Talk:Hassan Nasrallah

intro

Contracting "Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite organization and political party" (1) to "Lebanese political party Hezbollah" cuts it too short. "Islamist Shiite" is a qualifier for party too, arguably a meaningful one. "organization" and "political" is redundant - all parties are political organizations, besides "Islamist" covers that. Shiite Islamists are a Islamist variant, so:

Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah

is IMO correct. --tickle me 01:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention current war??

Hey-- even in the face of all the vandalism and POV-flinging this article needs some mention of the current war, which will definitely make or break Nasrallah as a leader. Anyone care to propose a sentence here? JDG 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an article on Nasrallah, the person, not about the war, for which an article already exists. Although Nasrallah makes morale boosting appearances on Al Manar, I don't think there is much public information about his role in the current war. I therefore do not see what can be said about the topic in a Hassan Nasrallah article other than "He led Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" -- not a very useful statement. --Asbl 05:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has obliged with your request, but as I wrote above, the sentence is essentially void of much useful information. --Asbl 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal life, cleanup-date, July 30, 2006

Too much taken verbatim from aljazeera.com, too many {{fact}} tags. --tickle me 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Views section

Are the only views Nasrallah have related to hating Israel? This section consists of a bunch of out of context quotations and some analysis, much of it from Neocon types. It strikes me as pretty blatantly POV. Obviously a discussion of Nasrallah's views should include a discussion of his views on Israel, but the current section is clearly designed to advance a partisan POV rather than to actually inform. john k 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are out of context and incorrectly translated from Arabic. Thus these quotes are simply wrong.

These may violate Wiki's NPOV due to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. In any case I added some of his recent speeches in full such that the reader may decide what to concentrate in, "straight from the horse's mouth"... ApuNahasaminajustApu 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The views section (Nasrallah views on Israel) is laced with lies and out-of-context quotes. I urge the writer to supply us with primary documentation instead of propaganda sheets for the new-cons.

Is it typical to include hearsay, such as, "According to Joe Schmoe, Hassan Nasrallah said xyz"? I haven't noticed this in any other Wikipedia article, but several times in this one. 24.35.66.225 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sayyed (or Sayyid?) debate

First off, the wiki page spells it Sayyid, so is that perhaps how it should be written if it is to be kept? Second, the Sayyid page states that a Western equivalent to the term would be "Sir" or "Lord". I looked up a few of the latter-day people granted knighthood by the UK (e.g. Ian McKellen, Elton John, and on their wiki pages they are listed as "Sir".

So, if that is to remain, then my opinion would be that Sayyid is equally acceptable. Opinions? Tarc 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's fine. Muslims don't even consider it a title that is similar to "Sir" or "Lord" but just take it to mean that he is a descendant of the Prophet. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid vs. Sayyed. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One might also suggest that an extremely uncivil anonymous (the above comment came from 84.94.3.9, which traces back to an Israeli ISP) person has little to contribute to the discussion. Tarc 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Israeli (no, not the one above) I am disgusted to see the "Lord" Nasrallah and would prefer a neutral name, with no prefixes. I am also in doubt that every Sayyid is a descendant of the Prophet; it seems to me that it is not a proven fact, but just a funny title that people use to honor this terrorist. But since it is used for the Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar and also some other Islamist leaders, maybe Nasrallah should regrettably be honored as well. --Gabi S. 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The true terrorists in this war are the Zionists, but thats quite unrelated. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether we prefer or not. I believe "Sayyid" should be mentioned as it the way he's being called in Lebanon. You may add a note explaining why he's called so. -- Szvest 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabi, terrorist or not got nothing to do w/ this section. I respect your patriotism but it is irrelevant here. -- Szvest 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabi and Bhai: talk pages are not battlegrounds. Please discuss the article, not the subject of the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing the article. I said that the Sayyid prefix should be there, just like Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar. Wasn't it clear? Too bad BhaiSaab can't find a way to leave the terrorism section there. It's an important part of the article and it was unfortunately deleted. Maybe it's unrelated. --Gabi S. 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never deleted any terrorism section. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A little trivia, Sayyed or Husainites is reserved for descendant of the prophet thru the grandson Husain and Sharif or Hassanie Hashemite for descent thru his elder brother the grandsom Hassan. For Shia, they are respectively the 3rd and 2nds Imams. Best Wishes.Will314159 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sayyed is more accurate then Sayyid. by the way Sayyid means Mister, not lord/sir.

I suppose we should use whatever the reliable sources use. If the title/honorific is disputed, maybe we should discuss that. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not bound by the Manual of Style; we are. It is certainly acceptable to mention that some call him Sayyid, and why.

Re the anonymous claim above, Sayyed and Sayyid are merely different transcriptions of the same Arabic word; Arabic draws no distinction between i and e, or between u and o.Proabivouac 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick search shows his name appearing without any honorific, with 'Sayyed', and with 'Sheikh'. I don't have a strong preference. We might use it once with a footnote, and after that just use his name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Paul McCartney, Ian McKellen, Elton John all use "Sir" in the bolded first mention, but I'm not sure I like it there, either.Proabivouac 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, what kind of "quick search" did you do? I googled for Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and come up with 64,000 hits. Less than the 800,000 of just Hassan Nasrallah but certainly not an insignificant number. Perhaps it does not need to appear in the quantity that it does currently, but it should certainly remain in the lead and in image captions. Tarc 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a Lexis/Nexis search of major newspapers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Would it be acceptable to mention it in the limited fashion I suggested above? Tarc 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which, 'Sayyed' or 'Sheikh' or both? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sayyed. Tarc 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why that instead of 'Sheikh'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to be more proper in respects to his status than a simple "respected old man" (i.e. sheik) would be. I now see that it was quite overused throughout the article, so one mention in the lead plus an image caption would be an aceptable compromise, don't you think? Tarc 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do it and see what people think. I don't have a strong preference at this point, though I note that some sources say 'Sheik' instead, and I wonder what basis we are using to decide. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The prefix "Sayyed" or "Sayyid" (however spelled) should be included, not to honor or gratify him, but to clarify that he is a descendant of Hussein, the third Imam in Shiite Islam, and grandson of the Prphet Mohammad, (should I have left out the prefix "Prophet" when referring to Mohammad?) This distinction is important in identifying his lineage, his social status in the muslim nation. Maybe we should also mention that he wears a black turban rather than a white one because of his lineage to Hussein, which makes him a so-called "Sayyed" or "Sayyid" whether we like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.15.189 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

In the article, the section titled 2006 "Israel-Lebanon" conflict should get a new title..."Israel-Hizb'Allah" conflict. With very few exceptions, Israel's bombing campaign targeted Hizb'Allah targets--not "Lebanese" military targets. I know Hizb'Allah is part of the government, but it would still be more accurate to describe the conflict as one between Israel and Hizb'Allah (Lebanon as a whole was largely caught in the crossfire). (CSSELL)

That section makes it look as if his part in the conflict was just getting his home and office hit, as though he's an innocent spectator. Also, the quote again makes it appear as though he's just defending against Israeli aggression, which is, again, untrue. okedem 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You state your opinion as though it were fact. There are other points of view, and the article should not take sides. 69.214.180.253 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what I just said was fact - his role in this was not just getting his house hit, just as Olmert's role in this wasn't just sitting by his desk, watching the news.

Also, Hezbollah did initiate the current aggressions, as recognized by most of the world. okedem 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view is that Israel itself violated Lebanese sovereignty on a continuous basis, then used an isolated border incursion as a pretext to destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon and to kill over 1000 Lebanese civilians. You do not have to agree with this, but a compelling case can be made, and both views should be reflected in the entry. I do agree that the section on the 2006 war is much too brief and should include the Israeli view, but I do not believe that this view should be presented alone or as fact.69.212.215.248 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First off - if you want to indent your comment, use colons (":"), like I do now.

If you can find a reliable source that makes that case, it can be presented here. However, one would also have to be clear on the fact that Israel withdrew to an internationally recognized border, and that Hezbollah attacked Israel afterwards, by kidnapping 3 Israeli soldiers in 2000, by firing at Israeli towns, and by this current attack. The case for Israel violating sovereignty would be that Israeli aircrafts flew over Lebanons airspace (since Israel did not enter lebanon on the ground).

BTW, the claims about Israel destoying the infrastructure of Lebanon are quite unbased. For example, Israel did attack Beirut's airport, but did the minimal possible damage - bombed a runway intersection, and the fuel tanks. It did not bomb the terminal, the hangars, the control tower. It did the minimal damage that would prevent the use of the airport. Also, if Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, why did Lebanon continue to have electricity?

But I digress - the point is - the current section gives a completely false picture of events. okedem 07:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view is that Hezbollah violated Lebanese sovereignity by attacking Israel and then hiding in Lebanon. Likewise Syria has certainly violated Lebanese sovereignity. No country can tolerate rockets being fired into its schools from nearby towns. Sept 1, 2006

You talk like if Hezbollah was a strange body in South Lebanon saying "They hide in Lebanon", wake up brother, Hezbollah is the people of the freed(2000) south Lebanon, they live there ,they grew there, this is their soilAhage4x4 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

moved all the headers up to the top, and comments below. I shouldn't have lost any comments. Although a lot them seemed to be argumentative and not really wikipedia edit type comments. Best Wishes. Will314159 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

External links: CAMERA article

It seems that some quotes have been attributed to Nasrallah, quotes which are not by him at all. See Charles Glass in London Review of Books. Note the quote from the lebanese Daily Star (by Badih Chayban) in October 2002/10/23 ('If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide') ..it has been used extensively (especially by neo-cons)..but there is no proof that this is a "real" quote at all (It has also been denied by Hizbolla spokesmen). The CAMERA article: "Hassan Nasrallah: In His Own Words" (where it is quoted) is therefore at least partly based on what I would call false propaganda; (it is not his own word at all): I will therefore remove it.

(This whole thing remindes me very much of the Ouze Merham "quotes" of Ariel Sharon ...perhaps there also should be an article about false quotes attributed to Nasrallah? ..with listing them where they first appear, and where they were refuted?) Regards, Huldra 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jurisprudence of the Guardians and Khomeini View of Ashura Ritual

I listened to a streaming video lecture by Professor juan Cole who explained the above topic. Nasralah subscribes to Khomeinis views and is his disciple. Amal suscribes to Fadallah who is close to Ayatollah Sistani of Irak. In the Khomeini view the clerics have the last word. Sistani and Fadallah's view is minimum interference. Even though Nasrallah is prominent politicaly in Lebanon, theologically he is much junior to Ayotollah Fadallah. On Ashura (Arabic for 10 which follows 10 days after first of year 1 Muharram similar to Yom Kippur about 10 days after Rosh Shannah) some Shiites self flagellate in memory of the martrydom of the 3rd Imam Husain at Karbala. The Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the practice. If I am right, then Amal would do the bloody ritual on Ashura while Hezbollah members would not. I have to get a source for this before i incorporate this in article. If any lebanese Shia are reading this- would appreciate any insight. Best Wishes Will314159 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

anti-semitism and semitism run amok

the flip side of anti-semitism is semitism run amok. Anti-semitism is strongly condemmed wherever it appears. At the same time semitism run amok is the flip side. WP is an encyclopedia for everybody and all these negative comments about Nasrallah are bull. The PLO was delcared a terrorist organization. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. gets called on the carpet for meeting with the PLO. Sharon starts a war to expel the PLO from Lebanon. Then guess what? Israel invites the PLO to the West Bank, and Yasser Arafat is a frequent guest at the White House. But then he won't roll over and then he's a terrorist again and becomes a prisoner at Ramallah. The Israelis can get any opponents of theirs declared "terrorists" by the U.S. Congress and then undeclared as it suits their purposes. This is a biography article of living person and there are guidelines. There is no call or excuse for calling the subject a "little shxt" as one so called "Editor" did above. It is just disgusting. But it is like this in every article having to do with the Mid-East in WP. There are very few Arab English speaking editors and are grossly outnumbered and out-articulated. The editors that are proponents of the other side are overwhelming in their numbers, with notable exceptions and those people are heroes, are not exercising balance and fair play. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't blow themselves up with hundreds of people around them the US Congress wouldn't declare them to be terrorist's. It's not rocket science man.

Then, shall we give the IDF credit for 'terrorising' a whole country killing a thousand of their people? The US can put anyone on their terrorists list, who cares Nasrallah is seen as a Freedom fighter for millions of Arabs, he is certainly much more respected statistically then the "strongest" man on earth, Mr Bush Ahage4x4 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave the term "Terrorist" out of the debate? Terrorism has become a highly subjective and stigmatized word since 9/11/2001. Where one person sees a "terrorist", another sees a "freedom fighter". US Congress and their declarations have no place in WP, and neither do the opinions of those at the other end of the political debate. Lets just stick to the facts, folks, and leave the subjectivity out of it ok? Nageeb 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sure. let's use the "objective" opinions of these people about the word "terrorist".. webster discussions

Wow, you know what would have been nice? If they actually cited a source of that definition (the definition kept expanding as the interview went on, incidentally). Simply claiming that Webster's Dictionary says something without actually showing it or citing an edition is useless. (Side note: There is no one "Webster's Dictionary", there are indeed many editions and versions, each having a different use and purpose.) What kind of garbage talkshow was that? Also, the Egyptian guy in the horrible shirt was a wanker. Nageeb 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

webster reality check: [1]

btw, what negative comment about nasrallah is bull exactly? Jaakobou 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

National Compact with Michel Aoun

Many observors write this has kept lebanon from civil war. From the Xtian side it calls for the the 1)disarmament of HA upon return of the three remaining Leb prisoners in Israeli jails (yes back then it was 3 prisoners!!) 2) return of Shebaa Farms and 3) the repatriation of SLA refugees (South Lebanon Army) from Israel with pardons. From the HA side it calls for reform of the Taif electoral law perhaps with one man one vote. The speculation is tha the Sunni would then pad the vote by extending the franchise to Palestinian refugee descentants and the Xtians would try to gain numbers by extending the vote to overseas Lebanese. The compact is a signicant achievment for Nasrallah and Aoun because it has kept the country stable and unified even under the total war waged recently on the civilian infrastructure. When I get the citations lined up I" try to incorporate some of this in the article as well as the jurisprudence of the guardians material. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You should also be aware that Future Movement leader, Saad Hariri, is very supportive and would like to allow the Lebanese diaspora to have voting rights from abroad, now keep in mind that 80% or so of the multi million Lebanese diaspora is Christian.

--Eternalsleeper 05:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Syria Iran Hezbollah support

He actually used the words "everybody knows it"? I'm sorry, but that is the single most hilarious thing that I have ever heard. VolatileChemical 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy cities

The question of whether Najaf and/or Qom are "holy" cities is not topical to this article. However, if for some reason we were to include it, it would have to be attributed and cited, e.g., "which Shi'a Muslims consider holy (reference)." It's not up to us to decide what is or isn't holy.Proabivouac 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All Shia Muslims consider the Cities of Karbala, Najaf, and Qom, Holy, what makes them holy is the burials of the 11 Imams, in these cities and more, its not up to you to decide, it's up to every Shi'ite Muslim to know that those Cities are holy.Ahmad Husseini 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go man. Here's an explanation of why Najaf is a Holy City: [2]

Who's running this joint?

How do you know that the "If all the Jews..." quote is not a fabrication, since its editors of the newspaper have questioned the reliability of the translations, and honesty of the reporter? Ahmad Husseini 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not know this to be the case, since our only source is a random third party claiming this in a letter to an editor of another journal.Proabivouac 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, your second source doesn't mention the quote. This isn't the place to be comparing Hezbollah to the Nazis (your source, is a blatant attack, otherwise it would have fit in), and I don't find that taking quotes from neo-con(respectively) websites is considered accurate.Ahmad Husseini 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

This section of the article makes no mention of the fact that Israel initiated its bombing campaign in response to a Hezbollah attack on its army patrol. An attack of which Nasrallah was aware, because he later made the statement along the lines of (if I recall correctly) "I would not have allowed the attack to go ahead if I had known that these would be the consequences."

Will you provide a reliable resource for that please? If you can then it may be added.--SJP 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nasrallah in songs

I've added one song by Alaa Zalzali to the list, however there is no article about that artist or song. I may get to work on that. Andurz 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

درود بر سید حسن نصراله و رزمندگان مقاوت از طرف حمید رضا

Taif Section

How reliable are those sources? They seem to be heavily biased blogs. And i'm not sure about the translation offered there. Just suggesting better sources. Andurz (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

References need cleaning up.

Reference #2, #9, and #11 ("Profile: Sayid Hasan Nasrallah")are redundant as they all point to, the same link, which no longer works and cannot be found via a search on that site. At the moment it also lists it as an Al Jazeera article, which is incorrect as aljazeera.com is a British magazine, not the same as the well-known media outlet of the same name. I'll fix that in a moment.
It seems though that this may have been the same profile that is also cited as reference #10, from the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, it can simply be subbed in for the three mentioned earlier, but it should be checked first that that CFR link covers or mentions what is being referenced by aljazeera.com before swapping.
Also, question regarding the PDF link in reference #7; can anyone else open this? It comes up as "unsupported/damaged" by Adobe. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference for this :

"There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel," said Nasrallah.

and this :

"I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel.' I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.".

are broken. Kromsson (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sayyid

The using in this honorific title in the personal life section is improper. It opens this section with out any explanation while wikipedia rules forbid this kind of glorifications. It is equal to open the Jhon Do persoanl life section in this manner: Ph.D/M.D/DR Jhon Do was born...--Gilisa (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)