Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 7

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.

Recent Edits By Banzai et al Regarding Designation As Terrorist

Use of "terrorist" in quotes is not appropriate. There are legitimately different views about whether Hezbollah is, or is not, a terrorist organization. The article should attempt to represent both views fairly. Use of "terrorist" in quotes suggests that the designation is false. The article should not be passing comment itself about whether or not it is actually false, only reporting the views of others. This is the neutral point of view. Jonexsyd 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I gave it some thought, and you’re probably right. Terrorism’s a concept, not just a word, after all. I support removing the quote marks.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• On another topic, I’d avoid using the word “states” in that headline—the U.N. isn’t a state, for example. I agree that “entities” is unwieldy, so how else can we title the section?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the table name: in the discussion further up, I suggested "Political Stances towards Hezbollah". Howzzat? JiHymas@himivest.com 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Good thinking!  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should put "terroist"/"resistance" group together; that way both views are seen. --SkyEarth 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And then claim that the US has designated H as a "terrorist"/"resistance" group? That doesn't work for me. I agree with Jonexsyd & Banzai JiHymas@himivest.com 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Since it appears consensus has been reached, and there are only two references to 'terrorist' left, I have converted those to terrorist. Mceder 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) says: Terrorist should be changed to "terrorist" because it is a very subjective term- no official definition exists. Plus everyone that is against the government these days is a "terrorist". I dont believe in sound bites. You state the facts and you let people think for themselves... you dont tell them an organisation is "terrorist" you give them the facts and let them decide. saying "terrorist" isn't like saying "war crime" because there is a clear definition of war crime. Putting "terrorist" in quotation marks does not indicate that the label is false (i have never heard such nonesense). Again, it demonstrates the label is subjective!

- -- - - - - -- -

Wiki, has as usual BOWED to Leftist (it's BASE)/Islamist Pressure and changed it's longstanding Intro and description of Hezbollah, which read as follows just a few weeks ago:

you are wrong, the changing of the intro as overcoming pro-zionist pressures Rm uk 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah

The Hezbollah (Arabic [1], meaning 'Party of Allah') is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite terrorist organization and political party with the mission statement of Destructing the state of Israel[2][3], with a military arm and a civilian arm [4]. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[5] that lasted until 2000[6]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Background

Hezbollah, a Terrorist group, was inspired by the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran [7]. It was formed by the Ayatollah Khomeini's followers in the early eighties to spread Shia revolution[7](8)[9], and to combat Israeli occupation following the 1982 Lebanon War [7].

Hezbollah views Israel as a Whole as "an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions" [10], and follows a distinct version of Islamic Shia ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.[11]

[...............]

SIGNED NOW abu afak

abuafak@Yahoo.ie if you please for any reason:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.149.138 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 August 2006.

Regardless of whether or not Hezbollah can be defined a terrorist organization (as it is by the UN, the US, and several other countries I can't recall off the top of my head, but not by other countries such as Iran and Syria), the grammar of this section is incorrect. "Destructing" is not defined as a word by Merriam-Webster, and even if it were, it ought not to be capitalized randomly in the middle of a sentence, as per The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation. - LeaHazel 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not by the UN. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I stand corrected. - 85.250.24.232 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (EDIT: Sorry, that was me; I was mysteriously logged out. - LeaHazel)

"Destructing" does not appear anywhere in the article itself, just here on the talk page. We currently know of 4 countries who designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, and 2 that partially lists them (see Hezbollah#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization). So if the several other countries you know off do officially recognize them as a terrorist organization, please help us and add it to the list with appropriate references. Mceder 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist should never be put in quotes in this section, because by definition Hezbollah is a terrorist oraganization. First, let's define terrorist:

ter·ror·ist n.

• One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Alright, now let's define terrorism.

ter·ror·ism n.

• The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

And there we go... It is a fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

I think you'll find that by that definition, Israel's government is also a terrorist government. The US government itself could not find a suitable definition of terrorism, since in each case the definition could apply to actions carried out by the government. Whether or not a group is deemed "terrorist" is entirely subjective and depends on your viewpoint, it is not a fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. It would appear that the distinction you make is that Israel is a state and therefore not terrorist even though it has broken international law on many occaisions with the intention of coercing opposing groups for political reasons. -- Tompsci 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk says: I agree with Tompsci. These sheep that so easily call other people "terrorist" ignore the actions of the entity which they support

• • 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 defines terrorism, as does 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182 (and there are other statutes). Terrorism is essentially defined as a non-government entity engaging in criminal, violent activities to coerce a government or its population toward effect a political or social change (en masse). Most definitions of terrorism I've encountered exempt governments. FWIW, it was not until the past couple of years I've heard of Hezbollah ever referred to as anything but a terrorist organization. I wouldn't call myself a specialist on the topic, but I've been studying terrorism in various capacities (some professional but rarely primarily) since 1982. Pardon the coarse comparison, but you can take the pig out of the mud, but you can't take the mud out of the pig. BenWilson 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk says: show me a link for this definition. Anyway, even if that stupid definition exists it is flawed. Because, according to that definition, states cannot engage in "terrorism". A criminal act should be described by the same word regardless of who perpetrates it! "Terrorism" is bad because of the results and not because of who perpetrates it! Thus "terrorism" should be viewed as a class of acts independent of the perpetrators.

• • In a recent paper I wrote on treason, I noted that terrorism, when conducted by U.S. citizens or resident aliens, is treason. I cited Blackstone's Commentaries as my source. It was striking to me that his definition for levying war was essentially that of terrorism, when commited by a citizen/resident alien. Contrastly, part of being a sovereign nation is the fact that a nation can do the same thing legally. Hezbollah's activities this Summer were not (overtly) as part of the Lebanese government, so they were acting in a non-governmental capacity (even by coming back to rebuild without an apparent nod to the Lebanese government--they seem to claim "they" are coming back to rebuild, not the government through them). This point alone is why I have a hard time accepting Hezbollah's "political party" status. I contrast that with the PLO, which seems to have adopted a more "sovereing" role. Sorry for ranting, I realize this is a rather sore topic for most involved. BenWilson 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you edited out the part where it was demonstrated that the definition doesn't apply to Israel. Are your debating strategies always this cowardly and underhanded, or is it merely that your position is so indefensible that you feel the need to stifle open conversation? People don't come to wikipedia for your anti-israeli propaganda, it's intended to be a neutral source of information.

Again, the distinction here is not that Israel is a state and Hizbollah is not. The distinction is that Israel is only attacking legitimate targets, those persons or groups that seek the destruction of Israel, or whom act against it with suicide bombings/abductions/rocket attacks. Israel lobbies for ceasefires, for peace-deals, and they always seek an amicable solution to every situation they're in. Case in point: the current situation.

On the other hand organisations like Hizbollah willfully attack the civilian populace of Israel as a means to coerce them into political action.

The definition of terrorism does not apply to Israel, because they apply force in the pursuit of objectives related to their national security, but do not make any attempt to coerce either governments or civilian populations into any particular action.

Once again, because you edited it out: Hizbollah has abducted Israeli soldiers, and fired Katyusha rockets into crowded civilian areas. Given the sustained bombardment, and the type of weapons being used (filled with metal ball-bearings) it can be surmised that the intention was to cause maximum collateral damage. They have done this with the stated intention of securing the release of prisoners currently in Israeli custody.

This fits the definition of terrorism. If you can actually give me a real, verifiable, example of something israel has done that fits the above definition, then I'll agree with you. Since you can't, please don't bother editing out my reply like you did last time. I await your reply...

My (guest) reply to "definition of terrorism does not apply to Israel, because they apply force in the pursuit of objectives related to their national security" is that the statistics from the "war" in Lebanon are: Lebanese civilian deaths = 1,133, Israeli civilian deaths = 44.

So Israel's "objectives" must be to thin out the population to expose terrorists?

Obviously not. They themselves admit that the level of collateral damage is an operational failure. The difference is that Hizbollah deliberately attacks civilians, while the Israeli army atacks members of a paramilitary group that is so deeply entrenched within the civilian infrastructure that collateral damage is almost entirely unavoidable. This is why I disagree so strongly with Israel's current military strategy. It's not working, and it's killing inncoent people. Evidently they never read Sun Tzu's excellent book. At worst they are guilty of incompetence in the execution of their supposed duty(worse than terrorism if we're going by numbers), and some individuals among them may be guilty of war-crimes.

Don't want to turn this into a argument forum, but the point of my last message (from guest) was that the fatalities were: "The 34-day war cost the lives of nearly 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in Lebanon, as well as 157 Israelis, mainly soldiers." I don't know how to do references but this is from the Israel-Lebanon 2006 conflict in wikipedia. It is very hard to believe what you're saying "Hizbollah deliberately attacks civilians, while the Israeli army atacks members of a paramilitary group" when the results tell a completely different story. - (guest)

this is way more comlicated than you suggest. who counted? how was the difference between soldiers and civillians determined? did hezbollah deliberately provoke israel to attack civilians by placing rockets in and launching rockets from civilian sites like houses and mosques (and even the UNFIL posts)? if so, who is really responsible for the civilian deaths? the numbers don't tell any sort of straightforward story. Elizmr 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel has captured thousands of Palestinian CIVILIANS; not soldiers or military members; the capture of the Palestinians is not at all related to Israel's national security, they were captured for no reason; THAT is why Israel is a terrorist organization.

Keep in mind, the militant wing of Hezbollah is a militia and technically civilian. The above "statistics" are intended to be deceptive. Terrorists are usually classified as civilian.

Israel is a nation defending itself, not a terrorist organization. Why would Israel need to just round up civilians? To what purpose? Terrorism is the technique of the weak. Israel is hardly that. The vast majority of people "captured" by Israel are members of various terrorist groups who dress like civilians. But because they're not wearing any distinctive insignia (which is a war crime by the way), they're civilians? Doesnt work that way. Hezbullah is the terrorist organization. Yes it has a political wing, but it's irrelevant and powerless without it's militant wing. Angerhate8 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The political wing of Hezbollah came into power democratically and therefore any voter could be considered by Isreal to be a member of a terrorist group. Also, Hezbollah captured the aforementioned soldiers with the intention of negotiating for the captured Palestinian civilians. This may have resulted in a peaceful resolution, but Isreal, refusing to negotiate with a "terrorist organisation" decided instead to launch airstrikes against innocents. This leads me to conclude that Isreal only finds itself dealing with the militant wing of Hezbollah due to it's refusal to deal with the political wing of Hezbollah. Even if statehood did mean the difference between terrorism and justified action, Hezbollah could not be considered a terrorist group because it has ties to a state. Even if earlier actions against Isreal by Hezbollah were acts of terrorism, which I would have to agree with, when Hezbollah is playing the role of resistance to invading IDF solders in Lebanon is neither unlawful or threatening, it's defensive. Looking in a different direction entirely, IAF planes dropping flyers telling people to leave their homes is intimidating, as per the definition of terrorism. Both sides could be considered terrorist based on their actions, but with this in mind then couldn't the Nazi night air raids of Brittain be considered terrorism? I disagree, while the Nazi's may have done many unforgivable things, they were engaged in war, not terror. To be clear, my opinion is that the definition of terrorism should be reviewed because the actions of the United States of America in Iraq practically fit the current definition, but untill such a time as it can be reviewed (hopefully by a higher authority than Wikipedia, no offence) we should simply try to refrain from defining ANY organisation as terrorist or not terrorist and simply report the facts, up to and including the opinions that other organisations have of Hezbollah, as long as it is clear that these are only opinions. What I DO NOT want to see is statements like these "It is a fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation" For now, who IS and ISN'T a terrorist is ONLY a matter of opinion! - (guest)

Consensus building .. I would like to archive this discussion under an archive called 'Terrorist' or Terrorist , with a consensus from the community involved the statements below. If we can achieve that, we can avoid revert wars on the 'terrorist' and terrorist issue (this is happening a lot already).

This dabate copied in archive before. Archive_terrorist_allegations. But something has added here after making that page.--Sa.vakilian 07:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless if an entity disagrees with labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, when describing and using the word itself it should not be in quotes.
• In the article, we should use Terrorist and not 'Terrorist'. The reasoning being that is; we are not stating an opinion but rather reflect sourced information (i.e the United States and Israel did not list Hezbollah as a 'terrorist' organisation, they listed then as a terrorist organisation, thusly the section regarding allegations of terrorism and such not be in quotes).

• Support, cause I wrote it. Mceder 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per Mceder Elizmr 18:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure

While heroically referenced, this article seems a bit muddled structurally. We've got things at all levels of detial, some bits are summary style, others aren't, etc. I've put the current TOC, and below it a possible structure for a new more compressed structure. The idea it that each bits is a summary of a fuller article, as history is now. Thoughts? - brenneman ^{L} 14:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed structure

   * 1 Introduction
         (including summaries from each of the following sections)
   * 2 History
         o 2.1 1982-2000: Under Israel
         o 2.2 2000-2005: Post-occupation
   * 3 Ideology 
         o 3.1 Religous
              o 3.1.1 Initial
              o 3.1.2 Evolving
         o 3.2 Social
              o 3.2.1 Initial
              o 3.2.2 Evolving
         o 3.3 Political
              o 3.2.1 Initial
              o 3.2.2 Evolving
   * 5 Structure and activities
         o 4.1 Political
              o 4.1.1 Elected Members
              o 4.1.2 Rallies/Recruitment
              o 4.1.3 Notable speaches, etc
         o 4.2 Military
              o 4.2.1 Structure
              o 4.2.2 Methods
              o 4.2.3 Known Engagements
         o 4.3 Civilian (including media)
   * 5 Political relations
         o 5.1 Within Lebanon
         o 5.2 Israel
                 (recognition of Nasrallah, mutual rispecks)
         o 5.2 Internationally
                 (summary of EU, UN, US, etc. positions,
                  also Iran, Syria, and "betrayal" by Egypt,
                  Jordan, etc.; spin this off into a new article)
         o 5.3 With other militant groups
                 (summary of current "Assistance from abroad,"
                 "Relationship to Hamas," "Links to al-Qaeda," etc.,
                  and spin these off to their own article)
         o 5.4 Public opinion
                 (popularity or lack thereof in Lebanon,
                  Muslim world)
   * 6 See also
   * 7 Notes (eg with the <references /> tag)
   * 8 External links

Discussion

(Goofyfoot2001 = Goofyfoot)

I am really amazed that people actually think Hezbola is NOT a terrorist organization. I thought people were smarter than that. Not changing the text of this article basically says that Wikipedia is worth the pixels it's printed on. I checked the rules and as far as I can see this piece is just that a piece.

Thanks for starting this, I'm with you that this is sorely needed. I'll try my hand at it here when I have time a little later.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I hope it's okay that I got rid of the current outline (it was distracting me). Do you think most of the group's "Military operations," excluding the current conflict, could be merged into "History"? Also, I've always been unhappy with the title "Definitions/designations as terrorist," which I consider unwieldy, so I changed it--too chatty now? Feel free to revert my edits, of course.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Comment I like the current structure of section 6:

• 6 Foreign and domestic relations
  • 6.1 Alleged links to al-Qaeda
  • 6.2 Position of the UN
  • 6.3 Relationship to the Lebanese government
  • 6.4 Relationship to Hamas and Palestinian national movement
  • 6.5 Assistance from abroad
  • 6.6 Current Relationship with Iran

and would not like to lose it. People want to know about the relationship with other armed groups, especially. I will admit that I dislike the "Assistance from abroad" title (is Iran abroad?) ((there's a pun there, somewhere!)) and would prefer "Funding", but it's not a big deal. Given all the dispute that has been generated regarding the terrorism table, we should consider spinning that section off into a new article. Then we can report all the little nuances of the EU debate to our hearts' content. (Mr. Herman J. Blogsnotcher, office clerk to the Member from Porky's Corners, declared on July 22, 2006 that "Hezbollah aren't just terrorist, they're a bunch of old poo-poo heads!" (ref)) JiHymas@himivest.com 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you like about the structure of that section? It seems so big and sprawling, I'm inclined to think it's the one section that could benefit the most from refactoring. Not just the "terrorist" section, but also Hezbollah's relationship to other guerilla groups deserves an article of its own, IMO. Both would be much more manageable than the present situation, and probably encourage more useful contributions. Then, as you say, we could summarize them here in a subsection. What do you think of these changes to the outline?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with spinning out the relationships to other groups rather than incorporating them in the main article. The structure as currently proposed looks fine with one exception: funding. If you want to understand an organization, follow the money! Perhaps "Funding" should go in the "Structure and Activities" section? Ideally, however, it would get its own full section - I consider it that important. JiHymas@himivest.com 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have another quibble: the proposed structure has a "History" section with three subsections. We have already spun-off history ... shouldn't this section just be a brief summary and wikiLink? JiHymas@himivest.com 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's reasonable, I think. I'm not familiar with the "Funding" section and I've got no idea what to do with it, anyone else?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, "Funding" is now called "Assistance from Abroad". Also, note that the dates are wrong in the proposed History Section (most of which should be a reference to the "History of Hezbollah" article): 1982-90 was the civil war, 1990-2000 was the Israeli Occupation. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "2006" section from "history" as it's not, err, historic. I alos added some subsections to make i easier to edit. - brenneman ^{L} 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll embark on restructuring the article as worked out above. Suggestions? Opinions? Death threats? Write 'em in.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree JiHymas@himivest.com 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(24 hrs later) I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so this will have to wait for the weekend, unless someone else wants to take on the refactoring in the meantime. I've got my fingers crossed... :-)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just reverted to version "Revision as of 23:22, 20 August 2006". Structural changes should be discussed here prior to entry. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting article to avoid bloat and POW

[This heading was originally stand-alone: I have moved it to become a subheading of "structure" JiHymas@himivest.com 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)]

I suggest the subject of wether Hezbollah actually is or is not a terrorist organization be made a separate article. The title of the article would be something like "Hezbollah_terrorist_allegations".

The fact remains that merely 6 countries in the world officially regard Hezbollah (or parts of it) as terrorist, whereas the terrorism allegations table at the bottom of the article is very prominent when looking at the aricle as a whole. Tables, like pictures "say more than 1000 words", and is one of the first things a quickly scanning reader will focus on.

The table is also actually only a regular list in a very eye catching packaging - it does not actually give any clearer information than if the information had been presented as a regular paragraph: "Entities designating Hezbollah in full as terrorist: USA, Israel, Netherlands, Canada. Entities designating The Hezbollah External Security Organization (but not the rest of Hezbollah) as terrorist: United Kingdom, Australia."

When also including EU (which are not labeling any part of Hezbollah as terrorist) in that table the NPOW of the article as a whole is not fully maintained. It is also interesting to notice that Netherlands and United Kingdom also are part of EU and thus indirectly appear twice in this table.

My main point was that Hezbollah_terrorist_allegations be split into a new article, where it can take the space and focus it needs. The main article should of course clearly mention the allegations but not enhance them by using visual effects like tables. The table would be viable in a separate article as it would not imbalance overall focus.

84.48.108.156 10:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a sep article and is central here. Let's just try to do it in a concise way that everyone can be happy with. Elizmr 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) NOTE: When I made this comment, I was not writing on "terrorist alleg" at all. This comment of mine was moved here from another section out of context. It is important not to overedit the tal pages/archives, lest things like this happen. Elizmr 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We should maintain something like what is exist at the end of this article, but I agree to make a new article because I almost sure there are many things which wikipedians want to add in this issue and it will result in many dispute here. --Sa.vakilian 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections: Military: Political: Social

I propose we order the sections as above. The military activities chronologically first and it seems weird to place them last. Elizmr 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Take it up in the discussion of "Structure" on this page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That discussion is a bit old now. Why don't we discuss it here? Elizmr 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC) You asked me to discuss on talk, I'm discussing. Carbonate did some reorgs along structural lines and commented in talk, and you didn't tell him to discuss in the appropriate talk page section. Call for balance. OK? Elizmr 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you propose that order? Yes, I did some reordering and posted a comment. I was going for paralellism in the structure by createing the social and political sections with the same heading as the military one. If anything, I think it is important to enphasise the positive social and political aspects because of recent events. Whether or not this group engages in terrorist activities, it also participates in democratic elections and is on the forefront of the reconstruction effort. I have read/seen on TV that they have created a construction company to help rebuild. Carbonate 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose that order because the military activities came first in their evolution as an organization. Elizmr 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any opinions on changing the order. JiHymas, what do you think since you were the one who reverted the change I made. I will change it in a few hours if no one is opposed to the change.Elizmr 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I put my comment here.[1]--Sa.vakilian 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign and domestic relations

The begining of this part is not good. It should not be started with relation with iraqi groups. We need a begining which says there some countries who support Hezbollah including Iran and Syria also there are some movements which have strategic alliance with it including Palestinian groups also there are some countries which recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate party and negotiate with it including EU and there are some some countries who recognized it as a terrorist group and imposed military and financialy sanctins against it including US.

Also I think we should seperate domestic relations of Hezbollah with Lebanon government and Lebanese parties. Also we should put "Public opinion" of lebanese in that section.--Sa.vakilian 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• agree that we need more material on the relationships with Iran & Syria, and that these sections should be at the beginning of the section.
• disagree that "Relationship to the Lebanese Government" should be in this section; this information should be in the "Political Activities" section.
• disagree that "Public Opinion" of the Lebanese should be included in "Foreign & Domestic Relations". Public opinion is not always the same thing as government policy.
• JiHymas@himivest.com 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to wikify "Foreign relations" as I told before .

I moved some part about position of Lebanese government and make a new section "Situation in Lebanon". Also I moved some part from history to armed strenght. Please look at this changes [2] and try to improve the article structure. --Sa.vakilian 03:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

by the way, it this thing you added ok with you where I put it (in "politics"). I thought it was nice there, but let me know. I wasn't sure if you had seen that I moved it. Elizmr 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Manar TV

It seems strange that this is under "social services". Arguably as a propaganda organ, this is a military functionality. Let's put the media operation as a separate section. Elizmr 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Note: one big step to getting the NPOV tag off the article is moving this section out of social services. Elizmr 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. There is some dispute as to whether Al-Manar television is a "military functionality" - the bombing has been condemned by all media associations except the Israeli one. See the article. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you disagree. I hear you. I meant to say that it serves as a propaganda function, along with other functions. This is why I think media ops should have its own section. Calling it "social service" is a bit of a misnomer since it is too narrow a descriptor. Elizmr 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put this in its own section. This is crucial to move this article towards NPOV. No one else expressed an opinion and JiHymas did not explain explicitly why Al Manar is explicitly as "social activity" only. Elizmr 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Get consensus to change the structure and then change the structure to reflect consensus. The structure has been reviewed in earlier discussions (including the current one, which you are ignoring) and passed muster. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to get consensus for every edit I do to the article. You should defend why Al Manar TV is soely a "social service" if you want to put it there. Elizmr 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in its own section. This station is not all social service. There is a huge amount of political content. There is a huge amount of content that serves military objectives of Hezbollah. Please note that I did NOT put this under "military" or "politics"; I just moved it out of "social services" into its own section. Reverting this change without defending it is unacceptable. Elizmr 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Fox News. It contains more government propaganda than Al Manar. It's all POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.255.32 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for leaving it where it now is, JiHymas, in its own section. This is an important aspect of moving the article towards NPOV. Elizmr 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Military activities

Elizmr, Why do you insist on putting ths part before political activity? As I know although Hezbollah initially was a military organization but now it becomes a political party and I think its political identity has dominated its military one. --Sa.vakilian 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would argue that the military came first, so should be first in the discussion and is still prominent. If Hezbollah were to disarm, for example, I would say put the military lower down but as it is it is still a/the major focus. If Hezbollah were to want to negotiate with Israel I would say put military lower down, because political activities goes with diplomatic activities. But I don't see that happening. At the core, H is a military organization with military goals. Do you disagree? Elizmr 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

i disagree, because Hezbollah DID want to negotiate with israel. they always do, but israel does not, so your better off taking this to the israel discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac33c (talk • contribs)

Mac33c; negoitiate with Israel about what? Israel's destruction? The raison d'être that Hezbollah has an armed "wing" (call it a military) is, as stated by them to destroy Israel; not to negotiate prisoners. Itzse 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

ummm no, to negotiate with the trade of soldiers. israel has plenty more than hezbollah has if you listen to anything other than what you want to hear, maybe you will find that out. Mac33c 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you went ahead and changed this. Here's a suggestion. How about if we put military first, given the chronologic and other issues above, but expand explicit dicussion in the article (more than is there now) about the evolution of the organization and what they are doing to work politically? This way the point you want to make implicitly with the structure can be made explicitly with the text instead. Elizmr 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Hezbollah is a political party. It has 2 ministers in Lebanese cabinet and have political relation with many countries. It has negotiated with EU. Why do you it will have political identity if negotiates with Israel? I don't understand your viewpoint. But I think we can add an abstract abiut history of military activites and clashes between Hezbollah and Israel in the history section(and not only what Hezbollah has done but also what Israel has done against it). Then it comes above.--Sa.vakilian 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And also please pay attenion to this:"Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament. [3]"--Sa.vakilian 16:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The negotiation stuff is beside the point--I apologize for clouding the issue with that. When Hezbollah disarms, it can be considred a political org first. It adamantly refuses to do so. It started as a paramiltary group and still is one. It only later became active politically. The military stuff should come first. Also, I have read the BBC quote and the thin little article it came from. Although many would disagree, the BBC is not the word of God. Elizmr 00:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree that hezbollah's military came first, so if you want to look at it in that light, then military comes first, then social, then political, but this is about what is most important. without the support of the people, hezbollah's military would be nothing. and it doesnt work the other way around. dont get me wrong...hezbollahs military is a very important aspect of them, and they wouldnt be as powerful without it, but they would still exist. hezbollah should not lay down arms until peace has been created with israel and palestine. Mac33c 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article isn't pro-Hezbollah one. How can we acheive agreement?--Sa.vakilian 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing whether the BBC thing is pro-Hezbollah or anti-Hezbollah--one would hope it would be neither. My problem with letting a whole Wikipdia article stand on the BBC article is that it doesn't contain any in-depth analysis to support the strong statement it makes. I also do not in any way dispute that Hezbollah is a political party. Of course it is! But it started as a armed organization and in becomming a political party it has not laid down arms. I think the Wikipedia article should be true to this and place military activities first and work chronologically through the activities of the organization. I understand that Hezbollah may want to be seen now as primarily a political party or social service org, and some have argued that the structure of the article should follow how Hezbollah wants to be percieved right now. This would be totally ok if Wikipedia were Hezbollah's Web site, however it is not. Wikipedia is supposed to be a NPOV source of information. We need to convey what Hezbollah actually is, not how it wants to be seen. Could you live with moving chronolocially through and adding more text about the evolution of the org in the "political activities" section as I suggested above? Elizmr 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hezbollah will not should not put down its arms. In your view of things, if we were to go by it, then maybe israel should put down its arms as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac33c (talk • contribs)

Mac33c; By stating that hezbollah "should not put down its arms" only says that you are a Hezbollah supporter; but you stating that "hezbollah will not put down its arms"; how do you know what hezbollah will or will not do? Are you a member of hezbollah? Also your previous unsigned comment that "Hezbollah DID want to negotiate with israel. they always do"; how do you know what hezbollah wanted, and what it always is ready to do? Are you maybe Nasrallah?

those are ridiculous accusations! you made me laugh! thank you! i listen to all the media i can understand. western media, european, arab and plenty others. i also listen to nasrallahs statements and speaches in english. so that is how i know. western media is the worst by far, which is probably all you watch. things like this have happend in the past. hezbollah captures israeli soldiers, and they trade without further bloodshed. i think hezbollah has made it obvious they are not going to lay down their arms so easily, and your a fool if you cant see that yourself. that above comment was a complete waste of you foolish time. please dont write anything that idiotic again and save yourself the embarrassment. Mac33c 21:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this, and the above unsigned comment, doesn't belong in middle of someone else's discussion; because it confuses the reader with which comment refers to which; please put your comments in the proper place. My comment and yours; this and the previous one; needs to be moved out of here, and placed in its proper place. I don't want to do this, lest I'll be accused of moving someone else's comments for POV. Itzse 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically approach is suitable for History part. Also it's before activities and you acheive what you want. But how do you judge that Hezbollah is basically military organization at present. I look at some of the references. Those who call Hezbollah a terrorist organization focused on its military activities but others do not for example[4]. --Sa.vakilian 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying "basically" military at present. But since it started as miliatary and is still military now it seems most reasonable to put that first. If Hezbollah were to disarm I would say put military last, but that hasn't happened. Elizmr 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with putting the military section first. I would like to see it's order as political, social, military. Carbonate 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Carbonate, I totally hear you, but could you defend the position of putting military last (ie-say why you want it that way?_Elizmr 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

because hezbollah uses their military to support political and social, just as any other country does. Mac33c 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure (Part Two)

We seem to be finding it hard to find a focus in the above, so perhaps stepping back to the higest level is a good place to start. The below are the proposed section headings. If we could agree on this (or something like it) first then work on what goes in each section that would be the least disruptive way forward.
brenneman ^{L} 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

   * 1 Introduction
   * 2 History
   * 3 Ideology 
   * 4 Structure and activities
   * 5 Political relations
   * 6 See also
   * 7 Notes 
   * 8 External links

Could you more further define #4? Elizmr 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that "Structure and activities" should be swapped with "Ideology." This would make it a logical progression from history -> acts -> ideas.
brenneman ^{L} 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly feel that ideology should come up top, since everything starts from the place of outlook and goals. Elizmr 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr. I prefer putting Idealogy before history and acts.But there is a disagreement between me and Elizmr about order of activities. Which one should be first. I wrote my idea above.--Sa.vakilian 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree and disagree at the same time. I do believe that Ideology should be before struct/act. I also believe that History should be as close up as possible, per informal wiki tradition. I would prefer the first 4 to be as below;

Introduction -> History -> Ideology -> Structure and activities Mceder 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

History is currently a small and bizarre section since it doesn't say much in the way of history. But as long as ideology comes before history, I would say that history before structure and activities is ok with me. Elizmr 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So do we have consensus on:

1. Introduction
2. Ideology
3. History
4. Structure and activities
5. Political relations
6. See also
7. Notes
8. External links

? Mceder 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with it. Elizmr 17:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good start. One point I'd like to stress is that we're going for summary style on these sections, correct? That the bulk of each section's information will be in seperate articles, as the "history" section is now. - brenneman ^{L} 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ideally summary style would be good, however the "history" section is NOT a good example as what is on the page now is NOT a summary of what is in the history article at all. If summary style is to work, we need summaries that are actually summaries. Elizmr 10:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree on summary style on these sections. Our only shot at keeping this article to a sane size. Of course the summaries need to be summaries :) Mceder 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the order. But I have three questions.At first where do we put Funding. I propose put it between structure and political relations. Seconde Question is the order of structure and activities and the last one is suitable place for the relation between Hezbollah and other Lebanese groups.--Sa.vakilian 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with placement of funding. I'd vote to put political relations maybe before funding or maybe after funding, but nearby. As for the subsections on military-political-social I would argue for that order as noted above. I know that there is a difference of opinion on this. Would it be possible for those who want to put politics first to state why they think the article should be in this order? Elizmr 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The decision on funding placement is a it early. How long these summaries need to be in the limiting factor on what goes in, so let's set a target size. I suggest that we work on the history section until it is

• A good summary, yet still
• Not too long.

Once we agree on the desired section length it's easier to decide what will be included.

brenneman ^{L} 02:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan189 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic viewpoint of Armed strength

We can't justify Hezbollah armed strength from western viewpoint. This viewpoint focused on the weapons and the number of fighters. But Hezbollah established its army on the Islamic thoughts of Jihad.They believe they should fight in the way of God and against cruelty andinjustice.They fight for the people who are be . Each of the fighters believe in one of the two victory as Qur'an said. They will achieve victory either overcome the enemy or die in the battle. They use Martyrdom as a weapon as Nasrollah has said.--Sa.vakilian 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian, where should this go in the article? Elizmr 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of it should be put in Idialogy and some other in the Armed strenght--Sa.vakilian 04:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You should write these sections. They would be helpful. Elizmr 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC) NOTE: I added sub-section headings under both of these sections for you. Elizmr

Hi Sa.vak, I saw you added that section. Could you answer some questions to make the section more clear to a non-Muslim reader (and please forgive me if these questions are ridiculous; my knowledge of Islam is very minimal)

• Would it be fair to start the paragraph with the phrase, "According to Islamic law"...All of Muslims should defend Islamic lands ...
• how do you define "Islamic lands"?
• is there an "offensive Jihad?" as well?

Elizmr 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your questions are very good.

1- Yes. We can say "According to Islamic law"...All of Muslims should defend Islamic lands but this sentence needs fact.

2- Islamic lands: I am not sure about the definition but I guess it's the land which the majority of its population is Muslim.

3- offensive Jihad: Yes there's preemptive or offensive Jihad but it's very controversial . There are many different ideas about who can give order and why and how it happens and in which situation it's legitimate. There isn't any consensus between Muslims about it. But it doesn't relates to this article anyway.--Sa.vakilian 07:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put the lead in "according to Islamic law.." and the fact tag in the section. Does anyone else know the def of "muslim lands"? Does it have something to do with the Waqf? Elizmr 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Waqf" (وقف) is something else. Do you think we need a definition here. Peaple can refer to Defensive Jihad and look for it there. I think the Ayat is clear enough.--Sa.vakilian 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should be deleted from the article. It only quotes the Qur'an and does not represent Hezbollah's specific position on the status of its own arms after UN Resolution 1559.--GHcool 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi I added some stuff from the Hezbollah 1985 statement to make the link between Hezbollah and what Sa.Va wrote. GHcool--does this help? For me personally, this addition from Sa.va explains stuff I didn't understand before and I'd argue for it staying there. I think we need stuff from a genuine Islamic point of view if the article is going to be really helpful. I think a def of "Islamic lands" would be useful, but don't feel strongly. Elizmr 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Elizmr. Good work! --GHcool 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Web vs. web

I think that "Web" is a proper noun, short for "World Wide Web" and should thus be capitalized. Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideology section:Islamism

Why the change from "Islamism" to "Shia extremism"? Not sure I get the fine points of this. Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Islamism is more familiar for people.--Sa.vakilian 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure we would need to get into the fine points of Shia vs. Sunni here in the ideology section, but maybe I"m missing the fine points. I'm willing to be educated if I am totally wrong. Elizmr 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of fighting against Israel there isn't any difference between them. But in other cases may be some differences. --Sa.vakilian 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How are the differences relevant to Hezbollah? Elizmr 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed Shiite-Sunni conflict because not only it was controvecial but also doesn't relate to Idealogy.--Sa.vakilian 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to read it before you removed it, but agree it doesn't relate to ideology. If it is relevant to geopolitics, however, and well refed and someone put it in, shouldn't we move it rather than deleting it? Elizmr 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was based on one weak reference and it needs too more works.--Sa.vakilian 05:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should see if whoever came by and put that stuff in comes back to add more cites and work on it more. Elizmr 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Shiite-Sunni conflict

This part is written on the basis of one reference and point out one POV. There is another viewpoint among Sunnis too.You can find it in these sites:Qaradawi urges Muslims to support Hezbollah, Hamas, Hezbollah Legitimate for Jordanians, http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/26/10055044.html and many other sites.--Sa.vakilian 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

this topic can bring me to my next point, i think al-qaeda should be removed, or said flat out that they have no relationships with each other because they dont. the only reason people added this is to make hezbollah look like a terrorrist organization. Mac33c 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideology section

Do we need the part about women's rights in there? It doesn't seem like central ideology like the rest. I think the section is too long and it could go. Elizmr 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to make a new article and move this part and maintian a summary.--Sa.vakilian 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it for now. I think we need to work on the article proper before moving more stuff and making more summaries. The summaries we have, such as the history one, is not a summary at all. But don't you think it is a side issue, about the women? Elizmr 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead

Putting Hezbollah goals in the lead

Some of Hezbollah goal has changed during these years. "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" does not pursuit at present. You can find their new viewpoint in many sites for example:[5]. So I think they believe in all of them but they try to adapt themselves with the reality. It means they may ally even with Marrunites.--Sa.vakilian 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, I believe that as well. Is it ok with you to state the founding goals and to state how they have changed? Elizmr 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We can add it in the introduction because the lead should be short.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead IS short and the founding goals are basic. Please leave it. Elizmr 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some sites which say Hezbollah does not pursuit "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" for example BBC and [6] and [7]. The second and third ones based this claim on the quotations of Hezbollah members.--Sa.vakilian 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the section now. That is clearly listed as a founding aim which is clearly stated as being abandoned. The lead needs to give a sense of the history of the org and current status to summarize the article overall. Elizmr 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What has received from Iran

Using has received is not correct. Iran may help them with soldiers at the beginning but it doesn't continua up to now.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In English "has received" is in the past tense (describes something happening in the past--not now). There is no comment on current funding using "has recieved". Honestly. Please take my word for it. Elizmr 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) NOTE: if one were to say, "receives" or "is receiving" or "continues to receive" that would indicate that current aid is being given. Elizmr 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Control south of Lebanon

"Hezbollah currently controls Southern Lebanon " This sentence isn't clear enough. My English is not very good. Does this sentence means Hezbollah challenges the sovereignty of Lebanon government.In the past years during 80s and 90s SLA controled the South of Litani but it was Israel alliance and it challenges the sovereignty of Lebanon government. --Sa.vakilian 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if it is removed. Elizmr 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

by "referendum" or "by the sword"

I'm not sure who said that the orig goal of the org was to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state "by referendum", but respectfully suggest reading some sources on early Hezbollah. Elizmr 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They wish to realize the Goals of Islamic revolution and take Iran as an example. Their goal was, and still is to mimic the Iranian example of a Islamic Republic of Lebanon through referendum, not force. Such a Islamic Revolution movement can also be found in Iraq like the movement of high ranking personage Al Hakeem. "Spreading Islam by the sword" etc. is trying to make Hezbollah come across as some form of crazy extremist group wich is deliberately POV. Respectfully i suggest you reading some sources on early hezbollah.--Paradoxic 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the "by the sword" comment was in an edit summary, not in the article and referred to Hezbollah's eraly violent history. If you are an expert, then maybe you could tell me some things that Hezbollah did to change Lebanon "by referendum" in the early years. Elizmr 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated parts

There is some parts which is repeated frequently:

1-"The organization officially declared itself on 16 February 1985 in a manifesto declaring goals of bringing Islamic revolution to Lebanon, expelling Western influences from Lebanon, and eliminating Israel. Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon" This part is written in the lead, introduction and the body of the article.We should remove at least one of them.--Sa.vakilian 06:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

2-In the introduction we repeat references frequently. "The organization is reputed to have been among the first Islamic resistance groups to use tactical suicide bombing in the Middle East[9]. Hezbollah's violent acts have included multiple kidnappings, [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] murders, [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] hijackings,[20] and bombings[21][22][23] [24]. The organization has been subject to assassination and abduction by Israel as well[5]. [25] [26] ". If we want to shorten the article ,which is 100kb at present, I propose merging this refrences and maintain the most important one of them. We don't need to several refrences for each act.--Sa.vakilian 06:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1) true. I think it should be in the lead, because the lead summarizes the article. I think it should be in ideology, because it is closer to that topic. How about that? Elizmr 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

2) I have to insist on leaving all of the refs. They do not add much length to the article. Is ther another reason you'd like to take them out? We can trim length elsewhere. I will work with you to do that. Elizmr 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I took this out of the introduction in response to your good point. Elizmr 13:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Current debates about intoduction

Historical or Non-Historical approach

Elizmr:I think there is disagreement between us about the approach we should use to describe Hezbollah. I believe this article especially introduction doesn't want to say what was Hezbollah at first and how it has changed, but it wants to introduce Hezbollah as it is. So I want to revert some of your editions in introduction because of its historical approach. but I wait until you tell me your idea. --Sa.vakilian 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do like the historical approach, so people can get a full understanding, but I"m sure we can write something that will do both. Why don't you write a version and put it here and then we can discuss? Elizmr 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a strong proponent of the historical approach. I understand that we differ on this. The historical approach allows people to get a better understanding of the organization and how it has evolved and then appreicate where it has ended up. Do you have a good reason for favoring the other approach? If Wikipedia were Hezbolla's Web site it show Hezbollah as it wants to be shown, but it is an encyclopedia and needs to go beyond that to take a more three dimensional view. Elizmr 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

editing Introduction

I try to edit this part on the basis of BBCNews in order to make it more neutral. Also I put some notes there for moving and removing some part if introduction and shorten it.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

could you put notes here instead of in the text commented out? It is difficult to find them there. Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sa.va I consider your edit to be very POV. First off, you have no rationale for removing the fact that Sheba farms was captured from Syria and was not Lebanese in the first place. We need to state this. Israel and the UN considered Israel withdrawn and had a legitimate basis for this. Please don't remove any evidence of that from the article. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But I don't remove it. I propose removing but if you disagree with me I don't insist on it. But I prefer to move this part to position on Israel.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. But you commented it out, and it wasn't visible in the article. That is what I meant. Sorry if I insulted you. Thanks for agreeing that it can stay in. Elizmr 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the discussion in the paragraph is about how Hezbollah (NOT Israel) is percieved. For this reason it is important to state what they have done so that it can then be discussed. That is why the sentence about the murders, kidnappings, etc refers to Hezbollah and not to mutual violence between Israel and Hezbollah. (The articles cited in any case are describing Hezbollah acts). I now realize it is important to characterize Hezbollah violence as answering Israeli agression to portray Hezbollah acts in accordance with Islamic law, but this is already achieved because Israel invaded Beruit. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Becouse this article about hezbollah we should write what they do and what has done against them. I mean when you want to introduce a person fairly you shouldn't focused on what he/she has done but also you should mention what others has done against him/her.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree and that's why I feel it is essential to have the point of view about Hezbollah being legit. resistance. But we have to put the acts out there, and then say how they are percieved. The piece is not about Israel's retialiation or agression, and does certainly say that Israel committed agression by coming into Lebanon, doesn' it? Elizmr 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, I added why Israel invaded Beruit because I realized that point of history is no where in this article. I'll come back and add the cites soon. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence "Hezbollah is credited with the "invention" of suicide bombing " is claimed by U.S. and Israel. So you shouldn't write it as a fact which everybody agree with. You can write "U.S. and Israel claim ..."--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that it was established that the US embassy bombing in 83 was the first suicide bombing that we know of. I need to find the cite anyway to see where this comes from. I don't know if it is accurate to say that the US and Israel claim... anyway, let's put this on hold and I'll look. Elizmr 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourthly, no one has excused Hezbollah from disarming. They are in violation of UN resolution. The text should not say they are "allowed" to keep their arms. What do others think? Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what BBC and Siniore have said. So we can add it in the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you put the exact quote here so we can discuss? Elizmr 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Even the more recent UN resolution said that the prior resolution had to be upheld and accomplished. Elizmr 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I"m also confused. It isn't just up to Lebanon, is it, but up to the UN as well? Elizmr 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

According to BBC "1991 - The National Assembly orders the dissolution of all militias by 30 April but Hezbollah is allowed to remain active and the South Lebanon Army (SLA) refuses to disband."[8] and according to Siniore "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms"[9] and also read this [10].--Sa.vakilian 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see your point. We could say that Lebanon has been in favor of the continued armament of Hezbollah since x year but the UN resolution continues to call for disarmament. I think that would be an improvement, and closer to the truth. What do you think?

Elizmr 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I did some work on the intro to make it flow a bit better and to shorten by reducing repitition. I added a few quotes from that BBC article that Sa.va keeps bringing up.  :=). I kept in the sentence that says clearly that Israel did violence too and tried to tease out the bit about "reisisting all of Palestine" for an unfamiliar reader. I added a little background on the political situation in Lebanon in the early 80s that will help the article make a little more sense. I took some repitition out of the lead as well. Sorry for so many small edits. I had firefox browser and it would not let me do the previews. Elizmr 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Israel had become militarily involved in Lebanon in combat with the Palestine Liberation Organization who moved into Southern Lebanon after being ousted from Jordan. The PLO was attacking Israel from Southern Lebanon in the lead up to the 1982 Lebanon War, and Israel had invaded and occupied Lebanon to protect its Northern border." isn't appropriate for the introduction of Hezbollah article. I agree with the importance of this sentence but it is a background. Look at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Background and also we need a background about situation and position of Shiites in Lebabnon including [11] and [12] because some of Hezbollah leaders like Nasrallah was the islamist branch of Amal Movement. I make another part and move it.--Sa.vakilian 06:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It is important to have this background for those who won't read another article. People don't know why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. There is even some speculation that they are there to expand their own territory which is ridiculous. Could you go along with putting it back as necessary background? I worked a bit hard on the two little sentences. Elizmr 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose moving this part "Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as legitimate resistance and some others regard them as Jihad. Supporters of Hezbollah justify Hezbollah's attacks against Israel for the following reasons. Firstly, Hezbollah supporters cite the occupation of Lebanese land. Many of these attacks took place while Israel occupied the southern part of Lebanon and held it as a security zone in spite of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. Although Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and their complete withdrawl was verified by the United Nations, Lebanon considers the Shebaa farms, captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war and considered by the UN to be disputed territory between Syria and Israel, to be Lebanese territory. Additionally, Israel holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails for crimes against Israel. Finally, Hezbollah and some of the Muslim world consider Israel an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many in the Arab world consider violent acts performed by the organization against Israel to be justified as acts of Jihad.[26] Although some Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah's actions saying vaguely that they harm Arab interests,[27] throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds Hezbollah is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement, aiming to create an Islamic state encompasing the whole geographic region of Palestine, including what is currently the State of Israel.[8]" to "Position on Israel" and "Outside views of Hezbollah ".--Sa.vakilian 07:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the most important issues about Hezbollah is that people disagree about whether the violence has been called for or not. This paragraph really discusses that and shows both sides. Could we leave it? It is a crux crux issue, not just a "position on israel" or and "outside view". What do you think? Elizmr 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian. It should be moved into an appropriate part.--Hossein.ir 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but could you say why this part is inappropriate? Elizmr 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: Introduction is one of the most controvercial part of this article and there have been too many debates about it which you may have not seen them. There is some discussions You'd better read in Lead/Introduction Archives especially this part [[13]]. Then we can speak about this part again.--Sa.vakilian 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.va, I have read the debates on this, but I don't think that anyone has said why it is inappropriate to raise this essential issue clearly in the introduction deliniating both sides of the argument using neutral language. It is only inappropriate if anything which may put Hezbollah in a negative light is inappropriate. That is ok if you are writing for a blog or Hezbollah-sponsored media source or a government-sponsored media source, but NOT ok on Wikipedia. Please refer to WP:NPOV to review wikipedia policy on showing all sides before arguing that this stuff needs to come out again. We have actually been through this multiple times and the language here is comprimise wording. It is time for you to defend your objections rationally. Elizmr 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on putting everything like background in the intro. Introduction is for introducing Hezbollah and it's not appropriate for something else like the reason of invasion of Israel in 1982. You can add background in the history and refer to it in the intro. I think this make the article neutral too.--Sa.vakilian 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Hezbollah's whole reason for being is to get Israel out of Lebanon, and their being there justifies everything this organization has done, then how can you say it is irrelevant to say why Israel was there in the first place??? This doesn't make sense to me. It is basic introductory material and important for understanding the whole picture. Elizmr 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the necessity of what you say but I mean your method is wrong. We shouldn't add every necessity idea in the intro. We can add it in the body and refer to it.--Sa.vakilian 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What purpose do you see the intro accomplishing? 72.72.113.203 01:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This intro fails me:

Hezbollah has abandoned the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic republic [6],

Refering to a non-referenced BBC article is pointless. Readers of this article likely want undisputed facts.

but continues to call for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel).[7]

the word "zionist" does not appear in the article at all, making the reference misleading. Further, the article itself does not appear to be a good reference point, but rather it appears to have been drawn from what would be good references.

Hezbollah has received arms, soliders, and financial support from Iran and has
"operated with Syria's blessing."[6]

The quote is misquoted. Also, see my first objection

I make these comments to garner reaction before I edit myself.

NOTE: above written but unsigned NOT BY ME.

In reply to avove, I agree the BBC article is unrefed and weak; I added some quotes from it to the lead becuase others were also quoting it in the lead. Elizmr 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Founding objectives

The founding objectives of the organization belong in the lead becuase they are a fundamental aspect of the organization. Sa.va felt that to have them in the lead, the intro, and the ideology section was too much, so we removed them from the intro. If you are going to remove them from the lead, please discuss first on talk stating an argument for doing so. Elizmr 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead

"Hezbollah currently has grown into a Shia Islamist political party with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, a militia, and extensive front programs for social development. "

The manifesto shows it has been "Shia Islamist political party" from the beginning. So why there is written has grown. --Sa.vakilian 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, why not change it to "Hezbollah comprises a .... or "Hezbollah is currently a...???Elizmr 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead. --Sa.vakilian 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Title Secretary-General gives reverence; hence POV

I'm removing the words describing Nasrallah as Secretary-General for the following reason:

Since this title gives reverence; and to a lot of decent people Hezbollah is still a terrorist organization; giving him such a title is in essence endorsing his revered position. Not withstanding if he himself calls himself so; since this article has become so controversial; it's not fair for Wikipedia to add luster to his name.

I wouldn't be surprised if in Arabic his title doesn't at all translate to Secretary-General; but designed to sugar-coat him to the Western world. Since no other political party in Lebanon call their leader with this title; we can safely assume that it was designed for Western consumption. If anyone knows what his title is in Arabic and what it translates to; please let us know.

Now to tarc who for no good reason started to attack me. Yes I do have a POV; like all normal people, and I am darn proud of it. I sensed correctly your anti-Jewish bias the minute you started attacking me; but still, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and with good faith checked out your record; which exposed your agenda behind your attacks with righteous indignation. Even though I have a strong POV; I still never impose my opinion on controversial topics; unless an article is glaring, that it is written & well stacked with the opposite POV; and even then; all I want is neutrality not my POV and surely not your biased POV. Itzse 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't care about implications you stated above. In wikipedia, we present sourced and referenced facts. A Secretary-General of a party or an entity remains a Secretary-General whatever the oraganization is. I may agree about one thing instead; avoid duplicating. We can use "Secretary-General", "Leader" or the "Head" randomly or according to the context. -- Szvest 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Yes, I agree. Itzse's comment can also be applied to the names of countries like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "German Democratic Republic". That's how these countries call(ed) themselves and even though there is/was not much democratic about these countries, we shouldn't try to change it on wikipedia. What matters is what the commonly used names are. Count Iblis 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis; I would agree with you; if they used that title at home too, so then it now becomes their commonly used name; but if it's only meant for us; then why go along and be their fools?

FayssalF; Who says that we don't care about implications? Can you supply a source for that? At least you're fair enough to agree that the duplications does serve Hezbollahs interest; so please hold off to putting it back before we hear what others have to say; and then if we "restore" it; we'll at least avoid duplication. Itzse 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A source for what? We don't care if people would get offended or not if we call someone with her official title. According to your comment above, you assume it is done in purpose to sugar-coat him to the Western world. You assume as well that a to a lot of decent people Hezbollah is still a terrorist organization. I am not discussing that but removing a title based on those assumptions is POV. For that reason i said we don't care and that we present facts.

You also assume that i am fair enough to agree that the duplications does serve Hezbollahs interest, which is wrong because i didn't say it or even meant it. -- Szvest 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

FayssalF; Then what did you mean by "avoid duplicating"; please explain.

My assumptions; in my opinion are well founded; (except my third one which I take back) and I sure hope that there are still good people left, in this world who consider terrorism against Jews terrorism Itzse 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Itsze, w/ respect to your opinions, they can't justify the removal of the official titles of people. As to your request for restoring the removal of the titles, i am sorry to disagree as the talk page is made to discuss changes and not the opposite. You bring your points, you discuss them and wait for the feedback. What was done is simply removing edits and and asking people to keep them. Could you please wait and get other contributors' opinions before we make any changes?

Re your request to clarify my comment, please refer to editing policy about redundancy and duplication, eliminating redundancy and some redundancy exercises. Cheers. -- Szvest 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FayssalF: The way things work in Wikipedia is that somebody takes the initiative & edits. Thats exactly what I did; I edited (not removed) to make the article more neutral. I also went ahead & explained myself why. Now if you think that my edit is POV; thats fine; you have a right to disagree. So the next step is not to remove my edit until there is a discussion; its the other way around; you need to wait until the discussion takes its course. I called for this discussion; not you.

Now I'll revert it for the third time; and if you want to be a bully; go ahead; I'll stick to the rules and I won't revert it again today. Itzse 17:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Go ahead. -- Szvest 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is patently ridiculous. We have Itzse here who arbitrarily edits out the Secretary-General title, and then jumps down everyone else's throat for making controversial edits without discussion?

If that is the title that Hezbollah uses for their leader, then that is, as they say, that. A simple factual title is no more "reverential" than Kofi Annan's Secretary-General title is. Tarc 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And Itzse, I kindly ask you to refrain from throwing around "you're anti-Jewish" slurs to whomever happens to be disagreeing with your opinion and your edits at any given time. I will vigorously pursue the procedures outlined in WP:NPA should you decide to persist in such actions. Tarc 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tarc; you got it all wrong. I never just throw around the accusation that "you're anti-Jewish". But in your case; you were the one who attacked me and I simply defended myself. If calling you biased is considered an attack; then we simply need to rewrite the rules (by consensus of course). After a closer reading; the rules are good as is; and I'm on safe ground. Sorry if I hurt your feelings; but this Jew will not be intimidated. Itzse 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You do indeed "throw it around", we saw it right here in this discussion. Please stop lying and whipping out the Victim Card. Tarc 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if Hezbollah has him use the title "sec-gen" then it is a fair way to identify him in the entry. It does sound puffed up and it would be interesting to know what the title is in Arabic---maybe Sa.va will tell us?--In any case, I would vote for putting the title back in the article and leaving it there. Elizmr 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not puffed up, it's his usual title in both English and Arabic (الأمين العام, since you ask). I don't know about where you come from, Elizmr (and in fact I don't know where it is that you come from), but in many parts of the world it is quite a common title for the effective bosses or chief officials of political parties, trades unions, and so on. Palmiro | Talk 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Mexico orig and the US for a long time now, and think it sounds puffed up to American ears becuase we're used to hearing the Sec Gen of the UN referred to that way but not commonly others. The question about arabic was orig asked by Itzse above. In any case, just to clarify, I'm FOR the title appearing in the article. Elizmr 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i saw that you were in favour of including it, and I didn't mean to be sharp, though perhaps it sounded that way. A quick google search (in Arabic) shows 137000 hits for <<al-sayyid Hassan Nasrallah al-amin al-`am li-hizb allah>> and 144000 for <<al-sayyid Hassan Nasr allah al-amin al-`am li-hizb allah>> (that is, spelling his surname with a space between the two words), compared with 802000 for the briefer <<al-sayyid Hassan Nasrallah>>, suggesting that it's at least a fairly widespread title used for him.

Of course, you could also translate the title as General Secretary, which is probably a more common use in English. I have a couple of books about Hizbullah in English and might take a look to see what they say, but not right now. Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying you didn't mean to be sharp, I'm sorry if I reacted as if you were being sharp. It would be interesting if you looked at your books at some point and let us know. Elizmr 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is the correct translation of (الامین العام) in English. But there is the same word for UN and every party's leader in Persian too. We call both of them "dabire' kol"(دبیر کل).--Sa.vakilian 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(الامین العام) is the correct translation for Secretary-General. Please refer to the article Secretary-General to know about the organizations, political parties and organizations using the title. -- Szvest 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

By the way, is he ever referred to as "Sheikh Sayyed" (as in the infobox)? The sayyid usage is far more common in Arabic, in my admittedly possibly skewed experience from Lebanese newspapers and Lebanese, Syrian, and international TV; i know that "sheikh" seems to be often used for him in English, I'm not entirely sure why; but are the two ever used together (except in Wikipedia)? Palmiro | Talk 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians; I thank you all for this discussion, and I yield to my colleagues; although with reservation. Itzse 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Syntax cleanup

"Although Hezbollah believes in one-person-one-vote system and disagree with multi-confessional but it do not intend to force a one-person-one-vote system onto the country’s Christians."

Suggested syntax cleanup: "Although Hezbollah believes in one-person-one-vote and disagrees with the Lebanese confessional franchise, it [has stated that it] does not intend to force a one-person-one-vote system on the country’s Christians."

The phrase in square brackets is for verifiability. Lebanese Christians may mistrust Hezbollah's intentions on this. And why "Christians"? The Druze are another significant non-Muslim group.

James Wimberley (unregistered user)

James--why don't you register and change the syntax yourself? Elizmr 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead

I believe we've been trapped in a loop. Please look at this:"Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.^[1] The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.^[2][3] Even 74 percent of Lebanese Christians viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization.^[4] Because that the organization initiates attacks against civilians and ideologically supports such attacks by other organizations, the United States, Britain and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization",^[5] but does list Imad Mugniyah as such.^[6] In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2005, the MEPs urged the EU Council to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organization. However, the Council has so far been reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks.^[7] European legislators branded the radical Lebanese Hezbollah group a terrorist organization and urged EU governments to place the group on their terrorist blacklists, as the bloc did with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2003.^[8] “EU Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The EU Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them," legislators said in a non-binding resolution adopted during a session in Strasburg, France.^[9] "

There was similiar text in the lead. Somebody moved it to intro then somebody else came and put it in the the lead. And this cycle has continued by now. We should decide what is suitable for lead and intro and what is not. Before writing your idea here look at Lead/Introduction discussions please.--Sa.vakilian 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The sections are both now in a bit of a mess. Elizmr 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered starting a new section for this, but the claim in the intro that HA has "abandoned" the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic Republic is simply not true. It has certainly accepted that this is not a possible outcome in the short to medium term, but it remains its fundamental goal. This shows the danger on relying on journalistic (the BBC, in this case) rather than scholarly sources; granted that the former are more up to date and for many readers easier to access, they are likely to be more simplistic or even inaccurate. Palmiro | Talk 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have brought up this point previously. Elizmr 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah beleive in Islamic Republic as a idealogy but as Nasrollah has said its not a practical goal in Lebanon society.--Sa.vakilian 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the point is the BBC article just states the thing without giving evidence to back up their claim. Elizmr 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The references don't necessarily say what it purports to

A lot of references here do not say what it is purported to support. E.g. the line that "Hezbollah has allowed to maintain its weapon against Israel occupation by Lebanon government" had after it two references; but give a look; not one word in these references about this.

Please read the text carefully. According to BBC "1991 - The National Assembly orders the dissolution of all militias by 30 April but Hezbollah is allowed to remain active and the South Lebanon Army (SLA) refuses to disband."[14] and according to Siniore "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms"[15]

Another line "Lebanon goverment and Hezbollah have denounced United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 that calls for the disarmament of all militia". The reference given clearly says that it was Hezbollah who renounced; it was Hezbollah who protested; it was Hezbollah who bussed in hundreds of thousands of people from Beirut's slum southern suburbs. There isn't a word there that Lebanon renounced the resolution; to the contrary, UN Resolution 1559 came to suppport the Taif agreement which was a creation of Lebanon.

The point is; we now have 203 references, and a good many of them are misrepresentations of what they are; some not even discussing the subject; and some, outright contradict what they purport to support. Itzse 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Checking the references is a very good idea but who have enough time to check them?--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

but if we're going to have a NPOV article; then at the minimum all the references need to support what it purports to; otherwise anybody can say anything and even fabricate references. Itzse 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well for a start, no one should cite anyting they haven't read. Elizmr 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it is clear that Itzse is right. A few sentences were added to the article with cites that didn't support them. We should fix this stuff. Some mistakes may have been made inadvertently by nonNative English speakers editing the article rather than on purpose to push a POV. Elizmr 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Banner

Does anyone think the cleanup banner still needs to be up on this page? --GHcool 04:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As a start to cleanup

Terrorist incidents Since May 2000 at the Jewish Virtual Library is listed multiple times in references.

26 31 32

The Jewish Virtual Library should be questioned as NPOV source. As a case in point, many of the incidents listed on the list would not be considered terrorists acts by most definitions of terrorism.

The links are broken in any case and lead to a 404 not found

16 - this site looks like a blog or similar to me. I do not believe it is a NPOV source.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005325.php

The Jewish Virtual Library is well written and well referenced. I would vote that it is an outstanding source. Elizmr 18:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. We debated on this issue before you become active in this article and I showed there is some defects in its information. [16] At least we should use it with caution.--Sa.vakilian 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I read what you wrote and can't follow your point there. Could you explain some more? Most of the pages on that Web site are very well sourced. Elizmr 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I read what you wrote and can't follow your point. Could you explain again? Elizmr 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've shown some faults and also contradictions between what this site has writen about Hezbollah and more valid sources. Of course, I don't speak about most of the pages on that Web site but I speak about the contents relate to Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don't follow the specific faults and contraindications you are mentioning. Could you say more specifically what the problem is. Elizmr 09:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the source from the table [17] becouse it [18] doesn't support this statement" The U.S. recognizes The organization Hezbollah in full a terrorist organization". There isn't written anything about "in full" or partly.--Sa.vakilian 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sa.va: if the article doesn't mention "in part" the default meaning is "in full". It doesn't have to state "in full" to have that meaning. Elizmr 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for input

There is a dispute happening on Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict over the neutrality of including the

I created. Could someone familiar with sources for the figures of Hezbollah's casualties please comment.

Amnesty International report

AI released a report today accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. I added it to the external links, and a brief mention near the end of the article. I had a bizarre edit conflict with myself, which mucked up all the references, but I think I cleaned it up properly. Crockspot 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

cite from swedish scientist

Hi. What do people think about this cite from a Swedish grad student? The newspaper is sort of an independent small paper, not one of record. The article is not in English, but he reportedly did not give any evidence to back up the claim he makes: "According to Mats Wärn, former UN soldier and Hezbollah expert, Hezbollah has since the early 1990s not wanted to attack civilian targets in Israel except as retaliation against Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.[34]" I don't think the cite is strong enough to be in the intro or actually in the article at all. ONe could say he is a grad student studying Hezbollah, but "expert" seems a bit of a misleading way to represent him. Elizmr 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mats Wärn is a doctoral candidate and instructor in the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University, Sweden and a quick googling shows that he indeed is a respected expert in the field of political Islam.[19][20][21] [22]. Anyway "Hezbollah expert" may be replaced with "political scientist in the field of political Islam". // Liftarn

This weak cite should not be in the article at all in my opinion since he doesn't back up his claim with anything and the newspaper is a minor one. Sa.va deleted something from the LA Times the other day as a poor weak source. But in terms of how he should be identified, anything more than "doctoral candidate" would be overstating his expertise. Elizmr 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with stating what field he works in. // Liftarn 08:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr, the cite shouldn't be in the article at all, even mentioning him would be misleading to the readers. Googling is not an adequate gauge of someone's importance, if they were I would cite my dad and grandpa on every article I was able to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the google test isn't the best (but probably the easiest) way to tell if a person is notable or not. However the facts stated are from a reliable source so the facts should stay. // Liftarn

The issue isn't what field he's in; the issue is that he's still a trainee in that field, a doctoral candidate (this means he doesn't yet have his PhD), and therefore he is a political scientist in training rather than a political scientist. Most grad students teach discussion sectoins of large cources at the institution where they are studying and are listed as "lecturers". This is not the same as having a permanent faculty appointment. As far as the content of what he's saying---I consider it pretty difficult to support given that Hezbollah bombed a Jewish center in Argentina and killed a bunch of civilians after 1991. That's why I asked if he said anything to back up his claim in the article you are citing. I think this, at the very least, needs to be moved into another section of the article, and needs to be qualified with the context of Hezbollah's acts--not just a grand student's view of their intentions. Elizmr 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if he is indeed a political scientist he continues to study for a higher education. What's wrong with that? Would it be better if he had stopped studies? As you can see[23] Wärn has been published by Routledge that according to Wikipedia is "one of the most important European imprints for social sciences". You are right that we probably need a more detailed source and preferaby in English too. I'll see if I can find something. At least some of his papers are available online so there's probably somthing there. // Liftarn

Regarding the Argentinian bombing Hezbollah denies involvement. ("is a press atmosphere released by the Israelis so that Hizballah would be held responsible for any reaction by anyone in the world against Israeli or Jewish interests or the like, such as what happened in Argentina...[But we] have said that our revenge for the civilians will be on the Israeli military". al-Maokif, nr. 2 1996.) // Liftarn

There is nothing wrong with being a grad student, it just doesn't make anyone an expert. Hezbollah has not claimed responsibility for any of the suicide bombings they are believed to be responsible for. Let's take the whole thing out, ok? It just isn't well supported by evidence. Elizmr 10:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that he is an expert and we have a reliable source so per Wikipedia rules it can be included. // Liftarn

On what basis do you find a grad student an "expert"? I don't want to be rude, but a graduate student is just not considered an expert. And a grad student being interviewed in an alternative newspaper and giving opinions without any supporting evdience is not a good cite for Wikipedia by any criteria. Does anyone else editing on this page think that a graduate student is an expert? Elizmr 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

its not that hes an expert, but he is more educated on the subject than you, and he it is a reliable source so it should stay. Mac33c 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey mac, please watch your personal attacks. WP:DICK. "more of an expert than you" is not a criteria for a quotable source on a wiki page. Elizmr 15:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He has written several academic papers on the subject and is a political scientist. That he continues to study should not automaticly disqualify him as a source. Especially since we gladly accept a newspaper article where the only qualifications may be that the journalist can read and write. // Liftarn

Yeah, you posted a few of his abstracts, but he is still a grad student and not an expert. And it is STILL not a good cite because he doesn't give any evidence for the claim he is making in the article, which isn't even in English, and is not in a newspaper of record. I think a cite from one of his published papers, on the other hand, would be fine. Aside from Mac, who makes the comment that this guy knows more than I do about the subject, no one else editing the page has weighed in on this. With all due respect, and I do respect you, I think the cite is weak and you should drop it. If this is a valid viewpoint, I'm sure you could find a better cite to support it. OK? If you put it back in the article I am taking it out. Elizmr 11:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll guess I'll have to read trough his papers. I'm sure there are some very interesting stuff there. // Liftarn

Sounds like a plan. THanks!. Elizmr 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

semiprotecting

due to vandalism from anon ip addressesElizmr 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, please discuss on talk before unprotecting. Elizmr 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But does it work? This page has been on semiprotection for a long time and yet anons can still edit the page. Count Iblis 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno if you are an admin Elizmr but protection and semi-protection is done by admins. Tagging the article is not sufficient and the protect button should be used. The article was unprotected since sept.12 and that's why new unregistered users could edit. -- Szvest 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

No, I am not an admin. I didn't know that tagging wasn't enough. I think we should semiprotect since we've had a lot of vandalism over the last few days. How do we get an admin to semiprotect for us? Elizmr 19:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for both protection, semi-protection and unprotection requests. There's no need for a request now. I had already semi-protected it a while ago.-- Szvest 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will save that link to use in future (altho hoping it will not be necessary). Elizmr 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Netherland position

Somebody has removed Netherland from List of entities officially designating Hezbollah as "terrorist". I think we should debate about it.--Sa.vakilian 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of quotation

There is a quotation in Hezbollah#Position on Jews and Judaism which is based on newspaper's interpretation. It is dubious. I've searched a lot but I can't find the complete version of this sermon anywhere. Aparantly Daily Star is the Primary source. It wrote

"Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that Arabs were not "red Indians" and will not be liquidated or driven into exile by Israel and the United States.

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah said that "Christian Zionists" were gaining strength and had a powerful impact on US foreign policy.

Nasrallah alleged that oil companies and weapons firms that have financed the "Christian Zionists," the Arabic term for the right-wing Christian supporters of Israel, were in alliance in the United States.

"Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several US presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists."

Nasrallah said their aim was to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.""

To whom does refer "they" Zionists or Jews? If you look at 10th line, You can see the first "their" doesn't refer to jews but the Christian Zionists . The next "their" refers to jews. Now to whom does refer the last "they" Jews or Zionists.

specially there is written in WP:V :"Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism"--Sa.vakilian 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? This is not a BLP, this is an article about an organizaton. Elizmr 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. But this article accuses Nasrallah too. I don't want to defend him. But you'd better find a reason which proves his antiJweish or antiSemitic attitude. --Sa.vakilian 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't read the article without paying. It doesn't accuse N, it quotes him. There is a big difference. Elizmr 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the most complete version we can find on the web:[24]--Sa.vakilian 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing with you, but I"m confused. The cite is from the NY Times. That is a newspaper of record, and the bias is typically against Israel (although in a subtle way). It seems strange that they would take a quote from that world net daily site. Do you have a copy of the Times article? I've read a lot of places that he said this, he is kind of famous for saying this. Has he said that he didn't say it? Elizmr 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this very confusing. I can't find this material in our article (has soneone just removed it?) and I can't work out who is saying where it comes from! It seems to relate to the Daily Star article quoted. While the Daily Star is a better and less biased source than the New York Times, we don't seem to be entirely clear as to where the material comes from or what the original article says.

I think the material from Saad-Ghorayeb's book covers this better, although it would be better to go directly to the source rather than have it filtered via the New Yorker. I might even get around to this myself at some point, though the current form is a reasonable summary of Saad-Ghorayeb's argument.

Also, if memory serves we used have a citation stating that the EU had had al-Manar banned. Now it appears to be just France. Are we sure about this? Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Saad-Ghorayeb's book, so it would be great if you did that. France banned al-Manar for inciting hate, and some other EU countries have banned on technicalities. The EU has not banned. Elizmr 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiding among civilians

This article The "hiding among civilians" myth - Salon News (requires subscription) may be interesting to quote or refute. --Error 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

umm, I do not know much on this subject, but would like to ask if any1 could specify on the subject of the opinion of france in the UN about the sending of troops to lebanon. 217.60.120.11 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As I know it's about Israel-Lebanon conflict. I think it doesn't related to this article directly unless there is written something about "hiding among civilians" as a tactic of Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many details in the lead

Writing too many details in the lead is inappropriate so I moved some part of it to intro. This part is about recognition Hezbollah as Legitimate or terrorist organization. I could maintain an abstract about this issue in the lead, but my exprience in this article show if we put one sentence about this issue in the other wikipedian put all of this information there even it would be NPOV. Also we should merge this part with intro because some issues are repeated. Please read the Lead/Introduction archive before answer to me or edit the article.--Sa.vakilian 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. According to Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Maybe it should say a word or two about terrorism, but I agree completely that what was there before was too much. I think some things about politics, etc are repeated in the first part of the lead and the last part of the lead and the lead could be edited to remove the second mention. Maybe there are other parts of the article that could get a quick mention in the lead as well to make it a better summary of the whole article. I will try to do this. Elizmr 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Why somebody has put POV tag on this article.--Sa.vakilian 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

someone said above that they did it beause of the disporp attention to terrorism in the lead. Elizmr 23:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)