Talk:Hezbollah/Archive POV

State Dept. Info on Alternate Names

I exposed the one external link at the bottom. I didn't know if there was a reason the rest were hidden, so I left them like that. But I had to find that link through the talk page here, and that's not good.

Also, I removed the following sentence:

According to the United States Department of State, it has been called the Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine.

Does anybody beside the US Department of State (and the legions of websites that copy their information wholesale) say that Hezbollah have been called these names? If not, then there is no reason for us to include erroneous state department information, even if it is properly attributed. This question was asked above, by Graft, and nobody answered.

DanKeshet

Please don't remove this information ... it is relevant ... I am reinstating this information reddi 14:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You haven't even tried to answer my question. Does anybody other than the US Department of State (and people citing or copying their information) say they go by these names? Can you give me any references I can look up that would say the same thing? Why would it be relevant whether the US Department of State erroneously attributes various other names to the organization? DanKeshet

the history of what Hezbollah has been called is very relevant to this article. The US Department of State is a very reputable source and the inclusion of their informaiton is generally accepted through out wikipedia. reddi 14:34, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BTW, you can find pages and pages through a simple search of the names listed (just like Revolutionary Justice Organization does) ... it's not really hard to find references for this ... the info is accurate ... reddi 14:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I take serious, serious issue with the idea that the US Department of State, or any agency of any government--least of all a government involved in a conflict--should be considered a "reputable" source if challenged. We shouldn't take the Hezbollah website or Lebanese PR at face value, either. Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing, not because we all simply believe what the US state dept says.

[snip info souce skepticism]

Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing AND it is a reputable source of information (even if it goes against some ppl's POV). The information is reliable and should be include (much like the Hezbollah's own info should be included).

I'm all for being skeptical of information from wherever it comes from ... but don't restrict the information ... give the reader as much info as possible and let the reader decide ...

I have done the web searches for these names. Almost all the references that turns up are wholesale copies of the US State department information, or a 1996 propaganda leaflet by the Israeli foreign ministry (for example, here). As the Foreign Ministry leaflet pre-dates the State dept. info by 3 years, it's moderately likely the Israeli foreign ministry's information is the source for the (unsourced) information from the US State dept.

it's all just State dept / isreali propaganda? I doubt that (and many others do too) ... YMMV on it though ...

But the Israeli information only uses 3 names: 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance'. And it doesn't say that Hezbollah has "been called" these names like the state dept does, rather that they have created cover organizations using these names so as to misdirect credit and blame for their actions. DanKeshet

Are you seriously proposing a Conspiracy theory?

• Laugh*! I'll come back to this later, but I don't know what the "conspiracy" I'd be proposing was! A conspiracy to assert that Hezbollah has been known by other names?! DanKeshet

PS. FWIW, the Hezbollah website refers to their military units as "The Islamic Resistance".

I just included that in the intro ... reddi 15:43, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RickK - what are you doing? Please explain. -戴&#30505sv 02:54, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

This page is already grossly pro-Hezbollah. "The poor terrorists are only killing innocent people in self-defense. The Hezbollah drove the evil Israelis out of Lebanon." I can't sit by and let more lies be added to the page. I didn't interfere with the addition of the "NPOV dispute" line, that's VERY true. Ironically, the person who included it did so because he or she thinks it's too anti-Hezbollah, which is hardly true. RickK 03:01, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whenever you do a revert -- explain. To not explain is to paint the other party as a vandal which is clearly not the case here. -戴&#30505sv 03:06, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

The article is full of nonsense in both directions and Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist. If you look back through the logs, you will see that current dispute is over one word. I objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint. I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement, but that is not good enough for the people here who think that articles should tell people what to think about events and not merely inform them of the facts. I would not object to many of Hezbollah's actions such as kidnapping civilians and shelling Israeli towns being called "terrorist" because they satisfy the accepted definition of that word, but to use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable. It's a clear case of POV that should not be here. The United States was attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing. That is a fact. --zero 06:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

full of nonsense in both directions? YMMV that ...

Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist? again YMMV on that ...

dispute is over one word? I believe that there is more at dispute than that ... the relabeling of a organization that is supports terrorism (atleast in part) [which even the UN acknowledges] ...

Objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint? a viewpoint that correlates to FACTs ...

I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement? may be neutral ... but less accurate .... you leave out the reason why they attack ... which was a political move [to get the US peacekeepers out]

[snip 'tell ppl how to think']

[snip 'other Hezbollah's actions "terrorist"]

use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable? When it's part of a peacekeeping operation, YMMV on that ... especially when they are try to restablish order [not initating it in the 1st place]

It's a clear case of POV that should not be here? YMMV on that ...

The United States peacekeepers [you keep leaving that bit out] were attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing? yep ... BUT under the mandate to reestablish order ... and take out the Hezbollah terrorists. That is a fact. reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

state terrorism by Israel -- Wji, how is that more NPOV than what was there before? It is just a different POV. This is the problem with the word "terrorism"; it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion. We've seen it a hundred times. Someone describes something as "terrorism", then someone claims it wasn't, then someone makes it "which X regards as terrorism", then someone else adds "but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism", and so on. The resulting article is always awful and I don't think I've seen a single exception. It is a type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events. If the bare facts were presented without such loaded words in the first place, such nonsense could be (partly ;-( ) prevented. If it was up to me, I'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism. -- zero 08:11, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

state terrorism by Israel? nothin wrong with stating that some view it as this IMO, YMMV ...

different POV? nothing wrong with a view, as long as the editor isn't introducing it himself [as far as I can tell, from other articles] and it reflects REAL views in the world.

This is the problem with the word "terrorism"? terrorisms is real and factual ... sorry you don't see this ... I see how others can view certian actions as terorrism, while others don't ... and if you state who is viewing what as what, it's not that big of deal [the reader can tell which is telling the truth from the respective source] ...

it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion? YMMV on that ...

[snip 'hundred times' "which X regards as terrorism but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism"]

Resulting article is always awful? YMMV on that ... to me, it make the article more informative ....

A type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events? umm no, IMO ... it's an insult to not provide the reader the appropriate facts [as you seem to want to leave out the facts of what it is and what exists]

bare facts were presented without loaded words? loaded IYO ... others don't see it as loaded ... just a staement of facts of what is ...

If it was up to you, you'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism? ... mabey the is part of the problem .... you have a problem with the fact that terrorism exists and terrorists are real ... reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

On further reflection, and the latest semi-literate addition, I've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on. There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one. So I hope you all enjoy yourselves here; I'll be working on other articles. --zero 10:49, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

you've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on? great, hope you do some good work with other articles .... here's the fish .....

There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one? IYNSHO ... reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Reddi, the point that I think Zero is trying to make (and which I, and others probably, agree with) is that the way many people seem to deal with perceived POV problems is injecting an alternate POV into the article. The writing then turns into a hodgepodge of "X says A. Y, however, believes B. Some have alleged that C." Which is not only ugly and horrible reading, but it doesn't really serve to inform the reader. It would be -much- better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL. There is no need to go back and forth over who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't - let's just clearly explain who they are and what they have done, and let people decide these things for themselves. Many Wikipedia articles suffer from this same see-saw style of "N" POV editing, which results in really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them.

While I disagree that we should just run away from this article, I do agree that this article has serious problems, because it doesn't try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply to paste together two wildly divergent viewpoints into one article. Result, incoherence. Graft 11:28, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Ugly and horrible reading? mabey ... mabey not ...

It does really serve to inform the reader of what position organizations of society worldwide think ...

Better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL? So leave out Hezbollah's POV? Mabey leave out the United Nations's POV?

There is a need to state who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't .... IMO (others may disagree or agree) ....

Let's clearly explain who they are and what they have done BUT let's also clearly explain what other organizations have stated on this group (not just what they state that they do and what they have done) ....

I do agree that we let people decide these things for themselves, but with all the facts ....

Really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them? hmmm ... 1000 monkeys @ a typewriter =-) ....

Incoherence? YMMV on that ....

IMO, it does try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply state the two divergent viewpoints into one article. Not allowing the Hezbollah view's alone ... nor the UN's view (among others) alone ... reddi 14:50, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Having been around for a while, and having given this topic some good Christian thought-- I would define who is NPOV on this topic with a question:

"Do you think its acceptible for beautiful young Palestinian men and women to make sweet love with beautiful young Israeli men and women? Yes or No?

If you say "no" then you are not neutral on the ethnic issues underlying this whole subject matter (and this article), and you cannot claim to be neutral in editing this article -- all edits by such person are suspect, and subject to scrutiny. Only NPOV -- or "WPOV"-- a "world point of view" deserves the last word here.

The word of God is Love,

~S~

category:Islamic terrorist organizations

After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron

Generally considered? I dispute that strongly. This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed. What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, especially since I don't consider them as such myself, but I don't presume my personal opinions to be accepted by all. As the article states, Hezbollah is officially considered a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, it is often associated with 'terrorism' by Western media, and it seems to be inofficially considered terrorist in nature by others. The article makes it seem that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a significant part of the world, certainly enough to include it in that category even if it is not generally accepted, so I think you should either return the category link, or change the article to make it clear that the United States, Canada, the media, etc., are wrong in this designation and that in fact, Hezbollah is nothing of the sort. Does the dispute over the recognition of Israel justify removing it from Category: Middle Eastern countries? --Doron 11:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In other words, it is considered terrorist by the Anglophone world. As far as I know, it is not considered terrorist anywhere much else, and in much of the world such a suggestion would be found actively offensive. However, I can see your argument; were there some way of making its controversial nature clear, such as adding both that category and "Category : Non-terrorist militias" or something, I would support adding it. But surely in cases like this, when its membership is highly disputed and the very question is politicized and is discussed at length by the article itself, it's inappropriate to jump the gun. That's what we have List of terrorist groups for, after all... - Mustafaa 11:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever, it's really not such a big deal. Expect this issue to surface once in a while in the future, though. By the way, as you seem to be a veteran around here, what do you reckon should be done for this article to stop being in "need of cleanup"? I've cleaned some rubish myself some time ago, now it doesn't look too much out-of-shape. And can an article cease to be disputed (or is this quality inherent)?--Doron 17:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Article

This structure of this article is very difficult to follow. It also says very little about Hezbollah. It does say much about other issues, this is presumably included under other entries? Could this article please be restructured?

Possibly, but please don't delete relevant information. Also, "militant" is the accepted NPOV word here; both "guerilla" and "terrorist" imply a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Surely the point must be to provide information in a non-biased way? Or is the main aim to discredit this organization?

The former, which is why you shouldn't be trying to bias the article by using POV words and deleting negative links. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article IS biased. Removing some of these links would make it less so, please explain why MEIB would be a credible source? I believe it would be prudent to edit this article as it is full of allegations, most of these from 'America' or 'Israel'. The fact remains, for the casual reader this article does not provide much information on Hezbollah: Their ideology, history, involvement in Lebanese political system, involvement in the social sphere, there is little background on their influences, etc As for the picture, it is odd to use the word militant on a guerilla soldier.

If your issue was only the links, then you should have at least left an edit comment while removing them. However, you made other deletions as well, and made POV changes besides, which is why I reverted. I've removed the links since they are not particularly encyclopedic; however, what is odd is to use the word "guerilla" or "militant" to describe what just about everyone on the Western world (including the U.S., Canada, E.U., etc.) describes as a "terrorist". Should we change the description to "terrorist" to reflect that opinion? And by the way, "guerillas" are people who are fighting either a government or foreign troops in their own country; exactly which "geurilla" war are the Hezbollah militants involved in, a fight against the government of Lebanon? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just referring to your last point - those regarding Hezbollah as a guerilla (including myself), claim so because Hezbollah has mostly fought against the IDF during its occupation of the Security Zone in southern Lebanon. Although there have been Hezbollah attacks targeting Israeli communities in northern Israel, they were an exception, most of their attacks were against Israeli military outposts in Lebanon. There were probably attacks targeting civilians in every war in history, but surely you can't call everyone a terrorist, so I think that in general, calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is wrong. This is in stark contrast to the tactics of Hamas and the likes, who attack civilians almost exclusively. Since the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's pretext for continuing the war is the Shabaa Farms issue, which is perhaps a slim excuse, but on the other hand there have been very few attacks against Israel, nearly all against military targets. I think "guerilla" describes Hezbollah perfectly during the Israeli occupation. Since the withdrawal, Hezbollah is just a militant group trying to keep its power after losing its purpose. The fact that it is labeled as "terrorist" by politicians does not make it so. Given the facts listed in the article, it is not clear at all that Hezbollah ought to be labeled "terrorist".--Doron 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. As I have been saying from the start, I think, given the current state of affairs, that the term "militant" is a reasonable compromise between "guerilla" (a function it certainly does not perform any more, if it ever did), and "terrorist" (a function it has definitely performed in the past, and the designation of most western nations). By the way, lobbing mortars and missiles at Israeli civilian towns isn't a military action, and that's still going on. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "militant" is the way to go, I just thought for a moment that you were contemplating to change it to "terrorist". As for Hezbollah's actions since the withdrawal, I can't remember any attack against Israeli civilians (though I may be wrong). Assuming this list is exhaustive, there is only one attack (the infiltration near Shlomi) that I'd consider "terrorist", and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for that attack, so even since the withdrawal, Hizbollah generally seems to stick to military targets. On the other hand, there are some claims of Hezbollah support and involvement in Palestinian terrorist activity.--Doron 18:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

This is the most neutral, unbiased article I have ever read about the hezbollah. Someone may want to add a section with the dates of hezbollah attacks on israel and israel retaliations (or vice-versa), and the casualities if possible... You may also want to add sources (again, if possible!) like "implicated in this terrorist act according to ..."

i dispute the neutrality of this article mainly due to this sentence:

"Israel continues to blatantly violate and fly over Lebanese sovereign territory, eliciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General's representative in Lebanon."

if this is true, it MUST be sourced or verified somehow, otherwise it's pure POV. ~The article claims that Hizbullah was created "with the help" of Iran. It was created BY Iran, and continues to receive support to this day. I don't know if that's biased, though. Downplaying connections between the megalomaniacs and the terrorists (they ARE terrorists--they've fired katyusha rockets at israeli towns and helped to arm Hamas) doesn't work if there's so much evidence (self-evidence, really).

NPOV introduction

Hello, you made this edit to the Hezbollah article, claiming that it was more neutral that way. I see that in the old version, H. was described as a "Islamist group" that is "regarded" "as a legitimate resistance movement" "by many in the Arab and Muslim world" but as "a terrorist organization" "by the United States and some other Governments". In your version, this became "a national resistance movement" "perceived as a" "Islamist group" "by many Zionist and neo-conservative analysts". I would argue that this is a strong introduction of POV, and by no means an introduction of more neutrality, as "resistance" clearly is a positive view upon what Hezbollah does, and the claim that all who oppose its methods or ideology were zionists or neocons is plain nonsense. To find some sort of compromise, I have changed the article, so that it now claims that Hezbollah as a "militant group", regarded by those and those as such and such, etc.-- 790 07:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If HezbAllah is not an Islamist org, then what is? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

@ H. sapiens: Well personally I would agree that Hezbollah is an Islamist group, but it should be clear that some people may regard this label as POV, so I wrote that it is a "militant" group - no question on that - that some call "islamist" and others call a "resistance group". Wouldn't you agree on that? -- 790 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

@ Fares S: I pointed out that I think your definition is completely inacceptable, and you won't make it more acceptable by jsut reverting to it. -- 790 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot please everyone, but need to reflect NPOV. In this case, it its safe to call them Islamist. We may say that according to scholar A, they are X; organization B designated them as Y, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, well... that is just what I suggested, isn't it, just that I would abstain from refering to it as "being" islamist and rather say that many "regard" them as islamist, while many muslims reject that designation. That passage could be changed insofar that "many" regard them as islamist, not only the US and some other governements. Cheers -- 790 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with the last version of 790/Tamams Fares S 08:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we don't refer to them as being islamist because some people reject the term then we wouldn't be able to refer to any organization as Islamist. I would agree with Humus and present them as an Islamist organization but adding an Addendum saying some reject that term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Humus and Moshe here. "Islamist" has a recognised meaning, while militant is close to meaningless and getting closer every time it is used as a code-word for terrorist. I've put Islamist back in the first line, but in any case I've expanded on Hezbollah's ideology, the link with Iran, and a little more info on the terrorist thing. If people don't like the term "Islamist", and I know a lot of people don't for perfectly valid reasons, maybe the best place to point that out is on the page about Islamism (or else, can we say fundamentalist instead?)? I suppose saying an "Islamic" movement would be an OK alternative. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig that their alliance with secular groups is irrelevant. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party; that doesn't make them communists, nor does it stop the LCP being communists. They're also allied with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party - does that mean that the SSNP are no longer a secular Syrian nationalist party? The structures of Lebanese politics mean that parties are always allying with those they disagree with. That doesn't mean they have given up on their ideology. I would ask those demanding to remove "Islamist" two questions: 1. Would "Islamic" be an acceptable alternative?; 2. If we can't say "Islamist", how should we describe HA's political outlook? Just calling it a resistance organization misses a lot of the point, and fails to distinguish it from the LCP, OCA, SSNP, etc, which surely we can all agree are quite ideologically distinct from HA despite all being involved in the resistance. Palmiro | Talk 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Palmiro, however I think "Islamic" doesn't really capture the point, especially in a situation like Lebanon where politics are pretty much only divided between Christian, Druze, and Islamic. When seeing the designation of "Islamic" a reader might be left with the impression that it is onlt saying that most of their support comes from Muslims, if we use "Islamist" it really shows underscores the fact that being Muslim is central to their organization's identity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as a big problem (and don't forget that in Lebanon, Druze are a Muslim group!); it's quite common to refer to the Murabitoun and other secular groups as largely "Muslim", they are rarely called Islamic, while on the other hand groups such as the Islamist nuts in Tripoli that Arafat cosied up to in 1982 as well as the Hizbullah are often termed "Islamic". Nevertheless, my preference too is for "Islamist". By the way, "scientific transliteration" is common terminology, and many linguists not to mention Arabists of my acquaintance could get quite annoyed by your taking issue with it;). Palmiro | Talk 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying transliteration isn't a difficult and important subject, but when I think of science I think of people using the scientific method- that is they come of with a hypothesis to answer a question then set about proving it. To transliterate someone just has to have a suffcient command of both languages, then figure out how to phonetically write a word of one language with the characters of the other. Also even if Druze are classified as Islamic, they are still usually in groups by themselves.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Category "Designated terrorist organization"

I have problems with the category itself and listed that category for deletion. Articles in that category van be listed if the UNSC, the US or the EU lists the org. as a terrorist organization. So, in principle that shouldn't be a problem. However, if we are going to make categories like that, then we should also make categories to indicate how much support an organization has as a militant organization. So, I tried to do that by making a category for "legitimate militant organizations".

Just like one can say that the fact that the US lists Hezbollah has a major effect that cannot be ignored, whatever your views on Hezbollah, so also you cannot ignore the fact that a large fraction of the Arab world is sympathetic to Hezbollah, and that Iran supports it directly, whether we like that or not. In fact this does have a major impact, otherwise Israel and the US wouldn't make such a fuss over Iran's support of Hezbollah. It also makes it difficult to reach consesnus at the UN how exactly to define a terror organization.

Now, I chose the name "legitmate militant organizations" for that category, which perhaps is not so well chosen. Anyway this was listed for deletion, so this makes the whole categorization of orgs. like Hezbollah no longer NPOV. Many readers, even if they agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, know that it is a controversial topic. If that's not well reflected in the article, then the credibility of wikipedia itself is at stake. Count Iblis 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a soapbox, and you can't create or delete articles to make a point. See WP:POINT. So putting aside your current dispute over the "legitmate militant organizations" category - it seems you have no real problem with the category "Designated terrorist organizations" (you say "in principle that shouldn't be a problem."). So kindly leave it in. Isarig 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As you wrote on the cfd page, we can rename it to include something like "designated by the US&EU". That would be pretty accurate. We should perhaps also rename the category of militant organizations to include "supported by Iran", Syria or whatever. The word "legitimate" should be dropped. Count Iblis 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Having separate cats "TOs des by US", "TOs des by EU", "TOs des by UNSC", "TOs des by Australia" would be unworkable. Most orgs on most lists are common to more than one list; the cat list at the bottom of Hezbollah would be lengthy. Same for MOs supported by Iraq, Syria etc etc. Going back to the guildeline WP:CG, it states "Categories ... help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called" What info would the MO cats help users find? AndrewRT 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this can't be made to work. I think it is important to distinguish between the Security council on the one hand and a group of major powers. So, perhaps, if it is too difficult, then we should make two categories. One if the SC has proscribed a group. Org. like Al Qa'ida would be in there. And another if one or more major powers have outlawed it, but not the SC. Count Iblis 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that there is much overlap between the lsits maintained by the US/EU & Australia, how about renaming the cat "Organizations designated TO by US, Eu & Australia"? Isarig 03:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to try this as an article instead of a category Designated terrorist organisations. Lets see how this works AndrewRT 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is designated a terrorist organization by the US and a couple of other Anglo-Saxon countries and one or two European countries, but notably not by the EU. The United States does not equal the world. This category name is misleading, and really the category itself should go.

Also, I'm restoring the introduction to the more balanced version that was there previously. The current second sentence is not by any means suitable. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. We've discussed this before when you trried to make that change a couple of minth ago, and you did no thave consensus for thta change then, and you don't have it now. Isarig 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to that discussion? As far as I can see the insertion of what I just deleted was made without any discussion. You were right to put "Islamist" back in instead of "militant" though - that was an oversight on my part. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the discussion above, under the heading NPOV Introduciton - but my main objection was the use of "resistance" instead of Islamist, which you seem to agree with. I have no problem with the rest of your changes.Isarig 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to everyone here. There is a vote for deletion underway for the category designated terrorist organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations

Count Iblis 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What do people think of the wikilink to Islamic extremist terrorism? The page in question appears pretty Americocentric, considering it includes a list of the United States Department of State's designated terrorist organizations, and most of the statisics are gleaned from American sources. Linking Hezbollah to this page is misleading - as another user mentioned during the previous discussion, the U.S. and a few other Anglo-Saxon countries are the only ones to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The use of the word "extremist" also doesn't seem especially NPOV. MeredithParmer 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

references in intro

Any good arguments for overloading the intro with references to undisputed facts, that all are dealt with in greater detail in the article, such as it is a party and that Israel withdraw from (most of) southern Lebanon in 2000? Bertilvidet 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro's been used for POV-pushing all along. I don't know of any good reasons for any extensive introduction. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, can we keep the intro trimmed down as much as possible? It seems as the addition of anything to the intro starts reverting fun that spirals out of control. Mceder 18:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What should it read? Hezbollah: Definition: Hezbollah? There is no way of defining them without bias. They claim to be a legitimate resistance against Israel and call for a Global Jihad. Others (especially Hezbollah's enemies) consider it a terror organization. How would you like the introduction to read? Labaneh 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine now. All the POV pushing has moved into "Background". JiHymas@himivest.com 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree its fine "now", as in: Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite political party[1], with a military arm and a civilian arm [2]. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[3] that lasted until 2000[4]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.

However, I still do not see any reason for having all those disturbing footnotes confirming undisputed facts. Bertilvidet 20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the footnotes ... they don't take up much space and it's better than the usual unsupported 'As everybody knows, Hezbollah is .... '! If we have to have one extreme or the other (and I think we do), I'll go for over-citation. It would be nice if the references were put inside 'ref' tags. I haven't done it because that section changes so rapidly anyway. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone else agree that Israeli Occupation is a loaded term? Occupation implies a colony like British occupying Palestine or India. Most Israelis do not see "Lebanon" of the 80s as an occupation.Labaneh 04:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My agreement or opinion matters not, but it does seem some credible sources out there seem to at least refer to it as an occupation, or more commonly together as the invasion and occupation. Two brief examples below. Mceder 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Israeli invasion and occupation

Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Credible sources call Hezbollah a terrorist organization, we're not going solely by sources here, we're going for NPOV, and for the record, many view BBC as a news outlet as having a virulent Anti-Israel bias. Labaneh 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupation does not imply colony. Occupation implies a military force "occupying" territory - like the US occupying Japan after WW2, or the Germans occupying France during it. I have no problems with "Israeli Occupation" as a NPOV statement of fact. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge the "Statements by Hezbollah"

I think this part make many problems and everybody wants to add something . I propose to merge it to relative parts. --Sa.vakilian 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to do this - which quote goes where? Would it be a good idea to collect anti-Israel quotations in a subheading under "Ideology"? To me, that makes sense. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas - do you really mean this? " Would it be a good idea to collect anti-Israel quotations in a subheading under "Ideology"? To me, that makes sense.

I hope that I am not acting out of line but I have removed the first two alleged 'statements' because they are taken directly from the american right wing publication The national review, and are represented there without any reference to where or when they were said. In addition to this the statements which cannot be verified (other than by further references in the american right wing press) are extremely inflamatory. Should they have actually been made - It should be possible to cite more fully when and where they were said - If not all that will be achieved is furthering hatred. DavidP 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If those shouldn't be mentioned, then nothing at all should be mentioned. Having just pro-Hezbollah quotes as it is now is extremely POV. /Slarre 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

DavidParfitt : Sure, I meant it. Why wouldn't I mean it? The idea that Hezbollah is virulently anti-Israel is not just an idea that got made up by nefarious right wing publications. Have a look on this page at the "Strategy & Ideology" section ... that quote was taken from the text of a speech published on Hezbollah's website. Does that meet your criteria for verification and context? I looked up the first deleted National Review citation and found:

On October 22, 2002, Hassan Nasrallah told Lebanon’s Daily Star, “If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.”

I would prefer more direct citations, but the Daily Star is a pay site and not suitable for linking here. This citation is as good as most newspaper/journal citations, and should be kept (somewhere!) until something better, or something contradictory, is found. Let's be fair - let's recognize that Hezbollah is a complex shadow-government, as complex as any other major organization. Sure. But let's not whitewash them, either. Whitewashing is, as Slarre points out, extremely POV.

Do you support or oppose the idea of collecting the anti-Israel quotations under a subheading of ideology? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the pay version of the article in Daily Star (published Oct. 23, 2002):

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."

Also see the wikiquote page of Nasrallah. /Slarre 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the quotes at issue were deleted (not 'merged to relative parts') at 4:21 by Slarre, as being "POV Quotes". Why should anybody bother with a talk page if it doesn't mean anything? And "POV quotes"? Of course they're POV Quotes - they represent the POV of a major player in the issue. JiHymas@himivest.com 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

pov TAG

nasrallah is anti-Zionist not anti jews

There is written in the idealogy section:

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

This is text of worldnetdaily.com:

Hezbollah terrorist leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warns "Christian Zionists" are gaining strength in the United States and are having a powerful impact on U.S. foreign policy.Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Lebanon, Nasrallah charged oil companies and weapons manufacturers have financed these "Christian Zionists," according to a report in Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper. "Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several U.S. presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists." Nasrallah said the aim of the Christian Zionists in the U.S. is to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple 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." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29387]

As you see they distorted nasrallah quotations. so I put the other part of this quotation in the article to prevent misinformation--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can finds original Arabic text.--Sa.vakilian 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above doesn't follow at all. Firstly, quotation and indirect speech is being mixed indiscriminately: Actually, the text referred to above is what WorldNetDaily [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29387] writes, basing its information possibly on the Lebanese The Daily Star [5].

The only direct speech is

• "Christian Zionists" (2x)
• "Their aim is to redraw the world's political map"
• "It is said that several U.S. presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists"
• "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"

As grammar demands, all quotes are marked by quotation marks, editorial insertions are enclosed in brackets. The editorial insertion "(Jews)" is present in all 4 sources given, including the Daily Star's - it represents the 4 newspaper's interpretation of what Nasrallah said. Besides, N. isn't speaking of "Christian Zionists" returning to Israel - he speaks of "Christian Zionists" in the U.S. helping "Jews" to "return" to Israel.

However, even on the drastically flawed assumption that the worldnetdaily text would have been Nasrallah's direct speech, the inferrence that it devaluates the New York Times', the New York Sun's, and historian Michael Rubin's assertions is

1. baseless (that's my judgment, following logic and semantics. Being a mere WP editor, it's non-authoritative, of course)
2. your inference - and WP editors are not to infer nor to qualify authoritative sources' assertions, lest by other authoritative sources.

--tickle me 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation is POV and we shouldn't write this text in the article. I beleive they calumniated Nasrallah. They blamed him for anti-semitism but actualy he is anti-zainism. There is no evidence Hezbollah bother or hurt Jews who aren't related in Israel like Iranian Jews. Although if they wanted, they could do it easily. --Sa.vakilian 06:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is POV - it's the Point of View of authoritative sources, which we are to cite. What we are not to cite is our POV. "I beleive they calumniated Nasrallah": it's completely irrelevant what you believe, and it doesn't matter if you agree with authoritative sources: you are an WP editor. The POV tag is unwarranted, and posted ignoring elementary WP:POV policy. --tickle me 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't write view of editors of some newpapers and sites as if it is the evidence that shows Hezbollah wants to kill all Jews.--Sa.vakilian 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you hear his speeches, Nasrallah has always called Israel the "Zionaist state" and never the "Jewish state". CG 07:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: if that is what notable newspapers believe to be true, we are to cite it per WP:RS. Besides, Nasrallah is being quoted verbatim. You're not to delete or defame well sourced info based on your POV, which ought never to interfere with WP articles. Your editing here shows blatant disregard and ignorance of WP:POV, WP:RS and WP:OR. I don't know how to put it more clearly: your opinion on what Hezbollah does or does not want is completely irrelevant. You are not to edit according to what you choose to believe.

@CG: You fail to understand the most basic WP principles as well - you infer from what he allegedly never said - you are not to do so: it's WP:OR. This is utterly disheartening. --tickle me 08:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you search in the web, You'll find that most of the sites say anti-semitism and anti-zionism is equal or they have close relation. This is their Idea and we can't say this is the idealogy of Hezbollah. So you can make a section about some ideas about Hezbollah and write it there. But we can't write this interpretation as Hezbollah's idealogy unless we find a quotation which clearly shows this.--Sa.vakilian 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Basing inferences, which we are not to use anyway, on unspecified web searches is a mockery of orderly academic, WP related, or any cogent evaluation. Nasrallah holds Jews to be "a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment." You'r welcome to find that non anti-Semite. However, you're not to mislabel sources because you don't fancy to believe Nasrallah's own words - which happen to be refreshingly clear and unambiguous. And if the New York Times interprets quotes like this:

• "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
• "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."
• "Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”
• "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."

as "genocidal thinking", as most will, you are just free to disbelieve the obvious - not to (dis)qualify this directly by omission or indirectly by POV tag. I really would appreciate if you'd not deny those of Nasrallah's positions which he happily, proudly, and publicly holds - it amounts to WP:POINT. --tickle me 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian's editing has been very valuable to this article - a few weeks ago the article was highly skewed towards the anti-Hezbollah POV and his challenging of unsubstantiated conclusions, with his additions of material regarding Hezbollah's non-military activities have been very useful. I don't really care whether Nasrullah's attitudes are labelled 'anti-Zionist', 'anti-Jew', 'pro-Arab' or whatever. I just want to see direct quotations and authoritative analysis that will help me understand what Nasrullah & Hezbollah are all about. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to value these contributions as "direct quotations and authoritative analysis". I don't: it's jaw-gaping POV and utterly unwikipedic by any conceivable standard. And so were the other edits I contend. Two goods don't make up for one wrong, much less for many. I'm having a legitimate beef with this ongoings, and I don't value blurb thrown in the middle to water issues. I couldn't care less for last week's edits. We don't get awarded goodwill points to go wild unhindered, once an agenda demands it, to wit:

UPPERCASING, repetitive phrase-mongering, suggestive ellipses, mapped to example.com for want of even the most spurious of sources? I'm accustomed by now to specious manipulation, but what's that supposed to be? WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, or just a stone age agitprop seminary ...mock-up? Heck, there's not the least pretense left of WP centered intentions anymore. And nobody minds around here. --tickle me 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This was missing: Sa.vakilian's "authoritative analysis". Sv is a wikipedian, as such he *is not* to analyse, but to *find and quote or relate accurately* analyses. Moreover, whatever he does, writes, thinks: it's *not* authoritative for WP - *ever*. The preceding is the essence of WP policy linked above, which is openly mocked here. --tickle me 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Attacking "Sa.vakilian's authoritative analysis"? Referring to my post? If you actually read my post, you will not find this statement in anything I've said. Please refrain from personal attacks, in any case. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I forgot to put link last time(Hezbollah official website). But I corrected it. --Sa.vakilian 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)moved here by --tickle me 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an official Hezbollah statement - it says what it is, by whom and when. That is an anonymous archive search result page, I labeled it accordingly. An official Hezbollah statement on this has yet to be found, lest they should amend that page. --tickle me 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me - I just read through this thing.. Can we please put down the arms, get back to business, stop pointing out every WP policy violation? I can not eat breakfast without violating at least three WP policies. But it seems that arguing semantics does little to help this article along. Can we start over? Clearly and concisely spell out what you feel should be added, altered or removed? Cause at this point, I am frankly confused but want to help. Cheers, Mceder 03:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of dubious quotation

I removed this quotation: "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.". Please have a look at the source, its an editorail in the New York Sun and it is really unclear where the statement is from. If someone can come up with a precise reference for the quotation, feel free to add it again. Bertilvidet 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at that quotation as well, though not in the same way. It seems to me that the entire issue (Hezbollah & Israel/Zionists/Jews) could be dealt with very briefly ... something like "Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel (lots of references). Its views have been criticized as genocidal (lots of references)." It seems to me that there's more detail in this section than is appropriate for such a short summary (with perhaps a wikiLink to Arab-Israeli conflict), given the inherent problems of POV in selecting the material to be highlighted. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that now we have too many sources basically stressing the same point. However, I am not sure the ideology of Hezbollah can be described that easy. The article needs to describe the change in hezbollah's rethoric, which has become far more moderate since Israels withdrawal from (the vast majority of) Southern Lebanon. I heard recently in the radio that Nasrallah has been quoted for saying that Hezbollah will not have any issue with Israel, if they withdraw from the Shebba Farms and return the remaining Lebanese prioserns in Israeli prisons. I have so far not been able to find the reference for that quotation, but please add it if anyone comes across it. Bertilvidet 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler also said that he would stop invading European countries if he could just get a little more land 72.70.69.211 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not relevantimi2 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally relevant.Labaneh 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As I told before in "POV debate" I doubt "all" means "Jews" ,including anti-zionist jews. The first part of his quatation shows he meant "Zionists" including Jews and Christian Zionists.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29387] --Sa.vakilian 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How many truly anti-semetic remarks do I need to post before you accept that Hassan Nasrallah hates Jews? I will be sure he says yahud and not zionist in his rhetoric. You give me the number and I'll give you the proof.

If you put the links of his quotations and not the U.S. newspapers' interpretations, I'll accept. --Sa.vakilian 04:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the organization websitite?

Link please .

From the links section:

• Moqawama Hezbollah's Official Website

Mceder 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing! The edits of 01:02, 2 August 2006 65.93.209.196 changed the reference from http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/ to http://www.moqawama.net/

Both are registered to

Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service

P.O. Box 229

Margaretville, NY 12455

US

Sounds like a dangerous line of work to me!

JiHymas@himivest.com 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I know all of these site and some other sites like [6] are belonged to Hezbollah. But the languages are different and they use different adress to prevent hackers.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? If we could establish a chain of referrals starting with a site that is known to be authoritative (such as Lebanese government, or Mohammed Fneish, the cabinet minister), this would be a good thing to note. ESPECIALLY since I understand there are some claims that Israel has hacked the al-Manar television signal and is substituting their own content on at least one satellite. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz says "Hezbollah's media empire - which includes the Al-Nur radio station and the Web site moqawama.net - has been an inseparable part of the psychological war." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745287.html JiHymas@himivest.com 15:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/ has been down for a few hours. Bombed? Hacked? Or is the cheque in the mail? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the revision dated 22:51, 5 August 2006, user Nimur cast doubt on whether either of these sites are official. I have left a message on his talk page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nimur has answered. I am taking the liberty moving his reply, posted as a new section on this page, to a subsection of this one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Web Site / Media Outlets

There are two linked web-pages described as Official Web Sites. I have tagged these as disputed for the following reasons:

• The official media outlets of Hezbollah are Al-Manar (television) and Al-Nour (radio), both of which have official web-sites.
• These newly created websites address only recent developments (2006 conflict), and not the larger organization
• As an organization, Hezbollah has not officially recognized these websites via its other news outlets (Manar and Nour).

If anyone can find a citation on Manar or Nour which reference an official web-page, by all means, please let us know. It may also be worth inclusion in the article to discuss that both Manar and Nour's official web-pages are temporarily down; the most likely cause is the recent chaos in Lebanon. Nimur 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that all? I would have used the word "unconfirmed" rather than "dispute", but perhaps that merely my taste. I found one Israeli-registered site that claims to track down Hezbollah's sites for the purpose of shutting them down, but I have no idea whether this site or the organization behind it is credible. http://haganah.org.il/haganah/index.html JiHymas@himivest.com 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the link to moqawama.net, given the citation by Haaretz, and changed "disputed" to "unconfirmed". JiHymas@himivest.com 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I dig, the more interesting this gets! The site http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/tergps/tghez.htm (US Military!) refers to http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm as the "Hezbollah organization web site" and http://www.moqawama.org/page2/main.htm as the site of "Islamic Resistance Support Association (Lebanon)". A search on the latter organization turns up an (unofficial) Israeli document, http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/hizbullah/chap_d.doc, that says:

• Hezbollah’s fundraising in the United States focuses mainly on areas housing sizeable Shiite communities, such as New York, Detroit, Boston, and Los Angeles. While US authorities define Hezbollah, including its civilian wing, as a terrorist organization, we know of no concrete measures taken against charity funds associated with Hezbollah and operating in the United States.
• Among the centers mentioned above, Detroit, home to a large Shiite community of southern Lebanese origin, stands out as the main center of Hezbollah’s fundraising activity in the United States. Compared with other centers, fundraising in Detroit is carried out by a fairly well organized mechanism. Three charity funds operate in the Detroit area. Additional fundraising is carried out through the Islamic Resistance Support Association. Al-Shahid Fund [the “Martyr’s Fund”] appears to be the major fundraising institution in Detroit, probably Hezbollah’s main fund in the United States. It is closely linked to Hezbollah’s Foreign Relations desk, and is also related (to an extent which is yet unclear) with the al-Shahid Association in Lebanon. Two additional funds operate in Detroit: the Educational Development Association (EDA) and the Goodwill Charitable Organization (GCO).
• The Islamic Resistance Support Association raises funds in the Detroit area by means of “alms boxes” placed in restaurants in the local Shiite community. Until recent years, donors were also openly referred to bank account numbers used by the “Support Association”. Since the September 11 attacks, however, this practice is no longer in use. It is still possible, though, to donate money directly to the bank accounts used by the Islamic Resistance Support Association.

Now, I have no evidence as yet that the IRSA and the IRSA(Lebanon) are one and the same, but this is getting fun! JiHymas@himivest.com 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have investigated - as you can see, the "answer" is not quite straightforward. I recommend keeping the unconfirmed label in the main article, since even the experts, authorities, and intelligence services do not seem to have a clear consensus; nor do the official outlets of the group seem to indicate these websites are official. Nimur 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with "unconfirmed" ... The only thing we have, really, is a reference from Haaretz, and I don't suppose Nasrullah 'phones them every day to keep them in the swim. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's something timely from Time : How Hizballah Hijacks the Internet It turns out that Haganah is well thought of ... provided that the "Haganah" in Time is the same as the http://haganah.org.il/haganah/index.html noted above. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked moqawama.net ... "suspended", presumably by host, although it might be a hack. ADNKronosInternational provides some alternatives, but neither www.lobnannews.com nor www.moqavemat.com are currently accessible (from my Canadian ISP, anyway! Maybe Harper bought some Chinese software!). Haganah claims that these "forward[s] to moqavemat.ir" ... I can't reach www.moqavemat.ir either. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I just edited some vandalism attempt that wrote on the main description 'MURDEROUS ISLAMO-FASCIST PIG' organization, or something like that. Someone should check the history and see who's the one doing it. Thief12 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other types of vandalism have also been occuring, people have been removing statements of fact such as "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization." While that type of statement is often mistaken as POV, in cases like this it is a statement of fact and should not be removed.

Considering only three countries in the world has actually labeled Hezbollah as a whole, a terrorist organisation, the statement "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization" IS POV (namely the US, Israel and Canadas point of view). That is why we refrain from making blanket statement, and rather state WHO thinks they are terrorist. Calling an organization terrorist is not a fact since the definition of terrorism is hardly clear cut and factual.

On the other hand, I do not think you will find the line stating that they are NOT a terrorist organisation even though that is the POV of many countries.. Mceder 12:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the whole article is quite POV, but more importantly simply poorly written! There are at least three references to "Hezbollah is considered by Lebanon to be a legitimate resistance movement". Once is quite enough...

Why somebody remove this sentence "which result in killing innocent people but not others. For example" from this part

"Hezbollah has denounced some acts of terror which result in killing innocent people but not others. For example, it condemned the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but not the attack on the Pentagon. It denounced Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt, and the murder of Nick Berg. However, it expresses support and sympathy for the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamist groups responsible for suicide attacks and armed resistance in Israel and the Palestinian territories. "

As you see it makes the meaning clearer. I added Hezbollah's definition of innocent people to make the meaning clearer.--Sa.vakilian 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. The section title is Allegations of specific terrorist attacks. There is nothing specific referenced in the quote from the Robin Wright article. This snippet should certainly appear somewhere in the article, but not here - and not three times, either! It is currently quoted in "Ideology", "Allegations of specific terrorist attacks" and "Rebuttals of terrorist designation". Once would be quite enough - I suggest the last section is most appropriate. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I merged this part with "Rebuttals of terrorist designation" .--Sa.vakilian 09:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The structure as it was and as it is again makes perfect sense to me: there is a section regarding specific allegations, there is a section regarding general allegations (or specification) and there is a section for rebuttal (which looks really weak, by the way : you may wish to spend some energy looking for something a little stronger). I suggest that major changes to the article structure not be made until they have been discussed here ... and by "discussed", I mean that a suggestion should be up for at least 24 hours before action is taken. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend many people have editted this article and some of them don't pay attention to this page. I propose you to improve this part. I think you can do it well.--Sa.vakilian 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of holding you responsible for other people's actions. I'll only consider you responsible for your own actions. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that part(Designation as terrorist organization ). I've only tried to improve it. Of course this part is very disputable. I prefer to move it to a new article and write an abstract instead of it.--Sa.vakilian 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Marine barracks bombing

I modified the sentence about this a bit to make it NPOV. I think that to denote it as a terrorist act is very POV. I deleted the sentence that it is widely regarded as the start of modern terrorism. I think that that claim should be sourced. Count Iblis 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked your change. According to the referenced 1983 Beirut barracks bombing article, it is thought to be one of the first instances of suicide bombing, but the article provides no citation to support that argument. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of counter-examples if I tried! As far as being terrorism ... well, the American judge called it terrorism, http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/ , so while we can argue POV, at least we can argue authoritative POV! JiHymas@himivest.com 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The ruling of the judge could be included in the reference list. Saying that a US judge ruled it to be a terror attack is not POV because then any possible POV refers not to the actual event (the bombings) but to the judge making his ruling... Count Iblis 00:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I believe "introduction" is very brief and suitable description to introduce Hezbollah and it shouldn't be omitted.--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This part is formed to move unnecessary part from lead to body of article and if we omit this part, the lead will become long again.--Sa.vakilian 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know... it seems to me like the "Introduction" was better split up into its relevant sections. This way, you could get a good overview of the organization by reading the stuff under the top-level heading on each section, and you also wouldn't have to reread content that would have to be duplicated under both the introduction and the relevant section. Thoughts?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I guess my guiding philosophy is that each section (Military, Civilian activities, Foreign relations, etc.) has its own introduction, making a comprehensive introduction unnecessary, as long as the lead is doing its job.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• But I would agree that the introduction to each section has to be pruned, if this is going to be workable, by relegating more content to subsections.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there weren't a big problem.I'm almost sure if we omit this part, then most of editors add such sentences in the lead. please look at this:[7](background=introduction).If you pay attention to history of this article, you'll find this part worked as a stack for moving some part of lead and shorten it. So I just want to prevent a loop.--Sa.vakilian 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In a normal publishing world, where one of us could spend a week writing a proper article that would be rarely changed, I would be in better agreement with Banzai, although I would retain a very short introduction that explained the structure of the article as much as anything else. In this world, where we have instances of vandalism and POV pushing every 5 minutes, I agree with Sa.vakilian. The old introduction was useful ... all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there, and it would be reverted by the other side very quickly. I'll confess, I never edited even the most egregious garbage in the intro ... I've only got one life to live! This new format hasn't been in existence long, but it does seem to me that the POV pushing has been smeared all over the page, making it more a nuisance. Bottom line? I say keep the intro until Hezbollah's out of the headlines for a few days, just as a 'pressure release valve'. Maybe we can start it off by getting Sa.vakilian and Labenah to write alternate sentences! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(lol!) I like that proposal. Maybe you’re right.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on my idea about Introduction. So please do what you find right.--Sa.vakilian 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We should semiprotect of the page If there is vandalism every 5 minutes. like what is done in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I try to make introduction NPOV but it's impossible.So I prefer to have a POV introduction instead of a POV lead. As I told before I agree with Banzai, But I'm almost sure the lead attracts the POV-pushers like bees to honey because this issue is very controversial.Then all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there. If you doubt, Please pay attention to history.--Sa.vakilian 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. What I've been doing so far is looking at the "diff" between the current revision and when I last looked at it, which is sort of a pain, but tells you everything that's changed so you can look for blatant POV-ness throughout the article, not just in any one section. A "honeypot" would make this easier for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. So far I've just been checking the diff's for blatant POV. A "honeypot" would make this easier, for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So I add a brief version of introduction.--Sa.vakilian 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the introduction before noticing this talk. Sorry about that. But I really think that the question about whether Hizbullah is terrorist or not does not need to be repeated 3 times in the article, especially since it is the focus of a huge amount of edits. If this bothers anyone, we can merge the entire introduction with the "mini introduction" in the beginning of the article. Marokwitz 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Szvest 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

about salute

It is an interesting fact and worth of encyclopedic mentioning...

Hezbollah members show a salute that strikingly resembles the nazi salute, with the right hand raised in the air. (see in video).

--TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For more NPOV, edit it.--TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How would one possibly edit it into NPOV? Either they're definitely copying Nazis, which would be worth mentioning, or it's a coincidence, in which case the inclusion of this section is seemingly just an attempt to associate them with Nazis. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. see Islamofascism. Hezbollah is mentioned--TheFEARgod 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's a definite link, that's cool, put the section back in. The problem I have is that without a source other than a video, it's hard to ascertain whether saying they are using Nazi salutes (or a derivative) is a neutral statement. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's find an expert on Hezbollah and may he confirm something.--TheFEARgod 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people around the world saluting the same way including G.W.Bush. Does that mean they are Nazis or compared to them? The question arised many times in WP and it was removed for the same reason i am stating.-- Szvest 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the segment of video at around 01:35? It is not even clear to me this is a salute. For there to be a salute, there has to be a superior to receive the salute and this does not appear to be the case. Also, the unsourced interpretation that this is a Nazi salute constitutes "original research" which is strictly forbidden. If there is a credible source which claims that this video contains evidence of a Nazi salute, then by all means, quote that source.

Jonexsyd 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. No original research allowed and dubious source (at the moment!).. This is worth hunting down a good source for since it is a fascinating link, and much worthy to be noted in the article. Mceder 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• this is nonsense. raising your hand does not make you a Nazi. Try making attempts to portray them as bogeymen less transparent. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• REMINDER: We also really need to update the articles on Buddhism to reflect their Nazi ties. Mceder 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi, eh? And all this time I thought they looked like Americans taking the pledge of allegiance. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a Nazi salute its called a Roman salute (69.69.161.45 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

The US pledge of allegiance is NOT done with the salute under discussion (ie, what Hitler made famous in WW2 as a Nazi salute), but with the right hand over the heart. Elizmr 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bellamy salute JiHymas@himivest.com 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting historical tidbit. The ref, however, confirms what I said above and supports the association of the salute in question with the Nazi salute: "The initial military salute was soon replaced with a hand-on-heart gesture, followed by the extension of the arm as described by Bellamy. Because of the similarity of this part of the salute to the Hitler salute, the Bellamy salute was replaced in 1942 with the modern gesture of placing the hand over the heart without raising the arm" Elizmr 20:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Hezbollah for having sufficient personal integrity to disdain having their ceremonial choices circumscribed by the antics of a pack of thugs. I would think better of the US had they shown similar moral fibre in 1942. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but if you were a little jewish kid in school wouldn't you be terrified if all your classmates and teachers were standing around you doing what you had seen the Nazis (who you knew were hunting and systematically killing all european jews) in many newsreels?? I, personally, would find this pretty scary and intimidating. The swastica, too, is a beautiful symbol used in many traditions like native american, indian, tibetan, etc, but it too on too much baggage in WW2 to be anything but a symbol of a fascist genocidal anti-semetic organization. Elizmr 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From the date, I suspect the American decision had a lot more to do with their declaration of war than with any concerns over anti-semitism ... if it had been the latter, they would have made the change after Krystallnacht with the first few influxes of Jewish refugees. However, I'm glad you see my point. I have not only driven through the town of Swastika, Ontario, but was once employed by a firm that had a branch there (the federal government wanted to change the name during the second war, but the locals refused, saying "We had it first!"). I've also enjoyed Wagner's Ring Cycle without, I hope, being corrupted by insidious murderous impulses. At any rate, if there is any actual evidence that Hezbollah (and the others mentioned under salute) adopted the gesture by reference to Nazi ceremonial, then this becomes worthy of mention. If it was adopted by reference to any other tradition (how does the IRGC salute?) than that's also worthy of mention. But emphasizing the hypothesis that the salute implies Nazi sympathies without any evidence isn't just bad science, it's silly. Naziism is revered today only by anti-social losers and in any event, the next group of genocidal clowns, whoever they might be, to have a direct impact on the western world will not only be different from the Nazis but will probably affect disdain for them. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi style salute was, and is in some places, common in most Arab armies and paramilitary forces, I don't know why. Arguably it's because postwar Nazi refugees, most of them from the military or police force, where sought experts creating or restructuring Arab forces in that era. Even nationalists like Nasser, who considered himself socialist, were eager to get these experts. Some of them, in a strange twist, converted to Islam later. Besides, Nazi Germany was a cherished supporter against British rule and Jewish immigration. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni recruited Muslims for the Waffen-SS, Qtub was influenced by French fashist Carrel and had Muslim Brotherhood members parade with Nazi salute through the streets of the 30ies' Cairo.

As long as the direct connection is not verifiably established, it can't be mentioned in the article, but it should not come as a surprise. Ahmadinedschad didn't invite prominent European neo-Nazis like Horst Mahler to the Holocaust conference for disliking them and their stances. --tickle me 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I will get working right away on The Hezbollah-Nazi connection.......Mceder 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of recruits being sworn in?

The discussion at the talk page for Image:Lebanese Hezbollah recruts being sworn in.jpg seems to indicate that this image may not actually be of Hezbollah recuits, but rather of the Iranian Basij. The photo shown at this page Is nearly identical (that is, it quite obviously depicts the exact same people), but it appears to have been taken a moment before or after the image used here. —ptk✰fgs 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm.. I would remove it right away if it was not for this page. I trust it as a source of the image and where it was taken more then iranmania.com. Either way, it is a fair use image so if anyone is attending a Hezbollah swearing in ceremony soon, bring your cameras for som PD goodness! Mceder 01:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As there is written in here we can't use this picture

"This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Hezbollah"--Sa.vakilian 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please let me find a photo which is in under GNU or fair. I put some link here and you decide which one we can use here.--Sa.vakilian 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're misreading the tag, Sa.vakilian. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use JiHymas@himivest.com 05:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:POINT to delete a photo of reliable source, as is AFP/Getty Images, having a verifiable origin, and complying fully with fair use regulations; the reasons are obvious: the depiction doesn't fit a POV. iranmania.com is not a WP:RS by any means and did mislabel the img, the pertinent "discussion" is moot. The salute contended is the one that's commonly used on such occasions, besides it shows the relation of militia and religious lead, a distinguishing qualitiy of that movement. Thus the photo depicts an essential pictorial and formal element of Hezbollah militia. It's pertinent to the article. Sa.vakilian: could you be bothered to stop this disruptive and uncivil behaviour you're persuing for months in this regard? Could you be bothered to not crop the fair use tag's wording, omitting the parts that don't support baseless claims? --tickle me 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Request: Tickle me, please refrain from personal attacks. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FIRST REQUEST STOP SIDELINGING HIS ARGUMENTS BY SAYING HE IS MAKING A PERSONAL ATTACK. JiHyas did NOT make a personal attack. Please see WP:CIVIL Jeremy D. 16:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack being exactly what? --tickle me 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian: could you be bothered to stop this disruptive and uncivil behaviour you're persuing for months in this regard? Could you be bothered to not crop the fair use tag's wording, omitting the parts that don't support baseless claims?JiHymas@himivest.com 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So I shouldn't mind violations of WP:POINT and selective use of evidence? What base do you give to his claims? He has deleted an image for no valid reasoning repeatedly over months: what's not disruptive about that? Is the verb "to bother" offensive? --tickle me 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The first part of your post was entirely justified. The part I reproduced was not. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2 Cents: Everyone needs to chill on this article. I am taking a 48 hour break from it myself, because I find myself frustrated with these arguments. Look, someone brought up a valid point about an image's origin.. no one deleted it, no one replaced it with one that shows Hezbollah murdering jews. It was something that User Ptk brought up here, for us to discuss! So it really does not warrant us all freaking out over it. This article went from a really crappy one to what we have now, and I think it can be on it's way to a Great Article one of these days.. but only if the POV blaming stops, and we actually build consensus instead of yelling. Mceder 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another image of Hezbollah members saluting at http://kontrateksty.pl/files/news/heil%20hezbollah%20008.jpg In this one they're carrying Hezbollah flags, so at least we've got (one of?) their salutes properly down (or it's very thorough disinformation!). I looked around for images of Basij saluting ... found a few copies (or very similar versions) of the image under discussion, but nothing that had the same salute in a completely different context. On another note, we can now hypothesize that the Hezbollah salute is derived from the Basij salute but, alas, this will have to remain speculation for now, at least as far as I'm concerned. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove "Operational History"

The "Operational History" section should be removed - it merely duplicates what is already in the "History" article and some of the operations referred to are really old. Is there any consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support: The whole purpose for a History of Hezbollah is to put it there and leave a lead to it here. Mceder 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed too. The Operational History only talks about what Hezbollah has done. It should also talk about what Israel has done to stop Hezbollah. --SkyEarth 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)SkyEarth

• Well.. this is the article about Hezbollah right. So I am sure Israel has it's own operational history section, and that information fits there. This information fits here. Mceder 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving the items that are not already in the History of Hezbollah article to that article. Count Iblis 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I am so impatient. I have removed the whole section. The article is now 6 kilobytes less in size. Mceder 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mceder, Hezbollah conflict with Israel is what defines it. So it only makes sense to describe Hezbollah's strikes on Israel and Israel's strikes on it. Otherwise this is POV!! Because it only says Hezbollah is attacking and attacking Israel without Israel attacking back (which it is fully entitled to). You are not including Israeli attacks on Hezbollah because..... you tell me why? EVERYONE MAKE NOTE OF MCEDER'S COMMENTS

• Dear User:SkyEarth.. Please chill. All I did was move the Operational History to the History of Hezbollah section. Which you agreed to yourself. And please, everyone make note of my comments - perhaps soon I will get my jewish decoder ring. Mceder 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mceder, What do you mean by a "Jewsish decoder ring"? I don't care if you are Arab, Muslim, or Jewish (I am neither of the three). I just thought your comments were harsh, "Well... this is an article about Hezbollah right. So I am sure Israel has it's own operational history setion...."; Israel has had many engagements with many other forces. Hezbollah is only fighting Israel. So its conflict with Israel is what defines it. So therefore, it was important to have a chronicle showing each sides attacks on the other. Hezbollah abduction of soldiers, assasinations by Israel, tragedies, etc. --82.35.35.4 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dear 82.35.35.4.. The decoder ring is a joke. If my comments were harsh, I apologize. But please do not assume bad faith, or that everyone has a hidden agenda with every edit. A lot of us are just trying to make this article better. I have worked on several things to shorten it down. It is way too long. It needs to be written more in summary style, with broken off articles. This is not POV, just standard Wikipedia practice when an article gets too big. Mceder 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did this go? This needs to be summarized or the article is very POV. Elizmr 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Elizmr, everything is saved at Talk:History of Hezbollah. You guys feel free to put it back wherever you deem it to go. My suggestion is as I state on that talk page, information already not in the History article should be worked into it - and a summary written for the History section on this page. Mceder 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I believe we have consensus that this be removed from the main article. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be difficult, but consensus means everyone agrees. I don't agree. Elizmr 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This is totally non-npov. A tag should immediately be placed on it. --71.197.196.45 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the article do you believe is not NPOV? Please be specific. Sanguinalis 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Like most of Wikipedia it is disgustingly yid-biased.

What is suitable for Lead

Related threads have been gathered here. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I think this part "and started again on July 12, 2006 after Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers and killing of eight others in a cross-border raid into Northern Israel...Hezbollah's cross-border raid prompted Israel to bomb Hezbollah targets within Lebanon, in response Hezbollah has persisted at firing hundreds of Ketusha rockets each day at northern Israel. Israel has responded by waging a ground and air war against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including dropping depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs. " shouldn't be written in lead. Of course it should be moved to History of Hezbollah. But Shamir has insisted on remaining it. I want to know the other ideas.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with Sa.vakilian. The lead should very briefly sum up what the organization stands for and its history. The focus of this article has to be the organization of Hizbullah, not the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which has its own article. Bertilvidet 08:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian as well, for what it's worth. The disputed section is gone now. But maybe it will back! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears POV is creeping back into the lead. The statement

It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada[7]

seems unnecessary, since there is a section in the body about which entities designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Also, the sources referenced by this statement

. But other countries don't agree with them. The Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against occupation[8][9].

Don't substantiate the claims that the Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against the occupation.

Jonexsyd 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence One of Hezbollah's principal declared aims is to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon that lasted from 1982 through 2000 and again starting in July of 2006 due to attacks inflicted on Israel by Hezbollah and the continuous occupation of the Shebaa Farms. is starting to sound non-sensical. Tense of "aims is" is wrong given than the 1982-2000 conflict is in the past.

Will make an edit that fixes the tense issue and removes POV statements. Jonexsyd 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the phrase "It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada." in the lead. It gives the impression that only those countries consider it a terrorist organization. Should we add something like "many western countries"? Or is that too unspecific and POV as well? What do you think? Any ideas? --Splette ^Talk 12:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't just use the international definition of terrorism, which is the intentional targeting of civilians for advancing political agenda and be done with it.Labaneh 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we use this definition then we should say the government of U.S. and Israel are terrorist too.--Sa.vakilian 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the emphasis here is on targeting civilians which neither US nor Israel do in my opinion. But this article is not about mine or your opinion. So lets better not start a political discussion here. Also I wasn't trying to suggest here to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the lead. It's just that the mentioning of US, Canada and Isreal makes it look like these are all countries. It would be interesting to see if/what other countries officialy recognize Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Does anyone have any information (with source) on this? --Splette ^Talk 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the lead - what justification has been given for putting the terrorist designation ahead of the resistance movement designation in the lead? In other words: who decides whether the less negative or more negative characterisation of an entity should lead? Do negative characterisations always take precedence? If not, why so in this case?

Jonexsyd 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

POV lead

I put POV tag and put description here[8]. --Sa.vakilian 13:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A tag is mostly meant to stimulate discussion, and there is quite a bit already ongoing. I'd propoe that we remove it. - brenneman ^{L} 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the debates. It shows neutrality of the lead is disputed.--Sa.vakilian 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is not neutral in the lead? Elizmr 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian, the lead is clearly POV as of 03:35, 13 August 2006. Compare it with the lead of 21:19, 8 August 2006, which was fine.

• The Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh,[2] meaning Party of God) is a Shi’a Islamic organization and political party in Lebanon, comprising a military and a civilian arm, whose primary stated goal is to defend Southern Lebanon against present or future Israeli occupation.[3][4][5][6] The current Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has held the office since 1992.

• The United States, Canada, and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but the European Union and the United Nations have no official position on the matter.[7][8] The vast majority of Lebanese and some Muslim states regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against present or future Israeli occupation.[9]

See also here, where the issue was raised, discussed and ignored. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Current discussion

The lead is wrong.Please look at this sentence: "Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below) considered by some to be terrorist attacks, but has not claimed responsibility for any of these acts. It is viewed by many Muslim countries, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist, as an organization of legitimate resistance against Israel. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization."

Hezbollah and its supporters accept its responsibility for military attacks to Israeli armies and civilians in Lebanon and Israel but there is disagreement about what it should be called . It's called legitimate resistance, retaliate attacks, fighting with Israel as a illegal and illegitimate state or terrorist acts.

So this sentence isn't suitable. The first sentence is fault and the second one too. Who do not recognize Israel's right to exist called Hezbollah attacks "Jihad" and who are opposo to occupation of Lebanon by Israel called it legitimate resistance.

Please look at to [9] too.--Sa.vakilian 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Sa.vakilian 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see your point. Let's figure out how to make this work. I'll write something and please let me know what you think. By the way--I did not take out the tag. Elizmr 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that is glossed over in this article is the internal power struggle in the early '90's, when Hezbollah was under pressure from Syria to become a political party and Secretary-General Tufayli was ousted (later discredited, then outlawed with H's tacit agreement, then disappeared (unknown whether exile or death). It seems to me that Hezbollah under Musawi and Nasrullah is a very different group from the one that (maybe) executed the spectacular attacks in the '80's and that (maybe) the Argentine bombings were the last gasp of the more radical elements. It is very clear from sources already quoted in the article (e.g. http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/norton.html) that there has been a change - perhaps big, perhaps small, perhaps not enough - since the early days. I suggest that any discussion of the major attacks should note who was Sec-Gen at the time. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved some part of lead to the introduction .

Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below). The characterization of these attacks varies widely. They are viewed by many Muslim countries, who for the most part do not recognize Israel's statehood, as legitimate acts of resistance, or Jihad, against Israel. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when most of these attacks took place and is still considered by Hezbollah, but not the UN, to occupy a small piece of land. Others consider these attacks to be "terrorist" acts.

Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization''.

I'd rather to achive a consensus then move this part to lead again.--Sa.vakilian 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This lead is 100% POV and should be deleted.

"widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings" Who "widely believed" this statement, you? You cannont use "widely". And which incidents are you refering to? "Multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings" name them and show proof.

"They are viewed by many Muslim countries, who for the most part do not recognize Israel's statehood, as legitimate acts of resistance, or Jihad, against Israel"

Are you joking? This is trash. Who are the "many Muslim countries"? MOST MUSLIM COUNTRIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE SHI'ITE MUSLIMS, BECAUSE 90% OF MUSLIME ARE SUNNI NOT SHI'ITE!! Here is just one artile proving this http://www.nysun.com/article/36373

SO YOU ARE 100% WRONG THAT THEY HAVE THIS SUPPORT! Only Iran and Syria support Hezbollah because Iran is the only almost 100% shi'ite muslim country on earth.

I could go on and on about your dumb posting. Delete it.

SkyEarth --SkyEarth 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and we can have a rational discussion and - hopefully - come to a consensus on this issue which you feel deserves the pressing of your caps lock key. ~ clearthought 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clearthought, I am 100% calm. I am not Jewish or Arab/Muslim but I am tired of all the mistakes making it through as "facts". Can't we learn that there are several "strands" of Islam like Christianity (protestans vs. Catholics). The Sunnis are the "Kings" of Islam. 90% of muslims worldwide are Sunni. The only country that is 88%+ Shi'ite is Iran. Therefore, it is only natural they are so supportive of Hezbollah, i.e. a Shi'ite movement. The rest of the Arab world hates shi'ites and are extreamly suspicious Shi'ites due to the fact that it come from Iran which is NEITHER ARAB NOR SUNNI. So, most Arab govt' are deeply worried about Hezbollah gaining influcence and therefore issue fatwas against Hezbollah (http://www.nysun.com/article/36373).

And the Syrians only support it because they are still at war with Israel and it is a marriage of conveinence.

So it is really is a lot more complex than most people think. Thank you for your attention. --SkyEarth 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, that is only one Saudi Sheik. Many Sunnis have supported - to a certain extent - there Shia 'adversaries', but nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, all under the US's grip (to a certain extent), have partially condoned Hezbollah. This Slate feature might be helpful to all trying to understand the situation. This BBC News page (and linked pages) may also be of use. ~ clearthought 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clearthough, Agree with above. The problem is that they (the Arabs) are foes of both Iran and Israel. The Shi'ite Persians on one hand and the Jewish Israelis on the other. They are Sunni Arab and are caught between which ones they "hate" and "fear" the least. And, right now I would say that they hate and fear Isreal less than Iran. I think because of the Shi'ite/sunni fight in Iraq this has caused them to tip more in favour or hating Israel less than Iran. But, nevertheless, most sunni arab muslims in power fear the shi'ite rise. So therefore, Hezbollah is both loved and hated. --SkyEarth 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can't beleive the guy who tried to talk us into that most of the Muslim world is against Hezbolla, the only logical explanation is that he comes from another galaxy, the (fatwa) he quoted from the saudi sheikh was condemned by all muslims (especially sunnis), by now muslims know that the alleged saudi sheikh's fatwa was a dirty trick, Americans order their puppets in KSA to pressure the resistence in lebanon, who in turn give orders to their puppets to issue such statements. Yes sunnis & shiaa have their differences, but by no means do one side prefer Israel to the other, Republicans & democrats hate the guts of each other, but i don't think democrats would prefer taliban to republicans. So yes, ALL muslims are backing Hezbolla 101%, & i mean muslim people, so don't quote from a government official or an arab president, cause we consider them our enemies same like israel. Arabs & muslims regard hezbolla as heros & as their only hope, don't ever say that hezbolla is hated or feared in the Muslim world, & don't ommit the feelings of 1.3 billion muslims because some good for nothing saudi sheikh was trying to comply with what his prince asked him to say.

I think something about the "operational history" should be in the lead. I worded the above to underline that there is a widely disparate view of these attacks. Could we discuss and come to consensus about what we could say that we could all be happy with? Elizmr 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I try to make this part neutral, NPOV and fair. Of course my English isn't very well thus I may make some mistakes. Please look at following text and write your idea.

Hezbollah and Israel have participated in too many military clashes against each other sience 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. Also both of them have attacked on civilians and assassinated or captured each other.

There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be called. Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement because Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when most of these attacks took place and is still considered by Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms also Israel has held some Lebanese in the jail. The muslims who recognize Israel as an illigitimate state called it Jihad. Russia , the European Union, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia among others do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The United States, Canada, and Israel consider Hezbollah a full terrorist organization while the Australians and Dutch only view Hezbollah's external Security Organization as a terrorist Group. UN do not considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.(ref. Designation as a 'terrorist' organization)"--Sa.vakilian 08:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Everyone, I still do not agree that they have wide support in the muslim world. Please read Clearthough's and SkyEarth's comment's above. Everyone can agree that is has always been popular with the shi'ites but it has not always been popular with the sunni's until recently.--82.35.35.4 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sa.vakilian. Here's my edit. I think we should focus on Hezbollah's acts here, rather than Israels (because this article is about Hezbollah), but say CLEARLY and strongly why Hezbollah feels they are justified becuas that is important. Is that general idea ok? Also, I think we should say that not all of the Arab Muslim world feels this way because of the comment above. What do you think? Below, the first part is background to the second part.

Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings , murders , hijackings, and bombings (note: for Israeli attacks on Hezbollah please see x). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization (see section x below).

Elizmr 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to the above discussion (not an expert or even very well-informed - in fact I came to read the article so I would be better informed) but here are a few thoughts (hopefully helpful):

(1) The article is indeed really long and should be split into side articles

(2) The level of writing ability for large parts of the article seems low, especially compared to other articles of this level/type. I mean no offense by this (as I wish I could read/write/speak another language) but it reads as though it was written by mostly non-native writers.

(3) Whoever spent all the time finding/citing sources is to be commended - been there/done that and it's a LOT of effort.

(4) Large parts of the article do tend to come across as POV, from both for and against sides though it reads to me as being largely written by pro-Hezbollah writers. (Note that I'm sure there's some bias in me too, as a typical American) Sources are helpful and add legitimacy, but when opinions are cited as fact, it still violates the NPOV principle.

I hope that helps, just a neutral wikipedian's thoughts. David Schroder 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the whole article until some balance can be achieved. Elizmr 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed due to insufficient rationale. If you wish to tag the article, go ahead, but if there is no specific reason given, with a current wording and a suggested wording that we can look at and vote on, it will be removed again. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting my paragraph (see above) in the lead. I'm assuming this is ok with others since no one has made comments. Elizmr 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved a long paragraph to here because it was very long and not suitable for lead.

"Another founding objective of the organization was elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel), and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings , murders , hijackings, and bombings . (note: Israel's retialitory attacks not discussed here). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization. "

Please discuss here to acheive consensus about what ara proposed.--Sa.vakilian 02:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian: I have discussed with you and incorporated your points and others to the best of my abilities. You keep deleting this but have not said anything specifically about what you disagree with. This is highly relevant well sourced information about HEzbollah which describes a crux issue. It is competely acceptable for the lead. Please stop taking it out. Instead, please tell me exactly what you feel is wrong with it, OK? Elizmr 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Elimer's comment review. 1- "violent acts" should be changed to "acts" otherwise it is POV. "violent acts" is not neutral. "violent" has a strong and negative meaning 2- "Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state." This is false; Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/01/international/i131823D79.DTL), Turkey, Mauritania, Azerbijan (http://www.azembassy.com/archive/2002/media/cjn29apr02.htm) and more HAVE ESTABLISHED REALTIONS WITH ISRAEL; 3- Do no use "jihad" only; Use resistance (Jihad); Jihad has a negative meaning in English. 4- REMOVE "violent" to acts of "resistance" 5- Finish with some states consider hezbollah a "resistance" movement and other consider it a "terroist" organ.

You are expressing a POV wheater you like it or not. --SkyEarth 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel's actions against Hezbollah MUST be expressed here. Or it is POV. It is an organization that is centered around fighting Israel so the battles need to be chronicled; You also cannot use "kidnap" http://www.answers.com/topic/kidnap ; This is not a neutral word. Kidnapping is a crime. Therefore by using it you are suggesting this is a crime. But not everyone will agree with this. Some people will see it as a crime. Others will see it as a strategy to get their own people released that were supposidly "kidnapped"; YOU MUST USE THE WORD "CAPTURE"; Capturing civilian/soldiers to use as bargining tools....

Re SkyEarth's precepts:

• It is perfectly acceptable to refer to "violent acts", to differentiate them from "non-violent acts"
• The quotation is not false, but it could certainly be made more precise. But why bother? This isn't an article about the Arab and Muslim world, it's an article about Hezbollah. Only H's views (and outside analysis of H's views) need to be reported.
• Jihad is perfectly acceptable; Hezbollah has used it to characterize its actions.
• "resistance" is how H describes its violent actions; others describe their violent actions using other terms. Care should be taken to maintain the integrity of paraphrased statements.
• Finish however you like.

JiHymas@himivest.com 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am tagging the article as POV because

1)all the content about hezbollah's violent methodologies in history, etc, has been removed to new articles without being summarized in this one 2)crux issues about history of the organization re: elimination of Israel, history of violence, how this is regarded in the Jihad sense and in the terrorist sense--acknowledging both viewpoints has been repeatedly repeatedly deleted by various editors 3)a un-biased Wikipedian above noted the article had a proHezbollah point of view I would really appreciate it if this tag were not removed dismissively. Elizmr 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian:Length was not an issue that you mentioned before. A lot of the length is due to adding stuff to reflect many viewpoints. Hez is an organization that is based on resistance against Israel. Isn't this true? The issue of views and goals re: Israel belongs in the lead, as does something about where these views come from, what methods have been used to achieve the goals, and viewpoints about the methods. What do you suggest we cut out? I would be willing to do a one or two sentence summary of my paragraph for the lead and then place the whole paragraph in the intro, but you keep deleting it entirely. I just can't find this acceptable. Elizmr 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose this one:"Hezbollah and Israel have participated in many military clashes against each other since 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. The conflicts have been the cause or the result of various kidnappings and assassinations.There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be defined as. 6 or 7 countries recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization the others (mostly muslims) recognized them as a legitimate resistance"

I think it's NPOV and short. We don't need too much details in the lead. If we put the name of one country then we should write the name of other countris too. so we can refer to Outside views of Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of various countries and their characterization is less important than a summary of what the org stands for and what it has done. If we kept what is in the lead short, are you willing to expand somewhat along the lines of what I had written:

Calls continue for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. The State of Israel), a founding objective of the organization. and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings , murders , hijackings, and bombings . (note: Israel's retialitory attacks not discussed here). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization. "

in the intro?

I would really appreciate it if this tag were not removed dismissively. Elizmr 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tag might have a better chance of standing up if you are more specific about your complaints and if you attempt in good faith to form a consensus prior to slapping a NPOV tag on the entire article. My memory's getting a little poor in my old age, but I can only recall one debate in which you joined that had to do with specific contentious issue with which you were involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Widened_or_Abandoned. In that topic heading you made three contributions: two were mere assertions that you were right and the third advised that you'd gone ahead and made the change you desired unilaterally. (How you and Sa.vikalian can speak with such certainty as to what is and is not the subject of nods and winks at high-level Hezbollah meetings is quite beyond me. Half the time, I can't even figure out if my girlfriend wants me to stay or go.)

• Your claim that "'1)all the content about hezbollah's violent methodologies in history, etc, has been removed to new articles without being summarized in this one'" is without foundation. There are plenty of direct references in "Stance on the use of 'terrorist' tactics", "Position on Israel", "Relationship to Hamas and Palestinian national movement" and "Assistance from abroad".
• With respect to "History" specifically, this was discussed and consensus reached under the heading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Remove_.22Operational_History.22 . You received no support for your somewhat unspecific position; in fact, your contributions were unspecific complaints and a novel definition of the word "consensus"
• Your remaining claims are too general to warrant retaining the tag.

I vote: Remove Tag. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, it looks like you screwed up the references... And, this sentence Hezbollah attempts to maintain websites to run recruitment videos and post bank account numbers where supporters can donate funds.[72] These websites are also considered "an inseparable part of the psychological war"[73] and are tracked by other groups with a view to their closure.[74] seems made up. The links have nothing to do with that sentence. Coolintro 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All references were garbled by the extra ref tag in this revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=69941351&oldid=69941078 I've fixed it. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up the refs. It was not intentional. Consensus means everyone's opinions are considered and listened to. What is novel about that? In the middle of a Hazbollah-provoked war, three people decided to bury the operational history of Hezbollah on a separate page due to the length of the article, while overlooking much repetitive prose and devoting great swaths to social programs, etc. This effectively whitewashes the organization. I will take the tag off the article when, for a start, the article acknowledges Hezbollah's violent methods (I was going to say "past methods" but recent kidnapping and murders did not really allow me to do this) and future plans rather than putting the ortanization forth as a benign public service organization committed to supporting the development of a pluralistic society in Lebanon. It is ok to say anything positive anyone wants about Hezbollah. Given the facts and the cites, I will even write it. But to refuse to air the other side is not Wikipedian. I haven't been able to devote much productive work to this because every time I add a few well-refed sentences they are immediately deleted. Previously, I argued that an analysis from a short BBC piece which did not quote any other literature was not a sufficient cite to support a claim of what Hezbollah's goals are in the lead of the article. I did not say my opinion was "right" or "wrong", I just said I thought the evidence was not sufficient. Finally, when you quote (?me) saying the following: How you and Sa.vikalian can speak with such certainty as to what is and is not the subject of nods and winks at high-level Hezbollah meetings is quite beyond me. Half the time, I can't even figure out if my girlfriend wants me to stay or go. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your comment that my claims are too general to support the tag are your own value judgement. It looks like you are a new editor on Wikipedia and you are doing a nice job, but I think it is important to remember that you are not the "supervising" editor on this article and everything on Wikipedia is a group project. Elizmr 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: What do you mean from "three people decided to bury the operational history of Hezbollah on a separate page due to the length of the article". I proposed it and I defend my work. This article is too long. Also The history of Hezbollah is not only the the Hezbollah's operation against Israel but it includes the assassinations, bombings and kidnapings which has done by Israel against Hezbollah[10]. You always blame as if Hezbollah is terrorist and Israel only defends on itself and it does some retality attacks. You forget Israel runover Lebanon in 1982. You forget Israel assassinated Hezbollah last Secretary-General and his family. You forget what happened in Qana in 1996. You forget Israel has held some Lebanese for more than 20 years and you forget many other things. Please read this.

I beleive the wikipedians can't judge which one is self defence and which one is terror by themselves.

So I propose this sentence for the lead:"Hezbollah and Israel have participated in many military clashes against each other since 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. The conflicts have been the cause or the result of various kidnappings and assassinations against each other.[11],

[12]There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be defined as. 6 or 7 countries recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization the others recognized them as a legitimate resistance" --Sa.vakilian 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian, I think that your pov that the violence is all mutual with hostilities going equally in both directions is competely and totally valid and should be aired here. There are other povs too which need to be aired if the article is to be balanced. The sentence you have written does not do justice to all points of view. Elizmr 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV. I think Israel occupied Lebanon and killed innocent people and Hezbollah tried to withdraw them. I just propose this sentence help to acheive consensus. If you think there is another NPOV sentence, Please write it and don't blame me.--Sa.vakilian 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When we say that Hezbollah's violent acts are legitimate acts of Jihad and explain all the background--Israeli occupation, Sheba farms, etc--your point of view is aired, isn't it? I tried to write that sentence to express this explicitly. The other point of view, that the violent acts are terrorist also needs to be aired. The best intro sentence just outlines the attacks under discussion. The intro sentence does not need to say anything about WHY, because that comes in the next two bits. With this section in place as it currently stands, I think we are moving towards NPOV. Elizmr 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

• I have reverted changes by the user "Elizmr" to the summary of "History". This section is the current subject of a POV tag and it is entirely inappropriate for major changes to made in this section - particularly by this user, who has not achieved any semblance of consensus. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just because you don't agree with me, and because I'm not happy with the article being one-sided, please don't say I have not been looking for consensus. Others have complained because I have been discussing TOO MUCH (see below). Moreover, I explained the changes I made in my edit summaries. I apologize for not using the talk page and will do that more.

To summarize recent changes to the History section: One sentence was not historical and was a copy of what was already in the intro. I thought we were worried about length here; I don't consider that to be a major change. I took out white space between one mention of when the org started and amother mention of when the org started. I also don't consider that to be a major change. Finally, I deleted something about a murder since it was already mentioned in the section referred to. Maybe this is a major change and I apologize for not discussing on talk first, altho Wikipedia does tell us to "be bold". It seems bizarre to highlight one historical event in a "history" section while omiting others. The entire "operational history" was removed, for example (in my opinion, without consensus, see above). I think some of those events are more relevant than what is included. The comprimise would be to not mention any specific events. What do others think? Elizmr 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your summary of proposed changes: it makes no sense to take something out of a major subsection because it is "a copy of what was already in the intro." The introduction is subordinate to the body of the article. It introduces the body of the article. That is why it's called an introduction. In any event, seek consensus before inflicting your changes on the article. Wait 24 hours and see what gets posted. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the verb "inflicting" to describe my edits to the article is a personal attack. Re: waiting 24 hours, that is not a wikipedia guideline, but WP:NPA is. Please refer to it. Elizmr 09:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas reversions

JiHymas you just deleted some well thought out and well edit sumaried work I did on the introduction and your edit summary refers to the history section. You have been very attacking on the talk page, accusing me of not looking for consensus, etc. I am working hard on the article to get the NPOV tag off it. I think your repeated reversions of my edits are a little bit personally motivated at this point. Could you try to look at my work on its own merit? I am a good editor, and trying to be fair. Elizmr 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the person responsible for the POV tag, "working hard on the article to get the NPOV tag off it" is disingenuous to say the least. Get consensus, if you can, and then make the changes. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly disingenuous. I felt the article was/is slanted. That is why I put the tag on. I explained why (and I know you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, but many articles are tagged with much less discussion). I am working making edits to add some balance to the article so that we can take it off. Why is that disingenuous? Elizmr 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21_Hezbollah JiHymas@himivest.com 02:40, 21 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)

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)

Make new page and rearrenge the archives

Because this page become too long I propose to move it to archives. Also I propose rearrange archives on the basis of topics. I think a historically archives cause the last debates missed. So we can make POV Discussions, Structure Discussions and so on. I can help you with it if you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mcedar's just moved a lot of material into another archive - beating me to it! I had been planning, on August 22, to move every heading that had no entries dated later than August 15; he appears to have taken a more subjective approach. I think that it's appropriate to leave headings up for at least a week to allow all editors a chance to weigh in. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean if there is a debate in the next year about POV of the article, new editors can't find the last debates in this issue easily. Please pay attention to this problem [13]--Sa.vakilian 03:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with re-arranging the archives by topic. Sounds like an enormous task, but if you want to do it, go ahead! I suspect that it would be much easier and just as useful to create an index to the archives, so they were arranged (at least approximately!) by date, but accessible by topic. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea Sa.vakilian. Thanks for it. Elizmr 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One comment, however. In working with the archives it is important not to edit too heavily or things can get removed from context. Elizmr 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a new archive for POV and disputed issues. I didn't move anything and just copied them from former archives to new one. I did this on the basis of frequency of using "POV" and "disputed" so please read it carefully and remove anything which doesn't relate. Also I rearrange former archives. I moved all of debates which happened in July to Archive 2 and all of debates which had been ended before 8 August to archive 3.--Sa.vakilian 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

tags

I took the pov tag off the article afer recent changes. I think the clean-up tag could come off--what do people think? Elizmr 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a little more cleanup would be a good idea. Wjbean

I don't understand how the structural order relates to POV. I think the article is NPOV either military activity comes first or not.--Sa.vakilian 03:48, 25 August 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [14] 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 [15] becouse it [16] 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)

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)

Censoring of Argentine prosecutor's religion

First of all, how dare you give yourself the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant on Wikipedia. You are nothing more than someone with enough free time to spend hours a day censoring articles. You do not have the authority you gave yourself.

Second, in case you have been in a cave, there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people. The prosecutor's religion could have very likely played a role in his discretionary decision. Even if it didn't play a role, there is no need to censor that information. I don't want to waste my time disputing this with you further. Please call a responsible Wikipedia moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.183.177 (talk • contribs)

So, you have only confirmed that you want to insert the prosecutor's religion into this article solely to buttress your insinuations. Beit Or 08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Er yeah, and the notion that there is a "global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people" isn't the most accurate according to everyone. Now, I could be open to noting the prosecutor's religion, but we need evidence that it is notable. If you could find a neutral source who notes the prosecutor's religion in this context that would go a long way to persuading us to include it. JoshuaZ 08:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is true why is it relevant? It would likely only be used to insinuate that the proecutor is somehow bias because of his religion, which is simply ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please get a responsible moderator here? Why are you so afraid of people learning that the prosecutor is Jewish? You don't think it's possible that a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians? Wikipedia is an intellectually honest forum, and is allowed to contain facts you don't like. Please call a responsible moderator as I don't have time to get into an edit war with dozens of Israeli censors. --75.17.183.177 08:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One could just as easily ask why you are so ocncerned with people knowing he is Jewish (without a source I might add).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How dare you claim the information is uncited? Do you have any ability to discern truth from mis-truth? The cite is right next to the article. The information is relevant because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religious and political affiliation. You have no right to censor this information. It's disgusting that a mob of Israeli censors are allowed to monitor and destroy the objectivity of Wikipedia. --75.17.183.177 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to people familiar with my work on Wikipedia, but I support the publishing of Alberto Nisman's religion. It is cited and I have no reason to challenge the reliability of the source or accuracy of the statement. On the other hand, to ensure NPOV, if we include information about one of the prosecuter's religion, we must include information about all of the prosecuters' religions. The entire statement from "The Jewish Week" that 75.17.183.177 refers to reads: "Nisman, who is Jewish, and [Marcelo Martinez] Burgos, who isn’t, oversee a staff of some 45 people ...."[17] If we do not include the religion of Burgos and the fact that 45 people work for them (and let's be honest, most of those people are probably Roman Catholic), we would be distoring the truth slightly implying that only a Jew would come to the conclusion that Hezbollah is responsible for the AMIA bombing, or, in the words of 75.17.183.177, that "a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians."

P.S. Mr. 75.17.183.177, am I correct in assuming that you believe in a tangible link between Hezbollah and "Iranians?" :) --GHcool 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Week tells us who is and who isn't Jewish because it is, well, The Jewish Week. I can't think of any good reason why Wikipedia should discuss religious and ethnic affilitations of otherwise non-notable people. Beit Or 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, mentioning his religion is irrelevant and completely unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE get a Non-Israeli and objective moderator to resolve this? --75.17.183.177 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I for one am not Israeli and even if all of us were it wouldn't matter just as your nationality and religion has no bearing either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From your edit history it is crystal clear that you spend your day censoring articles in the way the other Israeli censors do. --75.17.183.177 08:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

comment Yeah sometime some people censor things in wikipedia, for example like what they did here --Nielswik_(talk) 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think adding fact that he is jewish is not a bad idea. For example, why we need to specify Hizbullah is Shia Islamist militant (1st paraghraph) or is an armed Sunni Islamist organization in Al-Qaeda's description? --Nielswik_(talk) 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really sad that a mob of Israeli censors can effectively censor information with edit wars. Simply disgusting. I don't know what to say. --75.17.183.177 09:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the Israeli censor Beit Or contrived another reason to hide this information (that Nisman isn't the only prosecutor) -- If you google the story, or google Nisman's name, you will get 1000s of hits confirming that he is the lead prosecutor. Here is a link http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=alberto+nisman&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 for you --75.17.183.177 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nieswik, I left the name (which is perhaps relevant if he was the chief prosecutor, but not if he was just one of them), but his religion/ethnicity is completely irrelevant. Please don't add it again, unless you can find a reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful). Please review WP:NOR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now the news article isn't reliable? Since when did pro-Israel censors decide which news sources were and weren't reliable? So when you don't like the information you attack the reporter? Stop censoring the information. --75.17.183.177 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the following entry in Wikipedia's request for unprotection page [18].

There has been an endless edit war between pro-Israeli censors and other users regarding disclosure of the fact that an Argentine prosecutor, who filed charges against various Muslims for a 12 year old event, is Jewish. I think this is relevant information because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religion. As anyone knows, the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews. Knowing the religious affiliation of a person can be very important to understanding why he did what he did. Unfortunately, a group of pro-Israel censors (their affiliation is clear from their edit history) refuses to allows the publication of the fact that the prosecutor is Jewish, even though it is well cited [2]. First they claimed it was irrelevant. They gave themselves, and not the readers, the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant. Then they claimed that he wasn't the prosecutor and was only working as part of a team. A quick google search of Alberto Nisman [3] reveals that he is the lead prosecutor. He runs the team and he is the sole prosecutor listed in all of the mainstream articles. Then they claimed that Jewish week isn't a respectable news source. They had the nerve to attack the reporter's (Larry Luxner) journalism! Then one of the pro-Israeli censors accused me of racism and banned my IP, simply for daring to suggest that a Jewish person's religion might have something to do with the discretionary decisions he makes towards Muslims! Their actions have now reached the height of intellectual dishonesty. Rather than disclose the information and let readers decide if it's relevant, they want to hide it, and deny the readers the ability to think for themselves. Please correct the articles under "hezbollah", "AMIA bombing" and "Rafsanjani" to add four simple words disclosing the fact that the lead prosecutor is Jewish. Please keep wikipedia as an objective source of information, and not a tool controlled by a mob of pro-Israel censors.." Although pro-Israeli censors seemingly dominate wikipedia (I seriously wonder if some of them are paid), they do not dominate the world and Wikipedia will be less relevant if it only presents facts they like. Alternatively, please set up an Alberto Nisman article and provide a biography of his life and accomplishments, and like every other biography article, disclose his religion. Your prompt and fair attention to this matter is appreciated. Footnote - The pro-Israeli censors are listed below. Their affiliation is clear from their edit history and user pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GHcool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amoruso http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg

Yep, I'm sure people will respond to that pretty well, and if they don't they must be Israelis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like 75.5.1.216's request was declined, but let's get the order of events clear:

1. 75.17.183.177 accused well-meaning Wikipedias of censorship.
2. Those Wikipedians challenged the relevance of Nisman's religion to the article on Hezbollah.
3. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman's religion may have swayed him to "target Muslims and Iranians" because "there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people."
4. I, GHcool, offered a fair, NPOV compromise to the problem: we should inform the public on Nisman's religion if and only if we include the religious affiliations of the other prosecuters as well.
5. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman was the lead prosecuter and implied that therefore his religion is more important to the article than all of the other prosecuters' religions.
6. SlimVirgin, a neutral Wikipedian, agreed with Beit Or other like minds that Nisman's religion is irrelevent to the article on Hezbollah. She suggested that 75.17.183.177 find a "reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful)."
7. 75.17.183.177 misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally) SlimVirgin's suggestion to mean that his source that told Nisman's religion, "The Jewish Week," was an unreliable source.
8. 75.17.183.177 filed a complaint with the folks at the Wikipedia unprotection page.
9. That complaint was rejected. Long live NPOV.

--GHcool 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a statement in the arbitration complaint against your mob. I was not surprised that someone had previously filed a complaint against you. I also thank God that my existence is not so devious that I have to spend my days censoring information. Enjoy your misery as your efforts are largely futile. The real world thinks for themselves. --75.5.2.227 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. I don't see any complaint against me on that page. --GHcool 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my arbitration request was deleted. User Jayjg (his edit history is replete with pro-Israel wikipedia censorship) deemed the addition of Nisman's religion racist and banned me. Further, user Thatcher131 deemed that since I had been banned, I would not be given an arbitration request. So now it is impossible to even get a hearing on whether this information should be included. This whole affair is really beyond sad and is an indication that pro-Israeli censors are not interested in truth, but are rather interested in imposing their will. Having now dealt with you first hand, I am no longer confused as to why most of the civilized world holds a negative view of Israel and Israelis. May fate continue to justly bring misery to your oppressive lives, and may you waste your weeks futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I can think of no better prison for you. --75.28.17.156 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Misery over the futile attempt to convince people to act ethically is, unfortunately, a uniquely Jewish curse; one that has prevailed throughout history. If it truly is a "prison" for us, then I can think of no better one either. Fortunately, there are some days in which this otherwise futile goal is achieved. This was one of those days.  :) --GHcool 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I read that God sometimes hates a group of people so much that he no longer gives them the ability to discern what is and isn't right. He creates a prison for them, but by denying them the ability to discern truth, he denies them the ability to break out. Although I don't know why God would torment one group to a life of endless misery and futility, I thank God that I and most of the civilized world, have been spared from your prison. Again, may you waste your hours futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I will leave this mess, and for that I feel blessed. --75.28.17.156 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether your speculations are true or not, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and especially the part Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you start accusing for any reason on any Wikipedian that has been around far longer than you in here. I have been active in here for no more than two months, and I do not have a stance in this arguments about the point of view on the Jewish things. However, I have been here long enough to have a rough aspect of and respect the policies in here. Furthermore, just because you deem yourself higher status than us does not mean that it is or will be true in any way, and barely anyone would be affected by your condemnation on us. If you have any complaints about it being a legitimate source, try to resolve the dispute in a peaceful way.

By the way, the arbitration committee is for the last resort in such case that everything else fails. I sincerely hope that you could one day become one of the Wikipedians and am looking forward for it. Cheers, Vic226 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who changed my additions?

Ok this is a completely BIASED article... Who changed my addition of the conference in Beirut?? Way to give your opinion on that one friend. It is kinda biased to say "their historical homeland" thats stating your opinion dipshit... They lived there for a while, then the Muslims lived there, then the Christians, then the Muslims again, and vice versa, and vice versa, and the the Jews of EUROPE claim it to be theirs. WOW guy, you are one dumb bastard... way to take advantage of Wikipedia... I enter a bit of imformation to balance the argument up a bit so the reader can form the Idea himself, I left all the other junk claiming they're "anti-semetic" and some prick goes and changes it to make it biased again. What does one have to do to incorporate accurate information on htis page. Why did you take out the quote by the Rabbi? Why did you make it sound like Naturei Karta are a bunch of Fanatic nuts?!?! hm????? Ahmadhusseini 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GHcool made the modifications to your edit. However, please refrain from personal attacks. — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair, fair... and tell me do you find that this article is completly Neutral, I guess not. Do you find that making Neturei Karta sound like they hate jews themselves Neutral??? Please... do elaborate. No offence, but this Hezbollah Page sucks, not what I expected from an ecyclopedia that is supposed to be un-biased. Keep your personnal issues with the movement off the page. Ahmadhusseini 01:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed this article for neutrality in any great depth, as I mostly just look out for vandalism and English grammatical problems in this article. I also haven't reviewed the changes you made, or the changes that were made to your edits. However, all I'm suggesting is that you remain civil and polite when discussing the problems you see with the article with others. Name calling really isn't constructive, and calling people "dipshit," "dumb bastard," or "prick" are likely to get your account reported, and an administrator may block or ban your account. I'm not reporting you; I'm mearly suggesting you remain civil when discussing changes. — George Saliba ^[talk] 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize this section in a neutral but accurate way. I don't think all the details about the conference, who was there, or what it was about adds anything to the basic meaning of the statement, especially with regard to the section it's in. Hopefully people find this summary neutral enough to avoid the edit war that seems to be on the verge of breaking out. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked this article and I think it's NPOV. However we can improve it. I thank Ahmadhusseini for his efforts to make it more NPOV but we should summarize his editions to fit the article. This article is not suitable place to add Naturei Karta's viewpoints.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanx guys for your help. I hope we keep working this way to improve this page to neutral status again... The second piece of information that I would like to address is the Nasrallah quote: "If Jews gathered in Israel..." I have check out the resources, the NY times one is more of an opinion article, it is from a journalist who is doing a book critique and doesn't provide a source, the other one says it leads to the Daily Star article, but actually goes to the "Free Republic", they all quote an article previously printed in the Daily Star, but when you click on the link of their original feed, the page cannot be displayed, as far as I know The Daily Star's archieves doesn't carry the story any more, why?, And if an original isn't available, if the source is taken away, wouldn't this classify under stuff that's made up, or stuff that can't be proven?? Ahmad Husseini 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So I did some searching around, I have found this about that quote.From :

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=545

The first ('If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide') was circulated widely on neo-con websites, which give as its original source an article by Badih Chayban in Beirut's English-language Daily Star on 23 October 2002. It seems that Chayban left the Star three years ago and moved to Washington. The Star's managing editor writes of Chayban's article on Nasrallah, that 'I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].' The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was 'a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.'

Look in to it guys.Ahmad Husseini 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A search of the daily stars archives shows that the author of the quote Badih Chayban has only been a writer from August, 12 2002 to November 25 2003. So raughly one year. and never mind I found the article, but you have to buy it. Here's a blog running the refutal of that story by Mr. Chayban: http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2006/09/nasrallah-said-what.html .

Check it out guys, and I have sent an e-mail to The Daily Star for further elaboration, we'll soon get an answer (that's if they write back)Ahmad Husseini 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and NormanFinkelstein.com are not considered reliable sources. Please do get back to us if The Daily Star writes you back. --GHcool 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the blogs; the original correspondence is still available. Charles Glass wrote an article on August 17, 2006, in the London Review of Books, which Eugene Goodheart, a professor at Brandeis University apparently, responded to with a letter to the editor on September 21, 2006, in which he mentioned the quotation in question. Glass replied in turn on October 5, 2006, citing the questionable source of the quotation. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, forget about the blogs, Charles Glass wrote the article and Eugene Goodheart responded, and vice versa, but what I'm looking for endlessly is Glass' Leak/quote/source/where he got the thing from. Don't get me wrong if the Sayyed did say that its gonna go on, I would even put it on there myself, but what is causing some doubts are these little facts:

1-Hezbollah denied it, Hezbollah doesn't openly say something like that, something that big to a 14 Athar-movement Newspaper, and deny it the next day. Especially Sayyed Nasrallah, he has offered more facts, and truth than any other arab leader in the region, I don't think he wants to ruin his reputation that easily.

2-This journalist has been with The Daily Star for 1 year, and within the first 3 months he lands an interview with Lebanon's Most popular. (let's be frank here, there is no way a junior writer lands a temp. job at the New York times of the Mid-East and gets an interview with the David Beckham of Lebanon's Shi'ite).Ahmad Husseini 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We've debated on this quotation at least 5 times but they were useless. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. I protested against this and I've never find anything about this sermon in Hezbollah's official websites. However I think at present this part become NPOV:Others have attributed anti-Jewish statements to Hassan Nasrallah. The Beirut-based Daily Star quoted him as saying "if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[71][72] However, the paper's managing editor has since called into question the accuracy of the quotation, as well as the honesty of the reporter.[73] But it doesn't mean there isn't any problem or we can't improve it. So try to be bold and polite and write your suggestion here.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Sav, but do really want to run with "The Beirut-based Daily Star quoted him as saying..." when right after you say that the editor questions the honesty of the reporter? How about "An article in the Beirut-based Daily Star quoted him as saying..." So that way we don't attribute the quote to the whole paper? Suggestion, yes/no? It's up in the air, You don't need to use my exact suggestion, but it would be a little more accurate if we do not pinpoint the article as being a generally agreed on quote from the Paper itslef, and then contradict what we said in the next phrase. What do you guys think?Ahmad Husseini 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The allegation that the editor questions the honesty of the reporter appears on an partisan blog - not a reliable source. If the editor actually questioned the honesty of the reporter or the accuracy of the report, there would be some indication of this - e.g., a retraction or correction on the paper's web site. There is none. As far as WP is concerned, a relaible source made the claim, no relaible source retracted or challeged it. We can safely ignore unsourced allegations made on partisan blogs. Isarig 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm not even gonna start anything, I'll let the other guys take care of this oneAhmad Husseini 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The allegation that the editor questions the honesty of the reporter was written by an American author, journalist, and broadcaster, and published in a British literary and political magazine. Where is the partisan blog? Also, which do you consider not to be a reliable source – Charles Glass or the London Review of Books? — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the allegations on anti-Zionists blogs (e,g: Jews Sans Frontoers) , which are the "unreliable sources" I was referring to. The LRB is a reliable source, but the claim that the Star's editor questions the honesty of the reporter is not in a LRB article, but in a letter to the editor Glass wrote, and which gives no source for that calim, and explictly conceded that the claim that the quote is fabricated is just speculation. As such, the most we can do is sya thishas been allged, but we cannot state it as fact. Isarig 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, your questioning of the reliability of the sources threw me off. So the question then becomes not whether LRB or Charles Glass are reliable sources (as I believe both meet the critera), but whether or not the information is verifiable. I agree that the editor's statements about the quotation are not verifiable, but that Charles Glass' claims that the editor made the statements is verifiable. Bottom line, short of additional references to corroborate the editor's questions about the quotation, I'm okay with the current version. — George Saliba ^[talk] 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the name of the Daily Star editor is actually Jamil Mroue, not Mrowe as it is written in the Letters section. I've tried to find the origin of Mr. Mroue's skepticism of the quote, but so far no luck. Tarc 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, lets also not forget that Glass also claims that As-Safir (another Lebanese paper) covered the same story and there was no mention of the Anti-Jewish statement.Ahmad Husseini 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? First , this is just another Glass allegation, but more importantly, what of it? The alleged fact that one paper did not include the alleged quote says nothing about whether or not it was actually said, unless we are to believe that every paper covering every event which includes a speech provides a 100% complete and accurate transcript of the speech as part of its coverage, which is of course nonsense. Isarig 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Israg, my dear friend, do you realize what you're saying? George, reread his posts carfully, Quote:

-"a relaible source made the claim, no relaible source retracted or challeged it. We can safely ignore unsourced allegations made on partisan blogs", A reliable source did challenge it, it was Glass. -"The alleged fact that one paper did not include the alleged quote says nothing about whether or not it was actually said, unless we are to believe that every paper covering every event which includes a speech provides a 100% complete and accurate transcript of the speech as part of its coverage, which is of course nonsense". So, the paper that refuted it is lying, but it is impossible that Chayban is??? Two things guys: 1-Charles Glass is definitely a reliable source. "Charles Glass is an American author, journalist, and broadcaster specializing in the Middle East. He writes regularly for The Spectator, was ABC News chief Middle East correspondent from 1983-93, and has worked as a correspondent for Newsweek and The Observer. His work has appeared in newspapers and magazines, and on television networks, all over the world". "Glass himself made headlines in 1987, when he was taken hostage for 62 days in Lebanon by Hezbollah, the Shi'ite Muslim group, becoming in the process the only Western hostage in Lebanon known to have escaped, which he describes in his book, Tribes with Flags". "Glass was born in Los Angeles, and has dual US/UK citizenship. He received a bachelor's degree in philosophy from the University of Southern California, then undertook graduate studies at the American University of Beirut". Outstanding resume huh? Highly qualified. 2- Badih Chayban was with the Daily Star for less than three months when he wrote the story. According to the daily star's archives, He started writing in august and wrote the story in october. What's this guy's resume like? Look guys, as long as you pretty much say that the Daily Star knows that Nasrallah said that, and Charles Glass assumes that the editor confessed (which btw knowing Glass' status and his relations to the M.E., I wouldn't be surprised if he got that quote about the honesty, while he was having dinner with Jamil Mroue in Beirut), as long as you're leaning towards one side, I object this edit. 67.55.8.29 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No paper "refuted" the quote. Another paper did not mention it, which is hardly the same thing as "refuting" it. That is not to say the the paper is lying - it is simply not a part of normal news coverage to provide a complete transcript of every speech made in an event that the paper covered. Glass, as an individual, is not a reliable source. If he had made his the claim that the quote is fabricated as a reporter for The Spectator, for ABC News for Newsweek or The Observer- that would be one thing - we could say that a reliable source, which has editorial oversight has made the claim. But he made the claim in a letter to the editor - which from a WP reliability perspective means zilch. I don't know what relevance the # of months Chayban worked has. No is is refuting the fact that he was duly employed by the Star, and the Star has never issued any correction or retraction of his work. Isarig 02:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would Glass get kidnapped, be held for 67 days, escape, and then oppose something that would hurt Hezbollah, and Nasrallah specificlly (in the West at least)? 67.55.8.29 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While a lot of what you're suggesting is true regarding sources, we also must make sure that information is verifiable. Glass' assertion that the editor questioned the quotation attributed to Nasrallah, while from a reliable source, lacks other sources to verify it. This means that while it's okay to include it in the article, it's not okay to state it as a generally accepted fact. The quotation itself, by contrast, while possibly a fabrication, was almost definitely printed by the Daily Star. Please note that per Wikipedia policy, we concern ourselves with verifiability, not truth. — George Saliba ^[talk] 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated this wording to name who said what more specifically. — George Saliba ^[talk] 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

George are you listening to this? Glass as an individual is not a reliable source? Then who is and what does one need to do to be reliable? become a Middle-east expert (which he is)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmadhusseini (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Nice edits George. It's now balanced.Ahmad Husseini 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sourced information

User:Pejman47 and User:SJP have been removing sourced information. The original charge was that the English translation of "The Hezbollah Program" was posted on the website of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel organization. Most of us don't know how to Arabic and so an English translation is necessary for English Wikipedia (I assume Pejman47 and SJP would agree with this point). Since Stand With Us was suspect and there was a demand for verifiability with other reliable sources, I provided them. These sources were also deleted. The reason for these deletions were not articulated.

Furthermore, the information that was deleted is not even controversial! Every reliable source ever written on the subject of Hezbollah (including Lebanese sources) have the exact same information. One needs to look no further than the "Ideology" section (or better yet, the Hezbollah ideology article) for proof of this.

The onus is on the people who deleted the sourced information to defend their position, in other words, to answer why they delete not only information sourced to a translation of Hezbollah's own manifesto by an admittedly biased source, but also to several other reliable sources. --GHcool 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I remember we've consider The Hizballah Program as a reliable source.(Sa.vakilian)--Seyyed(t-c) 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I remember too. Its just these two newcomers who challenge it and are actively trying to delete information cited to it. --GHcool 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A "reliable source" should be one that just reports the facts of the matter, and not from one POV or another. Judging from the mission statement of standwithus.com, "...ensure that Israel's side of the story is told...", they clearly pick a single side to represent. Tarc 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they don't. To my knowledge, we do not cite Stand With Us elsewhere in this article for that reason. However, publishing a translation of Hezbollah's manifesto is hardly an act of POV (assuming that the translation is accurate, of course, and none of us have any reason to believe that it is inaccurate). In fact, Hezbollah might even welcome the English language availability of their manifesto, which they have made public in Arabic. The claim that the publication of Hezbollah's manifesto in a language other than Arabic is an attack on Hezbollah is ludicris. --GHcool 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Standwithus is a invalid resource to use. It clearly has a pro-Israel POV. That, in my opinion, makes it a invalid.--SJP 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to read my last response to Tarc regarding Stand With Us and the use of an English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto. --GHcool 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

StandWithUs is not a reliable source, please spare some time for finding a source in mainstream, other wise they will be deleted. If they are (as you may think) established facts, finding them will not be hard. --Pejman47 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But I've provided links to The Stanford Review and The New York Sun that say the same thing as the English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto and it was still deleted. I've just added another reliable source (PBS) saying the same thing. Surely The Sanford Review, The New York Sun, PBS, and the English translators of Hezbollah's manifesto aren't all unreliable sources. Must I continue to cite even more reliable sources that say the same thing? As I said before, this isn't controversial information and is almost in the realm of common knowledge. --GHcool 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if those sources support what is being said then it is okay to add that. I do not believe you should add standwithus as well though. It is a poor site to use as a resource as I said below. The reason why I reverted your edit was because we should talk about this before we add it. We should reach a consensus before adding this. I am not trying to silence you:) Have a nice day--SJP 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, if you find some other sources for your texts, replace the sources, just don't let StandWithUs remain in the article.--Pejman47 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not against that being in the article if it is true and can be sourced. I actual support putting it in the article if we can source it with good sources. What I am against is putting it in without valid sources. I assume Pejaman47 feels the same way about it.--SJP 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

exactly--Pejman47 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we all agree that this information is verifiable and worthy of being in the article. I expect no more reverts. Thank you. --GHcool 22:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We will keep on reverting if you can't provide reliable resources. We can't have information that is not verified.--SJP 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have added some sources. Let me take a look at them.--SJP 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, standwithus needs to be taken out. It has a pro-Israel agenda. That is not good for a article on Hezbollah.--SJP 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources says that newspapers are not always good sources to use in articles. In my opinion I do not think The Stanford Review is the best resource. This article is clearly biased against Hezbollah. Some quotes from in are "It is incomprehensible on what grounds the E.U. reached its decision. First, Hezbollah publicly supports groups that are currently on the E.U. list of terrorist organization such as Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)", "This ideology—which includes anti-Semitic, anti-western and anti-democratic dogma—is indoctrinated in Hezbollah’s schools and kindergartens, which are free for all of Hezbollah’s Shi’a supporters", and "Not adding Hezbollah to the E.U.’s list of terrorist organization signifies once again the E.U.’s impotence in making difficult decisions." Read the article for yourself for more evidence. I would like to hear your oppinions on if this is a good source. Thanks for your time.--SJP 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My Suggestion

What I suggest is that we A)Get rid of Stand With Us, B)Do whatever consensus is with the other 2 sources you added, and C)Add the sources that were used on the section on Hezbollah's position on Israel in the article Ideology of Hezbollah.--SJP 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the editorials from Stand With Us's website are not a neutral, but I fail to see why a neutral translation of the Arabic text of Hezbollah's manifesto is so offensive to some people. Stand With Us did not even hire the translator. The translation comes from the Jerusalem Quarterly, a journal published by Jewish and Arab scholars. See the endnote on page 5 in the Stand With Us PDF.

I oppose this suggestion because its aims are misdirected. While SJP is trying to limit the amount of POV material, a noble ideal that I support, he/she is incorrectly attributing the words of the primary source of the Hezbollah manifesto and the neutral English translation by the Jerusalem Quarterly to a website that did nothing more than make words available over the Internet without comment. If the words of the manifesto sound like it makes Hezbollah "look bad," then that is a problem that SJP has with Hezbollah, not with Stand With Us. These same words make Hezbollah "look good" to other people (i.e. supporters of Hezbollah), so it cannot be said that the manifesto itself or the publication of it is pro- or anti-Hezbollah. --GHcool 06:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to find the Manifesto on another website. It is not good to link to attack websites that spread propaganda. It would be better if we could find this on a more neautral website, and post it here. You would think it would be on a regular website somewhere.--SJP 06:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe it to be apropriate for us to link to a pro-Israel propaganda website. It does not make us look good. If there are other options, which there would be, we should take those instead.--SJP 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The propaganda site should be out last option. It should only be used if that is the only thing we have to verify the statement. Since it is not, I am strongly against using it.--SJP 07:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

first: the propaganda websites from both parts should not be used.

the manifesto of an organization should be obtained from it itself directly, not from unreliable sources. If you can find the original text (in Arabic) please post its link here (there are lots of users here who can read/write Arabic), if the original manifesto is not obtained directly this should be stated in the article.--Pejman47 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic to cite the Hezbollah charter in the context of its present policies and attitudes. Like any political party, it evolves and changes political positions over time. The manifesto is more than twenty years old and dates to a period where South Lebanon was under Israeli occupation and Hezbollah was a very different group. By analogy, there are many centrist political parties in the West which trace their lineage to Marxism, and some of them have manifestos calling for world revolution that are still technically in force. This does not mean we could claim they're radical socialists and cite their old manifestos to verify it. There's no shortage of secondary sources, so why should we risk original synthesis from the primaries? <eleland/talkedits> 20:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

you have a point, why don't edit the article according to it and then me and others can talk about it.--Pejman47 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If another copy of the manifesto can be found on the Internet translated into English, and that copy was provided by a source that is more "neutral" than Stand With Us, then I would be in favor of changing the Stand With Us footnotes to this more neutral website's translation. I myself had tried looking for such a site (I even tried the Jerusalem Quarterly website), but didn't find anything more complete than the Stand With Us's publication of the Jerusalem Quarterly translation of the manifesto. I encourage others to find a good translation from a neutral website in English and hope that they have more luck than I did when I tried to find one.
As for Eleland's argument that citing Hezbollah's manifesto in the article about Hezbollah is "problematic," I submit for review the following Wikipedia articles all of which are also from "Category:Organizations designated as terrorist" and include citations to the stated purposes of the organizations in question: Hamas, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Muslim Brotherhood, Ku Klux Klan, and more. All of these organizations' stated goals are vital to an understanding of the organization's history. Even an "ordinary" Lebanese political party such as Qornet Shehwan Gathering has a citation to and description of its official stated purposes. For these reasons, I strongly oppose censorship or a kind of "dancing around the issue" of Hezbollah's manifesto. Discussion of the manifesto with a citation to an English translation is absolutely necessary. --GHcool 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I found another version of this document in The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology: Religious Ideology, Political Ideology pages 223 -228. You can read it on google book. Of course the translation differs to some extent. There is also another version of Hezbollah's objectives on the basis of their "Parliamentary elections program" which is published in 1990s (see pages 248-249).--Seyyed(t-c) 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should Standwithus be under external links

I suppose that's acceptable as a good place to cite the manifesto, but I think that the more complete version of the manifesto should be available for someone to browse through over the Internet, perhaps in the "External links" section under "Other links." So if anybody would like to replace what is currently footnote #9 with a Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology citation, I will not stop them, however, I will add the Stand With Us hyperlink under "External links." --GHcool 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I am against linking to propaganda sites or attack sites, unless those are you only sources we can use for a statements. I am against you adding this link to the external link section. Have a nice day.--SJP 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

External links are not sources or references. Many would say that Hezbollah's official site is a propaganda site (when you think about it, what website is NOT a propaganda site? Everyone has their POV they wish to share..). I agree with GHCool that it is imperitive to have a complete translation of the statement available, preferably in the article well sourced. I personally believe that the source in question is not an issue for this particular translation. But if consensus states it is an unreliable source, lets keep it in the External Links. mceder (u t c) 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mceder. The issue is not with the translation, but with Stand With Us. I imagine that if I spoke Arabic and was editing an article on the United States of America on Arabic Wikipedia, I would be obligated to add a neutral, accurate Arabic translation of the Declaration of Independence. If that neutral, accurate translation from English to Arabic was published by www.death-to-america.com, I would expect that it can and should be used on Arabic Wikipedia if no better website can be found on the Internet with the same translation.

Furthermore, as Mceder said, all of the Hezbollah "Official sites" are propoganda sites. Mother Jones, which is also given an external link, is certainly not known for its neutral point of view and the Mother Jones article is far less relevant to a discussion of Hezbollah than a neutral translation of its manifesto. If Stand With Us isn't suitable for inclusion in the "External links" list, than neither is Mother Jones. --GHcool 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there is only 1 time that a propaganda site can be used that I can think of, that is if it it the main website(s) of the topic of the article. Will you please explain your position on why if standwithus is not used, then Mother Jones website should not be used either? Thanks for your time.--SJP 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

please mind Wikipedia:External links, putting the StandWithUs in the external links violates that policy.

and please watch for obvious fallacies. I don't know about the other website, but even if its inclusion violates that policy, this doesn't make case for new violation. --Pejman47 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A neutral English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto does not violate Wikipedia:External_links. As I said before, Jerusalem Quarterly provided an accurate and neutral translation. Stand With Us added no commentary and there isn't any reason for any of us to believe that Stand With Us changed a single word of the Jerusalem Quarterly translation.

Mother Jones is a far left American magazine (and website) known for its criticisms of the United States. Like the Stand With Us website, Mother Jones is generally accepted as a reliable, but one-sided, source on the politics it deals with. Like Stand With Us, it is not academically reviewed. However, if the neutral translated copy of Hezbollah's manifesto from the Jerusalem Quarterly appeared on the Mother Jones website, I would support its inclusion in the "external links" section for the same reason I would support the same translation on the Stand With Us website. --GHcool 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against the inclusion of the Manifesto which is hosted on http://www.standwithus.com because we can add links that have the same information on it to the external link section. It would be a different story if we could find nothing else. I only support the adding of propaganda websites if that is the only place the information on it can be found, and the information on it is helpfull. Since this is not the case, I am opposed to adding it. Cheers!--SJP 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, if there was a consensus that standwithus should not be in the article at all, would you respect the consensus, or would you go on edit warring? Thanks for your time:)--SJP 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If another, more neutral website can be found that also hosts a neutral, accurate English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto, I would prefer that that site be used. As hard as I tried, I could not find one. I encouraged others to search for one and perhaps find one, but so far none has been found. Until one is found, I'm afraid the Stand With Us hyperlink will have to do. Its an imperfect solution to the problem, but the only solution I can think of that would for the manifesto to be available to Wikipedia readers in English. Perhaps some day WikiSource will pick it up, but until then, all we have to work with is, unfortunately, Stand With Us, which I'm sure we all agree is better than nothing at all. In short, SJP and I are in agreement: another site would be better than Stand With Us, but Stand With Us would be better than nothing at all. --GHcool 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--SJP 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you fully understand what I am saying. I am saying that if the information found within the Manifesto, then we should take out the translation from the pro-Israel propaganda site, and replace it with the link with the same info, even if it is not a translation of the manifesto. We are not in need of a translation of the manifesto if the information contained within it can be found elsewhere. Have a nice day!--SJP 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The best option though would be for us to find a translation on a neutral site. That is common sense.--SJP 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We are even less "in need" of Mother Jones editorials, but I don't see anybody trying to delete it from the "External links" section. As I said before, if another website can be found with an accurate translation, by all means put it in. If not, then Stand With Us will have to do. --GHcool 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am against adding Mother Jones in if what is covered in it is covered in other links. DOn't try to make it sound like we are singling out standwithus, we are not.--SJP 03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean keeping it in:)--SJP 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at SWU suggests we should single them out. Their partisanship extends far beyond advocacy and extends to highly abusive attempts to damage the personal and professional lives of those they disagree with. It would not be unreasonable to call them "dangerous extremists" carrying out a McCarthyite campaign of smears, making the use of their material highly problematic. I'm not familiar with Mother Jones, but I'd be very surprised if they're as unpleasant to those they disagree with. PR^talk 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll About Standwithus

Should the manifesto found on the pro Israel propaganda site standwithus be used as a source/external link? Please vote yes or no below and give a reason. This is to see what the consensus is.

---

• No it should not be used. We can find the same exact info on other, more neutral websites. When we can we need to stay away from biased sites with a political agenda.--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. As I said before, if you can find another "more neutral website" with the "same exact info," I would support that website to be the one sourced. If not, then Stand With Us will have to do. --GHcool 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it does work on consensus.--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any sources that violates WP:RS should not used, with out any exception. --Pejman47 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on consensus. Wikipedia works on Wikipedia guidelines (most notably WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V). The Jerusalem Quarterly is an reliable source, it can be verified (as shown by Sa.vakilian), and the information is presented in the article from a neutral point of view. The debate is over unless a better website can be found with the same translation. --GHcool 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus says "Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus." We have policies and guidelines we work with as well.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I stand corrected, but Wikipedia is still not a democracy. --GHcool 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say it is:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• source:No/external link:Conditional Yes In the case of source I prefer the book. In the case of the external link I can accept it conditionally. If it's the only complete version which can be find freely in this case and if it's translation is correct, I agree with it. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject reason #1, SWU is not acceptable - there are huge problems with translations from Middle Eastern languages appearing in the Western media (think of Ahamdinejad's "wipe out Israel" and alleged problems in MEMRI's translations). The problem is much worse when it comes to advocacy groups which systematically smear those people who have some knowledge of what they speak - eg SWU says things like: ... (MECA) an anti-Israel group headed by "reformed Zionist" Barbara Lubin, who is notable for her dismissal of Hizbollah terrorists as "ordinary schleps like the rest of us".[24] So we'd be unable to trust any tame interpreter that SWU were using anyway. And Reject reason #2, this is not a manifesto - this is not The Hezbollah Manifesto (it's not even A Hezbollah Manifesto). It's a statement from one guy (of whom we know nothing whatsoever) in 1985, when Hezbollah was newly formed and fighting the occupying Israelis. If Hezbollah had a manifesto they'd have translated it themselves, precisely in order to stop people like SWU inventing something. (And on this occasion, we cannot even claim that our western ways are better, when Israel itself has no constitution). PR^talk 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• source:No/external link:Conditional Yes Agree with Sa.vakilian. It's an important document, important to have the translation, and until proven otherwise Jerusalem Quarterly should be considered a reliable source. --BoogaLouie 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you make of the argument that it's not their manifesto - it's just a very, very out-dated statement from someone who is (presumably) a complete unknown within the modern Hezbollah? And that, if it was a manifesto, it would have been sympathetically translated (or even white-washed) into English long ago - we'd not be having this argument? Could you also comment on the argument that SWU is too "angry" and personally unpleasant to be depended on anyway? PR^talk 12:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do they have a new manifesto? If not, has Hebollah disavowed, or revised, or distanced itself from the manifesto?

There are a good many angry and unpleasant sources about in the middle east and elsewhere. We're not inviting SWU for a cup of tea, were attempting to assess its credibility. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 18:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah appear not to have a manifesto - they'd most certainly have their own English translation of it if they did, and it would be easily accessible to us. And they would have re-issued it for the totally different circumstances they're operating under 22 years later now that the occupation forces have been driven out of the country. Meanwhile, SWU could never produce a reliable translation of such a document. PR^talk 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't make a statement about StandWithUs's validity as a translator and host of the manifesto, but I have noticed a problematic use of the manifesto in synthesizing sources to advance a position. For instance, the statement "Hezbollah wishes for the destruction of Israel, which they see as being a unlawful "entity", and not a real nation" is effectively sourced only to the manifesto. (I say "effectively" because it's also sourced, presumably for camouflage purposes, to a smattering of nonreliable sources, such as a guest piece in an independently run student newspaper and an op-ed by the director of the partisan group MEMRI. Both pieces simply re-quote the manifesto, and neither use the terminology adopted in our article. For bonus points, there's a citation to a PBS website which has bupkis to say about the "destruction of Israel".)

• Now, the nature of Hezbollah's manifesto is certainly worthy of discussion. The problem comes when citing the Hezbollah charter in the context of its present policies and attitudes. Like any political party, it evolves and changes political positions over time. The manifesto is more than twenty years old and dates to a period where South Lebanon was under Israeli occupation and Hezbollah was a very different group. By analogy, there are many centrist political parties in the West which trace their lineage to Marxism, and some of them have manifestos calling for world revolution that are still technically in force. This does not mean we could claim they're radical socialists and cite their old manifestos to verify it. There's no shortage of good secondary sources, but right now we're combining original synthesis from the primaries with claims made in op-eds and unreliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I told before we can find more information about Hezbollah and its idea in some books like "The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology: Religious Ideology, Political Ideology". There is also a paragraph in Hezbollah#Ideology which discuss about this issue. I think we can refer to manifesto and then explain which part of it has changed.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)