Jump to content

Talk:Hezbollah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.231.200.55 (talk) at 05:55, 16 June 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Good articleHezbollah has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
Archive
Archives

Topical archive:

  1. POV-Disputed-Controvercial discussions
  2. Terrorist allegations
  3. Structure
  4. Lead/Introduction discussions
  5. Good article

Archive index

page split per WP:Article size

its already a little long, i propose an equitable split off between the paramiltary and the political party which would also give due credit to the respective parts (the workings of domestic lebanese politics doesnt always have much to do with intl military efforts. (of course summations on each page would still be there, just not details)(Lihaas (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Sounds reasonable. --GHcool (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but do you think it should be the existing pages or i was thinking something like current party pages with the title being "Hezbollah (Lebanese [political] party" (political being optional) also because there are other Hxzbollah's, and some quite unrelated. (think theres one in india/pak somewhere)(Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Places to trim/merge

Here are my ideas. If nobody objects, I'll start trimming the following passages from this article and/or merging them into either Hezbollah political activities or Hezbollah military activities:

  1. "In the general election of 2005 ... 21% of the municipalities."
  2. "In November 2006 ... resigned their positions."
  3. "In December 2010 ... of Faisal's plan."
  4. The map of southern Lebanon
  5. "Over 100 Lebanese ... April 26, 1996."
  6. "Both sides agreed ... forces inside Lebanon."
  7. "The war continued ... August 14, 2006."
  8. "According to The Guardian ... Israelis were civilians.'"
  9. The paragraph about the "2010 Gas Field Claims"
  10. "After the September ... opposing the act."
  11. "In a 2006 ... against American civilians."

--GHcool (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pretty straight forward i think with all aspects relationg the the election in politics, and the militant aspects in the military part. that means elections, platforms, ideologies in politics, and war stuff (practically all isreal stuff) in the military part. (of course with summations and l;ink to the other page)(Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Why do you think that this article qualifies as WP:TOOLONG? I see 35kB (5384 words) or text, while the guideline says that "readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." I don't think the article currently qualifies as too long, and would recommend removing the template. ← George talk 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the passages above could/should be trimmed for an article that's easier to digest. --GHcool (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bigger problem, which your points allude to, is there's quite a bit of disjoint WP:RECENTISM here. Going through your list:
  1. Yup, I agree, though it would be good to have their current % share of the cabinet/parliament in there.
  2. Agree. This whole paragraph could use a rewrite.
  3. Axe it.
  4. It might be useful for something, but as of now what that something is isn't obvious. Axe it.
  5. How this is related to Hezbollah isn't clear. Axe it.
  6. Is that even true? Weird.
  7. Why remove the date the conflict ended?
  8. Same question. While this article isn't about the war itself, I think having the start and end dates, and the results of the war is good.
  9. Would be nice if this was condensed somewhere. The criticism of Hezbollah's grasping at straws to justify their weapons seems notable.
  10. The first part seems as notable as the next paragraph, though the part about the Pentagon seems irrelevant (not saying something doesn't indicate much, which this wording implies).
  11. Ditto. Why pick & choose which suicide attacks they condemned to list? ← George talk 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking George's response into account, I've compiled a new list of places to trim:
  1. "In the general election of 2005 ... 21% of the municipalities."
  2. "In November 2006 ... resigned their positions."
  3. "In December 2010 ... of Faisal's plan."
  4. The map of southern Lebanon
  5. "Over 100 Lebanese ... April 26, 1996."
  6. "Both sides agreed ... forces inside Lebanon."
  7. "a United Nations-brokered ... into effect on"
  8. "neither favoring nor opposing the act." (also combined the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the "Targeting policy" section into one paragraph)
  9. "In a 2006 ... against American civilians." --GHcool (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
trim yes, everythign can be. but move to where? pol and mil?
a lot of times "what links here" is for political reasons as opposed to the predominantly military this is.(Lihaas (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I re added the wikileaks information as its notable and shows Saudi views, I also re added the info about Israel killing Lebanese in Qana as that is also an important part of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it doesnt show saudi views, it shows american opinions thereof. keep in mind they are AMERICAN cables, not gods word (no pun intnded)(Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
we seem to have some agreement on a split, so if no opposition comes ill split the political and miliatar parts where at least the political party should be uncontroversil/non-1RR(Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I would have to see a more concrete proposal of what would go where, and what the two articles would be named, before I could comment on whether or not I agree with splitting the article. ← George talk 18:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name in Arabic

The first paragraph says "حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-illāh(i)" The last word makes no sense in Arabic; it should be ḥizbu-allāh(i) or ḥizbu-llāh (where ḥizbu-allāh(i) represents the underlying structure and ḥizbu-llāh is closer to the actual pronunciation). There's no such thing as illāh(i). The page is not available for editing, but someone who has access should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguistatlunch (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know arabuc, but if no one objects in the nex week ill change it.(Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
No the way it is now is correct since you don't say the I in Arabic in his name  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.224.249 (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic Terrorism

I know all about WP:TERRORIST, but if the Hezbollah article isn't included in Category:Islamic terrorism, then what meaning does the category have? Hezbollah is one of the most famous/successful Islamic terror groups; they are second only to Al-Qaeda who, it should come as no surprise to anybody, is appropriately listed in Category:Islamic terrorism. Other groups listed in the category are Hamas, Abdullah Azzam Shaheed Brigade, several movements with the name Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, and several others. Hezbollah is missing from this list. I could list countless sources attesting to the validity of the category in reference to Hezbollah, but I'll limit myself to only six:

  1. "Many intelligence analysts consider Hezballah ... the terrorist 'A Team' and a greater danger than al-Qaeda" (Donna Rosenthal, The Israelis, p. 74).
  2. "The Shiite Hezbollah has indeed become a trusted mentor and role model to the Sunni fundamentalist Hamas. Both organizations have inscribed on their banner the rejection of any treaties or peace agreements with Israel, energetically work for its demise and encourage suicide terrorism to that end" (Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, p. 731).
  3. "Dr. Bilal Na'im served as a assistant to the head of the Executive Council of Hizballah, the Iranian-controlled Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization" (Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem, p. 233).
  4. "In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, 'Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East ....'"[1]
  5. "An investigation by Telemundo and NBC News has uncovered details of an extensive smuggling network run by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group founded in Lebanon in 1982 that the United States has labeled an international terrorist organization."[2]
  6. "Hezbollah (Arabic for “the Party of God”) is a Lebanese-based terrorist organization that seeks to establish an Islamic state encompassing both Lebanon and Israel."[3] --GHcool (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All those are views and claims by Americans and Israelis. Its an extreme minority pov, and its coming from the "enemies" of Hezbollah. It can only be attributed to them and does not make Hezbollah "terrorist". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is an "extreme minority" viewpoint. We judge the weight to afford viewpoints based on reliable sources, regardless of the nationality of the source, and regardless of whether they love or hate the subject they're writing about. I would wager that most reliable sources discussing Hezbollah in any great detail describe it several things: a political party, a resistance movement, and a terrorist organization. All three views have some validity, and Hezbollah and its image have changed over time, but I doubt that any of them is an extreme minority view among reliable sources. ← George talk 19:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a handful of country's label it as a terrorist organization, that is minority pov. Where the sources are common from is important, as American and Israeli sources most likely represents an American or Israeli pov, as can be seen in the sources above where they are calling Hezbollah "terrorist" while the vast majority of the world do not call Hezbollah "terrorist".Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure what that matters. Are you arguing against inclusion on the basis of WP:UNDUE, or something else? When you invoke words like "minority pov" and "extreme minority pov", it implies that you're talking about Wikipedia's undue weight policies, which have nothing to do with how many countries hold a POV, nor whether those views are biased against the subject. WP:UNDUE is only concerned with how reliable sources - even biased ones - view a subject. Clearly a significant number of reliable sources have described Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. So what policy based reason are you citing for its exclusion, if not WP:UNDUE? ← George talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issue is whether or not they are a terrorist organization, but whether or not they're an Islamic terrorist organization. My personal definition of "Islamic terrorism" is some like "attacks committed, usually against civilian targets, that are intended to instill terror in a population, with the ultimate goal of establishing a government ruled by Sharia law." I'm not sure whether or not Hezbollah is Islamic—that is, whether or not they're trying to establish an Islamic government. From what I recall, when they were founded in the 1980s they planned to establish an Islamic government, but at some point they dropped the establishment of an Islamic state from their official agenda. The question is, should this category include articles on groups that formerly favored the establishment of an Islamic government, but then changed their policy? Or does Hezbollah still favor the establishment of an Islamic government, and are their terror attacks performed toward such an end? I think those questions need to be addressed, more so than whether or not Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. ← George talk 08:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They most certainly are Islamic. Islamic terrorism doesn't necessarily denote the wish to create an Islamic state. It could also mean that Islam (or more accurately, Islamism) is a driving force in the group's ideology/theology. This article and others make this plainly clear. --GHcool (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that they don't need to be Islamist to be included in the "Islamic terrorism" category? To be honest, the whole concept of an "Islamic terrorism" category (or "Jewish terrorism", or "Christian terrorism", etc.) starts to approach some of the cases mentioned in WP:OVERCAT. I wonder if a better approach wouldn't be to use more granular categories. Why not just include two separate categories, something like "Islamic political parties" and "Terrorist organizations"? ← George talk 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a terrorist organization, so that would be an inaccurate cat to have here. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is or not. But it's not really up to us to decide, it's up to reliable sources. And I think that mainstream reliable sources label Hezbollah a terrorist organization fairly often. Same question as I have above - what policy are you citing against including the category? I'm not totally clear. ← George talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George, I wouldn't be opposed to that. However, considering that Category: Islamic terrorism exist, Hezbollah's absence from that category is highly questionable. --GHcool (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, to me anyways, is that when you combine these controversial labels (which not everyone agrees with) into one label, even fewer people will agree with that joined label. I don't think that "Islamic terrorism" is the same as "terrorism committed by Muslims", so citing sources that describe Hezbollah as Islamic next to sources that describe it as a terrorist organization isn't sufficient for the combined category. If you want to stick with the specific term "Islamic terrorism", then I think you're going to need to cite sources that use that specific term, or very close derivatives ("Islamist terrorist organization", "Islamic terror group", et cetera). I would guess that it's more difficult to cite the combined term than the individual components of it, which is why I wonder if the separate categories don't make more sense, but I haven't really looked for specific sources, so your mileage may vary. ← George talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If plenty of sources do not specifically call it "Islamic terrorism" with these exact words, then GHcool's inclusion of the cat is nothing more than WP:Synth and should be reverted on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be "Islamic terrorism" exactly, but it has to be significantly close (such as the list of synonymous phrases I listed). ← George talk 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about these (emphasis added in all cases):
  1. "Hizballah employed anti-Israel terrorism to pursue its goal of turning Lebanon into a state and society ruled solely by the Shari'a" ("Terrorism," The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, p. 836).
  2. "Hizballah, the Iranian-controlled Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization" (Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem, p. 233).
  3. "Learn about the operations and organization of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other Islamic terror groups."[4]
  4. "Hezbollah (Arabic for “the Party of God”) is a Lebanese-based terrorist organization that seeks to establish an Islamic state encompassing both Lebanon and Israel."[5] --GHcool (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general phrasing of these is good for supporting the category, but if I were you I would look for more diverse, more neutral sources. The first is by an Israeli scholar, the second an Israeli politician, and the last is a pro-Israel NGO. I'm not saying that they're not reliable, but when trying to make your case on talk in lieu of other editors' opposition, you'd be better off finding a wider range of sources. I don't have any plans to add or remove this category myself, just offering some advice. ← George talk 05:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is still nothing but Israeli POV, and therefore not enough for inclusion of such libellous categories. You can mention it alright, but don't try to pass it off as being even close to an objective opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GHcool, every single one of those sources you provided is either an American or Israeli source. They are representing an American and Israeli pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically reject the charge that American and Israeli academics/sources cannot be trusted or aren't neutral when describing Hezbollah any more than any other person of any other nationality is. These aren't bums interviewed on the beaches of Tel Aviv I'm citing. These are people from world-class universities, etc. Stop the nonsense and bigotry. A reliable source is a reliable source no matter which country, nationality, race, or religion the source hails from. George's request for non-Israeli, non-American sources is reasonable and in the coming week, I will try to find such sources, but the claim that Israeli scholars are "libelous" by virtue of the fact that they are Israeli is insulting. --GHcool (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that American and Israeli sources are not reliable, what Im saying is that in some cases they represent an extreme minority pov (American/Israeli pov), and this is the case here. Here is another example: Haaretz, which is a reliable Israeli newspaper says: "the village of Ghajar, which straddles the Israeli-Lebanese border. " [6]... but Ghajar does not straddle the Israeli-Lebanese border, it straddles the Syrian Lebanese border, and no part of Ghajar is in Israel. The reliable source inaccurately claims that Golan "is Israel". So it is following an Israeli pov, not a world view.
The same thing with these American and Israeli sources, they may be reliable, just like Haaretz, but by claiming that Hezbollah is "terrorist" they represent an American and Israeli perspective, not a world view, as the international community does not hold the view that Hezbollah is "terrorist". Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness, your arguments are silly. It's obvious that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and the United States, United Kingdom, Egypt, Israel, Australia, and Canada classify Hezbollah as such. Yes, even your fellow Arabs in Egypt can see past their anti-Semitism and recognize terrorists as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchtruth2 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The attitude of "I personally don't like it" has to stop. Reliable sources are reliable sources and we quote reliable sources in the article. End of discussion. The world is round whether flat Earth theorists like it or not. Citing this fact to multiple reliable sources is not an example "extreme pov." Thankfully, Supreme Deliciousness is not the sole arbiter of what is and is not extreme or reliable. --GHcool (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you inserting the flat earth theory that Hezbollah is a "terrorist organization" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GHcool shows again and again that the views he avocates are almost solely American/Israeli POV, due to obvious reasons, but if Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and objective, why should the views of only Israelis and Americans determine whether something is branded a terrorist group or not? One thing is mentioning it in the article text itself, with attribution, another is categorising the article, which is more of a stamp of approval from Wikipedia editors themselves. Should Wikipedia only reflect an Israeli/American POV? Or should the article likewise be categorised with "resistance groups" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is a resistance group AND a Islamic terrorist group. This has been shown time and time again by reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it. Adl as a non-pov source here? All the "terrorist" sources reflect 1-worldview and would then be pov. if we an other source (like an arab one (which is possible to find id imagine (saudi))) then id support. RS (particularly on 1RR pages) are more contentious on controversial issues. theres is no blanket acceptance for waht is RS on ordinary pages. Although even then Arab sources like Egypt haev their Sunni-Shia biases.(Lihaas (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
At any rate, even if the terror tag were to be there is has to with requisite caveats.
There are tons of sources aside from the ADL (academics, New York Times, NPR, etc) who say the same exact thing. It is not one worldview to cite the dozens of reliable sources that the Earth is round. See [[Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --GHcool (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cite a non-western (ie- different) view.(Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
This is special pleading. This is English Wikipedia and the sources we use are all in English (for obvious reasons). You are cynically demanding the impossible; that I learn Arabic or Farsi or Chinese or God knows what else and submit sources written in parts of the world whose languages very few of us can read. Nevertheless, I found a book by Walid Phares, a Lebanese-born Arab scholar of terrorism. I'm adding it to the article. The mountain of evidence that Hezbollah belongs in the Islamic terrorism category is impossible to overcome at this point. --GHcool (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool, refrain from adding the cat as long as there is no consensus to include it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Considering the weight of the evidence above, I'd like to see if the same consensus that exists in the academia exists on Wikipedia. Does Hezbollah belong in Category:Islamic terrorism? Please say yes or no and sign your name.

Our opinions are irrelevant; if only American and Israeli sources mention these words in tandem, we can be sure that it is POV. And is POV appropriate in articles here? Yes, as long it is attributed specifically. But is it appropriate for categories, which are supposed to reflect some kind of objectivity? I'll let GHcool decide. Hope he doesn't mind quitting the facetiousness in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to Supreme Deliciousness's request for a consensus. This is the problem with deniers. They move the goalpost and when one tries to meet the new goalpost, they move the goalpost even further. Stop the special pleading and accept WP:RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To CHcool, there's no special pleading, no one denies having the views of Israelis and Americans in the articl, but thi is about cateories, which can not be attributed, so therefore has to reflect a neutral view. And for George, "designated as terrorit" is too general if it only applies to two countries. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, I moved my suggestion to a new section so it didn't get lost in all this discussion, but feel free to comment down there. The issue though is that there are six countries, not two. Right now we only have categories for two, but nothing stops any editor from adding the four other countries as separate categories, at which point we have a ton of categories all saying the same thing. ← George talk 01:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former British MP George Galloway said that in most peoples eyes Israel is a terrorist state, based on this, should we ad "Category:Terrorist state" to the Israel article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not based on George Galloway alone. ← George talk 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky: "Is Israel a terrorist state? Well yes according to official definitions." [7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "alone" so literally. If many reliable sources described any country as a terrorist state, editors could argue for including such a category. But I would highly doubt enough reliable sources apply that label to Israel to ever get the category added, and this isn't really the place to suggest it, anyways. ← George talk 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah arguably abandoned terrorism almost 15 years ago if you ignore acts not considered terrorism when done to Lebanon by other countries. How long does an organisation keep the label?Wayne (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's another part of the equation when debating this category, though I think the Islamist aspects more questionable. If the STL ends up implicating Hezbollah in the Hariri bombing, as expected, then the terrorism clock would have effectively reset from the last such incident years ago, but I'm not sure that they've been considered Islamist since the mid-80s. ← George talk 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even the "terrorism" committed during the 80s was hardly so, the targets were active participants in the war, set up to protect the "government", or rather the Maronite faction, against everyone else, even goin so far as bombing Druze and other Lebanese. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. They were accused of attacks against the U.S. Embassy, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, multiple hostage-takings between 1982 and 1992, the attack on the Israeli Embassy, the bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina, and now the bombing of Hariri's motorcade. Any of those would constitute a terrorist attack, though Hezbollah hasn't claimed responsibility in any of those attacks (and has denied any involvement in at least some). The issue isn't whether or not they committed those acts, which only Hezbollah knows. The issue is whether or not reliable sources discussing those attacks indicate that Hezbollah committed them, which is what earned the terrorist label in the first place. ← George talk 02:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of you have addressed the elephant in the room. Multiple reliable sources (experts on the subject on Islamic terrorism) have been cited and the weight of the evidence is in favor of including Hezbollah in the Islamic terrorism category along with Hamas and al Qaeda. We're not talking Gallaway/Chomsky political mouthing offs here. We're talking serious studies done by serious terrorism analysts. I look forward to the day when the deniers of this fact stop the special pleading and the false analogies. --GHcool (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky is an expert and a professor. Go and ad the cat "State terrorist" to the Israel article. You have only brought a couple of individual povs, there are only a handful of countries that believes this, while the vast majority don't. You have failed to bring world view sources saying Hezbollah is terrorist, and now you are continuing edit warring and to force the category to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if you could maintain a single list of sources that do so, and provide the relevant quotes from each for us to review. My main concern, as I wrote earlier, is that we don't draw erroneous conclusions from sources saying that Hezbollah is an Islamic group and saying that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, but not saying that they're an Islamic terrorist group. Let me explain it this way. Let's assume the following for a moment (and I know some editors contest these, but play along):
a) Hezbollah is an Islamist organization.
b) Hezbollah commits terrorist attacks.
Therefore, c) Hezbollah terrorist attacks are inspired by their Islamist ideology.
This is a logical fallacy. Hezbollah's terrorist attacks may or may not be inspired by Islamism. They could be inspired by nationalism, racism, revenge, or anything really. It's the same structurally as saying:
a) My car is red.
b) My car goes fast.
Therefore, c) My car goes fast because it is red.
Even if you had a source saying that "George's car is fast and red", that's different than a source saying "George's car goes fast because it is red." We really need the latter - sources saying that Hezbollah's terrorist attacks were made because of their Islamist ideology, Islamic identity, or similar. I know some of your sources say that, but I know that some of them don't, so if we could get a more succinct list of sources and quotes it would make it easier to filter through them to weigh the prevalence of that opinion. ← George talk 09:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George is welcome to look at all the sources above. They all say the same thing, namely that Hezbollah is an Islamic terrorist organization. George's syllogisms, are good, but George comes to the wrong conclusions:
a) I have a fast car.
b) I have a red car.
Therefore, c) I have a fast red car.
Similarly,
a) Hezbollah is an Islamic organization.
b) Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
Therefore, c) Hezbollah is an Islamic terrorist organization. --GHcool (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the issue, because "Islamic terrorism" has a very distinct and different meaning from "Islamic organization that commits terrorism". While a "fast red car" is no different than saying "the car is red and fast", "Islamic terrorist organization" has a distinct meaning beyond saying "the group is Islamic, and the group commits terrorism" (specifically involving the motivation for said terrorism). That is, after all, why we have an entire article dedicated to the subject. Having reviewed the sources above, it looks like there are only a couple that have phraseology I consider supportive of the "Islamic terrorism" label, so I don't think I can support inclusion of the category until additional sources are given, though they're probably sufficient for use in the body of the article. ← George talk 01:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George, are implying that Hezbollah terrorism is not motivated by their theology (a form of Islam)? Or are you implying that Hezbollah's theology (a form of Islam) does not motivate its terrorism? The evidence is clearly weighed against either scenario. Read the sources again. --GHcool (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying, I'm saying that it's possible. It's possible that Hezbollah's theology motivates its terrorism, but I don't assume so by default. I would need to see reliable sources that make that claim to support the category, and it would have to be a decent mix and number of sources to establish the prevalence of that view. Between the eight or so sentences you provided from sources above, about three said that Hezbollah's theological ideology was the motivation for its terrorism (I don't really have the time or patience to filter through all of them to see if I've missed some). I can see how you might think that some of the others say so as well, but I'm not going to try to read between the lines when sourcing for this should be relatively easy. Surely reliable sources will have written the exact, straightforward sentence "Hezbollah is an Islamic terrorist group...", or "Hezbollah is an Islamist terrorist organization..."? ← George talk 10:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I'm pretty much on the fence on the issue. I don't have any plans to add or remove the category myself, I'd just like to see some stronger sourcing before I could support its inclusion. ← George talk 10:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES. hezbollah use terror remarks and actions. their leaders have encouraged the killing of innocents countless times. there is a BIG difference between a state killing an armed enemy, and an organization who aims at killing random people be it kids, elderly, women, and unarmed men. when al-quida bombed the twin towers it was obvious they are a terrorist organization. so when hezbollah kills innocents it is the same story.they are in fact a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.Yam123yam (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cant use the claim that targeting Israeli civilians makes them a terrorist organisation for the simple reason that Israel targets Lebanese civilians and we dont designate Israel as terrorist. Some acts that could be called terrorist in peacetime are not in times of war so that also needs to be taken into account. RS are clear that Hezbollah have not been involved in overt terrorism since 1994.Wayne (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well there is a problem in your argument.while hezbollah targets any one who is an israeli citizen and shots rockets at houses with toddlers just as it shots the idf(not differentiating between armed and unarmed). Israel in fact never targets Lebanese civilians it only targets armed groups (such as hezbollah). it is a misfortune that sometimes innocent Lebanese civilians die in the clashes between the idf and militant terrorist groups like hezbollah. but it happens because this groups have no regards to human life, and they use innocents as shields, for example it is one thing to shoot a rocket into Israeli territory because Israel is your enemy, but it is a whole other situation when u go and hide those rockets in housing building full of innocent Lebanese. then when your enemy who you just shot comes back for you looking for this missiles, innocent people get hurt because hezbollah has chose to use those people as shields.furthermore if hezbollah were a normal political entity or organization it wouldn't be clashing out in the streets with other Lebanese and resulting to killings to get the upperhand (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/25/lebanon.clashes/index.html). and so i go back to what i have said hezbollah is in fact a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.Yam123yam (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything will convince you otherwise but if you read this you can see there was no evidence of human shields. Quote:"a simple movement of vehicles or persons – such as attempting to buy bread or moving about private homes – could be enough to cause a deadly Israeli airstrike that would kill civilians. Israeli warplanes also targeted moving vehicles that turned out to be carrying only civilians trying to flee the conflict. In most such cases documented in the report, there is no evidence of a Hezbollah military presence that would have justified the attack."Wayne (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization for everything, even the definition of the terrorist organization Wikipedia is an organization that believes in war, killing innocent people, and using the weapons illegally So Hezbollah is a terrorist organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamirsasi (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it appears that what you say applies to a certain country as well. If only five countries regard HA as a terrorist organization, kiss the category goodbye. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes Ahizabaalo is a terrorist organization is firing missiles on innocent people by Israel dimensional --212.199.100.139 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per Hezbollah: the changing face of terrorism By Judith Palmer Harik and published by I.B.Tauris a British publishing house. Tentontunic (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who leads the March 8 Alliance?

I've partial reverted Lihaas' edit, in which they changed Hezbollah "leads the March 8 Alliance" to Hezbollah "is a part of the March 8 Alliance". Sources for Hezbollah leading the March 8 Alliance are readily available, a diverse variety of examples including CNN ([8][9]), the Chinese Xinhua ([10]) and People's Daily ([11]), and even the Iranian Press TV ([12]). If editors feel that further sources for this are necessary I'll gladly provide them, but I think it's pretty self-evident. ← George talk 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are wrong because FPM's Aoun is March 8's parliamentary leader (March 8 being a a parliamentary (NOT extraparliamentary) alliance where the group doesnt even agree on all issues outside parliament). the sources are more than likely based on Hezbollah being read as the most "powerful" party based on the Beirut-wide reaction couple years back.(Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Umm, are you saying we should just ignore Wikipedia's guidelines about citing sources, and instead replace material from reliable sources with your personal views? ← George talk 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That Aoun is March 8's parliamentary leader is not my view it is a verfiable fact.
[13] puts FPM and Hezbollah on level footing at least. + [14] Aoun's March 8 leadership + [15] FPM, Hezbollah, aMAL + [16] Aoun, Berri. i cant find other sources yet (arabic speakers may be better able to), but lets also show the reality of christian support for Hezbollah expecially with the "islamist" references here. We have Fgrangieh's Maarada and Aoun's FPM (with Bassil) and others. Also Druze support..(Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
This article is about Hezbollah, not about the March 8 alliance. You've now added far too much detail about the March 8 alliance itself to the very first sentence of the lead of the article on Hezbollah. The only thing the very poor sources you've cited say is that there are several individuals that lead the March 8 alliance, not which party dominates that leadership (which is Hezbollah). Multiple reliable sources state that Hezbollah leads the March 8 alliance (another here, published yesterday in the Lebanese Daily Star), and the fact that some of its leaders are not members of Hezbollah is a detail that belongs in the article about the March 8 alliance, not in the article about Hezbollah, let alone the lead. Your behavior of skirting 1RR isn't acceptable, and I highly suggest you self-revert. ← George talk 13:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a somewhat related note, I'd like to remove "which withdrew from the government in January 2011 over inability to discuss issues pertaining to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon" from the first sentence in the lead. This is a lot of detail about the March 8 alliance, which has its own article, and the content smacks of WP:RECENTISM, so I don't think it should be included here. I'm going to hold off on removing it for a few days to see if anyone objects, given the recent spate of edit warring. ← George talk
ive temp. reverted the christian/druze part (even that was never a revert on my part at any time). the relevance of that goes with balancing pov that focuses unduly on labeling Hezbollah a militant group/terrorist group with its military activities while downplaying the political activities. The Islamists part are not countered but Hezbollah's own

non-Muslim support. How does Hezbollah dominate when Aoun is the parliamentary leader?

yeah, lets wait on removing it for discussion of anotehr party.
You suggest im "skirting" 1RR when you have shown no ecidence that the christian/druze part was evr a revert vs. a new bold edit.(Lihaas (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
You skirted 1RR on changing "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", not the rest of what you reverted. I didn't ask you to revert your entire edit, you did that on your own. I don't agree with other parts of that edit as well (specifically the unnecessary detail given to the March 8 alliance in the very first sentence of the lead of an article not about the March 8 alliance), but didn't at any point request that you revert all your changes. ← George talk 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging categories

One a tangential note, what do editors think of replacing the categories "Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government" and "United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups" with the more encompassing parent category "Organizations designated as terrorist"? It's cleaner and shorter than having a different category for each and every country that designates them such, and it's verifiable - the organization has been designated as terrorist by certain countries. Thought? ← George talk 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. --GHcool (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea, it makes it look like the US and UK are the "deciders" about who is "terrorist" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It ends up we're not supposed to put articles in that root category. Another option would be to instead use "Organizations designated as terrorist in Asia", which does have specific articles. Really it just seems silly to set ourselves up to have six different categories, one for each country, all saying the exact same thing. ← George talk 01:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway

George Galloway is a former British MP. Having his opinion is not "undue weight". Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally thousands of former British MPs. Why is this guy's opinion important? Does he have any special knowledge about terrorism? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is a notable person as a British MP, and he has given his opinion about the subject, the majority of all former British MPs have not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't. Including Galloway's opinion above all other former British MPs or former American Congressmen, or former Israeli MKs, or former Indian Lok Sabha members, or former Australian senators, or former Canadian MPs, etc etc etc is a gross violation of WP:Undue weight. --GHcool (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving Galloways "opinion above all other former British MPs or former American Congressmen, or former Israeli MKs, or former Indian Lok Sabha members, or former Australian senators, or former Canadian MPs".... its a notable person and he has given his opinion about Hezbollah, and its presented as from him, the vast majority of member of parliaments around the world have not given their opinions about the subject. This has nothing to do with undue weight as I am not presenting a minority opinion as a fact, I'm presenting Galloways opinion as from Galloway. You are basically gaming the system by claiming a Wikipedia policy that has nothing to do with this. You also claimed the section is about one person, the section is about two persons. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to cherry pick politicians. There are so many that have commented that such a section would stretch. How aout we start adding the views of conservative elected officials who have been interviewed on Fox? Seems like consensus is against this so I am going to remove it. Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Galloway is fairly famous for his outspoken commentary, both on this conflict and elsewhere, if you wish to present other views for adding to the article you can do so. un☯mi 15:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that his views are as important as the views of hundreds of politicians around the world. It appears that the inclusion of this quote was a rather WP:POINTy response, but as there is no indication this interview has any significance it should be removed. There seems to be coverage of this interview, Galloway is not known as an expert on Hezbollah, nor does he have any deep connection to this organization. Even worse, given Galloway's reputation for controversial remarks and opinions introducing him as a former British MP gives this quote more credibility than it actually has. Pantherskin (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GHcools forcing inclusion of unagreed cat

Why is GHcool continuing to force the Islamic Terrorism cat when there is no consensus to have the cat and many people object to its inclusion? There is still only sources showing a handful of countries and a handful of individuals believing its terrorist. At least Me, FunkMonk and Lihaas has objected to its inclusion, and you are the only one that want to have it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your revert. Fortunately Wikipedia based on consensus and any user who tries to misuse here as his/her personal weblog, should be warned and reported to the admins.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV and biased sources

This article is filled with POV. For example it says: "Hezbollah officials say that the group distinguishes between Judaism and Zionism. However, various anti-Semitic statements have been attributed to them, and their Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah." Then look at the sources, namely, filled with pro-zionist and pro-israel sources and zionist analysis, the source itself also lacking credibility regarding the alleged statements by Hizbollah members (no links to transcripts etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPz1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism vs Jews

The section of the article, Attitudes and actions concerning Jews and Judaism suffers strong POV. It seems this has long been an anxiety of many involved users. The sources used here are not independent of the topic and they are not Academic sources. I am starting this talk to invite users to have a review to this case and find a suitable consensus for it. There is no doubt that Hezbollah is an anti-Zionism organization but calling Hezbollah anti-Semitic is matter that needs to be highly supported by academic credentials references.

Starting from the first paragraph: The sentence various anti-Semitic statements have been attributed to them, and their Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.. Five references are used here and all of them are non-academic, and obviously biased westerns and Israelian reports.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, National Public Radio and Ynetnews are all reliable, high-quality mainstream news organization and fully sufficient to support the claim that "various anti-semitic statements have been attributed to them". It is not obvious to me how they are biased - in fact they have a reputation for independent and unbiased reporting, as far as this is possible in this world. Pantherskin (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A source can be reliable for a topic but for another one. A mechanics professor view is reliable in mechanical fields but the view of this professor can't be consider reliable for psychology. NYT is a news organization and for example it can be cited for a report such as follow: last night, due to the conflict in the boundary of Lebanon/Israel 2 soldiers from each side were killed. But we need Academic source for a matter that suffers great POV, like hezbollah and anti-semitic.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some tags in the section to have a better understanding of the matter and attract more users.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the NYT or NPR are not reliable sources for this information, feel free to take the issue to RS/N. You don't get to discount well known and respected sources because you don't like where they're published. The tag farm you added to the article is unacceptable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is biased but as the user Aliwiki points out, the part regarding attitudes must be cleaned.NPz1 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 96.26.213.146 (talk)

How many times can the article emphasize that Hizbullah has Iranian/Syrian backing and funding (in first and fourth paragraphs)? I propose that at least one of these mentions be removed. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It receives financial and political support from Iran and Syria..."

"Hezbollah receives military training, weapons, and financial support from Iran, and political support from Syria."

Political position

On what basis is Hezbollah labeled right wing?? In light of their extensive social programs, what Conservative, Libertarian, Austrian or Capitalist could support them? They may be "national socialist" but take any political science class and you will learn that the Nazis were of the Authoritarian Left. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hezbollah&oldid=434537630"