's a template somewhere) and leave it a week or so to see what appears? Or suggest an alternative wording that better expresses this point? What do you think? Kingbird (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have gone your way if I thought the statement has encyclopedic value, but believing it doesn't, I went ahead and removed it... which led to the current argument. I'm willing to compromize on your suggestion, but think we should move the text somewhere else in the body.. I'm willing to make an attempted temporary rewrite if Kintetsubuffalo believes a combination of your suggestion and mine might be acceptable. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your suggestion simple enough to be explained first in my new section below? That might keep everyone feeling happier. Sorry if starting a new section has complicated where to write things! Kingbird (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Looks like we may have an edit war starting if. Everyone please work it out peacefully on the talk page first or I'll have to protect the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested re-write

I have been looking around on the internet to see what I can discover regarding this group's relationship to the Lebanese Scouting Foundation and hence to WOSM.

The Lebanese Scouting Foundation website () doesn't list its members. It only mentions there are 29 of them. The WOSM website gives an imcomplete list of members of this Federation by its own admission, but doesn't mention this group. The CSS document referenced in the article already says that this group is "associated with the Federation of Lebanese Scouts". I understand this to mean it is one of the members of the Lebanese Scouting Foundation. I see no reason to disbelieve the CSS document on this point. If they had wished to discredit this group using this point, it would have been better to say that it wasn't part of the Lebanese Scouting Foundation.

Although I can't read this group's own webpage, I notice that their front page currently displays the logo of a scheme run by the Lebanese Scouting Foundation and of the Foundation itself. When this image is clicked on, it goes to a document that prominently displays these logos. This doesn't help us much as this could indicate a number of scenarios, although it does suggest they are on speaking terms!

In the light of this, I suggest that the paragraph that currently reads:

Imam al-Mahdi Scouts' status in Scouting is unknown. There are no reliable sources on the members of the Lebanese Scouting Federation - according to some sources this militant anti-zionist organization is a member of the federation and of the World Organization of the Scout Movement.[1][2]

is updated to:

Iman al-Mahdi Scouts is a militant, anti-zionist youth organization. It is part of the Lebanese Scouting Foundation and through them, the World Organization of the Scout Movement.[1] [2]

Just to be explicit about the referencing, both references remain. Any thoughts? Kingbird (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain on what you're removing from the text, but a superficial examination of your update seems fine to me. If I notice something that bugs me later, I'll let you know.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Chris (クリス • フィッチ) seems to have vanished, I'd be interested in just reverting back to my version and you may continue making changes on it if you like. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't vanished, I'm letting Kingbird and other civil editors weigh in, from whom you could learn something. You can say what you need to say without loaded words like "awkward" and "vanished"-I have never bandied anything like that at you, and it violates WP:CIVIL. For the record, my "several editors without agendas" refers to the handful of editors from WikiProject Scouting who have worked hard to build this article and keep it NPOV before this started, it is not an attack. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Awkward" was not directed at you or "your" text, but at a problematic phrasing already existing in the article. Regardless, I had no mal-intent and I apologize if there was such a feeling.
To the content, we cannot add (possible) WP:OR into the article but if you bring a reliable source, then we can certainly add the material from this source. As I've said before, WP:V is a core principal of wikipedia. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is to say that Chris is a very active Wikipedian and that he did not vanish. I agree with Chris that the editors from WikiProject Scouting worked hard on this article. A Wikipedian, who speaks Arabic would be a good, so someone could add references in this language. Is there someone out there? Is there someone out there, who can add references from Hebrew media/books.That is what would improve the article.-Phips (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably work a bit more, adding to the article; but I'm a bit swamped at the moment with other article and RL issues. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Militant and anti-zionist need both individual and exact sources. Militant could be covered by the CSS paper mentioning militarism, but as non-native English speaker I'm not sure of the exact meanings of both words in English; in German the meanings differ somewhat. Anti-zionist is not mentioned in both textes, calling the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts anti-zionist is an interpretation of the sources but not covered by them.
Concerning the membership: I'm with you. --jergen (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent issue

per this diff: [3]

Everything is stated in this ref: <ref name=CSS/> [4], please revert back and/or rephrase to your liking, but don't remove the cited reporting. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of anti-zionist or militant - that's your personal interpretation. Please read WP:NOR. Can be reincluded, if you give a source explicitely labeling the organization. --jergen (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best I'm aware, it's not OR to say that a call to destroy Israel is anti-zionist. Are you not aware that anti-zionism = anti-Israel? JaakobouChalk Talk 12:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for sources, not for your impression. --jergen (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Zionism, is by definition anti-Israel. Do we really need to take this to medcab? JaakobouChalk Talk 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one insisting on unsourced content. If you had spent have the time you used on discussing two words for working on the text would be far better. --jergen (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Could you give a valid source for your assumption that any opposition to Israel is per definitionem Anti-Zionism. Out article on that topic is so bad that it can not be used as source. --jergen (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jergen,
You're putting a mild angle on the reference used. They are not merely 'opposing Israel' but rather 'opposing Israel's existence' - which is the definition of anti-Zionism. If you wish to learn about anti-Zionism, wiki has a growing article - Anti-Zionism. If you wish to learn about zionism, I'd suggest an external article from Jewishvirtuallibrary [5] and Mideastweb [6].
Our reference for this statement,
An investigative report published by the Egyptian daily Ruz al-Yusuf on August 18, claimed that the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts movement has trained “armed militias” in south Lebanon composed of children aged 10-15. The first lesson Hezbollah teaches them, said the report, deals with the destruction of the State of Israel . <ref name=CSS>
Please explain your reasoning to believe that 'marching on Israeli and American flags' and further similar "Jihad suicide warrior" indoctrinations on top of this citations fit your earlier statement that there is, "No mention of anti-zionist or militant - that's your personal interpretation". JaakobouChalk Talk 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give sources for anti-zionist or militant. You can include the above informations without including your own conclusions; these statements are clear enough (for the average reader).
  • An Israeli intelligence source (ie CSS) should not be used to describe the organization's aims since it is not neutral concerning Hezbollah.
  • Please refrain from personal comments on other users. See WP:CIVIL. --jergen (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't believe I've violated WP:CIVIL, I have no intentions of causing any personal griefs by making unthoughtful comments. I'd appreciate an explanation on what part of my comments made you feel offended so I may try to avoid such comments in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On topic, Egyptian daily Ruz al-Yusuf is the source for the militant + anti-zionist claim and a reliable source is reporting this input with added samples. Once again, I request an explanation on why you stated that there is, "No mention of anti-zionist or militant - that's your personal interpretation" when I was basing my notes on a given source. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources

Yet unused. --jergen (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found some new pictures from January and February 2008 on the web:

  • 19 January 2008: Hezbollah scouts carry a portrait of the supreme leader of the Islamic republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during a mass religious procession in Beirut [7]
  • 14 February 2008:Shiite Muslim Hezbollah scouts parade during the funeral procession of Imad Mughnieh in Beirut[8] [9]

Maybe the informations on the pictures and in the texts can be used. -Phips (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi,
I couldn't fully follow the reasoning behind these changes. I'd really appreciate a short explanation that elaborates on the edit summaries made.

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In every international Scout article, when we can, we describe the symbolism of the particular emblem, for readers who want to know the heraldry of the badge
  2. In every international Scout article, where we know the sections, we lay them out as bullet points rather than making a paragraph from them
In short, both were replaced for standardization with the bulk of international Scout articles. Hope that clarifies, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's already in the body of the article.. can you give a few article links as a sample?
  2. This seems very odd for an encyclopedia.
    1. Can you give a few article links as sample please?
    2. Is there a written policy on this somewhere?
cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imam_al-Mahdi_Scouts&oldid=237223722"