Talk:Baalbek

Crusader prisoners

"Baalbek's citadel served as a jail for Crusaders taken by the Zengids as prisoners of war. In 1171, these captives successfully overpowered their guards and took possession of the castle from its garrison. Muslims from the surrounding area gathered, however, and entered the castle through a secret passageway shown to them by a local. The Crusaders were then massacred."

Is there a source for this that isn't Alouf's book? There do not appear to be any further citations in there, and I can't find this story in any of the usual crusader or Muslim sources for the period. The only similar event I can find is a crusader raid against Muslim territory in 1170, which is in the chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, but he only mentions the raid taking place near Baalbek (pg 185 in part 2 of the Richards translation), not that prisoners were massacred there. Maybe Alouf misinterpreted something...but maybe I haven't exhausted all the possible sources. So where could this be? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Stronghold

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just want to understand what is the reason for continuously re-adding that one sentence referring to the city of Baalbek, which is home to more than 80,000 people, as a "Hezbollah stronghold" when it has been explained multiple times by multiple people that all sources cited are quoting the IDF, which is not a credible source by any means, especially in this current context of war? It is not only wrong but dangerous. Lbnen (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on content from reliable sources. Since the reliable sources cited state that Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold, that's what the wiki article should state as well. If you have a reliable source that states that Baalbek is not a Hezbollah stronghold, then that should be included as well. Hypnôs (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC) The reliable sources in question refer to it as a Hezbollah stronghold based on the IDF's claim that it is a Hezbollah stronghold, none of your sources provide credible evidence that it is. It being stated as a fact on Wikipedia, as someone else pointed out, is basically Wikipedia providing cover for war atrocities. Lbnen (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC) No longer in wikivoice, sources are not based on IDF Doug Weller talk 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC) According to your new addition "Today, the city is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, according to security sources in Lebanon and Baalbek's mayor." Your source says: "The strike occurred a few minutes after midnight and wounded three people according to Baalbek's mayor" where exactly did you get that the mayor claimed it was a "Hezbollah stronghold" from? Lbnen (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Did you even read the sources? Where do they say IDF. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC) I have, the IDF made the claim that it was a Hezbollah stronghold and sources that have been manufacturing consent for a genocide for more than a year ran with it. Again, no evidence has been provided and there has been no independent investigation on the matter hence why your "reliable" sources are not reliable. Lbnen (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold is not a new claim. For instance, from a 2003 article:[1] Accompanied by a local Lebanese reporter, Hikmat Sharif, who works for Agence France-Presse, Lewis enters the town of Baalbek, a Hezbollah stronghold. Posters of Hezbollah "martyrs," or suicide bombers, line the streets of the city. A souvenir store sells videos of Hezbollah guerrillas attacking Israeli soldiers, alongside shelves of Hezbollah hats and postcards. They even market a Hezbollah scent called "perfume of the martyrs." Regarding the recent events, Hezbollah did confirm their building was struck:[2] The Hezbollah source told AFP that "the Israeli strike _targeted an area... near Baalbek and _targeted a two-storey building belonging to Hezbollah," adding there were no casualties. Hypnôs (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC) AFP does not have "Hezbollah sources". Again, this only proves that your sources are unreliable. Here is a recent statement by Hezbollah: Hezbollah's Media Relations issued a statement addressing a Reuters report concerning the Resistance's "new ground warfare leadership", in which the agency claimed to provide details about the nature of this war, its plans, and its weapons. "This report is purely a fabrication by Reuters' writers, journalists, and security advisors. What has been attributed to a field commander in Hezbollah is entirely false," the statement added. "As is well known, and it may be necessary to reaffirm this, Hezbollah does not have sources, let alone a field commander providing such critical information as attributed to them in the report." Source: Al Mayadeen, the original statement is available in Arabic. Lbnen (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Yet another statement: The Hezbollah media relations office has refuted recent reports from certain media outlets claiming to have inside information on the state of Hezbollah officials. The resistance group emphasized that there are no such sources within Hezbollah and condemned the outlets for publishing fabricated news and baseless rumors about the operational status of senior officials. In a statement, #Hezbollah accused these media platforms, particularly several online sites, of engaging in psychological warfare against the Resistance's supporters, suggesting that such outlets are serving Israeli interests by spreading misinformation aimed at undermining morale. Lbnen (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC) @Hypnôs Hezbollah calls fake news reports from AFP 'pscyhological warfare' https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/hezbollah-calls-fake-news-reports-from-afp--psychological-wa Lbnen (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC) @Lbnen But why believe them? Exactly which sourced mention the IDF? Doug Weller talk 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC) So if AFP claims Hezbollah told them something and Hezbollah says no we did not, we are supposed to believe AFP? Lbnen (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC) @LbnenThe AFP isn't used in the article. But this is:https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hezbollah/X7YfEQAAQBAJ] which is clearly a reliable source. And you keep ducking my question about what sources mention the IDF, so I can only conclude you have decided you are wrong. Note you can always go to WP:RSN and ask. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Matthew Levitt is not a reliable source. He’s the least reliable source. He worked with the FBI, the military doing counter “terrorism” and was a member of the international advisory board for both the Institute for Counter-terrorism in Israel and the International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research in Singapore. Your source is someone who worked for the US and Israel. 🥴 Stop. 2604:3D08:4A7A:6200:C5A3:3439:7FFB:A66C (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC) @Lbnen where do the sources mention IDF? Quotes please. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting explanation for revert

@Andrevan, I removed the added citations per overcite and since one was sufficient for the statement. It's unclear why you reverted. FunLater (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You didn't simply remove the citations, you removed the thing it was citing. Andre🚐 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I moved it to the bottom of the lead, so that it's next to information about the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) since the term "Hezbollah stronghold" was used by the cited sources to describe Baalbek during the Israel–Hezbollah conflict, not the other conflicts. FunLater (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My mistake, but still, you also removed a reliable book source, which is a better source than the news sources. Andre🚐 16:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I think adding two sources is fine since the book isn't openly accessible. FunLater (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Being accessible isn't really an issue with reliability. We should prefer book sources like that or at least not remove them vs news sources. Andre🚐 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand. But I think giving readers two sources when one isn't openly accessible is a good idea. It doesn't matter anyway, since the book's preview, turns out, is actually the whole book, so the book is actually accessible. FunLater (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2013 book citation you removed mentions it being a Hezbollah stronghold in the 90s. Hypnôs (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The cited news source implies that Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold is relevant to the current airstrikes on it. Does the book say/imply that Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold since the 1990s is relevant to any of the other wars mentioned in the lead? FunLater (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this line of argument. Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold per RS. Unless something contradicts that or implies otherwise, there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't be the case. Are you saying that in order for the lead to summarize this fact, we should make sure that every war or conflict has an independent source confirming it's a Hezbollah stronghold for the purposes of that conflict? Under what justification are you applying this narrow of a set of criteria? Andre🚐 17:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is in the lead after you reverted my changes: "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, the tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, and the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011."

Unless Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold is the reason behind these wars in Baalbek, the statement "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah" shouldn't start sentences about these wars. If it is, a reliable source that says so should be cited. FunLater (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the request, you want a source that explains that Baalbek's tourism industry encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon? Or you're saying that you don't think the connection between being a stronghold of Hezbollah and the conflicts is clear from the source? Or what? 'Cause I still do not see the problem with this sentence at all. It follows logically that if Baalbek is indeed a Hezbollah stronghold, and if indeed the tourism sector encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, one can therefore assume that these events are correlated and even that A in part causes B. Are you looking for an explicit source that says A caused B? Andre🚐 17:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is precisely WP:SYNTH that none of the sources themselves make.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, no. The source says that the wars caused the downturn, explicitly, on p.46. Andre🚐 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

But not Hezbollah.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is reasonably implied. WP:PEDANTRY to say otherwise. Andre🚐 17:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"Israeli war with Hezbollah cripples tourism in ancient city of Baalbek"[3] Hypnôs (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Add it to the article, please. Andre🚐 18:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is about the current conflict, blames the war, says nothing about being a Hezbollah stronghold and doesn't talk about either the Syrian or the Lebanese civil wars. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's not relevant, since we have sources that talk about it being a Hezbollah stronghold back in the 90s. Andre🚐 18:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SS. A single source does not need to mention every aspect. And information from multiple sources can be summarized. Hypnôs (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Can you explain what is meant by being a stronghold of Hezbollah? It seems hardly lead-worthy.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please see the RS cited in the statement for more information and explanation. However, as a lay observer, I would say a "stronghold" is commonly used in politics and in military history to describe a city or location with a lot of support for some political party or force or group. E.g. most people call New York a Democratic stronghold. Andre🚐 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah and I don't see that mentioned in the lead of either New York City or New York (state).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant, as there are many more sources about New York City so it's probably not sufficient weight, but that doesn't imply anything about the weight for this article. A better article that might say that would be Politics of New York City. City government is dominated by the Democratic Party, which also normally attracts majority support That could say stronghold, the meaning is roughly the same as domination. But I wouldn't try to change it because I haven't done a source evaluation for NYC. Andre🚐 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes but this article is about an ancient city, much more ancient than NYC, and this article is not Politics of Baalbek, or even Politics of Lebanon.

  This was added a few months ago[4], without any consensus, and it seems the body of the article doesn't discuss this much either. I'm removing it until we can get consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  You should not remove it, as it's under active discussion and that would be edit warring. Andre🚐 17:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  It had consensus as it was not challenged at the time, see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Hypnôs (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can you address why something that is mentioned nowhere in the body should be mentioned in the lead? I've moved the one sentence to the body.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  It should be mentioned in the body as well. No reason to remove it from the lead. Hypnôs (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The reason why politics of NYC is split out has to do with the length and extensive sourcing for that city. This one doesn't have as many sources and is not as long. However, one can consider the lead of politics of NYC to be an extension of the main article. In this case, the relevant question is whether the best sources on the topic mention this, which they do. Andre🚐 17:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Can we get the full text of the source that makes this entire claim: "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, the tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, and the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011". Otherwise it appears to be SYNTH.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I just checked the source "Historical Dictionary of Lebanon" (page 45-46) and this would appear to be WP:SYNTH (taking two claims made by different sources that neither of them individually makes). VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please quote the pages on 45 and 46 that you have concerns with? Andre🚐 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  It should be available on google books. It indeed talks about tourism being down but doesn't even mention Hezbollah, let alone blame Hezbollah for causing the tourist downturn.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  That is true, it says the tourist downturn was impacted by Lebanon's various wars especially 1975-1990 and the Syrian Civil War. It's acceptable WP:BACKGROUNDWikipedia:Common_knowledge that Hezbollah was one of the fighters in that. So not SYNTH. [17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)] "Well-known historical facts." It's not SYNTH that Hezbollah was a fighter in these battles, it's acceptable background information and cited elsewhere. No conclusion that isn't in the source is reached, it's merely a logical association that war ~= the fighters in the war. Andre🚐 17:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  At least one of those wars also involved Syria, Israel, PLO, Iran, US, France, Turkey, ISIL etc. So by your logic, we should go ahead and blame all these parties for Baalbek's tourism downturn. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The article doesn't blame Hezbollah for the downturn. It states that as a Hezbollah stronghold, the war caused a downturn. As a Hezbollah stronghold, it experienced the war, which caused the downturn, as given in the sources. It doesn't say that the parties in the war individually caused the downturn. Andre🚐 17:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The source also doesn't say that being a Hezbollah stronghold caused the downturn. I'm also getting frustrated with your misrepresentation of RS.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't misrepresented RS. Neither the article nor the book say that Hezbollah caused the downturn. They say that the city, a Hezbollah stronghold (in the 3 sources cited), experienced the war causing the downturn (in another source). The conclusion you're saying is there isn't there. Andre🚐 17:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The sentence "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, the tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, and the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011" states a cause-effect relationship.

  Cause (a): Baalbek is a "stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah"

  Effect (b): "the tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, and the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011"

  1. Does any reliable source say that a caused b?
  2. Is this lead-worth?

  FunLater (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's a misread. Cause a is "conflicts in Lebanon" and effect a is "the tourism sector has encountered challenges." "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah" is a separate clause modifying the city. In this case, it's modifying "the tourism sector" which is actually not a good phrasing which may be part of the confusion here. At any rate, see [5] as provided by Hypnos. Andre🚐 18:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller can you chime in here please, as I saw you also made a revert[6]. I'm finding the content to be a violation of WP:SYNTH, please let us know what you think.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ping me tomorrow l Watching tv, 7pm London time. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent All the sources make the same claim. Eg the book says "PAGE 129... Baalbek, a Hezbollah stronghold in the Bekaa Valley where the group ran training camps. At the training camps, Pandu and Herman learned military tactics and received explosives training. When finished, they assumed new operational names ...} Reuters says "Hezbollah's stronghold in eastern Lebanon on Saturday, two security sources in Lebanon told Reuters."

  Where is there any syntheis?@ Doug Weller talk 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller, the sentence in question is: "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, Baalbek's tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011. It synthesizes two sets of sources that state:

  • 1. Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold
  • 2. Baalbek's tourism sector took a downturn due to the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990) and Syrian civil war (2011–).

  The single source regarding statement 2 doesn't even mention Hezbollah, let alone argue that being Hezbollah's stronghold caused Baalbek tourism challenges. None of the sources for #1 seem to be talking about tourism. Hence the WP:SYNTH.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Seems that while Hypnos, Doug, and myself agree that it is not SYNTH and you and FunLater do think it is, at best, there is no consensus to remove the long-standing content in the article. Andre🚐 00:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. We do not need a single source that contains all of the specific terms, we can summarize multiple.

  It's unreasonable to assume that a Hezbollah stronghold is divorced from the Hezbollah involved conflicts in the region that caused the decline in tourism. Hypnôs (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• The sentence "As a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, Baalbek's tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon" is, as @Andre pointed out, badly phrased, because Baalbek's tourism sector isn't "a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah".

The sentence also doesn't explicitly state how Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold is relevant to the challenges faced by Baalbek's tourism sector.

I think the sentence should be rewritten to address these two issues first. FunLater (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How about: "Baalbek is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, and its tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon..." Hypnôs (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This fixes one of the issues. Thanks! I changed the article. The policy of synth says this:

Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

Both halves of this sentence are reliably sourced, too: "Baalbek is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, and its tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon". But I think the way it's combined (and was combined) implies that the tourism sector encountering challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon has something to do with Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold.

Do any of the cited sources state what this sentence's text implies? Otherwise, I think the first part of the sentence should be moved somewhere else. Thank you. FunLater (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to the 1st change made in the article but I do object to the complaint about SYNTH here. That is not SYNTH as it's not implying something. It's obviously a related fact. Please don't make that 2nd change without a consensus here. Andre🚐 18:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The facts "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security" and "since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." are also obviously related facts.

Can you please explain how one is synth and the other is not? FunLater (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The UN case implies that the UN somehow had something to do 160 wars. While some wars might have something to do with the UN, we can't imply they all do. But stating that Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold just explains that it's a location where Hezbollah has power or sway. That's obviously related to the challenges to do with the conflict since we know that Hezbollah was one of the combatant parties. It doesn't say or imply that Hezbollah, versus the enemies of Hezbollah, has responsibility. For all we know from that sentence, the conflicts were caused by Hezbollah's enemies. Andre🚐 18:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence implies a relation between Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold and the wars that affected the tourism sector. Is this correct? FunLater (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence states that the conflicts affected the tourism sector. The fact that it was a Hezbollah stronghold explains why the conflicts affected the city. It does not need to, nor does it, imply that Hezbollah stronghold -> tourism effect. It is Hezbollah stronghold -> conflicts, conflicts -> tourism. No conclusion reached that's not in the source. Andre🚐 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that it was a Hezbollah stronghold explains why the conflicts affected the city". Is there a source that says that Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold has something to do with the wars in Baalbek, for each of the listed wars? If not, we should fix that. FunLater (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That isn't required and not relevant. It's reasonable to assume that. It's not SYNTH. We have sources that say it was a Hezbollah stronghold and we know Hezbollah was a combatant. It's not a standard that we need to meet. Andre🚐 19:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

An example of synth listed in the page: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."

We have sources that say the U.N.'s stated objective is to maintain international peace and security and we know the U.N. has peacekeepers. But the example is synth.

What this page currently does is synthesize sources to reach a conclusion none of them states.

Again, is there a source that says that Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold has something to do with the wars in Baalbek, for each of the listed wars? If not, we should fix that. FunLater (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You said that already. At some point, simply repeating the same arguments again is going to run afoul of several Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BLUDGEON,WP:TE) I'm not sure we're there yet, but please consider that you've already made that exact same argument and I'm not convinced nor is Hypnos. I don't agree with that interpretation. It's obvious by inspection that Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold is related to why there would be war there, and we have sources for all of the premises and all of the conclusions there. Anything more specific is not reasonably implied. We have enough sources to make simple conclusions and simple analyses that are also given in the same sources, simply paraphrasing. It's a stretch to say that Hezbollah stronghold isn't related to wars in the same time period if it's known that Hezbollah fought in those wars, and we have a source for the wars causing the tourism downturn. See SYNTH is not rigid, WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH Andre🚐 19:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I repeated the same argument because you failed to refute it, and I wanted you to try to refute it successfully. I think this discussion is unfortunately going nowhere.

Is Wikipedia:Requests for comment a good idea right now? Should we try alternatives? FunLater (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Three parties already explain why it's not synth. I suggest WP:DROPTHESTICK instead of WP:FORUMSHOP. Hypnôs (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

An RFC is unnecessary and borderline disruptive not technically prohibited, but pointless. Andre🚐 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is the definition of the word: A stronghold in this context is a place that serves as the center of a group of militants.

They ran training camps there, led an armed rebellion, etc. so it being a stronghold has everything to do with the conflicts that caused the decline in tourism. Hypnôs (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's MOS:JARGON, and I think it should be fixed. But this isn't the topic of this discussion. The topic is if the sentence is synth. To me, it looks like synth. I mean, the examples in SYNTH show almost identical cases. Can we try to keep this a discussion around SYNTH right now and, if you want to discuss other issues, to do so in new topics? FunLater (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try one last time. Why is relating Baalbek being a center for Hezbollah's military activity (a stronghold), to the military conflicts during the same time and place synth? Hypnôs (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. "Why is relating ... synth" Unless the cited sources relate the things, we do not. I've said so repeatedly. I suggest you read WP:SYNTH, and base your arguments around the policy.

2. Are they even in the same time? I thought the book said it became a Hezbollah stronghold in 1990s, after the Lebanese Civil War. It's not relevant anyway. Because unless the sources make a connection... we do not. Find a reliable source that makes the relation and this discussion will be over.

3. We should invite more people into this discussion. Two people have pointed out that this is SYNTH. Only one account has attempted to find why SYNTH shouldn't apply to the sentence here while it should in the U.N. sentences—the ones in the policy article Wikipedia:No original research, which I think are almost identical in structure and sourcing. I also think that account's arguments weren't policy-based, and were instead trying to justify the SYNTH, saying that both parts of the sentence are "obviously related facts" and linking to explanatory essays that say to "Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." FunLater (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Only one account? Huh? Doug Weller, myself and Hyponos agree this is not synth. Andre🚐 21:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Only one account has attempted to find why SYNTH shouldn't apply to the sentence here while it should in the U.N. sentences" FunLater (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The two UN examples are synth for the following reasons:

1. "to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace."

2. "the opposite is implied using the same material"

But what we have here is simply stating what the sources say: That Hezbollah's military activity in Baalbek is part of the conflicts of the region.

There is nothing implied that's not stated in the sources. It being a stronghold literally means it's a hub for their military activities in relation to the conflicts. Hypnôs (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Stronghold isn't jargon at all, it's a commonly used phrase in English discourse and in many reliable sources. Andre🚐 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked, Andrevan. FunLater (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not sidetracking at all but a direct response to your claim that this is JARGON. Andre🚐 21:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are contesting that Hezbollah's military activity in Baalbek has anything to do with the conflicts that caused the decline in tourism? Hypnôs (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I said that the sentence is synth. FunLater (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Because you doubt that Hezbollah's military activity in Baalbek has something to do with the conflicts that caused the decline in tourism, or for another reason? Hypnôs (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I doubt. I'm saying the sentence is synth because it implies something the sources do not state. FunLater (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking for a source that says that Hezbollah's military activity in Baalbek is part of the conflicts that caused the decline in tourism? Hypnôs (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources in the article explicitly make this connection, so I think that it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL if not synth to imply a causal connection here without this sourcing. (I'm also skeptical about the sourcing on Baalbek as a military stronghold given that elsewhere Reuters describes it as a "political stronghold" only.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be CRYSTALBALL? That's for telling the future. This is in the past. And the source quoted by Doug Weller above, Baalbek, a Hezbollah stronghold in the Bekaa Valley where the group ran training camps. At the training camps, Pandu and Herman learned military tactics and received explosives training. seems to clearly involve being a military stronghold and not just a political one. Andre🚐 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources make the connection to military installations.

• The two traveled to Baalbek, a stronghold in the Bekaa Valley where the group ran training camps. At the training camps, Pandu and Herman learned military tactics and received explosives training.
• Israeli Airstrike Hits Hezbollah Stronghold ... The Israeli military said warplanes attacked a workshop used by Hezbollah for military activities.

That military facilities and activity of Hezbollah have something to do with the military conflicts is really nothing that needs to be cited. See WP:BLUE. Hypnôs (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Common knowledge says that these do not need to be cited:

• Known time and date relating information ("There are seven days in a week.")
• Well-known historical facts ("Julius Caesar was a Roman.")
• Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a non-specialized map ("Dallas is in Texas.")
• Plain sight observations that can be made from public property ("A tall spire sits atop the Empire State Building.")
• Mathematical or logical truisms ("1 + 1 = 2")
• Universally-accepted everyday orders that are taught in early elementary school ("A comes before B in the English alphabet." or "January comes before February in the Gregorian calendar.")

Which of these applies here? FunLater (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you asking that? We have the citations. Hypnôs (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm responding to your statement that "That military facilities and activity of Hezbollah have something to do with the military conflicts is really nothing that needs to be cited". You made a false statement, per Wikipedia:Common knowledge. FunLater (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not common knowledge. It's just calling a spade a spade. Hypnôs (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's not common knowledge, then why do you think it needs no citation? FunLater (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations. We just don't need any extra ones for calling things as they are. Hypnôs (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Common knowledge says we do. Please base your arguments around Wikipedia's policies. FunLater (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about knowledge and everything is properly cited. Hypnôs (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You said that "military facilities and activity of Hezbollah have something to do with the military conflicts" shouldn't be cited. But it should, per Wikipedia:Common knowledge.

"Everything is properly cited" doesn't align with what the policies say. Please read WP:Common knowledge and WP:SYNTH. FunLater (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say shouldn't. I said doesn't need to be, because a conflict is the activity of the participants. You can't divorce the two. Hypnôs (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

it is mentioned that "Baalbek is a stronghold for hezbollah" which this is incorrect. it is a historical tourist destination which has been standing since the roman empire. please remove this incorrect statement. JTutunji (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done According to the cited sources it is correct. It being a Hezbollah stronghold and a tourist destination are not mutually exclusive. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute the statement?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024 (2)

Please remove the sentence referring to Baalbek as a Hezbollah stronghold. It is not even clear what that means and this expression is evidently hateful to a city and a flourishing society. The references in the current article are clearly biased and by authors who are either Israelis or adhere to Israeli propaganda. The current phrasing incites the reader to be indifferent to the destruction of one of the most impressive sites of human heritage and participate in the genocide of Shia, Sunni and Christian residents of Baalbek. Bluehorse177 (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done asked and answered above. Andre🚐 07:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

POV "stronghold"

This does not belong in lede as much as "Likud stronghold" does not belong in the ledes of Acre or Ashdod. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Does Likud have a party militia and does it operate military facilities in these cities that belong to the party, or is this a false comparison?

There are other cities and regions that are called a (military) stronghold in the lead section. Hypnôs (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, and this is being discussed above. Andre🚐 21:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024 (3)

Please remove the following "Baalbek is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah". This sentence is misleading and the evidence provided is not substantial. Please refer to the following credible sources that show no mention of any "stronghold" of any militant organization. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/294/ https://www.penn.museum/sites/journal/931/ Georgebikazi (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Both links are about the ancient ruins not the modern city. Hypnôs (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024 (4)

there is no evidence to suggest BAALBEK Is a Hezbollah stronghold.a wholly false narrative to try and legitimize the bombing of this unesco world heritage site 78.147.105.98 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done there are reliable sources. Andre🚐 21:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop updating with Israeli propaganda

It is NOT a Hezbollah stronghold. This narrative has been created to justify the destruction of this world heritage site 1.159.67.118 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done there are reliable sources. Andre🚐 21:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove propaganda

Propaganda hurts the credibility of the article and manufacturers consent that endangers the real world safety of the inhabitants of featured city. Linked sources continuously referencing "stronghold" are not credible. Ninocountry (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done they are reliable sources, not propaganda. Andre🚐 01:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Claims about Baalbek being a "Hezbollah Stronghold"

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek In my opinion the claim of Baalbek being a "Hezbollah Stronghold" should be removed. The changes should be reverted to the version from the 24th April 2024.

• Why it should be changed:

1. there's not enough reliable sources to proof that. the provided Reuters article does not provide a source whatsoever for the claim. Meanwhile, the voanews articles traces its info back to the Israeli military, without any additional information on the source than just that. As the IDF is a party in this conflict, there is controversy of interests. Thus, this should not be considered a reliable and neutral source. The remaining source of "Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God" mentions Baalbek 5 times. the first 3 times it says that there are training camps in the area of Bekaa Valley, around Baalbek, which seems reliable considering the cited sources. the remaining two times Baalbek itself is named a Stronghold, without further explanation, proof or sources. However, the Book "Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God" by [Levitt] should be critically questioned as a source. Can the neutrality of Matthew Levitt as ex state department and current director Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the [Institute for Near East Policy] be guaranteed? The same Washington Institute for Near East Policy which is described on Wikipedia as "a pro-Israel American think tank". (Date 18.11.24) With all due respect, but to me it seems, that Matthew Levitt is as much subject to conflict of interests as the IDF in this case. 2. the claim of Baalbek being a Hezbollah stronghold falls under manufacturing consent. Since October 2023 the IDF has claimed multiple times that a protected place, such as hospitals, would be a Hamas or Hezbollah base in order to attack it. As long as such information couldn't be verified by neutral 3rd parties, such as UNIFIL for example, it should not be directly and uncritically accepted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia should stay a politically neutral ground and only provide information which are verified by neutral third parties and not work based on unsubstantiated claims. the cited sources for this claim do not live up to that standard. 3. The governor of Baalbek, Bachir Khodr, said in an interview with Sky News in Arabic that "there is no military presence of Hezbollah" within Baalbek. See third citation down below.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

In my opinion, these news sources are as reliable as the news sources cited for the passage in question.

EverSaltt (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal as per above.

el.ziade (talkallam) 14:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, see previous discussion and edit requests, but I added more sources and more context to the paragraph.

References

"so no lifting was required to move the stones"

'This quarry was slightly higher than the temple complex,[140][184] so no lifting was required to move the stones."

That is not how it works, just because the quarry is at a higher elevation that does not mean no lifting is required to move the stones. At the very least the stones need to be lifted into place on the wall. Is there a WP:RS that says this?

I see that in this article the "so no lifting was required to move the stones" comes after the citation (which suggests it is the editor's personal addition), but in the Baalbek Stones article the citations come after the claim implying the statement comes from the source.

I'd like some input on this because it seems to me that the elevation of the quarry relative to a construction site has no bearing on whether the quarried rocks have to be lifted or not. 77.241.129.12 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the unsupported statements, thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)