Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Vandalism?

The first section of this page is "# 1 95% of terrorists are musilm". There's no content to go along with that section and no cited source, so it seems like it's some lame attempt at vandalism. I haven't removed the section because I wanted to raise the issue. Maybe topics such as these should have a small degree of moderation?

I don't see any such quote. --GHcool 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

al-Mahdi Scouts

Fox News on January 1, 2007 had a report on the al-Mahdi Scouts, a youth wing of the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The really interesting thing is, outwardly, they look very much like traditional Scouts, with the normal uniforms (light and medium blue, white, yellow and purple for different groups) and badges and all. The flags being flown from cars and along the roadside showed the emblem, again a traditional fleur-de-lis, whose petals are left-to-right green/white/red, and in the top center of which is a hand with an out-turned palm, possibly the Hand of Fatima, and supported on left and right by single scimitars. Can anyone support/document this? In itself it would be a most interesting article. Chris 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

I removed [[Category:Cleanup from August 2006]]. Please pay attention to the article and especially the links. If you find it need to clean up, then put it in the category again. --Sa.vakilian 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Hezbollah]]

I think we should improve this category. I suggest to merge [[Category:Wars of Hezbollah]] with [[Category:Battles involving Hezbollah]]. Also [[Category:Secretaries-general of Hezbollah]] has few articles to become a category and we can make [[Category:members of Hezbollah]] instead. There are some articles in [[Category:Hezbollah]] which doesn't relate in it like Kurdish Revolutionary Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 04:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --GHcool 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please wait until User:Kirill Lokshin tell us his idea. He is involved in this issue. I put a comment for him.--Sa.vakilian 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care one way or the other, frankly. Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I did something and I guess somebody will come here to see this discussion.--Sa.vakilian 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hezbollah operates based on the following ..."

Someone recently added a numbered and bulleted list under the "Position on use of armed strength to achieve aims" heading that is unsourced and has the air of Original Research. Does anyone agree? If nobody responds to this in one week, I will delete the list. --GHcool 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some of those points in official documents of Hezbollah but I don't have enough time to work on it. Could you please do it on the basis of Statement of purpose , Hizbullah: Views and Concepts and A Voice of Resistance: the Point of View of Hizballah --Sa.vakilian 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Too long

Someone has reinseted the "This article is becoming very long" tag. I've trimmed the article quite a bit to try to accomodate. If anyone has an issue about the things I trimmed, feel free to talk about it here or to reinsert it. Also, if anybody has any other ideas about things that can be trimmed, this would be the place to talk about it. --GHcool 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I put that tag but I don't have enough time to help with it. I'll return next mounth and try to improve it.--Sa.vakilian 10:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I returned. I have reverted some of your editions. [1]. I think we should discuss about them.--Sa.vakilian 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Israel references

Could you please verify guys if this ref link is working? It is a blank page. I removed this ref as nothing is mentioned about the "destruction of Israel" there. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The ICT link is a blank page for me also. This has happened before with ICT links.. mceder (u t c) 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Reference portion, there are some website links that are very long, those two links probably make up 1/5 or more of the article's length.

We can move them to sub-articles depend on their issues.--Sa.vakilian 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved or deleted about 10 external links but it didn't have any effect on the length of the article and it's 95kb.--Sa.vakilian 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2006–2007 Lebanese anti-government revolt

I copied a summary of the lead of 2006–2007 Lebanese anti-government revolt in Hezbollah#Political activities because of current events. I'll move it to Hezbollah political activities when the situation become calm.--Sa.vakilian 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays Hezbollah has found building Islamic state is not available in Lebanon and has abandoned it in practice

Hi, this sentence is problematic for two reasons: 1) it is based on a thin NYTIMES reviw of books cite 2) the english sounds a little funny (I really don't want to insult anyone's efforts here, I really aplaud the non-native english speaking crowd for doing such an outstanding job in writing in english here). The use of the word "available" is awkward here. How about, "Hez. has realized the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic state is not a practical one and has abandoned it" or something like that?. I'm not saying that Hez DOES want to bulild an Islamic state in Lebanon, but is there better evidence that it does not other than this one cite? Elizmr 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. My English is not so good and I yhank you for your help. I agree with your sentence but I don't understand why NYtimes isn't reliable. I remember in the past we used BBC but that source doesn't represent hezbollah POV.--Sa.vakilian 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the way Elizmr worded it as well, but I think it should read "Hez. has realized the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic state is not a practical one and has abandoned it for the time being." As for the source, I think The New York Times Review of Books is pretty reliable, but there are equally reliable sources that make the opposite claim. --GHcool 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SaVa, your English is really good for a non-native speaker. I am concerned that this is a big point, however, and if there are sources which make claims in both directions, then I think maybe we should not have this particilar assertaion in the lead. Elizmr 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read Hezbollah wanted to build Islamic state until 1992. But it has changed its goal since that time. Now it wants one person-one vote system because Shi'a is the biggest minorityin Lebanon. But it doesn't want to remove Sunni and Christians from political scene. I have many sources for this claim but NYtimes is reliable because it has quoted Nasrallah POV in this case. GHcool says there are reliable sources that make the opposite claim. I think we should separate ideological POV from practical one. Hezbollah believe in building Islamic state like Iran but according to Nasrallah it's impossible so in practice Hezbollah has abandoned it. When I asked Nasrallah about his views on an Islamic state, he said, "We believe the requirement for an Islamic state is to have an overwhelming popular desire, and we're not talking about fifty percent plus one, but a large majority. And this is not available in Lebanon and probably never will be"[2] . --Sa.vakilian 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the clause "for the time being" must be inserted. I see Nasrallah's words quoted by Sa.vakilian and the New York Times Review of Books as a modus tollens:

(1) If there is "an overwhelming popular desire" within Lebanon to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state, then Hezbollah will champion the cause to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state."

(2) There is not an "overwhenlming popular desire" within Lebanon to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state.

Therefore, (3) Hezbollah will not champion the cause to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state.

As any student of philosophy knows, and as I am sure Nasrallah also knows, a modus tollens can easily be converted into a modus ponens in a situation in which the truth value of "If" statement in Premise #1 changes:

(1) If there is "an overwhelming popular desire" within Lebanon to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state, then Hezbollah will champion the cause to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state."

(2) There is an "overwhenlming popular desire" within Lebanon to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state.

Therefore, (3) Hezbollah will champion the cause to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state.

--GHcool 07:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. But why do you speak so difficult. Hezbollah is eager to do so but situation isn't appropriate.Thus in practice Hezbollah has abandoned it--Sa.vakilian 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I imagine my above post must have been difficult for a non-native English speaker to understand. For that, I appologize. Your grasp of English is very impressive, Sa.vakilian. That being said, I agree that they have abandoned it in practice for now. They are keeping the desire for an Islamic state in Lebanon "in the ice box" until an appropriate time to thaw it and turn it into a reality. This should be reflected in the statement in the introduction. --GHcool 17:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sava, I see that the word use "available" was Nasrallah's, not yours! :=) To further clarify what GHcool says above, I think there is a huge difference in meaning between these two scenarios:

• 1) Hezbollah has abandoned the goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic state because the organization has decided that an Islamic state would not be an appropriate form of government for Lebanon

and

• 2) Hezbollah still firmly believes that Lebanon should be an Islamic state, but realizes that the goal is an impractical one at the present time

I think that the second scenario is closer to the truth based on the quote from Nasrallah, but the text as it is (to a Western audience) has the risk of implying #1. I suggest that we therefore change the sentence to, "Hez. has realized the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic state is not practical at the present time and has temporarily abandoned it". Elizmr 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --GHcool 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

2 is certainly closer to the truth, but I think "at the present time" is too weak. Preferably, we should indicate what HA's conditions are. Have we not had this discussion before? I have a terrible sense of déjà-vu... Palmiro | Talk 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Palmiro could you say specifically what you suggest for wording? And, yes, i share the deja-vu (ie the sensation that we've been here before) but the sentence is still in the article. Elizmr 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Long lead

I think we don't need to write everything in the lead. Thus I move Hezbollah's goals to the ideology and leave a summary in the lead.--Sa.vakilian 07:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is not as prominant as it should be in the lead. If Hezbollah was only a political party, it would not be in the news that much. Terrorists should be in the first paragraph.Reapor2 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that such a change would equate to redeveloping a POV-pushing war within the article. --Kukini 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe by not mentioning terrorist in the lead would be deleveloping a POV. Most of the world outside of the Middle East knows Hezbollah for it's terrorist acts. The way the lead is written it make them sound like another political party.65.96.132.149 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Great achievement

I could shorten this article about 7kb by making new article and moving some part of it to Funding of Hezbollah. I hope it doesn't annoy anybody.--Sa.vakilian 06:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was good. Thanks. --GHcool 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A long-waited action. Thanks sa.vakilian. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah's political program vs. idealogy

We have two different texts. Which one should we put in the lead? The organization's world view was first published in its political platform in February 1985, as follows:

• The solution to Lebanon's problems is the establishment of an Islamic republic as only this type of regime can secure justice and equality for all of Lebanon's citizen's.
• The Hizbullah organization views as an important goal the fight against 'western imperialism' and its eradication from Lebanon. The group strives for complete American and French withdrawal from Lebanon, including all their institutions.
• The conflict with Israel is viewed as a central concern. This is not only limited to the IDF presence in Lebanon. Rather, the complete destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of Islamic rule over Jerusalem is an expressed goal. [3]

The Hezbollah political program consisted in three points:

• to expel American, French and their allies from the territory of Lebanon. Please note that Italians were no mentioned as they were the only peace-keeping force accepted by Lebanese and Hezbollah for historical reasons. In this view, the location of Rome and the mediation of the Italian government was agreed for the peace talks happening in these days.
• to bring to justice the extremist militias that committed atrocities against muslim and christians (namely the Christians Maronites extremists that caused the Sabra and Shatila massacre)
• to allow to all of Lebanese children to choose for their own lifestyle and for the self determination of a suitable government, possibly through an Islamic government as only an Islamic government might be able to stop all the attempts of imperialist forces (namely Israel and USA) to invade the territory of Lebanon. [4]--Sa.vakilian 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the first one is better. --GHcool 18:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are other documents which Hezbollah has published in Almashreq. What's your idea about them.--Sa.vakilian 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should treat Hezbollah as a moving target, critics of Hezbollah are keen to cite aspects of Hezbollah which have decreased in importance since its inception. Certainly Nasrallah and the current "leadership" have taken the organisation is a differing direct to that of the original leadership and Hezbollah has, at least in my view, become more of a "natioanl resistance movement" than when it was focused on the goal of an islamic state. Also it support has become less focused within the Shi'a population. Therefore the treatment of official statements by Hezbollah should place more weight on recent statements than those from its early days. -- Tompsci 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

POV check:Hezbollah's justification

I put "Also as reciprocal to Israeli crimes and retaliation for Israel's occupation of Lebanese territory.[5][6] [7]" but somebody removed it. Whether we like it or not, Hezbollah justifies its operation in this way. Maybe my rhetoric was POV but I can refer to Hezbollah's official documents and independent sources which support this claim. On the other this information in contrast with another POV information in intro "According to the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base and the BBC, "[f]or many years, Hezbollah was synonymous with terror, suicide bombings and kidnappings.[18][10] Hezbollah is reputed to have been among the first Islamic resistance groups to use tactical suicide bombing against foreign soldiers in the Middle East.[19] Hezbollah's acts have included multiple kidnappings,[20][21][22][23] murders,[24][25][26] hijackings,[26] and bombings."--Sa.vakilian 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian. I don't remember who removed it, but I wasn't sure what this sentence said (still not entirely sure to be honest). I think it has some English problems. First, I think it's a fragment sentence – it either needs something at the end saying what also happened, or it needs something before it saying what happened with one reason, and then the also would be an additional reason. Second, the use of the term reciprocal is a bit odd. I'm not 100% sure if it's wrong, but I don't think the word is commonly used like this. Maybe something like "In response to Israel's occupation of Lebanese territory, Hezbollah did/said/urged such and such", or "Hezbollah did something in response to Israeli crimes and the occupation of Lebanese territory", etc. The way this sentence is worded I had no idea what it was saying, so I didn't object to its removal. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Gcool removed it.Definitly your English is better than mine and I'd rather you edit that paragraph. But I insist on maintaining that part in the intro.--Sa.vakilian 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to take a look at this section. See if you can further explain the statement you want to see inserted, cause I'm really not 100% sure what it is saying. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this section is horribly referenced. At least the sentence Sa.vakilian mentioned is. The references are timelines, U.S. Congressional laws, psychology papers, and the like. Also, a lot of them are using the term alleged – alledged to have been kidnapped by members of the Islamic Jihad, plane was hijack by two alledged members of Hezbollah, etc. It really shouldn't be very hard to find solid articles to back up most of these, but I'm a bit short on time tonight. Also, as a general note, we may want to dump this whole section altogether. It's not well written (tending to wandering around random subjects), and I think the article would benefit more from moving the much cleaner "History" section into this position. Let me know what you all think of that. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed that and I stand by that edit. I think I made my reasons for it clear in the my edit summary (reprinted here): "incomplete sentence unsourced by the footnotes please do not reinsert that statement unless sources can be found for it and it can be written as a complete sentence." I did not know that Sa.vakilian was the person that added this to the article. Had I known, I would not have been as harsh about pointing out that it was an incomplete sentence. Aside from the incomplete sentence, the sources Sa.vakilian cites are about Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, but they do not make any mention of a Hezbollah argument of "reciprocity." --GHcool 07:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing Sa.vikilian is thinking of the following:

From the first source — Hizballah political leaders have consistently and publicly asserted that the guerrillas have a right to retaliate militarily against Israeli civilians in reprisal for Lebanese civilian deaths caused by Israeli military forces. At the beginning of Operation Grapes of Wrath, Hizballah's secretary-general, al-Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, promised residents of northern Israel that reprisals would be forthcoming: "What concerns us is that when our civilians are touched your civilians will be touched, too, no matter what consequences they talk about. Yesterday our civilians were the target of aggression, a clear and flagrant aggression. We will respond to the aggression and will bombard the settlements in northern Palestine.[8]"

From the second source — Hizballah has a similar red line: if the IDF or the SLA attack civilians in the south, then Hizballah would feel justified to retaliate by striking at civilian targets inside Israel. ... Hizballah's deputy secretary-general, Sheikh Na'im Qasem, threatened in April 1995 that "whenever te Israeli enemy shells and harms civilians in our villages, we will shell northern Palestine and the Israeli settlements.[9]"

The third source isn't working for me at the moment. I'm not sure that these match exactly the wording he chose though, but I also couldn't decipher that completely, so shrug. :) — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Third link now works for me. This reference seems to have no relation whatsoever to this statement though. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the third source because it includes the statistics of causalties.[10]--Sa.vakilian 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

POV of Hezbollah: Statement of purpose, Hizbullah: Views and Concepts and A Voice of Resistance: the Point of View of Hizballah--Sa.vakilian 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't see that part of the first and second sources when I skimmed the articles. I appologize to Sa.vakilian for removing the entire sentence, but if you re-include it in the article, please do the following: (1) make sure that it is a complete sentence, (2) make sure that it says that this is Hezbollah's argument for the justification of their acts of violence, and (3) make reference to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon without accusing Israel of criminal activity. --GHcool 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you fo your good faith. Is it OK? Hezbollah also justifies its operations against Israel as reciprocal to Israeli operations against Lebanese civilians and retaliation for Israel's occupation of Lebanese territory.[11][12] [13]--Sa.vakilian 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Take out the word "also" and it would be fine with me. (The reason is because it sounds better in English without the "also.") --GHcool 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a few suggestions. Hezbollah is free to "claim" that Israel is responsible for harm to Lebanese civilians (and greater harm than that experienced by Israeli civilians attacked by Hezbollah, and therefore Hezbollah is "justified" in attacking Israeli civilians. However, this is a claim. In fact, there is a wealth of documented evidence that: 1. Much of the alleged Lebanese civilian damage appears staged and faked. 2. More importantly, those civilians were deliberately placed in harms way by Hezbollah military units such that when the IDF made legal and justifiable counterstrikes against Lebanese military targets, civilians were also harmed. 3. The fact that you fired 4000 rockets at civilians and only managed to kill a handful, in a war you started, doesn't seem to justify more attacks on other civilians. 4. In fact, the entire logic is morally wrong. If an African American kills a white guy, that doesn't mean that white guys are "justified" to go out and find and kill people who happen to be African American. An alleged crime by Israel doesn't justify deliberately attacking innocents because they are Israeli. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.68.131.27 (talk • contribs) 19:36, February 22, 2007.

Although reasonable people agree with the main thrust of your argument, we have an obligation on Wikipedia to keep the article NPOV and keep the talk pages free from discussing our own opinions on the issue rather than the article. --GHcool 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist organization

I guess there is enough information about this issue in the lead and intro. So we can move Hezbollah#Designation as a terrorist organization and Hezbollah#Non Governmental Organizations to a new article and shorten this article . Do you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I disagree. These two sections are essential to even a basic understanding of Hezbollah. --GHcool 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The terrorist designation seems to be a minority world view.

Just because a nation (or even many nations) doesn't officially list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization does not mean that they are not one. --GHcool 05:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A basic understanding of Israel would be to mention in the Israel article that the majority of the world's nations consider Israel a racist nation. Not every country calls Israel rascist but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Since one of the basic tenants of Hezollah is the destruction of Israel and Hezbollah is not a soviergn nation, the labeling of terrorist should be put in the header. If Hezbollah was a nation than their attacks could be considered an act of war.Skypad 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this listed as Wikiproject Lebanon? Yes Hezbollah is based there but the focus should be their activities: violence against those who they disagree with.Giza D 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Its listed as Wikiproject Lebanon for the same reason that Japanese Red Army is listed as Wikiproject Japan. --GHcool 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood, can terrorist be put back into the lead, as what they do, not being a soviergn nation, and attacking a third country is terrorism.Giza D 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The six nations that consider it a terrorist organzation are already listed in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be in the first paragraph Hezbollah is a Shia Milllant terrorist orginization.Giza D 02:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, sure. But since this place strives to be an encyclopedia and not a hot-air blog, then it does not belong in the intro. Save the "terrorist orginization" stuff for the body of the article, phrased in terms of who considers it as such, and why. Tarc 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The terrorist description is germane to who they are. I thinks it is irrelevant that the rest of the Middle East and other anti-Israel nation refuse to acknowledge it. And with the hot-air cooment, are you refering to Michelle Malkin. If so she is quite perceptive in these matters.Giza D 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of others is quite relevant; the Wikipedia does not exist as a soapbox for one particular point of view. Tarc 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Terrorist designation is not one that they have claimed- other groupos have claimed it. If they said they were, we could put it in the first paragraph. If they do not consider them as such and onlyy a very small minority of the world does, then they should not be listed as such. The fact that some nations veiw them as one does warrant attention, but that does not mean it's right. Many nations refer to the US as a terrorist nation as well- more then 6 even. Does that make them right? WP does not exist to further the POV of individual nations.Cptjeff 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideology

There are different statements about Hezbollah ideology on the basis of "The Hizballah Program""

I put some information which was chosen original text in the article. The Hizballah program

This is another version of this document[14]

• Eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon (including the Phalangists and excluding the Italians),
• Complete destruction of the state of Israel.
• Possible transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Islamic state.

--Sa.vakilian 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to where the full text was posted previously to ask them if they have a live link. I'll let eveyrone know if they answer. Elizmr 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Islamist terrorism

I understand that "terrorism" is a word to avoid and that some have argued that calling Hezbollah a terrorist group would violate WP:NPOV (I disagree with this argument, but am willing to accept it). However, I don't see how [[Category:Islamist terrorism]] would not be a valuable thing to apply to Hezbollah. Hezbollah is certainly a key factor in a discussion of Islamist terrorism as proven by the fact that Hezbollah is listed as being among the five "Organizations" discussed with its own heading in the Islamist terrorism article. Furthermore, the Islamist terrorism category is applied to the Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad articles without any challenge to its POV.

Again, I understand that some people do not view Hezbollah as a terrorist group. However, the category still applies because Hezbollah is a major factor in the global phenomenon described collectively as "Islamist terrorism" reguardless of whether or not the group "actually is" a terrorist group. --GHcool 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Islamic Terrorism article has quite some POV tags. But if you read the first sentence: "Islamist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners". So, this clearly implies that Hezbollah has nothing to do with "Islamist terrorism". One could argue that that just because a few countries, like the US, Israel label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, then wikipedia should blindly follow them. But then, we could also put Israel in the category of State Terrorism, not because one could convincingly argue that Israel engages in State Terrorism and form a consensus about that (i.m.o. this is not the case), but just because a few countries (e.g. Iran) say so. Count Iblis 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it being listed on Islamist terrorism makes it more 'acceptable' to have it here. The talk page, the AFD etc on that page is... geez, controversial. Since it is a word to avoid, a word which meaning seems to change depending on which world order you follow, can we not try to avoid it, for the sake of meaningless reverts back and forth on this and many other pages? So much wasted time on one word..

I would bet that a fair chunk of the world would not call Hezbollah a major factor described collectively as Islamist terrorism. In many parts of the world they are desecribed as Freedom fighters. In others, they are described as legions from hell, about to eat your babies. So Wikipedia should not label them, but should describe who labels them as what. Categories are too broad to do this. A Category:Organisations that are believed to be terrorists by the U.S,UK,Western Europe and Bob would perhaps be silly, but more accurate. mceder (u t c) 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Hezbollah is already in Category:Designated terrorist organizations. People are intelligent enough to judge themselves! Bertilvidet 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current categorization is sufficient. Determining whether or not Hezbollah is an "Islamist" group, in addition to determining whether or not Hezbollah is a "terrorist" group, is a huge can of worms that's probably not worth opening, especially given the current NPOV Category:Designated terrorist organizations categorization. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see I am in the minority here and since Hezbollah is already under Category:Designated terrorist organizations and Category:Islamist groups, there isn't a whole lot to gain from arguing that it should also be under Category:Islamist terrorism. Therefore, I will drop the subject. However, I'd like it to be noted that I have not yet heard a convincing argument for us not place Hezbollah under Category:Islamist terrorism. --GHcool 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism means terrorism motivated by Islamic religious issues. That seems to fit groups like Al Qa'ida, but not groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Alledged terrorism by these groups has secular motivations. Count Iblis 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's debatable, but I see your point. --GHcool 06:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is it accurate to have Hezbollah in the Islamist groups category? Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing, but does anyone have some references that designate Hezbollah as such? I'm just not sure if they are, or if they were in the past but no longer are. Islamic, definitely, but Islamist I just don't personally know. — George Saliba ^[talk] 08:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the original manifesto and goal is definitely Islamist. Their original declaration and stated goal was to make Lebanon a Islamic republic. As the article states, they have made claims they have abandoned those plans but doubts remain. mceder (u t c) 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Look guys only six countries out of all the countries in the world classify them as a terrorist group. If in a group of 100 people, 7 of us call George W. Bush 'gay', does that mean that it's true?? or is it our OPINION which we do not want to put in articles on Wikipedia?! Ahmadhusseini 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If George W. Bush repeatedly engaged in homosexual activity both privately and publically and if he advocated others to do the same and the evidence for this was substantial and reliable, then George W. Bush would most certainly be gay even if 93 out of 100 people chose to ignore that obvious conclusion from the evidence. --GHcool 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether George Bush is gay has nothing to do with what he advocates, but whether the actions he commits could be defined as homosexual activity. Let us assume that the 7 of the 100 people calling him "gay" only did so because they claimed his wife was, in fact, a man, while the other 93 people considered her to be a woman. Now, if reliable doctors can't agree whether or not Laura is a man, how can we possibly determine whether or not he is gay? However, it would be completely accurate to state that 7 out of 100 dentists agree that George Bush is gay in this case (assuming the group of 100 people happened to be dentists attending a dental conference), without applying the label of "gay" to him in a blanket manner, and without having to independently evaluate his level of "gayness." — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This was just a joke. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Radical

Radical is not definite word. Somebody may recognize a group as radical one while the other calls it moderate. It's like temprature. Somebody may say the whether is hot and somebody else may say it's not. It depends on the viewpoint of reporter.--Sa.vakilian 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We should get a better source than the current BBC article for this statement (which probably isn't too hard). The BBC article is a historical account, and doesn't exactly read as Hezbollah is currently considered a radical group (more like it became one in the 80s). In addition, it may be better to move this to the paragraph describing the term terrorist and the viewpoint of the Arab & Muslim worlds, as the differing viewpoints applies to the term radical too I think. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian's broad point about a conrinuum of political beliefs, however, Hezbollah is objectively a radical Islamist organization and there are hundreds of sources to prove it. No reasonable person would say that it is a moderate or "right-leaning." Al Qaeda is constantly referred to as radical in its article. --GHcool 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a bit more muddled now. We've gone from talking about radical Islamic to radical Islamist, which are two very different things. First, if you can cite some reliable sources that talk about Hezbollah being radical in the present tense (which should be really easy), that would help for it's inclusion in the article. Second, for the same reason that the term "terrorist" is cited as contentious, despite probably hundreds of articles which use the term, radical needs to be treated in the same way, and likely listed in the same section. Third, if you're going to claim that Hezbollah is Islamist (note the present tense), you need sources to back that up. I don't really expect you to have a hard time finding reliable sources for either term, but when you start using terms like "objectively", "to prove it", and "No reasonable person" it makes me worry. Remember that we absolutely must cite published reliable sources in order to avoid having to dig for any "hidden truth", or make such broad, sweeping generalizations. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --GHcool 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a source which contradicts using radical for Hezbollah:Timur Goksel, who last year retired after 24 years as the chief political advisor to the UN’s (highly constrained) peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, told me how surprised he was to discover that the members of the first Hizbullah delegations sent to deal with him, in the mid-1980s, were not wild-eyed Islamist radicals but calm, serious men who were doctors, engineers, or businessmen: men of real substance in their local comunities.[15]

This is another source:Immediately upon assuming power in 1992, he decided that Hezbollah should openly take part in Lebanon's "confessional" political system, in which parliamentary seats are allocated according to religious identity. Radicals accused him of betraying his party's revolutionary principles, but Nasrallah argued that Hezbollah was better off working within the political system than protesting from the sidelines.[16]

This is definition of radical islamist:According to Najib Ghadbian, the notion of an "Islamic movement" contain all individuals and groups whose ambition is to change society along guidelines derived from Islam. Despite their differing "methods, approaches, styles, and substantive issues, they agree on the positive worth of Islam and the relevance of its basic concepts and values to the contemporary world" (1996: 59). Nazib N. Ayubi maintains that "radical Islamists" are those "who believe that Islam offers a total and comprehensive way of life whose adoption in our time is not only possible or desirable but also mandatory" (1997: 346). [17]

As you can find in Hezbollah program, Nasrallah quotation and many other sources this movement doesn't want to force Islamic codes. However I don't have major disagreement with using radical islamist, it looks like western politicians(moderate, liberal, good , ...) call whoever they dislike as radical, hardliner, evil and so on. Surprisingly when I read an interview with one of this good, moderate, etc westerners(Karl Popper) in Der Spiegel) I found that how they could radical against us:))--Sa.vakilian 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the definition you gave, Hezbollah fits the description of an "radical Islamist" group remarkably well, although not as well as the Muslim Brotherhood or the Taliban. The first source you gave uses the word "radical" in a different, more pejorative context than how most people use it. A person can have radical beliefs while still remaining calm about it. The second source says that radicals (presumably within Nasrallah's own Hezbollah party) criticized Nasrallah for a specific action. Therefore, if anything, this source furthers the claim that Hezbollah is a radical group. --GHcool 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, but I don't think it's an issue as the current article doesn't use the term Islamist, only Islamic. In the interest of neutrality, and per my earlier suggestion, I've move the "radical Islamic" label to the section discussing the term "terrorist", which I believe will be less controvertial while still being accurate, and better illustrates the controversy around such terms. Also, thanks for finding sources to back this up, but can you try to find better ones? I've left them alone, but you should know that one is a conservative group web publication, one is an editorial (which doesn't belong), and the third is an analysis piece. The cleanest thing would be to just find regular news articles published by Reuters, the AP, or the AFP. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifying the references

MEMRI

How much can we rely on Middle East Media Research Institute as a reliable source? Its not responsible for the information and its verifiability depends on the main source. For example this page is based on some Iranian website. I check all of them and found that they are some part of Iran's psychological war during Israel-Lebanon conflict.[18] and [19] On the other hand in some cases like this the main source is reliable. --Sa.vakilian 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI translates media from other languages into English and then publicizes that media to a western audience. The organization as a whole is considered extremely reliable. Its translations are considered accurate. --GHcool 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it depends on accuracy of the main source. I replaced it with accurate article from Haaretz.(I know which Persian site is accurate and which is not) --Sa.vakilian 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is an iron clad reliable source of Arabic and Persian to English translations. The org is often criticized because they choose to tranlate ugly things, but their translations are accurate. SaVa, I'm not sure I understand your point. Elizmr 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean its accuracy and verifiability depends on the main source. It isn't responsible for the content. Thus whenever we want to refer to it we should notice to reliability of the original references. In my example the original references aren't reliable and I replaced it with Haaretz article which is based on reliable reference.--Sa.vakilian 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I see what you mean in general. Elizmr 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is reliable in it's translations but it is extremly biased in it's reporting. It concentrates mainly on pro Israel articals and ones that show Arabs in a bad light often by leaving out context such as translating an artical giving the impression something is widespread when it might be an isolated item not typical or by achieving the same end by adding comment. MEMRI's owner was an advisor to Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin and only three of the staff don't have a background in Israeli Intelligence. The Co founder is director of the Hudson institute and known for support of the Israeli political extreme right. If you use MEMRI as a source you need to check it. Better to use a more bipartisan source. Wayne 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome to this personal POV of MEMRI, but it is not grounded in fact. Isarig 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should check the reliability of the main sources whenever we refer to MEMRI.--Sa.vakilian 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is quite obviously an organisation that exists for a political purpose. All of what it distributes should be treated with great caution. One case I know where their work is pure propaganda is a Lebanese broadcast of an interview with Norman Finkelstein which makes him appear like a Holocaust denier. In fact they had cut out all the answers Finkelstein gave that rejected Holocaust denial. Finkelstein proved this by posting the full broadcast. This is exactly the sort of behaviour we should expect from an organisation whose primary mission is to promote Israeli interests. --Zero^talk 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. Either proove to us that MEMRI is unreliable or don't waste our time. --GHcool 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Be civil or go away. --Zero^talk 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) And, for your information, the onus is people who want to use sources to show they are reliable. Not the other way around. --Zero^talk 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero: You need to be civil and you have been warned about it many tims. The last time you have been warned about it you have left Wikipedia as "Zero" (although not left entierly) and I think such cool-off perios are good for you and others.

As for Memri - they are a WP:RS source as they bring what is published by other sources in the Arab media.

Memri standing as wp:rs source should not be confused with the fact that they have (like many others) an editorial bias and they bring only selective material that fit their agenda. - but the material they brin is 100% accurate. This puts memri in the same line as BBC: Acuarte information but not the whole story. So to sum up: Wikipedia is NPOV and memetri is not but memeri info can be part of any wikipedia article. Zeq 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose to move this debate to talk:MEMRI.--Sa.vakilian 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied this debate in talk:MEMRI. Please write whatever you want there.--Sa.vakilian 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I added a new section on the MEMRI talk page with information relevant to this discussion. Thank you, Jgui 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, since you claim that MEMRi is a reliable source I used some of their stuff about Naturei Karta in Beirut. Under the Position on Jews section. Hope the additions I made are relevant, I believe they are... Ahmadhusseini 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

What's your idea? This site is biased against Hezbollah[20] and we can substitute it with more NPOV sources. Although its information is correct, Using the words like Khomeinistic ideology and harsh rhetoric makes it POV. Please tell me your idea.--Sa.vakilian 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia did not quote the Israeli government on the issue of Hezbollah, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be severely compromised. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be POV, but it is as reliable as any other country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or army. Similarly, the Al Qaeda article cites the foreign affairs offices of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada without any challenge to the reliability or the POV of those nations' foreign affairs offices. --GHcool 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I satisfied.--Sa.vakilian 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on this type of issue, as long as the source backs up the statement it is sourced for - they can be as POV as they want - i.e if the statement is about Israels, obviously biased, stance on Hezbollah - a reference to the biased/POV source is desirable. mceder (u t c) 12:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This happens to be true for this case, but not for all cases. --GHcool 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifying the sections

I think this article will achieve Good article criteria if its references are verified again. Some of them were news sites which does not exist anymore. Some of them are irrelevant or unreliable sources. Thus I propose working together and do this boring work. Please write your name and section which you choose if you're volunteer.--Sa.vakilian 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• GHcool:History--GHcool 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm done. --GHcool 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• George.Saliba:Political activities — George Saliba ^[talk] 08:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly gone through this section, trying to clean up a bit of the wording as I go. Most of the references seemed okay – I commented out one which didn't exist, but left another that was tied to an actual quotation. In addition, this section uses two sources which are questionable: Mideast Monitor and Global Research. They're both very biased sources, though they fall on different sides of the spectrum I guess, so maybe they balance each other out. If possible I'd suggest replacing these with more reliable sources. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Mceder:Military activities - mceder (u t c) 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Bad references removed and replaced with fact tag. Fixed a few other ones, looks better now. mceder (u t c) 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sa.vakilian:Lead--Sa.vakilian 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly the documents which relates to "The Hizballah Program" ([21] and [22]) doesn't exist anymore . Also this [23] hasn't found.

There's a source which doesn't support the claim that "Hezbollah has popular support in Shi'a Lebanese society and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands"[24] So I put {{cn}} instead.

What's your idea about this ref.[25] Is this NPOV? I think there are references which supports this idea while they're NPOV .--Sa.vakilian 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I found 2 sources that support that "Hezbollah has popular support ..." and added the refs. --GHcool 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I found concern reading the daily star quote in reference 75, and so followed this reference to a supposed article posted on a third party site. I had no reason to question the contents of this article, however reference 76 makes claims which are currently not verifiable by the reference link. If somebody could kindly research this, as I will attempt to do myself as well, it would be appreciated. I think this particular quote is important to the understanding of the Hezzbollah ideology, especially in that it seemingly contradicts the well documented notion of theirs that they are executing defensive Jihad. Please help me shed some light on this topic.

reference 75 states that Nassan vowed to pursue Jews outside of Israel, where 76 questions the viability of the reporter who published this article. Spragc 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/774649/posts 75] and 76. We've debated on this quotation at least 5 times but they were useless. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Thus I add {{check}} tag after them. --Sa.vakilian 18:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

We should finish our great work.

• Sa.vakilian: Introduction. --Sa.vakilian 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• ???????????: Ideology
• Elizmr 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC): Media operations

DoneElizmr 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• ???????????: Social services
• Mceder: Funding --mceder (u t c) 08:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Completed. I also did Funding of Hezbollah and recommend we cover those as well.. It appears several named reference(i.e where the original reference is in another section, and the one in question just links to its name) did not make it in the creation of articles. A search in the Hezbollah article does bring the original info up. mceder (u t c) 09:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• GHcool: Foreign relations --GHcool 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• ???????????: Outside views of Hezbollah
• Sa.vakilian: Social services

I'm done.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sa.vakilian:Ideology

I'm done.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Just this section has remained.--Sa.vakilian 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sa.vakilian: Outside views of Hezbollah

I'm done.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge two sections

I suggest these two sections:Hezbollah#Position on use of armed strength to achieve aims and Hezbollah#Stance on what is a legitimate military target. What is your idea?Sa.vakilian(t-c)--17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. They are too seperate topics. --GHcool 18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated information

There is duplicated information in Hezbollah#Outside views of Hezbollah. I suggest to remove one of them. What is your idea?Sa.vakilian(t-c)--11:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I found that Hezbollah#Designation as a terrorist organization had been splited and some part of it written duplicated I merged it. I believe it becomes more readable. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Iranian Issue: The Islamic Republic of Iran Issue??

Hi there!

Some months ago the Iranian Deputy Foreign Secretary, Mehdi Mostafavi said in a TV-interview that the Hizbollah of Lebanon were part of the Iranian history and civilzation. This statement was not opposed by any Iranian socialogist or other researchers. What does this mean? Does it mean that We Iranian should consider them as Iranian citizens?? Could anyone explain that for Us? It's difficult and impossible for Me/Us to accept that statement made by a Islamic Republic of Iran. Thanx :=D

This question is an appropriate one for a forum but it's not suitable for the talk page.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I added "Fair use rationale" template in Image:Raad-image1.jpg and Image:Nasrallah on al-Manar television.jpg. Please check them and complete descriptions.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)