Talk:Saad Hariri/Archives/2018

Detrimental
I hit "enter" too fast in an edit a minute or so ago. There's a typo somewhere regarding a resignation of parties in a coalition in protest against "the inability to take detrimental decisions". :) Depending on who judges the would-be decisions to be detrimental if implemented, the fact that they're labelled detrimental makes it difficult to understand why anyone would protest.

Consider the rather real situation (AFAIK :) here: ''The WMF Board is unable to take actions that are detrimental to Wikipedia. Thousands of Wikipedians protested against the WMF Board's inability to take such detrimental decisions and implement them. That wouldn't make sense... Wikipedians would protest against what is perceived as an ability to take detrimental decisions/actions rather than the in''ability to do so ...

I tagged the word with the "dubious" template. Feel free to remove the tag if you know what should be put in place - probably "fundamental"? The source for the sentence looks like a dead link to me. Boud (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and the source given doesn't mention Hariri, at all! Huldra (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Actually, that source is BS: it just reiterate rumors about drug trading Hizbollah members...quoting MERIP, etc, while not mentioning at all that Hassan Nasrallah has strongly condemned the drug trade. This is Hizbollah...according to Tea Party views... Huldra (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not a great source. Though it does mention Hariri and Hezbollah withdrawal: Page 10, last para: "In 2011, Hezbollah ..." That sentence sounds credible, but only very loosely matches the text in this Wikipedia article (with either detrimental or fundamental); and it's sourced to an offline Encyc Britannica article. The next sentence "Hezbollah withdrew ..." seems to be more presented as opinion, without a source. Mainstream media sources would probably be good as a source - the reasons why parties withdrew could be NPOVed as "withdrew support claiming that ..." - the public claims in mainstream media (Reuters/Guardian/AFP/AP/...) should be reasonably uncontroversial as sources for what those parties claimed at that time. Additional academic analysis or opinions could be added later about what the real reasons were, if they're claimed to be different. Boud (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the problematic phrasing. I suggest that other editors here be more pro-active about editing these incoherent statements. This isn't about sourcing or NPOV; it's about clarity and grammar, and doesn't need a discussion.2601:184:497F:A041:9982:7AFF:23B5:EA68 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)