Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

Contents

Too long article

This article has reached 98kb. Please summarize some parts like Hezbollah#Position on Israel, Hezbollah#Position on Jews and Judaism and Hezbollah#Armed strength and move details to the sub-articles. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll start working on it little by little. --GHcool 07:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
While its probably still needed, note that the actual prose(what should be counted) which excludes lists, links, see also, references etc is only around 42kb. mceder (u t c) 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a very long entry at all, and the sections mentioned are of normal length - a fork would only have 3-4 short paragraphs. TewfikTalk 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of 44 is... most of 44

We have a source which says that "most" of the "44 deaths" are attributed to anti-tank guided missiles. It is now being used to support the claim that a "significant number" of "119 deaths" are attributed to them. You can't use one source to prove an entirely new point not supported by it. Please find a proper source, or remove the claim. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems fairly evident that "most" of "44 deaths" means the same thing as "greater than or equal to 22 deaths". Would you rather we reword it to say "at least 22 of the 119 deaths" are attributed to them? I'm fine with that. — George [talk] 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that's original research. You could put something about them causing casualties in the early parts of the war, which is supported by the sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Per What is not original research?:

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.

This seems to me to fully fit this scenario. Most of 44 means 22 or more. I've changed the statement to say 22 or more... — George [talk] 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it has become a particularly pointless statement. The number could be anywhere between 22 and 118; saying "22 or more" just misleads the reader. It would be better to avoid these kinds of calculations based on interim numbers altogether. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
We could manually add up the numbers from the Israeli MFA website if you think that's better. I figured that to be more likely to be classified as OR than going with a lower bound from a source from before the fighting ended. Maybe not. Also, a lot of the deaths listed identify the cause as "anti-tank missile", but do not state whether or not those killed were in Merkava tanks... does being killed by an anti-tank missile imply that you were inside a tank? For what it's worth, I'd estimate that there are 30-40 deaths listed on their site as having been killed by "anti-tank missiles", so the "at least 22" figure may not be far off from the total tally. — George [talk] 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg, 22 or more is somewhat of an empty statement, and doesn't say much. Besides, 22 or more is an unexact number between 22-118, a number which is not supported by the source. What is supported by the source is that most of the 44 killed in the first days of fighting were killed by... Yonatan talk 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The source states that "most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles", so it would be inaccurate to attach the "first days" to the statement. We can use the phrase used in the source, something like "most of the 44 soldiers killed in the first four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles", but we need to weigh that against the reader misinterpretting this as accounting for the full length of the war (the war wasn't even 5 weeks long), and from misinterpretting this as stating that 44 soldiers died total (when approximately 119 died). To avoid misrepresenting these facts, we can state "Of the 119 Israeli soldiers killed during the 34-day war, most of the first 44 in the first four weeks were hit by anti-tank missiles". This is accurate, but sounds like garbage from a readability standpoint. If you have suggestions on how to improve its readability while keeping the facts clear, I'm open to that too. If we had a more accurate figure than the unexact 22 to 118 range, I would say use it obviously, but I haven't found any more recent source. — George [talk] 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should do away with the sentence altogether, any phrasing would still be a bit ambiguous if not misleading, when not being OR. Yonatan talk 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Another option, whcih I hinted at before, would be to add up the numbers listed on the Israeli MFA website as having been killed by anti-tank missiles. The total number was more than 30 or 40 I think. Though I'm also okay with removing the sentence altogether. — George [talk] 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the sentence to state this, using the existing citation, and added a citation regarding the number of total Israeli soldiers killed, as requested. — George [talk] 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

I changed the sentence: "The United States and others have accused elements that would later become Hezbollah of being responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing"

The two sources I quote don't accuse "elements that would later become Hezbollah" of the bombing, they accuse Hezbollah. And the sources are not frontpagemag, but a scholarly terrorism expert often quoted by terrorism doves (Pape) and the same Asia Times article quoted to say "Most of the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement." So please do not water the sentence down again. --BoogaLouie 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And how do you propose we account for the allegation of responsibility for the bombing taking place 2 years before Hezbollah was officially founded? If you're unhappy with the wording "elements that would later become Hezbollah", what do you propose as an alternative? We could follow it up by a sentence stating that it was 2 years before Hezbollah was officially founded, if you prefer. — George [talk] 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Basically, it boils down to the fact that some sources define Hezbollah differently than we do in this article. If we make clear what we are talking about when we write "Hezbollah", and if that's not how some sources define Hezbollah, then we cannot always literally copy statements from these sources to this article. Count Iblis 13:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
A good many sources I think. But to answer the first question, we might "account for the allegation of responsibility for the bombing taking place 2 years before Hezbollah was officially founded" by considering the possibility an organization can be very much in existance despite not officially proclaiming that fact. e.g. Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker:

Using various names, including the Islamic Jihad Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah remained underground until 1985, when it published a manifesto condemning the West, and proclaiming, “.... Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies.” [1]

Even Adam Shatz, whose article is cited several times in the article, talks about the embassy and barracks bombing being committed by "a precursor to Hezbollah, which did not yet officially exist".[2] Obviously if you are going to kill hundreds of citizens of a superpower there is good incentive to put some distance between yourself and the killings, perhaps by delaying your "official" unveiling, though your organization might be very much alive.
So since the first two books I looked at (Looming Tower and Dying to Win) mention Hezbollah as being responsible for the bombings without any qualification, I propose that unless someone can find a Hezbollah scholar saying something to the effect that: "contrary to popular opinion Hezbollah had not yet been organized when these bombings occurred, and so could not possibly be responsible for them", we leave the mention as is. --BoogaLouie 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't really need a "Hezbollah scholar" (if such a thing even exists), as Hezbollah officially denies responsibility for the bombing: "[Responsibility was] claimed by Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group believed made up of Shiites loyal to Iran's late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was generally thought to be the military arm of Hezbollah. Hezbollah leaders deny it."[1] — George [talk] 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are people who study Hezbollah for a living. Magnus Ranstorp is one I know of. --BoogaLouie 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah were accused of war-crimes

In many articles, a few words of criticism of Israel are followed by dozens of words from the supporters of Israel defending it's actions. But in this article[2], the opposite situation applies. For some reason, 18 words "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians." are followed by 299 words in defense of what Hezbollah was doing. Whatever our personal views about Hezbollah, we let ourselves down. Those 299 words could be much more usefully filled with clips from Amnesty/HRW expressing (in an NPOV fashion) their criticisms. No defense is called for. The fact that the supporters of Israel behave in this biased fashion is no excuse for us doing so. PalestineRemembered 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of lead

I've attempted to reorganize the lead and give the sentences some order. --BoogaLouie 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not mention public opinion in the lead

On the Hamas talk page I argued basically the same thing. There the discussion is if we should mention that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings in the lead. I made the point that it was far better to mention in the lead that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings as that is an undeniable hard fact, stead of giving a vague fact about an opinion about Hamas. My suggestion has not (yet) been implemented, though.

In case of Hezbollah, the terrorist nature of the organization is much more controversial. And to make that clear there comes a sentence afterward saying that in the Arab world the perception is different. I don't think that such vague unclear statements belong in the lead. They just express the fact that many people have strong opinions about this organization. However, a good wikipedia article should be written in such a way that a reader can make up his own opinion based on the facts given in the article. Of course, the fact that Hezbollah is widely considered to be a terrorist organization (I gues that's the case in the West, Israel and Australia) should be mentioned too in the article, but the facts about Hezbollah itself should be presented more prominently.

If a widely held public opinion is considered to be so important that one would like to mention it in the lead, then one has to consider mentioning the facts on which that opinion is based on. Because that would then be even more important to mention. In some cases, however, these facts are contested and then it is a widely held belief that cannot be proven to be correct. It is then wrong to mention the opinion in the lead.

If we don't edit articles on wikipedia in this way, we'll get very nasty POV disputes. Editors who don't like Bush and want to say that he lied about WMD could edit the article on Bush saying that "Bush is best known for lying about WMD" and give a big list of citatons that show that this is indeed a widely held opinion. Also many people hold some not so poitive opinions on Israel. I don't think we should mention such opinions in the lead about Israel, because they don't really define that country.

Count Iblis 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is that the version that contained phrases like "radical, anti-Western" and "widely considered a terrorist organization and a proxy of the Iranian and Syrian governments" right in the lead was a serious POV piece in the same vein that "best known for suicide bombings" was from debate over at Talk:Hamas. I'm only sorry I didn't see it sooner to snip it out. What it comes down to is that we should be asserting the facts of the opinion, not assert that opinion itself as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
Re: Count Iblis ... I think the way it is written now is a pretty good balance between accuracy and NPOV; too much "accuracy" would be either confusing or POV-pushing. Its not a perfect situation, but I think it is the best we can hope for. It has been stable for many months now and we've worked very hard to make it that way.
Re: Tarc ... Hezbollah is certainly anti-Western and radical. These are empiracle facts that even Nasrallah himself would agree with. They are against any kind of a Western presence in the Middle East (especially in Lebanon) and their words and actions attest to their dislike of the United States (and, to a lesser degree, to France). Hezbollah is not a right wing group or party within Lebanon the way that, for example, the Republican Party is a right wing group or party in the United States. Hezbollah is much more radically right wing than a "right of center" group. --GHcool 06:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they may be "radical, anti-Western", I'm not saying that that is false. What I am saying is that that is not defining of Hezbollah, and should not be presented as such in the lead sentence. Tarc 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the current version is ok. I just had problems with the version I reverted yesterday. Count Iblis 20:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Military activities"

This is by far the more proper section title. The section deals with Hezbollah's military organizations and activities in regards to combating the IDF. It is in no way analogous to Hamas now that I look closely; that articles section details bombings against civilian targets which would seem to justify a section title of "Militant activities and terrorism". This does not, so please stop the inaccurate POV insertions, Mr. Harrison. Tarc 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse neutrality with one's own point of view, which is a mistake I think you may be making. It is perfectly correct to mention terrorism in the appropriate section title, and follow that with a discussion. As a more general principle, I can understand how one might, after extensive good work in a subject area, get the idea that one has responsibility for an article, and so must exercise a veto over changes. This is of course not the case. Everyone has to work collaboratively toward wording that has consensus support. That is a bit easier to do if we all use edit summaries that simply describe our edits rather than comment personally on other editors. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean distorting reality and ignoring policies and guidelines on what is to be avoided when writing articles. Tarc 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Accusations of...". I think that an important point here is that it is not universally accepted that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for these attacks, except for the missile attacks. Whether or not particular actions are terrorist actions or not is not so important. For some actions that's pretty clear, e.g. the bombings in Argentina. For other actions like the attack on US marines this is disputed. Such disputes are not really the subject of this section. Count Iblis 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute that Hezbollah is not responsible for any one of these bombings might require a distinction within the section, but the sections title does not call for the qualifying "accusations of." After all, they have kidnapped, bombed, and carried out suicide terrorism on several occasions that are beyond dispute. --GHcool 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no evidence that Hezbollah is responsible for the kidnappings and the bombings. These are accusations and the article should clearly mention that. We cannot present the opinions of the US State Department, the Israeli Government and the Argentine Government as facts here, as that would be POV. The US and Israeli opinion are not so reliable in this matter and therefore you really need independent proof of Hezbollah involvement. Note e.g. that Britain refused to extradite an Iranian man to Argentina for the bombings there because of lack of evidence.
To put things in perspective, we should also add the fact that US intelligence initially thought that Hezbollah might be involved in the Oklahoma bombings and they arrested a Jordanian man who was later released. Also, in case of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania the intitial suspect was Hezbollah. Count Iblis 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't change the subject. I am saying that even though there is debate about specific attacks, there is no debate that Hezbollah is responsible for multiple kidnappings, bombings, and suicide terrorism. There are volumes of independent sources, including within Hezbollah, that verify these facts. Attempts to frame Hezbollah attrocities as nothing more than accusations by the U.S., Argentina, and Israel is an attempt to falsify history. --GHcool 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, we need to put in the list the actions that Hezbollah doesn't deny. What I object to is giving a big list which contains actions that are disputed and not disputed and then frame the title around the undisputed actions. Also, I know that Hezbollah has carried out suicide attacks against military targets, but I'm unaware of a suicide terror attack (except the attack on an embassy, but it is disputed if Hezbollah was responsible for that).
So, why not make two lists, one containing the alledged attacks like the attacks in Argentina, and another one containing the undisputed attacks? I already spit the section in two parts, so we could just expand the second section. Note that I'm not attempting to falsify history. The second list will allow you to write in the lead sentence that "Hezbollah is responsible for the following attacks",

which is far stronger statement than "Hezbolah has been accused of...".

Also note that I proposed to write in the lead in the Hamas article that "Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks" to end an edit war there. Hoewever, a the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors decided to settle around a far weaker statement (Hamas is best known for suicide atacks in Israel and the West or something similar)  :) Count Iblis 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If an avalanche of reliable sources (including, but not limited to, government sources from around the globe) says one thing and Hezbollah says another thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a "dispute." It is more likely that this is a case of Hezbollah denying its own guilt. This is a fundamental quality of Occam's razor and WP:V. Although it can and should be noted that Hezbollah denies many of its own crimes, the denial itself is not proof that there is a "dispute" any more than Holocaust denial is proof that the Holocaust is "disputed" or that the "research" of the Flat Earth Society is any proof that the Earth's shape is "disputed." --GHcool 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't like that at all. Take e.g. the bombings in Argentina. There is no proof that Hezbollah is responsible for that attack. However, the US and Israel say that Hezbollah is responsible for that attack. And that statement is repeated in some sources. But there is no "prima facie" evidence.
If it were 2002 now, you could cite scores of reliable sources that say that Saddam is hiding stockpiles of WMD. They would simply repeat what Bush and Blair had to say about it, but they would not present any evidence for that statement. If I objected to such an statement, then you could reply, saying that: "Look, the whole world says that Saddam his hiding stockpiles of WMD and only Saddam is denying that?" :)
So, your analogy with the Holocaust or scientific facts is simply invalid. In fact, the same reliable sources used for this article often write nonsense about science, take e.g. Global Warming. In the global warming wiki article we don't allow sources such as the Wall Street Journal, because everything outside the realm of peer reviewed science is unreliable. Whenever there are no facts (or if the facts are beyond what most people can understand), newspapers will speculate, repeat what politicians say. That can then not be presented as a hard fact.
If there is evidence of Hezbollah involvement in the bombings in Argentina, then let's hear it. Did they find Nasrallah's fingerprint? :) If we say that Hezbollah is responsible for the attack, then we effectively say that a proof exists that shows that Hezbollah is responsible (Hezbollah could deny that, but in case of such a proof, we could say it). But nowhere in the literature has it been suggested that a "smoking gun" exists that ties Hezbollah to the bombings in Argentina.
Ideally we should base everything we write here on peer reviewed scientific articles. Unfortunately that's not possible in case of this article. Count Iblis 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You made your point regarding the Argentine atrocity. On the other atrocities are much more black and white with scholarly, peer reviewed sources coming up with the same findings as the U.S. government. --GHcool 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And I'm in favor of mentioning those facts after a sentence like

"Hezbollah is responsible for...", even if Hezbollah denies those facts. Count Iblis 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Eliminating "public opinion" in the lead

All I have to say is that the version that contained phrases like "radical, anti-Western" and "widely considered a terrorist organization and a proxy of the Iranian and Syrian governments" right in the lead was a serious POV piece in the same vein .. (from Tarc)

What does Hezbollah say about the West, or at least the United States? Its manifesto says: `We combat abomination and tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S.` I put it to you that deleting the two-word phrase describing Hezbollah as "anti-Western" from the lead is not so much POV as deletion of fact.

Everyone wants the article to be stable, but when descriptions are watered down to "often referred to as a radical Islamic group," the article's usefulness comes in question. --BoogaLouie 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article's usefulness should be judged based on the accuracy of the facts it gives about Hezbollah. We should certainly not make this article a battleground where people with different views fight there propaganda battles. Subjective statements should be avoided in the lead where we describe Hezbollah.
Bad wiki articles and in particular bad leading paragraphs leave negative impressions on people searching wikipedia for information. You have to appreciate the fact that someone who would actually visit this page to read information would probably do so, not to find inspiration to write propaganda, but to find information with the supporting references.
A statement with a citation suggests that the statement is accurate and supported by the ref. If, however, upon reading that ref, it transpires that the ref does not support the veracity of the statement, merely suggesting that it may be true, then the reader will feel deceived. Count Iblis 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Who is going to feel decieved if an article describes an organization as anti-Western (or at least anti-American) when that organization declares `We combat abomination and tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S.` ? --BoogaLouie 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What you can find in a statement may not be an accurate description of how they behave in reality. Suppose that someone tries to find information on the internet about "radical anti-western" organizations in the Mid East. That person may be planning a trip to the Mid East, but he wants to avoid those organizations that he feels are dangerous. Now, Hezbollah is not an organization that you would have to avoid like Al Qa'ida or the Taleban. They have a public relations office in Beirut that anyone can visit.
If wiki's Hezbollah article comes up somewhere on top of a google search then, because this person may know that this is a false positive, he will then refine his google search by excluding all wiki-pages from the search result. Count Iblis 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This is perhaps the silliest hypothetical situation I've ever heard on Wikipedia as an argument the basis for an argument. Should we be as concerned for a Middle East traveler who tries to find out about radical anti-western organizations for the purposes of joining one? I propose that we should educate such a person so that he/she knows that Hezbollah is a viable option! LOL! --GHcool 02:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I just gave one example of how wiki articles that exaggerate things can lead to people not trusting wikipedia at all for any information. You can think of many other hypothetical internet searches. The bottom line is that there are real world facts about which there are wikipedia articles. Google scans articles and will associate the title of articles to certain words mentioned in the article, in particular the lead. If the lead for Hezbollah is too similar to the lead of Al Qa'ida, then there will be many google searches that will yield the Hezbollah wiki page near the Al Qa'ida wiki page.
If the searcher tries to find information about organizations that are dangerous (those that behead people), constantly gets the Hezbollah page on top, then he will be annoyed. A simple solution is then to go to advanced search options and block all wikipedia results. Next time the same searcher wants to search for someting else, he may block wikipedia again, just to be sure that his search results are reliable, thereby missing a very good wikipedia article that you or I put a lot of energy in.
So, this is a generic effect that hurts wikipedia. Most people who search the internet usually do not feel strongly about the things that turn up on their google search. They just want accurate information and relevant search results. It is thus wrong not to mention that Hezbollah is considered as a terrorist organization by many countries or to downplay that too much. Similarly, it should be clear from the lead that Hezbollah is not Al Qa'ida. Count Iblis 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate Count Iblis's concern for people who want to search for "radical, anti-western" organizations, but do not want their search results to bring up Hezbollah despite the fact that they are clearly a radical, anti-western organization. If I were as concerned about this hypothetical situation as Count Iblis seems to be, I would recommend the Hezbollah article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so that this situation could never possibly occur. I encourage Count Iblis to take this course of action instead of disturbing the Hezbollah talk page further with silly arguments. --GHcool 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You should know that AFD is not for articles suffering from (even very severe) POV problems, and the things we are discussing here are rather trivial. Also, unlike Tarc, I did not say that qualifications like "radical" or "anti-western" cannot be mentioned at all. This section is about "eliminating public opinion from the lead" and not about "eliminating facts" from the lead.
The first sentence of the third paragraph says:

"Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.[10][11][12][13][14][15]"

I think that this is a very bad statement for the lead, because it expresses an opinion. I would have no problems with mentioning that Hezbollah is a radical Islamic group , of course, provided that the citations can be found to back this up. Note that the internal link given for "radical islam" currently redirects to "Islamism" and that the adjective "Islamist", already mentioned in the second sentence, also redirects to that page. So, it looks like we don't need to mention "radical Islamic group" at all. But if the intended meaning of "radical Islamic" is different, then that should be clarified. Count Iblis 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Very well. I accept Count Iblis's proposal to change the first sentence of the second paragraph from "Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group." to "Hezbollah is a radical Islamic group." --GHcool 06:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Usually in western press Hezbollah is considered as rafdical Islamic group. Therefor this statement in not correct:Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.. Therefor I move to the talk page until we reach consensus.

Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.[3][4][5][6][7][8] It has been accused of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops,[9][10] a charge that it denies.

About three mouths ago there were another sentence which neutralize it. These labels are controversial, as most of the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement.[10] You see, according to [3] somebody has changed the lead to emphasize on one viewpoint. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles Glass' criticism of Chayban's quote

So editors have been revert warring between two versions of this text:

However, Charles Glass writes in the The London Review of Books that this "quote" is in all likelihood a fabrication. "The Star's managing editor writes of Chayban's article on Nasrallah, that 'I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].' The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was 'a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.' The account of Nasrallah's speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments."

...and...

However, Charles Glass has challenged the accuracy of this quotation in the The London Review of Books.

The first of these is likely too long and could use some English cleanup, while the second is likely too short, and generally paves over the statement that Glass was making. Hopefully we can discuss options here rather than revert warring. Thoughts? ← George [talk] 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, here's a version with some clean up:

However, Charles Glass wrote in the The London Review of Books that the quote attributed to Nasrallah is likely a fabrication. He cited both the Star's managing editor as questioning the accuracy of the translation and "agenda of the translator", and the editor-in-chief and publisher as stating that Chayban "did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else." He also pointed to the account of Nasrallah's speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir on the same day as having no reference to the anti-semitic comment.

Thoughts? ← George [talk] 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How about this: "However, Charles Glass has challenged the accuracy of this quotation in the The London Review of Books. He cited both the Star's editor-in-chief and publisher as stating that Chayban "did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else." --GHcool 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a couple problems. First, he isn't challenging the accuracy of the quotation, he's challenging whether it was a pure fabrication or not (the term "accuracy" can mean everything from a pure fabrication to a typo or miswording). Second, I think Glass is really identifying several points against the quotation, from three different sources, when questioning its validity: (1) the translation, (2) the reporter's "agenda", (3) the interview (and whether it even took place), and (4) inconsistencies with other reports of the same speech. I think ideally we should look for a solution that covers those four points and three sources as briefly and succinctly as possible. ← George [talk] 03:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To George: This quotation has been repeated countless times in reliable sources. Obviously, nobody can be certain that this or any other of Nasrallah's quotations were fabricated by the media or not unless they were eye (or ear) witnesses to when it was said and understood Arabic. As far as I am aware, one (presumably) reliable source in the whole world challenges the statement. If I interpret WP:Undue weight correctly, Glass's doubts probably don't even deserve any reference in this article at all, but I'm not such a stickler that I am unwilling to compromise. At first, I compromised from zero sentences to one short sentence, which I thought was more than reasonable. This was obviously not acceptable to some, so I compromised to two short sentences; way above and beyond my preference of zero sentences. What you're asking for is three epic sentences with subordinate clauses and quotations galore. It isn't going to happen that way if I can help it.
I implore you to have a spirit of compromise equal to mine. Please reconsider the two-sentence compromise I gave above. If you wish, you may change the word "accuracy" to "authenticity." You'll note that it summarizes Glass's challenge broadly, but fairly, and would presumably include a footnote to the website that contains the entirety of Glass's criticisms. --GHcool 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide us with the sources that cite Nasrallah with the quotation? I'm fairly new to the discussion, and my interpretation was that it published by one author, this Chayban fellow, and then reprinted based on that one author. That is to say, are there any sources that independently confirm the statement as having been made, that aren't just reprinting Chayban's work? The reason I ask is because WP:UNDUE has to deal with minority and super-minority views, and if it's just one author's word against another author's word (or, in this case, presumably one author, two editors, and another newspaper), then there really isn't a majority or minority view in case. I'll do some digging on my own too, but if you can provide some such sources it would be most helpful. Cheers. ← George [talk] 05:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know where the quotation originated from or if we'll ever be able to independently verify the authenticity of the statement. The reason I'm inclined to believe that it is true is because Nasrallah said so many other statements similar in meaning and in the sarcastic, nasty tone this one takes that it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this quotation were authentic. Phrases like this one are peppered throughout Nasrallah's "declaration of war" (or whatever it was) last year that was broadcast on the BBC and translated in real time all over the world. Nasrallah's best buddy, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, regularly and famously goes into this kind of rhetoric. The second reason that I'm inclined to believe the authenticity of the statement is that (unless you can prove otherwise) only one person in the whole world seems to challenge it. So again, unless you can prove that there is more than one reliable source that doubts the authenticity of the quotation, I must ask you to consider Glass's doubt as a minority view. --GHcool 05:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
First, let me say that I agree with you, and it wouldn't surprise me greatly if Nasrallah did make the statement. However, this is Wikipedia, so we can't just go with our feelings and hunches on these matters. It also doesn't lead me to lean towards including it, but instead makes me question why to include it at all given all the other such statement he made that are much easier to attribute.
That said, it also wouldn't surprise me greatly if the quotation was mistranslated, or, as Glass claims, a complete fabrication. While we're in the realm of speculation, one might also ask why Glass, a former hostage of Hezbollah himself in the 80s, would question the quote atributed to Nasrallah. If we just had Glass' statement, one might make a case that it were a minority view, but the speech is too small and largely unpublished to build a majority view. Also, it doesn't sound like Glass is going it alone, stating his own opinion, because he's citing statements from other people who would have been the original author's bosses, and other publications that published transcipts of the speech.
I've written another version, that is slightly shorter (and again, I've tried to clean up the English a bit). See what you think:

However, Charles Glass, an American author, journalist, and broadcaster specializing in the Middle East, wrote that the quote attributed to Nasrallah was likely a fabrication. He cited other published accounts of the speech that had no reference to the anti-semitic comment, and statements by the Star's editor-in-chief and publisher, as well as the managing editor, that questioned the translation and the "agenda of the translator."

I'm not sure if I can crop it down much more than that before hacking out information. Thoughts? ← George [talk] 06:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Still too detailed and wordy. Consider: "However, Charles Glass considers the quotation to likely be a fabrication. He cited statements by the Star's staff that questioned the translation and the "agenda of the translator." --GHcool 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is better, but we're still dropping one of his key points (that other accounts of the same speech lacked the statement), and I think it's worth noting which staff members questioned the translation (they were the editors, Chayban's bosses, not his peers, or the company's janitorial crew). I'm generally okay with dropping some of the information on Glass himself though. What about: However, Charles Glass believes that the quotation was likely a fabrication, citing other published accounts of the speech that had no reference to the anti-semitic comment, and statements by the Star's editors that questioned both the translation and the "agenda of the translator." ← George [talk] 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine. --GHcool 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the statement. Hopefully it doesn't launch yet another revert war. Cheers. ← George [talk] 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Unreasonableness

About the phrase: "Hezbollah has been subject to assassination and abduction by Israel as well.[32] Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as a resistance movement engaged in defensive Jihad."

Well, since we are balanced and non-biased, it should be stressed that we must consider the following phrase for inclusion in the article Nazism: "Nazis have been subject to assassination and abduction by the Allies as well. Nazi violent acts were characterized by some countries as crimes against humanity; while others regarded them as a resistance movement engaged in creating Lebensraum."

It is extremely unreasonable that such term as defensive jihad, supposedly "as opposed to" terrorism, finds any place in any article in any encyclopedia written after 1945. A.R. 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Nazis did kill 6 million Jews in concentration camps, so whether or not some Nazis were assassinated doesn't change this fact. In case of Hezbollah, there isn't a single terror attack for which there is proof that Hezbollah was behind it. Note that the US regarded Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces occupying South Lebanbon as terror attacks. Basically the US and Israel claim to have an exclusive licence to wage war. Whatever they do is always justified, whatever their enemies do is always terrorism. Count Iblis 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't shout. And please note that while Nazis are almost universally condemned, Hezbollah is in fact regarded as a heroic resistance organization by the majority of Lebanese, probably the majority of Arabs, and maybe the majority of the world. You are correct to note that this nebulous "some people say, other people say" formulation is weasely and should be replaced with specific attribution, such as, "According to the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, 'Israelis universally revile Hezbollah for its indiscriminate rocket attacks and anti-semitic designs'[1], while an the Daily Star in Lebanon praised Hezbollah for its 'inspiring and effective resistance to the Israeli juggernaut'[2]". I've fabricated these quotes but I'm sure you can find something similar in the actual sources. Eleland 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the sentence doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I must remind Eleland that the Nazis were not universally condemned when they were practicing their crimes against humanity. Furthermore, a "majority of the world" certainly do not regard Hezbollah "as a heroic resistance organization." The Nazis had much more world-wide support in 1939 than Hezbollah in 2006. --GHcool 00:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My issue with the sentences, putting aside the whole Hezbollah-Nazi comparison for a moment, is that they're bad from the standpoint of Wikipedia inclusion, and should likely be heavily cleaned up. Both sentences are rife with words to avoid, such as the "as well" in the first sentence; the "some countries", "while others", and "defensive Jihad" in the second. If the first statement is true, it should list out the specific people who were assassinated or abducted, or at least give some sourced figures, and sources for who took them (less the underhanded "as well"). The second sentence would be better rewritten like the sentence in the lead, which is properly sourced at least: "Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization. Most in the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement." Just my opinion. ← George [talk] 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the lead

(I cut and pasted this section down so it would not be forgotten. This is my latest rewiriting. Does Tarc or others still have objections? --BoogaLouie 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله ḥizbu-llāh, [2] literally "party of God") is a Shi'a Islamic paramilitary group, political party, and social service organization based in Lebanon. Hezbollah first emerged during the Lebanese Civil War as a militia of Shia followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, funded by Iran and trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.[8] It continues to receive arms, training, and financial support from Iran[20][21] and has "operated with Syria's blessing" since the end of the Civil War.[22][23]

Hezbollah follows an Islamist Shi'a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran,[3] [4][5] [6] [7] based on the principle of pan-Islamism rather than nation-state or national soveriegnty. Hezbollah recognizes the Supreme ruler of Iran rather than any Lebonese official as its head. [ny review of books article ][Hizb' Allah in Lebanon: The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis by Magnus Ranstorp ]

As stated in its 1985 manifesto, Hezbollah's three main publicly-stated goals were to: Eradicate what it viewed as Western colonialism in Lebanon, bring to a trial those (specifically the Phalangists) it believes perpetrated crimes during the Lebanese Civil War, and establish an Islamic government in Lebanon.[9] It also seeks to eliminate the state of Israel. ][Hizb' Allah in Lebanon: The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis by Magnus Ranstorp ]

Hezbollah has been accused of several major lethal attacks and multiple hostage takings [10][11][12][13][14][15] including the 1983 Beirut marine barracks and US embassy bombings that killed over 300 Americans and French.[16][3] It has denied these charges but also applauding the attacks. Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization.

In the Arab and Muslim world it is widely admired for expelling both the United States and Israel from Arab soil [Hizb' Allah in Lebanon: The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis by Magnus Ranstorp p.40] and regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.[3] In Shi'a Lebanese society Hezbollah has strong popular support [17] and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands. [11][18][19] [24]

Starting as a militia, Hezbollah has grown to an organization which has seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, and programs for social development. Since 1992 the organization has been headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. --BoogaLouie 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Made some more changes in the proposed lead --BoogaLouie 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty good to me. The only thing that needs work is the next to last paragraph. The first sentence "Hezbollah has been accused of several terrorist attacks and multiple hostage takings [10][11][12][13][14][15]" is ok. But then the example of the "Beirut barracks bombing" is i.m.o. not so good, because it was a military target (I know that the US does consider this to be a terror attack). Perhaps the attack on the French embassy is a better example to mention right after the opening sentence.
The case against the 1983 bombing was that the US marines were a peacekeeping force. In any case at least a few of Hezbollah's bombings have been of military targets. Those have not been denied by it. --BoogaLouie 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The Beirut Barracks bombing is a notable event that should also be mentioned in the lead, but we should not just give the impression that all the militant actions by Hezollah are illegal acts under international law. The Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces in South Lebanon and the missile attacks on Israeli towns should also be mentioned. Count Iblis 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be a concise intro to the subject matter, not a laundry list of every major Hezbollah bombing target and accused bombing target.
I've only used one sentence and listed 3. There are a great many more bombings. --BoogaLouie 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Pick one...probably the Beirut bombing as that us the best known...and leave the rest for the body of the article. And the "...while applauding the attacks" phrase is a bit of a weaselish and backhanded attempt to undercut their denial of responsibility. Excise that, and it will read fine. Tarc 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"weaselish"? Here's one quote: "... at a rally in Baalbeck [core Hezbollah territory] exactly a week after the bombings. Sheikh Mohammed Yazbeck, the main speaker, raised the slogan `Death to America` and told the audience, `We are determined to carry it out.` The Muslim leader praised the attacks as `a noble action because it shook America's throne and Frances's might. Let America, Israel and the world know that we have a lust for martyrdom and our motto is being translated into reality ... America's fleet will not frighten us. We shall teach it a lesson it will never forget by our faith and our strength.`" (Wright, Robin, Sacred Rage, Simon and Schuster, (2001), p.99) --BoogaLouie 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. If its legit, go slap that into Mohammed Yazbeck's page. It has no place here. Tarc 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also Hussein Musawi, the founder of Islamic Amal which merged with Hezbollah, who had this to say about the MNF bombing: "I salute this good act, and I consider it a good deed and a legitimate right, and I bow to the spirits of the martyrs who carried out this operation." [Musawi in Baalbeck, ABC Close-up `War and Power: The Rise of Syria`, June 14, 1984. (quoted in Wright, Sacred Rage, (2001) p.83
And the Hezbollah scholar Ranstorp quotes (unnamed) Hezbollah speaker thusly: "two martyr mujahidin set out to inflict upon the U.S. Administration an utter defeat not experienced since Vietnam ..." Ranstorp, Magnus, Hizb'allah in Lebanon : The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis, New York, St. Martins Press, 1997, p.38
Do you still have doubts about the line: "applauding the attacks"? --BoogaLouie 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)