Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

use of the word "terrorist"

--Rm uk

"Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts..." complete bull! someone mark this statment. what terrorist acts? the Israelis have killed ten times more than Hezbollah in this conflict why don't they get a terrorist mention in their wiki page.

"Despite the fact that Hezbollah was not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this particular bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement."

the word terrorist derives from an opinion. governments have a history of callin their enemies terrorists. If the word terrorist is applied to hezbollah then the article is bias because terrorist is a moral judgement

The definition of Terrorism since 9/11 has changed from "spreading terror," to any military act against civilians by a non governmental organization. If this were the 20's, yes what Israel is doing would be considered a terrorist act, just as the bombing of the King David Hotel by Lechi or Irgun (I can't remember which) was a terrorist act. But in this day and age, Hezbollah is an aggressor and does not wholly repesent a sovereign government. It's attacks are stated as being against civilians, with the stated intent of killing them. Israeli attacks are stated as being against infrastructure to end the killing of civilians, as well as to kill active members of Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah hides among civilians, is what has caused the death of so many Lebanese civilians in this conflict. And by the way, official counts on the Lebanese side show only twice as many killed or injured, not ten times as many.

I also agree, I mean many of the things we consider as terrorist acts, such as bombing civilian infrastructure, spread fear and terror to force people into complying with them; the State of Israel does on a regular basis. Why aren't they called terrorists, when they bomb a flat killing 58 civilian? Oh but when Hezbollah fires a rocket and kills 2 Israelis, oh then the world wakes up and scorns Hezbollah for such "provocative" actions. Until we come to a conclusion about the true stance and nature of Hezbollah, you should really refrain from using the world terrorist, unless it's in relation to certain attacks they carried out and so on. I mean Israel are no big humanitarians themselves, they've killed more civilians than Hezbollah could hope to murder in several lifetimes, yet there's probably one mention of the word "terrorist" on their page.

Israel has a apologise profusely for the bombing in Qana. If they were bombing indiscriminately would they not be carpet bombing neighbourhoods like the Russians in Chechnya? Has Hezbollah apologised for the loss of one civilian on either side? It says a lot really as to intention. It is a terrorist act to target civilians and definitely if no remore or apologies are indicated. Qana looks more and more to have been an exaggeration by the day. 58 civilians can no longer be qualified. Please back this up. Kaltik

Please don't suddenly slap labels over this article unless it is really necessary.

The labels need to be there. You amongst others are showing a complete lack of balance and excusing terrorism in the extreme. Kaltik

58.178.120.62 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)ap89

Why are we discussing the Israeli article on this page? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts, there is disagreement in the international political community"

This is a terrible sentence which Isarig insists on it. If there isn't consensus in the social communities and just few countries have recognized it as a terrorist organisation, then how can you say "terrorist acts"? This is your POV. I propose to write "military" instead of "terrorist".--Sa.vakilian 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No one in their right mind disputes that the bombing of a civilian community center is an act of terrorism. WP policy is not to label entire groups as terrorist, and so Hizbollah is not labeled as such (though it has been designated as such by many countries) - but that does not mean we can whitewash allegations that it is linked to terrorism by calling those acts "military". Just as the 9/11 events are rightly described as "a series of coordinated suicide terrorist attacks" on that WP article, the bombing of the Jewsih Community center in Argentina is rightly described as "the largest single incident of terrorism against Jews" - and Hezbollah has been linked to it. Why you would want to whitewash this heinous crime is beyond me. Isarig

Look at "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts". Is it neutral? It induces a blame as a fact. Do you agree with writing this sentence in the lead of Israel:"Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..."--Sa.vakilian 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts" is both neutral and factual. I again refer you to AMIA Bombing which clearly states "In 1999 an arrest warrant was issued against Hezbollah member Imad Mugniyah, in connection with the attack." Isarig 13:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So you agree with adding "Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..." in the lead of Israel because of Sabra and Shatila Massacre, 1996 shelling of Qana and many other genocides which Israel is blamed for them by some countries.--Sa.vakilian 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No neutral person or historian has ever linked the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla to anything remotely bordering on genocide. It completely defies its meaning and detracts from Hezbollah's targeting of innocent people inside Israel or using their own people as human shields Kaltik

Please read Definition of terrorism. Over a 100 definitions have been used for this word. It makes it very difficult to use, because it means so many different things.

Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts...

What terrorist acts? Could we define this instead of using a sentence that only reveals one 'fact'? Could we then perhaps remove the loaded term 'terrorist act? I think if we do, the POV, seen from either the Hezbollah-is-a-satanic-terrorist-organisation camp or the Hezbollah-loves-Israeli-babies camp, should go away, no?

Perhaps defining it all as it is, with references backing up the statements:

Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.

Heck, even better:

Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.

Main article: List of Hezbollah attacks

Mceder 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly: can we please stop discussing Israel? I don't give a #@%@! about Israel. I have presumed throughout that H is an organization run by adults. Adults take responsibility for their own actions. 'He did it first!' is an excuse only amongst 12-year-olds.

Secondly: The "terrorist" label has been applied by influential players and has a great deal of practical effect. Anyone who disagrees can set up a donation box outside the White House and see what happens. An article which does not mention this is a bad article.

Thirdly: With respect to what I think is the issue being debated, there is no harm being absolutely specific: "Hezbollah has been linked by the US to several attacks considered terrorist. Several nations have followed the US lead in deeming the organization to be terrorist, in whole or in part."

JiHymas@himivest.com 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

firstly:I speak about Israel because I want to show to every wikipedians that saying such a thing and blaming the others is too easy, so try to respect others and not to blame them.

Secondly if "there is disagreement in the international political community" why don't we write "Although some countries recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate organization, some others blame Hezbollah for several attacks and recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization."--Sa.vakilian 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I support Sa.vakilian's phrasing (to be loaded down with references, of course) JiHymas@himivest.com 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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 but there is disagreement about what should we called this. Somebody called it 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.--Sa.vakilian 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. To dispute this is to apply moral relativity to an absurd extreme. Whatever applicability you want to apply to the maxim "one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter" does not diminish the fact that the actions of Hezbollah toward Israel (and others) subjects them to feelings of fear and TERROR ...

Terrorist allegations

A new user wishes to add his opinion, namely that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in the intro. May I suggest that we dont for the umpteenth time repeat the debate about whether Wikipedia should approve such accusations. Actually policies have been devoloped for such issues. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I assume we all feel responsible to uphold these policies. Bertilvidet 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is written something about it.--Sa.vakilian 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, what is currently written is fine: stating that some consider it as a terror organization and giving their arguments, and of course also presenting the counter arguments. Bertilvidet 08:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment about Hezbollah being considered by some as a terrorist group and by others as a resistance movement is repeated too often. I think once should be sufficient. --Ghormax 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are some other issues as well. The allegations of terrorism are made in a climate of tensions. You can hardly expect conservative US think tanks to write objective reports about Hezbollah. Now, you cannot just say that what they say is nonsense, as that would be POV. But it should be mentioned more clearly in each case who says what and on the wikipage of the relevant think thank (e.g. the American Enterprise institution) one should mention clearly their political color and their track record (e.g. what did they say about Saddam's link to Al Qa'ida etc. etc.) Count Iblis 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, its pretty simple. If an organization purposefully targets civilians with violence in order to achieve political goals, it is a terrorist organization. I understand that Hezbollah is also a social organization, and I certaintly respect the good it has done in that respect in Lebanon. Further, its activities fighting the IDF within Lebanese territory could be described as that of a morally questionable, but none the less legitamate resistance organization. However, Hezbollah launches missles into major Israeli population centers with the stated goal of killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. As such, Hezbollah's other activies do not change the fact that it is a terrorist organization by the definition of terrorist. Prancing around this point is useless; stating what is by definition true is not POV. -- Almo 8/6/06

By whose definition of terrorist? JiHymas@himivest.com 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah sees an illigitimate entity that was fraudulently created by Zionists and therefore terrorist. Israelis consider the deliberate targeting of civilians as terrorism. Hezbollah states that because all Israelis go to the army, they are all targets, despite killing so many Arabs in their wild missile attacks. They also consider Muslims who die due to their actions as martyr soldiers that died for Allah. Israel only considers people not enlisted in an armed group as civilians, but accepts collateral damage to civilians and destruction of infrastructure if it has a dual use in aiding terrorists. Labaneh 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

By I though we were using the english version of the site here? Anon 13 August 2006

You can't take a fact, then call it POV, it doesn't follow. We're trying to deal in objective facts. Saying that Hezbolla believes they arn't terrorists is irrelevant to the conversation. Their belief doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Now, if we're going by the english language, then Terrorism is defined as: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Terror being: "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>"

Violent or Destructive acts: Firing Katyusha Rockets into crowded civilian population centres. Check. Committed by Groups: Hizbolla Check. To intimidate a population or government: Israel. Check. into granting their demands: Prisoner exchange. Check.

Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whther you want to believe it or not, that makes Hizbollah a terrorist organisation.

Also, before anyone makes themselves look stupid by trying to compare this to Israel's activities: Israel is fighting a conventional war against a terrorist organisaton. They are retaliating in a somewhat disproportionate manner. Nobody disputes the destrucion of civilian infrastructure is going too far, however it is done with the stated aim of crippling the organisation they are fighting. While they are lobbying the Lebanese government, and the UN, for a ceasefire agreement, they are not attempting to coerce either into doing so.

Discussion of EU Parliament in Terrorism Table

The "Revision as of 18:11, 7 August 2006 (edit) Marokwitz" added some discussion of the EU Parliamentary motion to the terrorism table. I don't think it belongs - this is a very general motion and had no practical effect whatsoever. But I've already removed one reference to this motion before and don't want to get into an edit war. What do others think? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the European Parliament has no real powers and its motions are non-binding. It tends then to adopt all kinds of motions that can give them some media attention. Bertilvidet 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, I think it is very relevant to the subject of this table, the European Parliament is the parliamentary body of the European Union (EU), and your opinion towards whether it has power or not has nothing to do with the fact that this event has actually happened. This is giving just one half of the story (that the EU didn't formally declare HZ a terrorist organization) and ignoring the other half (that the European Parliament did issue a statement about the terrorist activities). It doesn't have to be in the table neccessarily but the relevant info about this should be somewhere in this article. Here is the info from the article: "European Union lawmakers issued their strongest condemnation of the group on Thursday, but stopped short of seeking its addition to the EU's list of terrorist groups. "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah," it said in a resolution."The [EU] Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them." Marokwitz 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the European Union is not a parliamentary system. So it is hard for me to see why we should include the internal debates of the polity - we don't mention the different views within the Canadian federal state apparatus. It sure doesn't belong in the table, but if several editors find it crucial we could make a footnote. Bertilvidet 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...the European Parliament has no real powers... ...well, the European Union is not a parliamentary system.

You're misinformed. The European Union is an organisation sui generis with strong characteristics of an institutionalised division of powers and a parlamentary democracy. The European parliament is the single organisation of the EU elected directly by the european people. And the parliament by all means has real powers; for example it has to approve the President of the Commission and can force the Commission to resign at any time, then it has the power to amend or to block legislation in most areas. In 2005 the European Parliament killed the Commissions software patent directive, averting it to become law. The info definitively should be somewhere in the article Cycling fan22 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from judging my level of information. Thank you for summing up the Parliament's most important powers. You are welcome to consider this as real powers, but you should decide wether you will argue that the polity is a parliamentary system or sui generis. Bertilvidet 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I evaluated your level of information by nothing that what you said very definitely, sorry if that offends you. 1.) Understand that i wrote "The European Union is an organisation sui generis with strong characteristics of ( ... ) a parlamentary democracy", there is no necessary decision between the two. 2.) Again, the Parliament has the power to trash the Commission = the executive authority of the EU, and that's only ONE of many examples; there would be approving the budget, boards of inquiry, this could go on and on, i didn't even begin to summarise. So please don't insist in wrong assumptions. Cycling fan22 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the event againt in a shortened form, hope all you agree it is ok this time. Marokwitz 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Still disagree. The motion had no practical effect and the information communicated is negligible. But I'm not going to take action until there is a solid consensus. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, still disagree. 1) For the other polities, the table simply states to which extent Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization, and do not mention the internal debates in various institions. 2) The EP resolution, wihtout any implications, did not even suggest that the EU should designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization but called for an end to its "terrorist activities". Bertilvidet 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the row on the EU should be removed. The table purports to be a "List of entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist". The EU does not. Whether or not it has had discussions on this, or whether or not individuals belonging to Hizbollah are designated terrorists does not change the fact that the EU does NOT list Hezbollah as a terrorist organiataion Yannisc 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to updating the Australian link with the more up to date reference here? - brenneman ^{L} 01:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

brenneman : I like it, but would prefer for the link just to be added in. It helps guard against link fatigue and doesn't take any longer to read. Yannisc brings up an interesting point. The table was invented because it was much more convenient than line after line of repetitive text ... so his option, I believe, involves taking them out of the table because they don't designate H as T, but adding it back into the prose because they're part of the quartet. I think we could resolve this conundrum by renaming the table ... but to what? "Political Stances towards Hezbollah"? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why the EU is in the table. Many more countries may have had discussions on Hezbollah, or designated as terrorists people who belong to organizations. This cannot justify the inclusion of these in the table. I feer this creates the mistaken impression to a casual reader that the EU has designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, something that it has explicitly and repeatedly refused to do. Yannisc 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So far Yannisc, JiHymas@himivest.com and undersigned argue against the inclusion of details about internal debates within EU in the table. Morakowitz (and CyclingFan???) argue for its inclusion. If no other editors wish to express their view I suggest that we follow the will of the majority. Bertilvidet 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The table says "List of entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist". As a quickly scanning reader (not having time to read everything in detail) one spots the EU flag there and conclude the EU designates Hezbollah as terrorist. This is disinformation. Tables should show exactly what that tables caption indicates. 84.48.108.156 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I have been bold and moved the text from the table to the article proper. Bertilvidet 08:22, 15 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)

Use the Infobox: Political Party template?

I'd like to add this to this article. See [Hamas] for a comparison.

Hezbollah/Archive 5
Leader	Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
Founder	Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin
Founded	1985
Ideology	Islamism, Shi'a Islam
Website
Varies. See List of official sites.

Let me know what you think, and for what to add under Members, International affiliation and Headquarters(Beirut?) Mceder 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be written Hezbollah is a social, political and military Lebanese organisition.--Sa.vakilian 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a is a branch of islam and it isn't a political ideology. So we can write religion:Shi'a Islam --Sa.vakilian 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The website: Because of war they use different sites but I'll ask it "en sha allah".--Sa.vakilian 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian brings up an interesting point - that of religion, which has been glossed over in the article so far. There have been numerous references to H's support amongst non-Shia Lebanese, but what about actual membership and influence? I'm sure that any branch of H will be willing to take my money if I offer it, but could I get a job as janitor in one of their hospitals? Could I become Janitor Supervisor? Director of Maintenance? How about the military wing? Are non-Shia recruited for the military wing? Do any hold positions of influence? All this should really be addressed and I certainly don't know the answer. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at nationality and religion to this box.--Sa.vakilian 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

nationality = Lebanese | religion = Shi'a Islam |

• I went ahead and made a new template called Infobox Social Political and made some changes according to the comments above. It is now applied to the main article. Cheers - Mceder 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, aren't there Christians and Sunni Islamic folks in Lebanon too? Elizmr 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is Christians and Sunni and Deruz too but Hezbollah members are Shiite.--Sa.vakilian 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I realized that right after I wrote the note but didn't want to delete. Sorry. Elizmr 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Vast majority

I have twice added to the lead that a vast majority of the Lebanese, alon with some Muslim states, regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organization, but have immediately been reverted. This information is elaborated and well sourced (87%) in the article. I believe it is a crucial point in order to understand the organization and its role in Lebanon. Please raise objection here. Bertilvidet 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm responsible for at least one of those reversions, so apologies for that. (I was looking at the reference linked directly after that claim, which makes no such statement, rather than scanning the rest of the article.) However, the "87%" figure for support of Hezbollah’s arms is very recent, described as "a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February." It’s misleading to use that figure to claim that "a vast majority of Lebanese [civilians]" regard Hezbollah as a legitimate armed resistance against Israel. At least, not without explaining it further, which I'll attempt now. Write back with what you think of my forthcoming changes to the lead-in.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine for me as it is now (Within Lebanon and the Muslim world, Hezbollah’s armed operations are widely regarded as legitimate resistance against Israel). Bertilvidet 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the vast majority of the muslim world does not recognize Israel's right to exist since it is part of the Waqf. Isn't this true? Elizmr 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea - how about finding a source supporting it? And what is the relation between recognizing Israel's right to exist and considering Hezbullah as a legitimate resistance movement??? Bertilvidet 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Too long

This article becomes too long(more than 80 kb). So I propose to move "Foreign and domestic relations" to a new article.--Sa.vakilian 13:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I delete "Suicide attacks" because it was copied from History of Hezbollah compeletly. But this isn't enough to shorten this article.--Sa.vakilian 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do read the whole of the talk page, where there is a discussion on the length of the article just a few sections up. - brenneman ^{L} 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I confess! The actual sequence of events was that first "Suicide Attacks" occurred in this article and I copied it to History. Because ... it is history! The paragraph did not belong here. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of removing foreign and domestic relations to another article. The link with Iran is a crucially important one, historically and currently. Also, some mention of suicide bombing should be made here given the prominence of the attacks that H. is assumed to have made. Elizmr 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is the long section. I agree with Sa.vakilian's suggestion. We must shorten this article down. Just because we move it to a Hezbollah's foreign and domestic relations article does not mean the link with Iran gets covered up. Someone, perhaps you? :) , needs to write a good, short intro for this section, that SHOULD include the Iran connection. Mceder 00:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

External links - reorganization needed

The "other links" section starts with a video-link portraying a military operation: "Video of Hezbollah Military Operation". This should certainly not be the first link. It carries mostly emotional or propaganda value.

I suggest putting the short BBC article "Who are Hezbollah" as first external link.

I also do not see why the "United States Department of State" should have it's own separate heading in this Wikipedia article. The link within that should belong with the rest of the links.

84.48.108.156 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shia, Shi'a, Shiite

At least three different spellings of Shia are used in the opening few sections of this article. Can they be standardised to a single spelling at least within this one article? I don't know enough about the differences relating to context (if any?) to do it myself. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling aside, Shiite is an adjective, I think. Elizmr 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article linked by the introduction redirects to Shi'a Islam, so I think it's safe to consider that the official WP standard. Also, it differentiates between the I and A syllables, making it easier for native speakers of European languages like English to figure out how to pronounce it from the spelling. I think it's standard to separate sequential vowels with apostrophes, when transcribing semitic languages. - LeaHazel 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Re-re-re-re-reversions in "Armed Strength"

The opening sentence in this section now reads:

The strength of Hezbollah's forces are disputed, and has been variously estimated as "several thousand"[67] and several thousand supporters and a few hundred devotee operatives.[68]

This is a change from what I have reverted it to several times, a direct quote from the cited document (68) which said:

Strength

Several thousand supporters and a few hundred terrorist operatives

I prefer the direct quote, but it appears there are some editors allergic to the word "terrorist", who have changed it to other wordings (sometimes while maintaining the quotes). I want the sentence to be a direct quote from the cited document - I consider such citations better than paraphrases. Obviously, there are some who disagree, but can we form a consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

<!-- Inline comments --> seem to be having some success at explaining the rationale behind delicate phrasing, at least in the leader. Maybe it would help here too.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly put an in-line comment (perhaps I could say "LOOK AT THE QUOTATION MARKS" in capital letters?) if I do revert, but I would like some consensus before this happens. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

how about something like "(sic)" after terrorist if people don't agree with the characterization? Elizmr 19:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At the first time I removed quotation marks and substitued "terrorist" with "devotee operatives" because only 6 countries called them terrorist. But I did not reverted it and it shows there are some editors who oppose this quotation. Also you can look at debates about using "terrorist" at the above of this page.--Sa.vakilian 07:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There can be no dispute whatsoever that the quotation from the document cited contains the word "terrorist". Quite frankly, Sa.v, the substitution of "terrorist" with "devotee operatives", is a deliberate POV distortion. However, I will not revert to the actual quotation without a clear mandate. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Although I suspect that Banzai & Elizmr support a reversion, I am not comfortable that this is stated clearly enough to constitute agreement with the proposed change. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I've looked at the "debates about using 'terrorist' at the above of this page" several times now, Sa.vakilian. I see that you've made numerous assertions within the heading, but not only do I not see any consensus being reached on anything, I find it rather difficult to see that there has even been a debate. Help me out here. What is it in the referenced section that you feel should be used as a guideline in this particular case, and why do you feel it is applicable? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

on Israel

The israel section has statements that aren't well supported by the cites supplied. The 2003 CNN interview, see above, doesn't identify the disputed territory and doesn't say anything about prisoners being the only problem. The other quotes are about Israel-Palestine relations and Hez involvement. They do not support the statement that Hez does not want to destroy Israel and doe snot have capibility. Please supply some that do and please don't remove the tag until you do. Elizmr 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied in #Apologetics.

You've replied, thanks, but you still haven't supplied an acceptable and clear citation for the sentence that appears in the Wikipedia article. Elizmr 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm prepared to recognize your compromise settlement, and I will not sabotage what is finally a pretty good idea.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I gues you were temporarily prepared to recognize, until you wereen't and rephrased it. Really Banzai, you are inserting what is essentially a whitewash that you can't back up with citations in the lead of an encyclopedia article. I understand you think you've supported it, but you haven't. The statement should not be in the lead at all but I am willing to leave a weakneded version. Please don't keep reverting without a better cite. Elizmr 00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your edit, that is, pointing out that interviewers of Hezbollah's leadership suggest that its calls to destroy Israel are rhetorical. I disagreed with the grammatical errors and clumsy wording. I'm with you that none of this belongs in the lead, but people used to keep editing it to include "Hezbollah also plans to kill every Israeli" or some other such nonsense, and those of us editing the article at the time thought it necessary to clarify the reality of the situation.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from intro: "Calls continue for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel),[7] another founding objective,[4] but several journalists who claim to have interviewed some of Hezbollah’s supposed leadership may or may not have suggested that this serves, nowadays, only rhetorical purposes, though this could be uncertain, and some have, purportedly, further disputed the uncertainty itself." I believe you mean "several purported journalists" JiHymas@himivest.com 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally a good background to Hezbollah. However, it vastly underplays the extent to which they've become an Iranian pawn in Iran's quest to further it's own aims in the region (even though there are few innocent parties in the existing conflict).

"it originally sought also to bring Islamic Revolution to Lebanon,[4] but soon abandoned this goal for a more moderate, inclusive platform of democratic change".

I think even hardened Hezbollah supporters have might have trouble supporting this one.

The citations for the statement, "...which extended to a desire for the elimination of “the Zionist entity.." from the first para. on "POSITION ON ISRAEL" are quite dubious in terms of neutrality. establishing an account of these positions should be done through citation of hezbollah sources, not terrorist organization listings from western countries.--jc: unregistrered user. 17 August 2006.

The first citation is their founding document; the third is a little dubious since it's just a student newspaper, but by and large I think they're OK. Western governments are an authoritative source; if they have justified their positions by such and such a summary, the summary is a good reference. Additionally, the statement is consistent with numerous direct quotes published by authoritative sources. If you have anything that would contradict anything in the article, we'd love to see it! JiHymas@himivest.com 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Widened or Abandoned

There is disagreement about what the references site says [1]: "Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament. [2]"

I think this text doesn't support Elizmer claim.--Sa.vakilian 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What Elizmer claim? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at [9]--Sa.vakilian 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the current wording of whatever it is in the article you are disputing, why are you disputing it and what do you propose we should do with it? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference doesn't justify what is written there.--Sa.vakilian 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sa.vakilian quoted it above (thanks Sa.v) I am concerned that if we want to say that Hezbollah has abandoned a central founding goal in the lead, the cite should be an official Hezbollah publication or statement, not an opinion piece in the Asia times or a short on-line BBC article. I don't know if H has not doesn't have this goal, which is why I changed the language to "widened", which is indisputably true. Elizmr 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

unclear (at least, so far) There is no mention of an Islamic Republic in the 1996 Electoral Platform; in an interview, a Hezbollah spokesman emphasized non-sectarianism. Additionally, the BBC is an authoritative source and should be contradicted only by another authoritative source. I had a thought after my initial post and looked at the description given by the US Department of State:

• Description: Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from the area. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran

The US Department of State is also an authoritative source, so at this point I'll have to say "unclear". How about:

• "Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state, although it is unclear whether this remains a goal. The party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament and of cabinet.

Would that wording be satisfactory?

JiHymas@himivest.com 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is evidence for "widened" but not "abandoned". Elizmr 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We should distinct between Islamic revolution idealogy and Islamic Republic government, as we distinct between Liberal Democracy and the political system in U.K. . I think Hezbollah doesn't abandoned the Idealogy of Islamic revolution but it abandoned establishment a goverment like Islamic Republic of Iran. So I substituted your edition with BBC's quotation . I believe it's clearer than what was there before and justifies this idea.--Sa.vakilian 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060 for authoritative reference to putative Islamic Republic. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't see this before. There is difference between references.--Sa.vakilian 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian: why are you posting here in search of consensus and then imposing your version in the article prior to consensus having been achieved? JiHymas@himivest.com 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I should be more patiant.--Sa.vakilian 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Sa.vakilian: Your edit "Revision as of 02:37, 15 August 2006 (edit) Sa.vakilian (Talk | contribs)" broke a named link to a New York Review of Books piece that is heavily re-used throughout the article. Please be more careful when editing, in addition to seeking consensus for contentious edits. JiHymas@himivest.com 05:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited to explicitly say that the BBC was the source of this information. Elizmr 23:22, 15 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)

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.

Flag image gone

The flag image is gone. What do you guys think of this one? It appears to be under a CC license. —ptk✰fgs 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I think it'd be nice to have some text explaining the various symbols on the flag. --NeuronExMachina 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, something weird happened with the SVG image. It's not showing up in the deletion log anywhere that I can find. A *lot* of pages link to that file; does anyone know where it went? Or why? —ptk✰ fgs 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont know why it's gone, but there cant be any copyrights-questions about it. Like it sayshere flags are generally public domain... so no copyright problems imi2 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to make the article better/limiting the size

On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'

I think this should be removed from the introduction because those that would rather list the nations that don't list H as a terrorist organization instead will keep changing it, and there will never be consensus on this. One could say that while some nations designate H as a terrorist org, others do not. This is already discussed extensively in the article.

Hezbollah was formed primarily to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[18],[19] Hezbollah initially aimed to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic, though it has since abandoned this goal in favor of a more inclusive platform.[6] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto.

This paragraph is in three sections. The article is too long, why not limit it to only one or even two?

- The civilian activities introduction could be merged with the social services sub-section, since they largely say the same thing. Coolintro 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd do this myself, but I am still learning how to edit. Coolintro 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The section labeled "intro" is repetitive and could be deleted in my opinion. Elizmr 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'

This should be removed; If you put Israel on the list you need to also put all the opinions of the Muslim countries too. Or again it becomes a POV. --SkyEarth 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We have made introduction to prevent a long lead. If you look at here, you'll find the reason. Also we put a paragraph which should be written in the lead to acheive consensus about it. There is written <!--following part is moved here until we acheive consensus about it.-->. Also look at here .--Sa.vakilian 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Request: Explanation of symbols on flag?

It would be nice if somebody could add some explanation of the symbols on the Hezbollah flag. There certainly seems to be quite a few symbols packed onto the flag, but preliminary googling hasn't turned up any elaborating information. --NeuronExMachina 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the flag, I believe you will find the information you are looking for. Coolintro 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That says a little bit, but it'd be nice if it said more. Maybe later I'll just try adding some cursory material to the article, and hope that somebody tries to make it better. --NeuronExMachina 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hizbullah or Hezbollah?

I was just wondering how to spell the name of this organization. I've seen it some places as Hizbullah,(like Newsweek) or as Hezbollah. (on the news) Any help would be kndly accepted. Thank you. 65.43.225.138 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a transliteration from Arabic. According to the first note "Other transliterations include Hizbullah, Hizbollah, Hezballah, Hizballah, Hisbollah, and Hizb Allah." JiHymas@himivest.com 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You very much. 65.43.225.138 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is the Persian pronunciation and Hizbullah is the Arabic one.--Sa.vakilian 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

Somebody should add an IPA pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article (right after the Arabic transliteration), especially because every newscaster has his own opinion on the matter. --Leapfrog314 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the footnotes, Leapfrog314. There's no IPA, but the information is pretty comprehensive. - Noetica 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A faliure

This article failed to show Hizbullah in its real image. Hizbullah is a 100% Lebanese party that works on defending against Israeli invasion. Its a Lebanese party working for Lebanon benefit.

Ahmad Damen

Well, we already have a NPOV tag on the article, but we can always use a few more. You are, of course, very welcome to get an account and start editing. If you don't want to get an account, just post your suggested changes on this page and we can look at and consider them for inclusion. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a tag to put up top indicating this article has too many tags? Mceder 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorganised

I created 2 sections Social Activites and Political Activities to match Military Activities and moved subtopics from idealogy to the appropriate one.Carbonate 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What the symbols on Flag means

For ther person asking what the symbols on the flag means from top to bottom:

1. At the top there is a verse from the Holly Quran saying: "It is only the party of god who wins"

2. A symbol of a gun

3. A symbol of the globe

4.The name "Hezbollah" which means the "party of god"

5.A sentence in Arabic saying "The islamic defenders of Lebanon"

Thanks. I'll try integrating that into the article. --NeuronExMachina 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you if the thing that looks like a man/monkey lying on the ground is intentional? --NeuronExMachina 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes again

I fixed a few footnotes that were before punctuation; ref tags should be after periods and commas. I also noticed a few places where a bunch of footnotes are together. This looks bad and can lead to strange line breaking. Just a suggestion, but it might be better to combine them into one note as a bulleted list, even if that means the reference "name" won't be used in that one instance. Also, a number of the templated citations appear to be broken, mostly due to a missing title. Thought someone should know. Gimmetrow 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow.. I had these pretty cleaned up the other day...... Mceder 17:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, people are probably copy-pasting them from the diff window. Gimmetrow 17:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Flag

The section on the flag is in the center of the article and seems choppy there. Let's put it at the top after the introduction since it is emblematic of the org, or at the very bottom rather than in the center or sections which are more related to each other. Elizmr 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No strong view. I think this information should all be in the "Flag" article, but have no objections to NeuronExMachina putting it in, or strong views as to its placement. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Endless Debates

There are too many endless debates in this page. --Sa.vakilian 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but in order to stop debate one has to bend a little bit from a rigid point of view. Elizmr 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If either of you guys paid the slightest attention to the results of the debates, you might find them more interesting. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This comment of yours is a bit over the top in its rudeness. Elizmr 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could God have caps??

In the Flag section? This was reverted. Elizmr 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to caps. If anyone feels really strongly about this not being in caps it is ok with me to put it back. It just seems respectful of various sensibilities to use caps for this. Elizmr 01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)