Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Responsilibity for 1992 bombing

The wiki page says that Hezbollah denies responsibility for this attack, but according to this AP article, "Hezbollah accepted responsibility for the bombing and the U.S. has held Iran responsible for helping finance and organizing the group's activities." Castrovalva (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jewish Virtual Library got it wrong this time. I'm editing the article right now. --GHcool (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a typo in the article. Hezbollah has always denied involvement. Knowingly using mistakes in articles to make false statements in wikipedia is borderline vandalism if you ask me. Count Iblis (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to back up your claim using a reliable source, but until then, the AP article is unambiguous about this. Also, please assume good faith. Nobody is trying to "trick" the Wikipedia public into thinking that Hezbollah is evil. --GHcool (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, stop playing these silly games. Also, what I'm used to assuming is usually not good faith or bad faith but simply that other people are intelligent beings. Also, I know that you have been editing this aticle for a very long time, so you are quite knowledgeable about Hezbollah, Israel and the Middle East.

So, in a nutshell, that's what I'm assuming about you. And an intelligent man/woman like you who has read a lot about Hezbollah should know that Hezbollah did not claim responsibility for the attacks in Argentina. In fact, I'm sure that if you read something like that you would know that this was a new surprising development, and you would thus be very interested in learning more about that, like what statements did Hezbollah precisely make recently about this, who said what etc. etc.

You would either find out that the statement was misleading (perhaps the judge ruled that the organization who did claim responsibility should be considered part of Hezbollah), or you would find the more interesting stament by Hezbollah itself. Either way, the AP source would not be included in the article by you, because you would have found other sources that better explain what the situation is.

So, I was surprised to find that you used that AP source to back up the claim that Hezbollah has claimed responsibility. Now, do you really want me to assume good faith about an expert when that would necessarily imply that this expert has lost his mind? Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not an expert on Hezbollah or the Middle East. I never claimed to be one. I just have an interest in the subject. If I see an AP article that says Hezbollah accepted responsibility for a terrorist attack, I would accept it as plausible. To imply that I should start looking for a source that contradicts the AP article is inappropriately shifting the burden of proof. You are welcome to take on the burden of proof yourself and I'm willing to keep an open mind if you find any evidence to support your claim. Unless such evidence turns up, however, the AP article passes all Wikipedia guidelines and deserves a place in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GHcool in this perspective. If a reliable source says so, then we have no reason to assume that it is in any way mistaken unless another reliable source disagrees. Assuming that another Wikipedia user is an expert and should thus know better is ridiculous. However, my problem with this is that stating Hezbollah has accepted responsibility for the attack is in direct contradiction to the sentence below which states that "These accusations are denied by Hezbollah", supplemented by three other sources. These do seem to be reliable sources that contradict the AP source. The Lebanon source is also, in my opinion, quite factual. There is no reason to suspect that the Lebanon source is unreliable (it is, after all, a simple fact), just like there is no reason to suspect that the AP source is so. If four reliable sources contradict one reliable source in a fact, there is no reason for us to dimiss the four reliable sources and follow that one reliable source. You are the one who added the source which contradicts the other sources given, GHcool, and the burden of proof, that another source is wrong, not that a fact is correct, is ultimately yours. Herunar (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, ok., neither of us here are real experts, but anyone like you and me who have been interested in this subject for at least a few years would know that "an AP article that says Hezbollah accepted responsibility for a terrorist attack" would be, if true, a very surprising new development worthy of further investigation. It is just as Earth shattering news when Clinton admitted having sex with Lewinski after having repeatedly denied it many times before. For that earth shattering news to appear in an article mentioning it in a sentence burried in the article as if it is nothing special, is a priori very strange.

Of course, you can play a tactical game using the formal wiki rules. You edit in something you know is wrong, but leave it to others to take it out when they find sources contradicting it. But that's not a good way to edit wikipedia aticles.

These sort of games played by many editors prompted me to stop editing this and the Hamas article some time ago (I just returned here yesterday to have a look). In case of the Hamas article, I could not write that "Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks" (plenty of unambiguous sources for that), to resolve a dispute between the two sides about the sentence saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" (problem: best known where? In Israel, all of the world?, how does one measure "best known"? In all the sources, the "Best known" statement is just the opinion of the author about the public opinion).

A strange coaltion of pro-Plalestinian and pro-Israeli editors made my solution impossible. The behavior of the pro-Israeli editors was especially strange. I guess that they were protecting their habit of using vague statements from "reliable" pro-Israeli sources be used in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Count Iblis's assertion that the AP article is as "Earth shattering" as the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I think the claim is baseless, or if it is not baseless, Count Iblis has failed to provide a basis for it. Count Iblis's argument is kind of a proof by assertion.

Count Iblis's accusation that I know that the AP article is wrong and that I am deliberately distributing disinformation on Wikipedia is fallacious, insulting, and violates WP:AGF. I welcome future argument that are free of logical fallacies and Wikipedia faux pas, but so far I'm afraid I have not come across one on this issue. --GHcool (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I cannot rigorously prove my point. But to me it would have been earth shattering news, like O.J. confessing to the murders, Ghadaffi saying he was behind the Pan Am bombing, Bush saying he deliberately misled the world about Saddam's WMD, or something similar. Not in the way that would affect world news, but in the way someone interested in Hezbollah (most of the world isn't) would react to that news item. Count Iblis (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sides need to cool off and stay on track. GHcool, we don't need preaching about logical fallacies, logic will speak itself. And Count Iblis, simply proving your point is enough. There is absolutely no need to get personal and accuse others of hypocrisy. For me, GHcool's rationale is good enough.Herunar (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to consider lebanon.com unreliable. To me it's a reliable reference just like other references used in the article like haaretz.com. Imad marie (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Ideally, one would only consider peer reviewed scientific studies to be reliable sources. This is what we do in the wiki science articles. It is no accident that these articles turn out to be the best wikipedia articles. According to this review of wikipedia: "Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." "

For articles like this one it is not possible to use only accademic sources. But we can at least recognize that many RS sources contain false/misleading information from time to time and stop gaming the RS rule. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". The way GHcool inteprets the RS clearly does not lead to a better wiki article (regardless of one's POV, you'll will feel deceived if a text makes a claim if that later turns out to be false or misleading). Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This AP article is no longer available for some reason.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More Israelis then just Mofaz claim this

GHCool, where does it say in your reference that "many" Israelis think that? Imad marie (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference #108 in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being inaccurate in your edits. The reference says: " left their parents unable to conclude if the sons were killed during the kidnap or murdered later by their captors." so it's not clear how they died.

Maybe you are referring to: "Ya'akov Avitan, father of Adi, said that the film indicates that, (the boys were alive when they were kidnapped... they murdered our boys in cold blood after the kidnap.)" I don't know if you want the article to quote the parents of the killed now and turn the article into an emotional story. Imad marie (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, are you here to add encyclopedic content or to express your anti-Hezbollah feelings? About your last edit: "Upon viewing a film of the kidnapping, one of the fathers of the soldiers was convinced that the soldiers were kidnapped while they were alive and then murdered them while they were in Hezbollah's captivity". I have many objections to that:

1. The opinion of the father of the kidnapped is not important or significant to include in the article.
2. "kidnapped while they were alive"?? can you kidnap someone when he's dead?!
3. "murdered them while they were in Hezbollah's captivity": this is implicitly clear, you don't have write trivial conclusions.

I tell you again, your edits are not encyclopedic and inaccurate. A simple sentence like: "it is unclear if the soldiers were killed during the kidnap or murdered later by their captors." is just sufficient! Imad marie (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am here to add encyclopedic content. The fact that encyclopedic content on Hezbollah almost always confirms my anti-Hezbollah feelings is irrelevant to the discussion. Secondly, I disagree with your specific objections:

1. The opinion of the father is significant enough for Ha'Aretz. Saying that the father's opinion isn't significant without explaining why is a kind of proof by assertion fallacy.
2. Imad marie challenged me on Feb. 21 to prove that the soldiers had been kidnapped while they were alive and then murdered while in Hezbollah's captivity (as opposed to being killed in the battle and Hezbollah stealing their already dead bodies to exchange for prisoners). I met that challenge with the Mofaz quote and with an article from Newsday and then later with the Ha'Aretz article. I didn't find a source that contradicted series of events Mofaz, the father, and Newsday related.
3. I agree that it is implicitly clear, but to avoid future challenges like one Imad marie presented on Feb. 21, I think it should be made explicitly clear.

I'm sorry that Imad marie thinks that my "edits are not encyclopedic and inaccurate," since they clearly are both encyclopedic and accurate. I hope this clears things up. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You enter false information, misinterpret resources, and you wait for other editors to correct your edits, and if it goes unnoticed, then hey, it's my lucky day.

Your edits here, here and here are just false interpretations of the references, it's obvious that you deliberately misinterpret resources against Hezbollah. Imad marie (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie's opinion is noted, but I ask that he assumes good faith in the future. --GHcool (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources about drug traficing

Hizbullah uses smugglers to flood Israel with drugs, acquire intelligence : [1], [2], [3] , [4] , [5] there is more. Zeq (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hizbollah.org

This washington post article [6] talks about;

Update, Mar. 26, 9:42 a.m. ET: NetworkSolutions on Monday pulled the plug on Hizbollah.org, one of the official Web sites of Hezbollah, a political and paramilitary group in Lebanon. NetworkSolutions spokeswoman Susan Wade confirmed that the company suspended the domain in response to numerous complaints, and to findings that the site violated the company's acceptable use policy. As noted in the comments for this post, Hezbollah is rather prominently included under the U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. FTOs are designated under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and under that law it is illegal "for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide 'material support or resources' to a designated FTO." So, complaint or no, NetworkSolutions would appear to have been in violation of that law until it terminated its contract with Hizbollah.

should this go in here or is there a sub-article for this. This is part of the Fitna (film) fall out. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It borders on trivia, but I think its appropriate for this article. --GHcool (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Labelling Hezbollah as terroristic organization

The article mentions that the EU intended to list Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but due to pressure from France, Spain and the UK, it was not applied. However, the UK is listed in the earlier table as one of the countries that considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. This seems contradictionary. Appreciate if anyone can clarify, thanks. Riemerb (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The UK designated the security/military wing of Hezbollah as terrorist, not the organization as a whole. What they objected to was the EU designating the whole organization as terrorist, I believe. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide sources showing that the so-called "military wing" exist ? that it is seprated from the organization as a whole and that the leadership is not controling it ? If it is under the control of the same leadership there is really no distiction between the oragnization and "the wing" Zeq (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your request is without merit, and beyond the scope of the topic here. The fact that the EU, among others, makes a distinction between the two is all that was needed to address the concern posed by Riemerb. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least show where does it say that the EU does not consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization? The reference inside the text has no mention of Hezbollah directly. After looking through some pdfs in that link I noticed that the group is mentioned as an "armed militia" (http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_csp_nip_lebanon_en.pdf page 5) 170.140.93.108 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a negative? Um, no, I don't think I will be doing that. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "proving a negative". It's proving that France, Spain and the UK actually exerced pressure for Hizbullah not to be labeled as a terrorist organization. Or that they consider Hezbllah to be something else (a link saying that Brown believes Hezbollah to be a LGBT group, for instance). As the citation on the text has no reference for this, I'm removing the link. Maybe a [citation needed] would be more adequate, though.170.140.93.108 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"...is a terrorist organization" repeatedly added to the lead.

As I have a rather dubious 3RR warning hanging over my head now, could others around here that have a watch on this page keep an eye on this? Per WP:WTA I have been removing this 77.127.240.203 single purpose account's "additions", who along with 74.63.75.130 is also having a go at my user page. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that in reference to 62.128.48.134. I have requested that this page be protected until the issue of whether Hezbollah should conclusively be labeled a terrorist organization in wikipedia has been resolved here on the talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Check page 8 of this[7], there's an organised outside effort to slant this article in a rather non-neutral way. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the evidence given, it looks like there's an organized outside effort to just discuss something. No need to resort to Jewish conspiracy theories. --GHcool (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making the assumptions. Why specifically "Jewish" conspiracy theories? What are you insinuating? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That website is acually islamic Gbuch (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Muslim Zionist" isn't necessarily an oxymoron, so yeah, I bet you nailed it there... Funkynusayri (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

see footnote and original document

GHcool undid my "see footnote" that I put after the quote of Hezbollah saying it that Israel necessarily has to be obliviated. I mentioned in my edit that I put the footnote there becuase there is no direct citation of the original document of this very strong claim about Hezbollah saying this.

I think the "see footnote" is important and not "silly" as was mentioned. I do not find anything about the issue of violent conflict in the middle east "silly." Now, if there was a claim that "see footnote" is close to being redundant, then that might be a good or sound argument. However, as of now, I see a controversal quote from a very pro-israel site/non neutural site as a poorly or close to poorly verifiable source. The quote itself is poorly verified because there is no link or availablity of a copy of the original Arabic letter. In fact, I think that standwithus site should have put both, the arabic letter and the translation that they made on the same site. However, I do not see that. That is something that I would think a good translation would have. Now, you want to remove "see footnote" because it is silly. I think it is necessarily and vital in importance to help find out more information about such matters as this quote. Very too often wikipedia is poor in content because it lacks much detail, and does not have as much detail as britanica, books, and dissertations. Many of the articles on wikipedia are similar to brief summaries, and I think improvements and trying to find out more information about all things is vital. We need more detail, not less.

As of now, the quote does not have good citation. It comes from a non neutral source, which does not appear to have posted the original arabic document -- which should have been easy and readily available for whoever translated the cited english translation. Again, this quote, because it is so serious in past, present and future conflicts and interactions with the group, needs to have some citation of the original arabaic document. This is in need because wikipedia articles need to be more than brief summaries rather than a turn off and de-intellectualism/stopping points of intellectual and pursuits of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

sic?

The Ideology section appears to quote the objectives from page 3 of the given cite, [8], but:

• it does not use the same punctutaion
• it adds "(sic)" after "allies"

Why not just quote the whole text verbatim and avoid the sic (what exactly is it referring to anyway?) There are also minor mistakes (punctuation, lowercase/uppercase differences and "onto" instead of "into") in the quotes of (b) and (c) from the same PDF. Why not use the exact same text? -84.223.78.86 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the sic refers to the lack of a serial comma after the word "French." I wouldn't mind seeing it quoted verbatim. --GHcool (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing 1996 Electoral program?

The Ideology section seems to depend a lot on the 1985 manifesto provided by StandWithUs but appears to be missing the 1996 program. here is a link to The Electoral Program of Hizbullah, 1996. I could find it in neither subarticles Ideology of Hezbollah nor Hezbollah political activities. The article seems incomplete without it, just going from 1985 to 2000 or so. Compare with the German wikipedia article. The German section covers the 1980s, through to the mid 1990s (goal of Islamic state in Lebanon), addresses the 1996 election manifesto (seven points, but Islamic state no longer a goal, distancing from Ruhollah Khomeini), the 2006 coalition and (chronologically out of order) Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's 1999 unacceptance of Israel's existence. -84.223.78.86 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Original English translation

The claim that "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated" is not in "the original English translation" is dubious. What is "the original translation?" Is there a source that backs up this bold claim? --GHcool (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

From the existing source in the article:

*This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is

possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985... It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for

the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996.

It should likely be noted in the article that the original translation which lacked this paragraph was published in al-Safir, for the sake of clarity. Essentially there are a lot of pro-Israel websites that publish this paragraph, while none of the copies put out by Hezbollah include it. ← George ^[talk] 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allah|God

Our last consensus was using [[Allah|God]]. Please refer to [9].--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism

I think Anti-Zionism is better fit to Hezbollah. It written in The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology by Alagha that Hizbullah considers the Jews as People of the book and only regards the Jews living in Israel as Zionists, who should be killed, as Nasrallah puts it... Hizbullah neither discriminates against the Jews as a religion nor as a race. Thus it seems that Hizbullah is not anti-Semitic in its overall orientation.[10]

Hezbollah or Nasrallah may use anti-semitic quotations in rare occasions but due to the fact that they follow Islamic Sharia' they can't be considered as anti-semitic. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• See this discussion: [11] Funkynusayri (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that conversation, but just read through it. It's rife with logic errors and assumptions that show deep, troubling personal biases of the editors involved. The discussion should likely be reopened with cooler heads and fewer preconceived notions. ← George ^[talk] 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well, thanks. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Funkynusayri, I didn't mean it personally. In fact, I had a hard time telling who was saying what, with all the numbers and bullets everywhere, going back and forth. However, the discussion was full of original research and personal points of views, and some of the opinions stated and conclusions drawn just make no logical sense:

"If we accept the fact that Al-Manar distributes anti-Semitic propaganda, then we must accept the fact that the people that own and operate Al-Manar are anti-Semitic propagandists. Since Hezbollah owns and operates Al-Manar, we can then conclude that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic."

If we accept that all apples are red, and that apples are a type of fruit, then all fruits are red?? This "logic", to use the term loosely, makes zero sense. Unfortunately this discussion was chock-full of similarly illogical arguments. One of the only logical threads of discussion I saw was that it was worth mentioning that some people consider Hezbollah to be anti-Semitic. I have no problem with that, but the categorization of "Islam and antisemitism" would be incorrect in that case. The correct categorization would be "Accusations of anti-Semitism in Islam" or similar, in the same line as usage of "Organizations designated as terrorist" rather than "Terrorist organizations". ← George ^[talk] 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

George's apples analogy is a false one. The original argument about Hezbollah wasn't syllogism. --GHcool (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the initial argument as a categorical syllogism:

1. (The people that own and operate Al-Manar) are anti-Semitic.
2. (The people that own and operate Al-Manar) are Hezbollah.
3. Therefore, Hezbollah are anti-Semitic.

This is an AAA-3 syllogism, the exact same syllogism I gave as an example above, and a syllogism which is not valid. Even if you argue that this is an IAA-3, or III-3 syllogism, it is still an invalid argument; in fact there are no syllogism's in figure 3 that can return an All inclusive conclusion. ← George ^[talk] 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't active at that time. Now I'm ready to participate in a cool discussion.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

George's counter-argument is correct only if one forgets that "(The people that own and operate Al-Manar) are Hezbollah" is a tautology, and therefore, valid. "Apples are red" is very different from "Hezbollah are the owners of Al-Manar" because (red) is a property of (apples), whereas "the owners of Al-Manar" is "Hezbollah" by definition in the same way that all bachelors are unmarried by definition. (Note: We are purely discussing the current owners of Al-Manar, not some hypothetical owners that Hezbollah may sell the network to in the future). --GHcool (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're incorrectly crossing the major and minor premises between the two examples. Red is a property of apples, as anti-Semitic is a property of Al-Manar (per the initial quote's assumption). However, the correct corresponding point to the minor premise, that Al-Manar is a subset of Hezbollah, is that apples are a subset of fruit. Even if this statement didn't fail a basic logic test, the statement itself constitutes original research and improper synthesis. Regardless, the previous discussion was full of similar problems, and should be reopened to further discussion. ← George ^[talk] 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a little more thinking and discovered that my original argument was a modus ponens:

1. The group that owns and operates Al-Manar are an anti-Semitic.
2. If Hezbollah is group that owns and operates Al-Manar, then Hezbollah is anti-Semitic.
3. Hezbollah is the group that owns and operates Al-Manar.
4. Therefore, Hezbollah is anti-Semitic.

I realize now that I should have replaced the word "people" in my original argument with the word "group." This is an error in diction that made it appear as though I was referring to "people who run Al-Manar" as a subset of "Hezbollah," when what I really meant was defining the group "Hezbollah" in terms of the group that "owns and operates Al-Manar." I apologize for the error, but now that I've explained myself, it should be easy to see that the argument is a valid one. --GHcool (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of these, the only statement that is non-controversial (in my opinion) is the third. The first would require proper sourcing, and the second has major logical holes (akin to our discussion). However, this is all rather beside the point. What I would suggest for you to do is to find some (reliable) sources that make the explicit statement that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic organization (ignoring these various levels of indirection with Al-Manar, et al), and those who disagree can present sources that reject this notion, and the editors can consider both sets of evidence. This label isn't something that can be applied by reason alone. If Hezbollah the organization (not specific individuals, and not sub-groups within it) is widely considered to be anti-Semitic, then it should be quite easy to find sources to back up the point (akin to finding sources that say the Nazi party was anti-Semitic, or the Ku Klux Klan was and is anti-Semitic). ← George ^[talk] 09:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know what is actually being argued here, at least in terms of specific content for the article, but the Category:Islam and antisemitism is clearly justified here. Placing an article in a general category like that does not mean that WP is taking the antisemitism allegations as fact, only that we consider them noteworthy. <eleland/talkedits> 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any Wikipedia policy pages that discuss when a category should or should not be added to a page? ← George ^[talk] 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the claim that Al-Manar is anti-Semitic: [12], [13], [14], [15]

Sources for the claim that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic: [16], [[17], [18], [19]

All of the above sources are cited in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's avoid the issue of Al-Manar that got us derailed, since Al-Manar has its own article, with its own categories. Now, regarding the four articles you provided for Hezbollah... The first is from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which likely doesn't count as a reliable source. The second and the fourth both cite the same person Jeffrey Goldberg (original article here by the way), who is an American journalist, and a good start in our search for sources. The third source cites Jeff Goldblum, an American actor (note that it's from the Arts section of the newspaper), as calling Hezbollah anti-Jewish, so again, wouldn't be a reliable source (also, in order to avoid further derailments to the conversation, I would suggest looking for sources that use the exact terminology "anti-Semitic" if you can). Please keep us apprised if you find any other sources, and I'd again call for those who think the label is incorrect to provide any sources they have that support their arguments. ← George ^[talk] 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I re-read your third source, and it may be acceptable: "Last fall, Hezbollah... issued a statement calling the film 'propaganda for the so-called genius of the Jews and their alleged concern for humanity.'" The problem is that while you and I may or may not agree that this statement is or isn't anti-Semitic, other editors will argue the point. Let's try to find some reliable sources that make the exact claim that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. ← George ^[talk] 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how United Jewish Communities could be considered an unacceptable RS with regard to what is and is not anti-Semitic. Jeffrey Goldberg is a reliable source. I just placed a hold on the book by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb that Goldberg references in his article at my local library. --GHcool (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I started posting on the reliable sources noticeboard to get some editors to review whether or not the JCPA can be considered a reliable source or not, when I noticed that this is just a transcript of an interview with the same person as two of your other sources, Jeffrey Goldberg. So I think we've established that Jeffrey Goldberg believes that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, but of course other sources verifying this view would be great. I fully encourage you to check out your local library if it helps in tracking down these sources. ← George ^[talk] 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'Anti-Zionism' heading, where it states that Hezbollah regards only Jews that reside in Israel as being enemies, and how it respects Jews elsewhere, it fails to mention the bombing in Argentina which Hezbollah committed. Were those Jews that were harmed living in Israel? I think not. As a result i hope to see this fact added into this section, rather than being left until the very end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirlwindz (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yet again, it's an allegation, not a fact, and it is already mentioned as such. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah's antisemitic childrens material

Can someone please find a source to verify this one?

"Kamel el Batel, Director of Human Rights of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution... showed slides of Hezbollah antisemitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts, and asked: 'How can you speak of peace when Hezbollah teaches children to hate Jews?'"

My concern is that this World Council of the Cedars Revolution appears to be a group diametrically to opposed to Hezbollah (politically aligned with those who fought Hezbollah in Beirut this last month). ← George ^[talk] 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this as a citation for the passage as well. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support of Hezbollah banned from User space?

Offtopic, I know, but I imagine someone who has this on their watchlist might have an opinion to offer here. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. How utterly stupid. --mceder (u t c) 18:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to appeal this. I have asked for some help from an administrator here. I don't believe a final decision was ever reached in this discussion, despite repeated blocks by admins who expressed. There are political views expressed in many user boxes. The fact that some people may disagree with such views, or find such views offensive is subjective and user boxes should be not be permanently removed without serious debate and solid evidence. If wikipedia allows some it should allow all (that are not banned for other reasons - like making explicit threats or libel). Otherwise it will appear biased in violation of NPOV. If others have expertise in appealing matters like this, help would be appreciated.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of a category for those wikipedians who support Hezbollah was discussed here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate spellings

The spelling Hezbollah semms to be the most commonly used variant. However, the article mentions other anglicizaitons in a footnote. I personally believe that the alternate spellings should be actually in the writing of the article as in the al-Qaeda article. Asphatasawhale (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Bless sins (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another note regarding translations. It is fine to title this page as it is, "Hezbollah". It is standard practice in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies to use popular English spellings of terms when they are well known. However, I would take issue with the attempt made at a proper English transliteration currently in the first line of the text of this entry, which transliterates the name of the party as "hizba'llah". There are better choices. According to the prevailing American and UK transliteration methods of universities and research institutions, when this party is menioned by itself, the best choices for transliteration (without microns and diacritics) are (1) Hizb Allah, (2) Hizbu'llah, (3) Hizbullah. The main problem with the article's current attempt at a translitertaion is this: "hizba'llah" is a usage of the term in the accustative case. We commonly say "hizballah" like this in our speech, in the accustative case, because the term appears in the accustative case in the Quranic verse where it originated. Also, in common speech, Arabs don't case their words, so they do often say "hizbAllah", which is acceptable in everyday speech. However, when in a scientific setting (i.e., in writing) we reference a term in Arabic on its own, abstracted from any syntatical function in a sentence or poetic verse, the accepted practice is to use that term in the nominative case, which would be reflected in choices 2 and 3 above. Choice 1 is also acceptable because it reflects no case ending at all: this is preferable, according to conventional transliteration practice, to writing the term in the accusative. As support for my argument, Library of Congress and other authoritative sources (e.g., International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies) insist on the transliteration "Hizb Allah", when transliterating Arabic-language book titles. Drphil500 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb quote dubious

This also applies to same citation used in the Ideology of Hezbollah article.

Can anyone please find a source to verify this quotation? Per GHcool's recent edits (based, I suspect, on his reserving the book at his local library that he recently mentioned), this quotation has a footnote identifying a Muhammad Fneish. The problem is this footnote and quotation have been brought into question by Charles Glass:

The source of the quotation is cited in footnote 20 of Chapter 8 of Saad-Ghorayeb’s book: an interview, not with Nasrallah, but with a Hizbullah member of the Lebanese Parliament, Mohammed Fnaysh, conducted by the author on 15 August 1997. Saad-Ghorayeb informs me that the footnote is a mistake, although she is certain there is a valid source for the statement. However, when at my request she examined her PhD dissertation, from which the book originated, she discovered the same mistaken citation. Footnotes in a long work can easily go astray, but it is unfortunate that neither her dissertation adviser nor her publishers spotted the error. Therefore, until someone discovers where and when Nasrallah uttered the words above, the case is unproved.[20]

I would seriously question the quotations inclusion unless we can find something to verify the statement as belonging to Nasrallah, instead of Muhammad Fneish. ← George ^[talk] 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This hardly matters given the amount of literature and quotations proving that Hezbollah does not differentiate between their hatred of Zionists, Israelis, and Jews, but are you accusing Saad-Ghorayeb of lying? --GHcool (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for a verification of a controversial quotation whose attribution has come into question, from a source I'm unfamiliar with, attributed to one person here on Wikipedia, but apparently someone else in the sources itself, which may constitute a violation of policy. I have zero interest in lies or truths, as I'll remind the editor that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and "the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia... rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." ← George ^[talk] 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I misunderstood George's intent. I thought he was talking about the "If we searched ..." quote. He (and Glass) appears to be talking about the "if [Jews] all gather ..." quote. Since Glass does not appear to have a problem with the "If we searched ..." quote, then I guess it stays. Since Glass does appear to have a problem with the "if [Jews] all gather ..." quote, then the quote stays along with Glass's reservations. --GHcool (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the quote: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, we do not say the Israeli," which is the one Glass identifies as cited by Saad-Ghorayeb to someone other than Nasrallah. ← George ^[talk] 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

@George - I'm not sure if I can fully understand what's going on here, but it appears that this clip is unreliable. If there are other sources that can provide the same thing, then by all means they should be put in. But in the meantime, this particular one should come out. PR^talk 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. At this point, it should stay in since its one man's word against another (actually, the other is a woman, but I digress). Right now we have both sides and that's fine. --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, as the quotation is being attributed to a living person, it should be deleted unless verified. As I haven't laid my hands on this book yet to verify Glass' claim, I have not done so yet. I suspect there is confusion over which quotation is. The quotation in question is: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, we do not say the Israeli." ← George ^[talk] 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to verify all you want, but at this point, we have a quote that was found in a reliable source. I offered to find the book Jeffrey Goldberg cites in his article. I did. The book says the same thing. My work here is done.

Also, if Charles Glass believes that Elvis Presley is alive, feel free to put his opinion in the article on Elvis Presley. In fact, feel free to ask for verification that Elvis is dead on Talk:Elvis Presley. --GHcool (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If possible, perhaps you could scan the page in the book where this quote is, as well as the page where the footnote for this quote is (if it's on a different page), and post them online somewhere so that editors can try to review it, and we can get a better sense of the issue at hand.

I'm unable to verify the quotation, which is why I'm requesting help to do so. If no one is able to verify that Nasrallah made the statement, then it will be removed. Unlike Elvis Presley, Hassan Nasrallah is a living person, and under Wikipedia policy, living people are afforded extra protections in "any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace." In fact, strictly speaking, this statement should have been removed immediately, however I'm trying to avoid an edit war by first asking for some verification of it. Policy also requires the use of "high-quality reliable soruces" when adding "apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources," or "a statement by someone that seems... controversial," which this statement does. This being the first book published by an author, based on their dissertation, and based on the apparent questioning of the reliability of the source by another reliable source, and based on the fact that another reliable source has stated this this source was unable to find the original source of the citation, I am far from convinced that this constitutes a "high-quality" reliable source. It must be verified, or it will be removed. ← George ^[talk] 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to scan the page and post it somewhere. I'll scan it tomorrow, but where shall I post it? --GHcool (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia? It might get taken down for copyright violation or something (or it may fall under fair use; I'm not a copyright expert). Or you could try one of the free image hosting websites, like this one. Thanks! ← George ^[talk] 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hyperlink, George. Here's pg. 170 of Saad-Ghorayeb's book and here are the relevant footnotes. I hope this helps. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for taking the time to do this; it's a great help. I notice that the book passage itself directly attributes the quotation to Nasrallah, while the footnote references Fneish. Given the direct quotation in the passage itself (which is what I was interested to see), I'm not going to remove this quote, but it will still need to be properly framed with Glass' concerns of the footnote inconsistency. That's not to say that other with a more strict interpretation of WP:BLP won't remove it, or that they're not right to do so, it just means that I won't remove it at the moment. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 02:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I respect and appreciate your position. I sincerely mean that. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line noting Glass' questions about the attribution of the quotation. ← George ^[talk] 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This woman appears to be a something of a specialist, and perhaps the best possible source for the real thinking of Hezbollah. But we're using the source in a very odd way. The last sentence that User:GHcool has kindly provided us with reads: "As central an intellectual construct as Hizbu'llah's anti-Judaism is, however, one cannot conclude that this renders it an anti-Semitic ...." (bottom of page 171).

So are are we to understand that Nasrullah is antisemitic but Hezbollah is not? Or are we to suppose that this particular allegation of Nasrullah's antisemitism is based on a mis-cited quote? The quote seems to be unreliable, and we would now have to classify it as "surprising", perhaps "controversial". Perhaps GHcool (if he still has the book out of the library) could put up the next page for us. PR^talk 17:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Questioned edit

This edit is unjustified. Ehud Barak (a former head of Israel) is a notable opinion, the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, and the statement is clearly relevant to Hizbullah.Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I presume editors agree with the inclusion of the material?Bless sins (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins's presumption is incorrect. Although Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, Ehud Barak's opinion on Hezbollah is largely irrelevant to a general understanding of the group. If we start including every world leader's personal opinion on Hezbollah in the lead of the article, then the lead will quickly become unwieldily. In short, the proposal is in violation of WP:Undue weight and, to some extent, WP:Relevance. --GHcool (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely Ehud Barak is more notable (and relevant) than Alberto Nisman and Marcelo Martinez Burgos, whose opinions we include unreservedly?Bless sins (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the Argentine lawyers are not included in the lead. Secondly, the Argentine lawyers' opinions are relevant and given due weight within the section they are under. --GHcool (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote should be included, but not in the lead. ← George ^[talk] 07:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the Background section. ← George ^[talk] 08:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently GHcool feels quite strongly that this quote should be removed, as he's done so twice. In order to avoid an edit war, I'd like to invite him and others to discuss where this best fits in. Background section? View of Hezbollah by others? ← George ^[talk] 08:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a notable and interesting quote and is relevant to the article. As to where it should go, I'd say into Background, since it's the view of an Israeli political and military leader as to where the group came from and why it exists, as opposed to a comment on the group itself and where it is now (as most of the quotes in the Outside Views section are). Note I also amended the lead (relying on the existing cited source) to better reflect the group's original starting point. --Nickhh (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the "Background" section, but I argue that it doesn't belong anywhere for two reasons:

1. If we include one pithy statement of opinion form one notable personality, the door opens to more. I imagine the article to become sloppy with everybody's opinion kind of mashed together. Something along the lines of "Ehud Barak says X about Hezbollah, but Jacques Chirac says Y about Hezbollah. Bill Clinton agrees with Chirac, but adds Z, which Tony Blair disagrees with." etc etc.
2. One of the recommendations below on how to keep our GA status, is that "Single sentences shouldn't stand alone." I think the best way to deal with this single sentence is to just delete it for the reason stated above. --GHcool (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Barak is the Israeli defense minister, which makes his opinion much more relevant than most opinions by largely uninvolved politicians. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Funkmonk, you're right. Perhaps a better course of action is to expand Barak's opinion. But to leave it be one sentence kind of sticking out of nowhere is not the best solution. --GHcool (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm not clear on is why Hezbollah being founded in response to Israel's invasion has been left out of this article:

"Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation." – BBC News – Who are Hezbollah?

"In June 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon and sided with one of the war’s Christian factions over the many other, mostly Muslim, factions... Largely in response to Israel’s invasion, a group of Shia Muslim clerics led by Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah established Hezbollah to promote Islam and resist Western influences in Lebanon." – Encarta – Hezbollah

"Formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, this Lebanon-based radical Shia group takes its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini." – GlobalSecurity.org – Hizballah (Party of God)

"...the Lebanese Islamist Shi'ite group was set up in 1982 to resist Israeli occupation of Lebanon during the brutal civil war. The group declared a political existence in 1985." – Asia Times – Hezbollah's transformation

It seems pretty clear that the general consensus is that Hezbollah was created not just after Israel's invasion, but in response to Israel's invasion (and subsequent occupation), which is the gist of Barak's statement. Is there any reason that this has been left out of the article? ← George ^[talk] 18:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been bold, and modified the wording in the lead to reflect that used in these sources. ← George ^[talk] 02:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This source is used for the statement:

Hezbollah is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement throughout much of Lebanese society and the Arab and Muslim world, with an emphasis on "calls for the destruction of Israel."

I don't such a statement in the article. Secondly, can someone justify why an editorial by CAMERA is an authority on the attitudes in the Muslim world.Bless sins (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are right to some extent. I searched the article for the phrase "calls for the destruction of Israel" and could not find it. Therefore, I'm going to delete the statement in the Wikipedia article. However, this Boston Globe article is not an editorial by CAMERA; rather, it is an editorial printed in The Boston Globe. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. You should know that Hamas has also printed an editorial in the LA Times. Letters to editor by random people are also routinely published in most mainstream newspapers. Ultimately, when it comes to the editorial, we generally look at the author and not the publisher.Bless sins (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, we should do a better job looking for sources of statements before removing them outright, or at least consider tagging them with {{fact}} when appropriate. This quotation comes from this site, which states that "throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement." This source is already cited in this very article, and it's the fifth or sixth result for a Google search of "Hezbollah legitimate resistance movement". We should dig a little deeper next time before deleting statements. I've re-added it, with the appropriate citation. ← George ^[talk] 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

1. "Many Hezbollah leaders have maintained that the movement was "not an organization, for its members carry no cards and bear no specific responsibilities,"[76] and that the movement does not have "a clearly defined organizational structure."" Not sure if this second quote is from the initial source, add an inline citation if it is not.

   I think this paragraph is fit to the earlier years of Hezbollah's activity. But today it has defined organizational structure and many of its members have official identification cards or something like that. However this issue may be hidden due to the security concerns.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

2. "Hezbollah's leaders have appealed to him "for guidance and directives in cases when Hezbollah's collective leadership [was] too divided over issues and fail[ed] to reach a consensus.""

   I thik the source is at the end of the paragraph.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

3. "Hezbollah operates a satellite television station, Al-Manar TV ("the Lighthouse"), a radio station al-Nour ("the Light"), and a monthly magazine "Bakeyato Allah" ("The Rest of God [Imam-Mahdi]")." Y

Other issues:

1. "Hezbullah[who?] claims to neither discriminate against the Jews as a religion nor as a race." Address the tag. Y

   I think the tag is useless. I removed it but somebody reverted the tag. It's clear that according to Joseph Alagha, Hezbollah as an organization claims...--Seyyed(t-c) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   In that case, the sentence is redundant with the sentence directly following it. I'm deleting it. --GHcool (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

2. For the section "Accusations of terrorism, bomb attacks, and kidnappings" see if the list can be fleshed out more and rewrite some of the sentences.

   This issue is complicated and there isn't consensus about it. Please read here[21]. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

3. "In addition, Hezbollah's television station Al-Manar airs programming designed to inspire suicide attacks in Gaza, the West Bank and Iraq." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Expand on this if possible, or merge into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences within the article, as there are currently several. Y
4. Image:Al-Manar logo.png, this image does not have a fair use rationale specifying this article, be sure to add on to the image's page for use in this article. Y
5. There are numerous external links, determine if some of them can be removed. Y

   Is this a criteria for GA article?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   There is no specific criteria focusing on external links, however as part of the manual of style, the article should follow the guidelines when possible. WP:EL stresses not including a a large number of links. I'm not suggesting removing them just to do so, but I think the knowledgeable editors of the articles can probably weed out a few. If you guys can't find any, then I wouldn't worry about it. There may be some external links that cover the same information as some other more comprehensive links. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   I moved some of them to sub-articles such as Hezbollah military activities and Hezbollah political activities. I think the other ones are necessary. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

6. If possible, see if there are a few more images that can be added to the article. Y

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProject so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the logo and found few pictures in wikicommons and added them. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC).--Seyyed(t-c) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and looks good after addressing the above issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. Make sure an inline citation is added for "More recently, Hezbollah has been accused of the January 15, 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut." If you can't find one remove it for now, until one can be found later. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

English translation of a line from Hezbollah's manifesto

Does anybody have a source saying that the "the original English translation" of Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto does not contain the line state, "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated?" If not, I'm going to delete the claim that it does not. --GHcool (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The source (Stand With Us) seems very biased. Maybe we should search for others. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My memory of this discussion is that this document couldn't be described as the Hezbollah Constitution, we couldn't trust the translation and/or the the source of it, and the author didn't appear to have any significant part in the movement now. In 1985 Hezbollah was new and fighting an occupation. While Hezbollah still has elements of a militia, it's now much more of a movement, it's more significant and likely completely different from what it was then. I can't explain why Hezbollah doesn't have a Constitution, but then Israel doesn't have one either. PR^talk 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Added a source (the same one that is currently cited in the article for the manifesto itself). I think I initially wrote this line, and misinterpreted it... it's not the original English translation - it could be, but that's not explicitly stated in the source - it's the first publication of the manifesto. Stand With Us is definitely a very pro-Israeli source... perhaps we should look for the original version of the manifesto from the Jerusalem Post? ← George ^[talk] 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, apparently it wasn't the Jerusalem Post, it was "The Jerusalem Quarterly, number Forty-Eight, Fall 1988". Unfortuntely, that publisher may not exist any more (or at least a quick Google search shows an organization by the same name that wasn't founded until the mid to late 1990s), and I can't find any source for their original publication. My require some periodicals diving at the library. ← George ^[talk] 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• If a proper source can't be found, it should be removed from the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing source

I'm removing this source from the article. The article is an opinion piece, and the author is a senior at Stanford University, majoring in Economics and Management Science and Engineering, obviously failing WP:RS as they are about as credible as any other random person. See here for further details. ← George ^[talk] 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism"

Does anyone have access to this book? There are a few claims we've cited from it that are difficult to verify:

• 41 Hezbollah suicide attackers killed 659 people - I'm not able to get anywhere near to 659 people killed by Hezbollah during these years... am I missing some attacks?

Like the citation said before you deleted it, it's on page 129. An appendix at the back of the book lists three different campaigns of bombing by Hezbollah (yes the name Hezbollah is used). --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• including 241 US Marines as they slept - This is already included in this list a couple bullet points earlier, under the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. It shouldn't be included twice in the list.
• Robert Pape details 38 of the bombers as 8 Muslim, 27 Communists/Socialists and 3 Christian - This seems like an extraordinary claim to me. Are there any known Christian members of Hezbollah? I'm aware of Christian allies of Hezbollah, but I can't find anything to verify that there are Chrisitan members of Hezbollah, let alone Christian suicide bomber members of Hezbollah. And who are the 27 Communists/Socialists in the Islamist/Fascist Hezbollah? This sounds to me more like lumping together suicide bombers from every sect in Lebanon under the flag "Hezbollah".

"I spent a year leading a team of researchers who collected detailed evidence on the ideological and other demographic characteristics of the suicide terrorists. The results show that at least 30 of the 41 attackers do not fit the descripton of Islamic fundamentalism ..." p.130 of Dying to Win The book does not go one to say whether the attackers were members of Communist or socialists parties, let alone acting under orders of such organizations, just that they were Communists or Socialists. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The above also leads me to question the initial "41 Hezbollah suicide attackers". First, the number obviously doesn't match with the 38 people broken down by religion/political view. Second, the other source in the article, an interview with Pape on the same book, doesn't even mention Hezbollah once, let alone in relation to these attacks:

"In Lebanon, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the U.S. withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn’t completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow Israel to Tel Aviv."

How did 38 suicide bombers commit 41 suicide attacks? Do-overs??

Sometimes suicide attacks have more than one person involved. Didn't read very carefully. Pipes talks about 36 attacks and 41 attackers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How did the 41 suicide attacks in Lebanon get attributed to Hezbollah when a minority of the attackers were Islamist Muslims?

Could it be that Hezbollah organized the attacks but not all the attacker were members of the organization? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And who were the 659 people killed by these attacks? I'm hoping someone with access to this book can help us out here, because I'm having a hard time verifying any of this. ← George ^[talk] 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The people killed were American and French soldiers, American embassy staff, IDF members and bystanders, SLA members and bystanders. Dying to Win p.253-4 The first campaign against American embassies and MNF killed 393, the other two campaigns had fewer deaths and less bloody bombings. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt it's even from the book, just editors adding stuff along the way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here, between Hezbollah attacks and those perpetrated by others. The maths and the sectarian/religious identities make this pretty clear. From anything I've ever read about what Pape has written on this subject, the point he's consistently (and probably accurately) tried to make is that suicide attacks are not the preserve of evil Muslim fanatics, but a tactic employed by all sorts of groups. --Nickhh (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The total number of victims of suicide attacks in Lebanon is not given in the 2005 The American Conservative article, and "659 people killed" sounds very high. As a "surprising" result, unless someone can confirm it from the book, I'd support taking it out. Otherwise, the information queried here is the same as in the AmConMag. Robert Pape's research conclusion is that "overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." Pape claims that this is true for over 95 percent of the incidents. The discrepancy between 41 bombers and 38 religious associations confirmed is trivial. PR^talk 21:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have as much an issue with the 41 bombers vs. 38 bombers as I do with the lack of any mention of Hezbollah in the American Conservative article. I'm more trying to verify that these 41 bombers were members of Hezbollah, since that's the topic of this article.

Nickhh's point is a good one. In the reviews I've read of this book, the general theme seems to be that the suicide bombers in Lebanon were not specifically Islamists, and were focused more on expelling outside forces from Lebanon than on any specific religious ideologies or hatred. Essentially it sounds like Pape is arguing that nationalism trumps religious extremism in the case of Lebanon in the mid-80s. However, that theme seems to be completely dropped in the way these figures are being cited in this article. ← George ^[talk] 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed the passage, it now reads: "#Between 1982 and 1986, 41 suicide attacks were made in Lebanon against western targets. However, only 8 of these bombings were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, with 27 by Communists/Socialists and 3 by Christians.[5] See Robert Pape's book.[6]"

But I've done it in defiance of this article that says they were all carried by Hezbollah (well-regarded magazine, long editted by the new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson): "... Until the Iraq war, more such bombings were committed by the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist group of mainly Hindu background that is hostile to religion in all its forms, than by any other organisation. The Hezbollah campaign against French, American and Israeli targets in Lebanon in the early Eighties included over 40 suicide attacks. Members of secular leftist groups such as the Communist party were responsible for the majority of the bombings. Several were committed by Christians, one of them a female high-school teacher. It is safe to assume she was not looking forward to paradise in the company of a host of virgins. While terror of the sort that currently threatens us in Britain is Islamist in origin, it is nonsense to suggest that suicide bombing reflects an Islamic culture of martyrdom."

I trust all will find this acceptable. PR^talk 07:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this list as a couple paragraphs, while trying to keep the original data. It still needs a bit more information (especially around the controversy of responsibility between Islamic Jihad, Amal, and Hezbollah). ← George ^[talk] 11:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a bit of a mess with this section earlier on by removing the breakdown, while keeping in the - misquoted - total figure of 41 Hezbollah bombers. I'd merely assumed that this number was an accurate representation of the Pape source, when of course it wasn't. Anyway, that left it the wrong way round, and the section seems to be better now. As for The Spectator article, I'd simply make the observation that the author is very much a philosopher and "big picture" theory person - I'd be wary of relying on his writings for specific figures like this, even if it's in a mainstream magazine with presumably quite stringent editorial oversight. In fact what he's written there contradicts itself in the way that this article used to (ie talking about 40/41 "Hezbollah" attacks, then going on to suggest some of them were committed by bombers from secular leftist groups or Christians). Maybe someone at The Spectator was even using Wikipedia as a source .. --Nickhh (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is controversy about suicide attacks which have happened before 1985, when Hezbollah is established officially. There were several Palestinian and Lebanese groups in these years which were participating in these attacks.[22] If we use archaeologists and ethnologists terms, we can consider them as proto-Hezbollah groups. In conclusion, the number of suicide attacks and its casualties depend on the viewpoint about the beginning of Hezbollah and this issue should be clarified in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the book Dying to Win. It does say 659 people killed in Hezbollah suicide attacks. It does use the name Hezbollah. It does list dates, weapons, targets and numbers killed for each attacks in its Appendix I. (Dying to Win p.253-4) It does not give details on who was killed (whether targets or bystanders, what the citizenship of the victims was and so on). (See reply postings above.)

Therefore I am going to restore at least much of the old section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We should clarify that this statistics depends on the authors definition of Hezbollah and its foundation date. I think he's considered some other groups such as Islamic Jihad, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization as Hezbollah.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Every source I've read considers Islamic Jihad, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization nonexistent, simply nom de guerre for Hezbollah. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) So I've been able to find a few pages from this book, and there are a few issues:

• The book actually lists the attacks as 36 attacks by 41 attackers. This was what was confusing me - we had 41 attacks by 38 attackers.
• It describes Hezbollah as a "loose federation of militant Shia groups that sprang up in the early 1980s... evolved from a reorientation of a number of pre-existing social groups in Lebanon... the Mussawai faction within Amal, the Lebanese Da'wa Party, the Association of Muslim Ulama in Lebanon, and the Association of Muslim Students, [which] all existed in the 1970s." Essentially the author is defining any suicide attack by many different groups in Lebanon in this period (including those Sa.vakilian mentioned above) as an act by Hezbollah. We're going to need to include much more on the dispute of this categorization, given that the groups claiming responsibility had these different names at the time, and Hezbollh denied committing them.
• We're also going to have to be extremely careful with the wording here. Going through these attacks, most of them were attacks on IDF targets or SLA outposts (a Lebanese militia allied with Israel during the civil war), while the rest were attacks on U.S. and French barracks, and the U.S. embassy. It's going to be a stretch to define most of these attacks as terrorism, since most of them were against military targets of foreign aggressors (or their allies) on Lebanese soil.

I'm going to change the 41 attacks to 36 attacks for now. ← George ^[talk] 04:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, attacks on military such as IDF and SLA are not usually considered terrorism. Papes says: Altogether, these attacks killed 659 people, most of whom were off duty soldiers in no position to defend themselves, such as the 241 US Marines who were killed as they slept on that fateful day in Beirut. (p.129)

I should have caught the mistake that Pipes talks about 36 attacks and 41 attackers, not 36 attackers and 41 attacks.--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re, above by BoogaLouie: "Agreed, attacks on military such as IDF and SLA are not usually considered terrorism."

Targeting civilians is a war crime according to international law. Off-duty soldiers are considered civilians. From Human Rights Watch:

"International humanitarian law makes clear that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces [in other words, off-duty] are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command.

Under article 50(1) of Protocol I a civilian is defined as someone who is not a member of any organized armed forces of a party to a conflict. The same article adds that "[i]n cases of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian." Under article 51(3), civilians that directly participate in hostilities lose civilian protection for the duration of such participation.

ie ...off-duty soldiers are considered civilians by international law. Under International Human Rights laws, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian. Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities. " [23]

Also: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited." {Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977} at [24]

The deliberate killing of sleeping off-duty soldiers is a war crime whether usually thought so or not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• If these soldiers are counted as civilians, it should be mentioned that these civilians include so and so many soldiers, and why. It is not at all common knowledge that sleeping soldiers are somehow civilians. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that in a on-going battle between hostile participants, a surprise attack on a barrack full of sleeping soldiers by the military of other side could be considered an act of war and legitimate in that context. But to kill sleeping soldiers who are there, not as hostile force but as a peacekeeping force and not part of an ongoing battle would be considered a war crime. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the soldiers and the French paratroopers were there as peacekeepers, hoping to stem the ongoing violence. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Background → History

I tried to turn background into history on the basis of the last peer review I moved some parts of the background to Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement and added some information about its foundation. However, I think we should rewrite this part to coverage all of the related issues briefly.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Goldblum's response regarding Independence Day

The article currently mentions Hezbollah's quotation on the movie Independence Day, as well as Jeff Goldblum's reaction to it: "In 1996, Hezbollah called on Muslims to boycott the movie Independence Day, calling it 'propaganda for the so-called genius of the Jews and their alleged concern for humanity.' In the movie, a Jewish scientist played by Jeff Goldblum helps save the world from an alien invasion. Goldblum replied that 'Hezbollah has missed the point: the film is not about American Jews saving the world; it's about teamwork among people of different religions and nationalities to defeat a common enemy.' Hezbollah's anti-Jewish crusade, Goldblum added, 'does not sit well with me.'" I've removed the last two sentences from this quotation before, but they've been reinserted, so I'd like to discuss my reasoning. I'm okay with the third sentence, involving Goldblum's view of the movie. I removed it previously because it seemed like quite a lengthy description of something which isn't in dispute, but I don't oppose its inclusion. The last sentence, however, I have more of an issue with.

Jeff Goldblum is an actor, not a scholar, journalist, author, or anything which would constitute a reliable source on history, Hezbollah, or the Middle East conflict. The only thing he could be considered a reliable source for would be the the films he's acted in, which is why I don't oppose his quotation in the third sentence above regarding the film. However, the last sentence, "Hezbollah's anti-Jewish crusade, Goldblum added, 'does not sit well with me'," has a problem. First, Goldblum isn't a reliable source for defining Hezbollah's actions as an "anti-Jewish crusade." Second, even if everyone agreed that Hezbollah was on an "anti-Jewish crusade," why does Goldblum's opinion on the subject matter? Again, he's not a historian, just an actor, so his opinion should have no bearing on things outside of his films. I'd like to see this sentence removed as Jeff Goldblum doesn't constitute a reliable source on Hezbollah or its (alleged) anti-Jewish crusade. Thoughts? ← George ^[talk] 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose moving less important information of this section to Hezbollah Ideology.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the last sentence is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "pape" :
  • {{cite book |last=Pape |first=Robert |authorlink=Robert Pape |title=Dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism |loc=New York |publisher=Random House |id={{ISBN|1-4000-6317-5}} |year=2005 }} Specifically: "Suicide Terrorist Campaigns, 1980-2003", Appendix 1. (Page 253 of Australian paperback edition, published by Scribe Publications)
  • Pape, Robert A., ''Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism'', Random House, 2005.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed this, by making the second instance just another reference of the first instance. ← George ^[talk] 19:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Internal Criticism of Hezbollah

Hello,

I believe the article is lacking with regards to internal opposition to hezbollah, in particular friction with the March 14 alliance, Accusations by Mufti Ali Jozu and the Free Shia movement. If there are no a-priori objections, i intend to work on such a section and present a rough draft for inclusion in this talk page. MiS-Saath (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Criticism sections are not recommended on Wikipedia. Criticism/controversy should be worked into the article itself, not thrown into one section. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Criticism-section FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the right place to add this information is 'Political activity', although that would need a better title since it's not hezbollah activity that these aspects should cover. perhaps retitle the section 'In the lebanese political arena'? something along the lines of 'Hezbollah, together with Amal, represent the majority of lebanese shia, contested almost solely by the Free Shia movement' and so forth. what do you think? MiS-Saath (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as it is cited. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i'm not so sure they're notable enough. at least as far as english sources go, there isn't much. but then again, same could be said about Ali Jozu, but he is rather notable. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As the last peer review shows What this article really lacks of is the Lebanese views of Hezb and how it evolved, and this applies to each community. How it was seen by Shiites, how it was rejected by Christians, then gained support after Hezb-Aoun alliance, how the druze and sunnite community was supportive before March 14...--Seyyed(t-c) 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the Military activities

I think the article is too long and there is overemphasis on Military activities. It includes too many details which can move to sub-articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The conflict with Israel sections have been covered in much greater detail in other articles. --GHcool (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lengthening the article

The article needs a section on Israeli threats...to match the two sections on Hezbollah threats so that NPOV is maintained....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Um ... what are the two sections on Hezbollah threats are you referring to? I don't see any. I think Hezbollah's conflict with Israel is fairly well covered in the "Conflict with Israel" section, although I would prefer that section be deleted since that stuff is better covered in the main articles about those topics. --GHcool (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cancer quotes, what you think and reality are obviously somewhat different...NPOV means putting all the arguments...You have the Hezbollah says sections but no section on what Israel and the west say about Hezbollah... so I've put them back in as they belong together....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I've put all the POV under one section. You leave the Israeli POV in and I'll add to the Hizb'allah POV....Oh and try not to claim you did something when you didn't as in claiming you moved sourced material to Hizb'allah foreign relations....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have scurrilous remarks up front then have all the scurrilous remarks up front. otherwise all you're doing is POV....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As you think that only your POV should be used I'll have to include a tag....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the sections to which Ashley kennedy3 is referring to the Hezbollah foreign relations page because that's where they belong. Ashley kennedy3 has also been blocked from editing for violating the 3 revert rule on this page for four days as indicated here. The sections removed which were listed previously under the section for Hezbollah's ideology, refer to foreign attitudes toward Hezbollah from the Israeli representative at UN Dan Gillerman, Canadian prime minister Jason Kenney, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and Alan Dershowitz. I also found Askley kennedy3's comments to violate NPOV because he repeatedly tried to entitle the section Demonisation of hezbollah in the West.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The process is called demonisation. The two sections on Hezbollah says about Israel should also go under Hezbollah foreign relations or the relevant pieces should come back, or the sections are POV.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the word "demonisation" to mean "the act of representing as evil or diabolic." It's implied that the party being demonized is not actually evil or diabolic. It's obviously POV whether someone is evil. When Hezbollah is compared to a cancer, the Nazis or the KKK, it's POV whether cancer, the Nazis or the KKK are actually evil. Therefore, the use of the word demonisation is inappropriate (unless someone is actually calling Hezbollah evil or its members demons). A better header would be Comparison of Hezbollah to cancer, the Nazis or the KKK. The term The West is also pretty amorphous. The section belongs under foreign relations rather than the section for Hezbollah's ideology because it describes foreign opinion of Hezbollah, not Hezbollah's ideology. If you want to fill out Hezbollah's foreign policy goals in the foreign policy section that would be appropriate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Take that up with the academics who named the process. if you wish to change the word write a doctorate....Until then the process is still called demonisation...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

POV check

Somebody had put POV tag on Attitudes, statements, and actions concerning Israel and Attitudes, statements, and actions concerning Jews and Judaism sections. I think we can't put POV tag on the article which has been reviewed several times by many wikipedians so easily and reached GA status. Thus please add tags after discussion.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is neither the same article as then...nor the same editors...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes, statements, and actions concerning Jews and Judaism

This article is not a good place for the statements and quotations of different people. We just want to clarify the issue. Thus I moved about 10 kb of quotations to the sub-articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you know why I tagged it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hizbullah’s Role in Attacks Against U.S. and British Forces in Iraq

I am very new to Wikipedia, but I have recently stumbled upon this report. It is well cited and scholarly and I believe it is of importance to implement information from it into this article. Would anyone care to help me figure out the best ways to go about this?--Einsteindonut (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems like a pretty biased source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, scholarly bias.--Hamster X 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as there's consensus, I guess it's not important. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the Asharq Alawsat report it says that Iran denied the US claim about 180 degrees from what the JCPA claim Asharq Alawsat as reporting....it's so far out that I'm surprised that CAMERA didn't correct the JCPA...So far the US claim has never been substantiated...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious that the "Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs" is more than just a POV source, it is an active participant in defending a party and as such cannot be a reliable source. And more - some of the material it publishes can only be described as extreme eg "Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?". Dr. Avi Bell is "a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" so should be a respectable and reliable source. But he is apparently making the argument that Israel is entitled to lay siege to Gaza depriving everyone except children and pregnant mothers of food - and in fact, Israel can deprive them of everything too!

Another example has elements of the extreme, and the false: "All activities performed by Israel during the first intifada as well as nowadays are based on law. Israel follows the emergency defense regulations enacted by the British in Mandatory Palestine in 1945. They are similar to those enacted by the British against the IRA in Northern Ireland." PR^talk

• The claim should be ignored if much better sources aren't found. That article is libel. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the 2006 Lebanon War section? =

?

It got moved up to where ESD was doing a re-write copy. To keep all the same stuff at the same place..saves doubling up...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of 2006 Israeli shelling?

In the 2006 Lebanon War Section, there is no mention of Israel's use of White Phosphorous and Cluster bombs on urban areas, which indiscriminately kills civilians and destroys their homes. Such Israeli actions need to be mentioned because Hezbollah's Katusha rockets were seen, by the Lebanese people, as retaliation for Israel's shelling of Lebanese civilians
Excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the 2006 July war, along with the citations,  should be inserted into this 2006 Lebanon War section. I suggest adding these lines:
'Amnesty International called on both Hezbollah and Israel to end attacks on civilians during the conflict,[135] and criticized attacks against civilian villages and infrastructure by Israel.[136] They also highlighted IDF use of white phosphorus shells in Lebanon.[137][138] Human Rights Watch accused both parties of failing to distinguish between civilians and combatants, violating the principle of distinction, and committing war crimes.[30][132][139] Peter Bouckaert, a senior emergencies researcher for Human Rights Watch, stated that Hezbollah was "directly targeting civilians... their aim is to kill Israeli civilians" and that Israel had not taken "the necessary precautions to distinguish between civilian and military targets."[140][141] They criticized Hezbollah's use of unguided Katyusha rockets, and Israel's use of unreliable cluster bombs – both too close to civilians areas – suggesting that they may have deliberately targeted civilians.[132][142] UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said Israel's response violated international humanitarian law, and criticized Hezbollah for "cowardly blending... among women and children."[143]'
--208.75.21.90 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Primary goals" in the lead

I can't believe I've been forced to come to the talk page to discuss this sentence, which User:Einsteindonut has now added for the third time. It is not "the indisputable truth", it is (unsourced) assertion and judgement, hence WP:OR. None of the sources, on a quick scan, allege that the destruction of Israel is one of Hezbollah's primary goals. This is a very specific claim, which would need to be well sourced. And even were you to do that, you would need to be sure that other equally reliable sources did not make different or contradictory assertions (eg that it is a secondary goal, or even not actually a goal as such at all).

As I also said, the point is already covered - more accurately as it happens - elsewhere in the lead, where the text clearly says "Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a "Zionist entity...". Neither myself or any other neutral editor is going to dispute that, or argue that it should not be in the lead. So what exactly is the point of making things up, clogging up leads with repetition and then edit-warring over it? --Nickhh (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli POV

I know the Israeli POV pushers would like the whole of hizb'allah declared a terrorist organisation in its entirety, world wide. But they must accept reality. only 4 nations have done so and the UK and Australia has not made the Hizb'allah military a terrorist organisation only one part....please read what the UK Home office actually says rather that what you want it to say...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this seems to have changed in the last couple of months (see here) at least in respect of the UK's position. But, as the BBC piece says, you were of course right that the UK did make the distinction until recently (sweeping unsourced generalisations seem to come easier to many WP editors), and also to make the point that there seems to be a concerted effort to write this article from a very one-sided perspective in terms of what Hezbollah means to Israel, rather than what it means to the country where it actually originates or to the wider world. The former is of course important, but it isn't the main issue when you take a genuine worldwide and objective view of the subject matter. Which is what we are trying to do here, isn't it? Or did I miss something, and we're actually all here to edit for our countries and their governments? --Nickhh (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When I changed Ashley's verbiage, I found the text I used (saying the Hezbollah Military Wing, called the External Security Source) on two Moslem web sites, which in the same articles argued the Israel was a terrorist state. I kind of assumed that they knew the correct terminology. And, as Nickhh says, now the full military wing is termed terrorist according to the UK. I have not seen the proclamation from Australia, but since the Australian Moslem web site uses that terminology I tend to believe it to be true.Sposer (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

the official version is the home office version... there has been no change...Hizb'allah within Lebanon is still considered by the UK gov as legitimate....at Tzipi Livni says shooting Israeli soldiers is not considered as a terrorist activity....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear (Sposer your language above was a bit ambiguous at times), the military wing is not the same as External Security. The latter is only one part of that structure. Ashley was right to make the distinction between the two in respect of UK policy - however equally that policy seems to have changed since July. The BBC quotes the-then Home Office Minister Tony McNulty as confirming this, so that the UK does now appears to regard the entire military apparatus as a being "banned" under the Terrorism Act. Of course that still does not mean the politcal and social elements of the organisation are viewed as being terrorist. Ashley unless you know of something else that has in turn reverted this decision, it seems the text has to go back. --Nickhh (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming into existence

Why does the lead claim that Hezbollah came into being in 1982 (unequivocally), yet further down it claims it is ambiguous and may have come into being in '82 or maybe '85? I would say that if we aren't sure of the date, we should not put it in the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The 1982 in the lead is referring to the date of the Israeli invasion which Hezbollah was ultimately formed in response to, not to the date of Hezbollah's foundation itself. The exact date is of course unclear, and there are differing interpretations of when it could be said to have been established as a single, unified grouping, as the article says. There were many radical groups around at the time - some interpretations would have them as being entirely separate groups, others as being precursors to Hezbollah proper and yet others would argue they were merely autonomous but integrated front organisations. --Nickhh (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to find a contemporary reference to them in '82, but there are several in '83 where they came on the scene with a bang. Pro-Iranian extremists in Lebanon hit the US peacekeeping contingent at the Beirut airport on Oct 23 of 1983 and 239 Americans were killed. "Fifty-eight French paratroopers died moments later in a second bombing, and 29 Israelis were killed in a third explosion in Tyre on Nov 4." The French and Israelis hit at the Shiite guerrillas in the Bekaa Valley sometime thereafter as reprisal. A massive funeral procession occurred following these raids, "amid roaring chants of 'Death to America, Death to Russia, We Love Martyrdom.'..... The procession was led by Hezbollah leader Sheik Subhi Tofeili. Tofeili vowed in a fiery speech to launch fresh attacks against the United States, Russia, and Israel. ...." Farouk Nassar Associated Press Nov 18, 1983 According to this article, their reason for being is to destroy America, Russia, France, and Israel... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The French and Israelis hit at the Shiite guerrillas (Amal) in the Bekaa Valley sometime thereafter as reprisal.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Sheik Subhi Tofeili an Hizb'allah leader? Followers of fugitive Sheikh Subhi Tofeili had a rally in the city while a separate rally by Hizbullah was held in another part of the city.[25]...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested reading:-

Killer Elite: The Inside Story of America's Most Secret Special Operations Team By Michael Smith Published by Macmillan, 2007 ISBN 0312362722

At that time Baalbek was under Amal and then the splinter group Islamic Amal which then joined up with Hizb'allah, who until the 90 was a relatively unknown group....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Take it up with the Associated Press and reporter Farouk Nassar in this 1983 article: [26] "The procession was led by Hezbollah leader Sheik Subhi Tofeili, flanked by Lebanese Shiite clergymen carrying large portraits of Khomeini. ..... "They have waged open war on us and war they will get, " Tofeili said. "America, France and Israel have started this war. Our fighters, who wear their death shrouds, shall go after them in Lebanon and elsewhere." Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some further references for your edification: [27][28][29] It appears Tofeili or Toufeili broke from Hezbollah and started The Party of God, apparently a Hezbollah splinter group. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to "another part of the city" was from 1998. Mine was from 1983. By then Tofeili had apparently left Hezbollah and gone out on his own [30] Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This means that we can now state that Israel is a terrorist organisation...take it up with the aussiemusslim....half of the incidents listed were Amal which then split to become Islamic Amal which then some went into Hizballah....which the Israeli POV writers are then saying "it's Hizballah what did it all"....Sheik Subhi Tofeili going on a march shouting his head off doesn't make him guilty of a terrorist incident....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the above commentaries are in no way productive to the working environment.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the Israeli POV as though it is the NPOV position is not conducive to a productive working environment......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously believe that you are neutral then. Certainly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I have ever said that I am neutral (there is no such position on the Middle East)......This allows me to write for the enemy by including Israeli POV and any opposing POV, unlike the Israeli POV pushers who try for the Israeli POV to the exclusion of any other versions.....There is no version that is the "absolute truth", trying to push one version as though that is the official version is detrimental to the article and not a reflection of global realities...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Suicide attacks and kidnappings

So far the above named section is a sad sack of inuendo which the linking acrticles say otherwise to this article....Therefore POV tag to be added...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The section has been around for a very long time and I'm sure many people were behind the consensus of it and provided RS and everything. It lasted this long w/out this tag, but as soon as I get involved, you add the tag. If you want to go through each source, go for it. I highly doubt that the articles say anything different from the article itself. If you are going to make that claim, then back it up with an example. I trust the work of others in this case.--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is more in the story than "the criminal Hezbollah men committed suicide attacks and kidnappings", having a section with this title and in a leading position is POV. Imad marie (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed mostly. However while while this page should avoid falling into the "Hezbollah did it" trap, based on sweeping accusations, equally we need to be careful about assigning definitive blame for specific incidents to other named groups. For example the TWA hijack was almost certainly not carried out by Amal (they helped end the stand-off in fact, although it might be fair to suspect there were some links there - I've taken this one out), and I really don't know of any evidence for saying that the Buenos Aires bomb was carried out by the MKO/PMOI. Some of the accusations against Hezbollah are going to be flat out wrong, others - particularly relating to the early years of the civil war - are going to be clouded by genuine confusion and disagreement over whether specific groups were actually Hezbollah in all but name, or some other radical faction with varying degrees of linkage into the emerging group. --Nickhh (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So the hizb'allah have been blamed for some or all line should be removed along with the numbers round up innuendo blather where in the ref the number is 8 incidents of the however many occurred from 1989 to 2004 where the ref is to all incidents across the world from many organisations....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The subsection here is indeed a bit of a mess, conflating different attacks and activities, and at various points in the current text claiming Hezbollah has admitted them (some? all?) and then denied them (all of them, apparently). In fact there's a case for a total deconstruction and reordering of the whole "Military Activities" section, which gives off the air of having been put together bit by bit without any real co-ordination, hence repetition and lack of clarity across various parts of it. A proper structure for the entire section, based both on the chronology and Hezbollah's original focus, would surely look something like this -

1. start with the 1980s conflict with Israel inside Lebanon (ie using the subsection below this one), an activity that Hezbollah was uncontroversially involved in.
2. then it could move to a separate and distinct discussion of contemporaneous activities in Lebanon such as kidnappings, suicide attacks against US and French targets etc, where Hezbollah involvement is less clear-cut, despite the standard assumptions in the West.
3. moving forward in time again to the Buenos Aires attacks in the 1990s, these need to be quite separate again, and it also needs to be noted that Hezbollah's denials on this are pretty strong as far as I've ever seen them.
4. then into the 2000s, there's the disputed involvement in Iraq (and let's be careful about Asharq al-Awsat as a source for this sort of thing)
5. also there's the ongoing conflict with Israel, post-2000 withdrawal and leading into the 2006 war

Just floating it as a suggestion rather than promising to do anything with it .... --Nickhh (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It didn't help when ESD tried a re-write of military section before finding out if the article already had that section.....It would behove him to familiarise himself with the article prior to editing the article....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This section seems to be about much more than simply suicide attacks and kidnappings. In fact, kidnappings are barely mentioned, and we have hijackings and car bombs etc. Something is at least wrong with the title. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

This page has descended into something of a battleground. In a bid by various editors to insert things that they happen to believe are important, actual relevant facts are being messed around with and reverted. As a result demonstrably false material and suggestions are now being placed in this page. Can everyone please calm down a bit, and try to focus on verifiable, up to date, relevant information from reliable sources and afford then due weight in the article? To take two examples -

1) Ashley you keep reverting the lead so it says that the UK only considers the ESO as terrorist. This was the case until July, but the government then extended this to the entire military structure. I have explained this on the talk page and provided you with a BBC reference explaining this, and also updated the link to the relevant page on the Home Office website - which has been amended and now explicitly refers to the entire military wing rather than the ESO. You are right that it gives the definitive UK position - so please read the latest version of it. You are simply wrong on a basic issue of fact. It is nothing to do with POV or anything else. And as well as being inaccurate, the text is now garbled and repetitive: The United Kingdom has placed the external security organisation,[4] part of its military wing on its list of proscribed terrorist organisations, while Australia considers part of its military structure, the External Security Organisation, a terrorist organization.[5][6][7][8]

2) Tundrabuggy, you keep messing around with the text on suicide bombings, removing the point (taken from Robert Pape's work) that actually most suicide bombings in the 1980s were carried out by other Lebanese groups, not Hezbollah. If this section is going to be on the Hezbollah page at all, this has to be made clear or it is simply cheap innuendo and association by omission of facts. To say it is "irrelevant and distracting" is either spectacularly missing the point, or being deliberately disingenuous. Let me know which it is.

Sorry to come over all school-teachery, but this kind of thing is all incredibly frustrating. It also leads to a ridiculous situation where everyone expends huge amounts of energy fighting - and at the end of the say the only thing that this project gets out of it is a whole bunch of back and forth reverting, and an article with some pretty basic errors of fact in it. --Nickhh (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Homeoffice position is still the ESO is the terrorist wing, the Home office web site is up to the minuet. The July change was in verbiage (diplomatic language used) but not on the designation, contrary to what the BBC have reported...Previously the UK gov had the designation as the Islamic Jihad (named as the external security organisation) and made no mention of Hizb'allah....It now says Hizb'allah's external security organisation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Yesterdays it was just the Hizb'allah ESO today it is the Hizb'allah military wing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead is POV:-

It is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement throughout most of the Arab and Muslim world.

Nelson Madella also classifies it as resistance movement as does Africa...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source please? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Only 6 countries out of the UN declare Hiz'allah or parts of hizb'allah a terrorist organisation...And where is your reliable source to say otherwise......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually think including the declaration about the Arab and Muslim world balances the start of the lead (at least Wiki POV), which also mentions that it is considered a terrorist organization by several countries. Although other countries may not have put it there due to certain nasty politics or sticking their heads in the sand, while very possibly true, it would be OR. If you can find a source, please add it!Sposer (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I share Sposer's sentiments that it balances the intro. I would appreciate Ashley responding to a request that they support the Nelson Mandela statement with a reliable source though. UN members are a bit irrelevant to that statement and Mandela is surely notable enough to be added, at least in the body of the article, if this statement is accurate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickh...to your point that "that actually most suicide bombings in the 1980s were carried out by other Lebanese groups, not Hezbollah." I don't have a problem with that if you simply come out and say that. If that was the point, it was not at all clear. Instead line read like an apology for terrorists, about how they the "people" (the killers) were Christian and communist etc yet the victims were "targets" as opposed to human beings. Make the point straight out. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that the reference given did not say what, if any, other groups were involved. It is not impossible that communists and socialists, and maybe even Christians could be recruited (or co-erced) by Hezbollah into such acts. Either way to say they were or were not Hezbollah strikes me as OR based on only the given ref. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Both the original source and the written text were pretty clear about what they are saying to me, although admittedly it might have been written up a little better on the page here (a newer version has been inserted now). Pape has written a whole book about this, but I guess this brief online interview was all that whoever added this in the first place could dig up at the time. I or someone else may get round to trawling the book for more specific details on this point. --Nickhh (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

May be we could put it as a % something on the lines of 98% of the world do not consider hizbollah a terrorist organisation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And Terry Waite is also somewhat circumspect in using the word terrorist when referring to hizb'allah....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Jaakobou and Sposer have decided they are entitled to speak on behalf of all the nations in the UN. If they could just pop their diplomatic accreditation letters into the mail box for verification please.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have put nothing in the article that isn't sourced. I made an OR-ish statement in a talk page, suggesting that I suspect there are more people than one might think that consider Hezbollah terrorists. I support the point about Hezbollah's standing in the Muslim world belonging in the lede, and have not commented on anything else.Sposer (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that you come up with a source for the Mandela claim is fair enough. You could find one for the Waite claim while you're at it.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to other countries' opinions on Hezbollah (since Ashley seems to think I make these things up), please see: http://euobserver.com/22/26754. I am not suggesting to put this into the article, but as I read this, and several other articles, Italy, Portugal and Germany all seem to support adding Hezbollah, or some part of it, to the EU terrorist group list. France, however, is strongly against it. I also do not know anything about euobserver and am not suggesting it is RS, because I have no idea. But, I have seen several other recent stories on a general move among EU MP's to include Hezbollah. Other recent articles include http://www.epp-ed.eu/Press/showpr.asp?PRControlDocTypeID=1&PRControlID=7777&PRContentID=13548&PRContentLG=en. Seems to be largely one group pushing this, but one that has the largest bloc of MEPs. However, statements by other officials say this should be done by the European Council and not the European Parliament and that though Germany, Italy and Portugal apparently favor inclusion, that it would only be included if the decision was unanimous. This article argues only the UK and Netherlands favor adding Hezbollah: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70015&sectionid=351020203.Sposer (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sposer I am not saying you are making things up merely that you are relying on one small minority of world opinion......the other 97% of the world are not of the same opinion...Terry Waite....[31]....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article with some stuff that could be helpful in State terrorism. Waite however seems to be taking an inclusive rather than an exclusive line to the use of the word "terrorist". "My experience as a hostage taught me that terrorist groups are made up of so many different types of people." makes no sense unless he is calling Hazbollah - or at least some of its activists and structure - terrorist.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from every time he says Hizbollah, Terry Waite himself does not refer to terrorist organisation. The piece is based on a TV programme about terrorism. The inclusive part is also about Israeli tactics and the US. More on the lines of they are all terrorists (Israel, US included) or get real and start paying attention to the grievances of all sides.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, you should read the things that I linked before inventing statistics. The articles I linked, and several others like it, say that the majority of EU countries believe that Hezbollah, or some part thereof, should be classified as a terrorist organization. However, essentially France is blocking this. As for China, they are not exactly exemplars of human rights (and they supply misslies to Iran and have ties to Hamas as well, so I would assume they don't consider either organization terrorists) and the Russians are not exactly kind to their own Moslems.You should read this with regard to Russia: http://www.russiablog.org/2006/07/putin_slams_on_terrorism_suppo.php. Just so I am not accused of picking and choosing, Putin was saying that Hezbollah had no right to attack Israel, but that Israel's response was an escalation. He also said that innocent people (on both sides) were being killed, although I think the implication was more due to Israel's attacks.

And you need to stay away from extremist opinion pieces.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to understand something. I agree with Terry Waite. He says Hezbollah are terrorists. Terrorism is a way of engaging in war. While these people may be fighting what they consider to be unjust, they are doing it in ways that murder innocent people as part of their strategy. You might be surprised to know that I think all the settlers should be removed everywhere (I am undecided on Jerusalem). I also reject 110% any calls that have to do with changing the laws in Israel to make it more Jewish. That stuff disgusts me.

He also says Israel is a terrorist organisation.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I also thought the Shah deserved what he got, but considered it terrorism-like to kidknap the people they did (anything not a soldier is terrorism, although they didn't kill them, which is less harsch than current trends). However, every single person I know from Iran (all Moslem, not talking about Iranian Jews), says that the Persian population is generally favorable to the West and is not necessarily anti-Israel. Obviously, I am talking about people with biased views since they live here, but that is what they tell me.Sposer (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

anything not a soldier is terrorism......That makes Israel a terrorist state....The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy ISBN 978-0-141-03123-1 p 313....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the 192 members of UN you are concerned only with 6, that is 3% of UN members....that is 2% say all Hizballah are terrorists and .5% say the military wing and .5% the external security organisation....The African nations put Hizballah as a resistance force...China now there's a big country, what do they say, Russia another, what do they say?...sorry but your emphasis is somewhat slanted towards US, Israel, UK, Netherlands, Australia, Canada to the exclusion of the vastly greater worldview....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3,

Are you going to follow up on your claim that "Nelson Madella also classifies it as resistance movement as does Africa"? This claim is quite exceptional (and notable for the article) and I'd be interested in a few mainstream sources that back this up. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to add the clarification that only 3% of the world considers Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation?....There are over 5 million hits under Nelson Mandela....You spend your time searching...I have no intention of spending more than the minimum of time on the Hezbollah article as it has been made into a POV monster nightmare...From the order of the sections and the blatant POV it is clear that some editors are not interested in making an informative article with accurate and reliable facts laid out in an clear, concise, easy to read NPOV manner.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ashley kennedy3,

You're comparing chalk and cheese. I don't care about how many of the world say Hezbollah is or isn't a terrorist organization - I'm barely touching this article as it is. However, what matters is that you made an exceptional statement and are now refusing to ratify it with a reliable source. I assure you that if such a source had really existed, I'd be helping you include it on the article.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I remember reading the article's intro a while ago and noticing that it was remarkably NPOV for such a controversial article. However, why was it modified? After the first sentence you immediately state that it is a terrorist organization. It seems like a stereotypical Western POV that first tags Hezbollah with the terrorist attribute? It's like stating at the intro of the Israel article: Israel is a country in Western Asia located on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and even the State's very right to exist have been subject to dispute, especially among its Arab neighbors. which would be considered a stereotypical Arab POV . What about this version. It states all facts and POVs without being too stereotypical. Eklipse (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. The present lead is totally unacceptable, and wholly POV (as is most of the article) and your link shows the way forward in this case is by reverting backward. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am okay with that version, despite my POV that they are a terrorist group. However, there needs to be one change. Although the EU has not designated them as terrorist, the articles I have seen essentially say that that has not happened because the European Council is seeking unanimity and that France is blocking it. Germany, Italy and Portugal have expressed support for considering Hezbollah, or part of it as a terrorist organization. And, the articles I noted above also suggested that the majority of European states support such designation. So, all I ask, rather than getting into that morass, is to remove the "most notably the EU" part of the intro.Sposer (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. But could you provide a neutral source for your claim? Eklipse (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try. This covers part of it, though I honestly know nothing about euobserver.com. The article seems to be written in a neutral manner: http://euobserver.com/22/26754. This article points out they are not, because "several members including France" oppose it. This does not imply either majority or minority, but makes the "notable" statement in the older version at least slightly suspect. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70015&sectionid=351020203. Although from a Jewish group, this notes Solana's requirement for unanimity: http://www.ejpress.org/article/9966. This is clearly partisan and POV, but I suspect the facts regarding unanimity and the European Parliament vote are true: http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/phi062007.htm. (Also note (for Ashley) the interesting quote where Hezbollah does not differentiate between its military and political arms. I will look a bit more around for confirmation of that quote in proper context, since I would not trust it was being used in the way it was meant, based on the source either. It is worth researching though, since it would belie the whole separating out what part of Hezbollah is or is not terrorist. That said, I do not feel strongly about the inclusion of anything regarding that quote.)

However, to remove a statement, I really do not think we need sources. In other words, saying that it is notable that the EU has not included Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is misleading, since it implies that there is near unanimity of that belief. Just removing the statement removes that possible POV and leaves it neutral. If it was kept in, then we would need to go into all the conjecture on who and how many...Sposer (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, research and comments. I asked for sources not for the article but for the sake of backing up your argument, which I wanted to make sure of. About your comment on Hezbollah activities, it's not relevant for this section, but I know there's tons of books (both POVs and NPOVs) which analyzes in length Hezbollah's structure. We should rely on the quality and scholarly sources (especially for such a controversial article) instead on newspaper articles and politician's statements. Anyways, do we go for that intro change? Eklipse (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment on Hezbollah activities was not for the lede, I was just mentioning it. I am fine with the old lede as long as the parenthetical comment on the EU is removed, since that is misleading. To be honest, the "unanimity" statement diminishes the import of the clause, and to make it less wishy-washy, you might want to change it to something like "many world powers do not designate it as a terrorist organization" rather than saying it isn't unanimous.Sposer (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How about 97% of the world does not consider hizb'allah as a terrorist organisation?.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I will answer that with a question and a comment. Consider this scenario: The manufacturers of Super-Sweet chewing gum asked 100 school children if they thought chewing gum with a lot of sugar in it was bad for their teeth. 20 said yes, 10 said no, 30 said they didn't know, but Mommy told them it was bad, and 40 had no idea. Your version of this statistic would be the 80% of the kids did not say sugar was bad for their teeth, which though not an out-and-out lie, is deliberately misleading and an enormous distortion. The correct non POV stat would be 2/3 of those who knew said it was, or 6/7 of those who knew or made any statement about it said that sugar was bad for their teeth. Actually, the best thing would be to show all the stats. In the case of your 3% distortion, I am guessing that most nations do not have international terror organization lists. Of those that do, I am willing to be between 25-60% of them put Hezbollah on their list (because there is probably only a few that do). The European Parliament voted to ask the European Council to add Hezbollah. That of course, is not the individual govts, but MPs representing the people of these nations. The EC has stated that they require unanimity, but it has been noted that France and Spain were against it, and only one is needed to block. The UK was against it too for stated political reasons -- that it would be harder to negotiate peace if Hezbollah was so designated by the EC (even though they designate the military wing as a terror organization themselves). Articles also say that Italy, Germany and Portugal support their inclusion (I do not know if this is all or just military wing) on the list. And, Turkey has even equated their struggle against Kurdish terrorists with Israel's against Hezbollah. So, if you can find 200 countries that have a terror organization list that is international in scope, and find an RS with it, then go for it. Until then, stop trying to slant the article to your POV.Sposer (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Compare what's going on here with the article on Irgun. That organisation was labelled terrorist by every significant party (including even their own allies!) and every commentator (at least while it was in existence). It had no other function - and yet the WP article on it only says, deep inside the 2nd paragraph: "In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper, and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry. The only other mention of the word is 25 sections later - astoundingly, Irgun's not even categorised as a terrorist organisation - when I put it in "Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine" it was immediately taken out again.

And yet in this article, about a much more significant organisation, with mass national and international support and (likely) respect, the word terrorist appears 3 times in the first paragraph. And it's listed in two "terrorist categories".

I've not looked carefully, but I'd immediately suppose there were some serious POV-pushing and disruptive editing going on here and wonder what we have to do to get it stopped. PR^talk 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Never looked at Irgun article, but I agree that it was a terrorist organization and it should be mentioned in lede. Eklipse recommended reverting lede, which Nishidani agreed with, and with one small change, I thought should be changed. I think all are in agreement. I have made no other edits to the article, and in all honesty, have not read it through. I did change your "according to the ADL", because although ADL mentions it, the resolution clearly states disarmament, so it makes no difference who stated it. I think Einstein's edits, which may have been POV (I did not really look at what was in the body) were reverted.Sposer (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to be consensual, bending over backwards allowing you to quote the ADL, provided we high-light the source you're getting it from. In its modern-day incarnation, this body has excluded itself from consideration as an RS, not least over the Armenian genocide (started 1915). The ADL was long in denial for entirely political reasons, Turkey didn't want to admit genocide and Israel might lose its only Muslim ally. On August 17th 2007 the ADL fired one of its regional organisers, Andrew H Tarsy. Tarsy had publicly defended the ADL position on Tuesday, but on Thursday told Abraham Foxman that he found the ADL's stance "morally indefensible" and on Friday was sacked. 5 days later, on the 22nd, the ADL reversed its position, Foxman saying "So if that word [genocide] brings the community together, that's fine". (The Ant-Defamation League was also sued, and lost, a $10 million libel case for, wait for it, "defamation", however, this is less harmful to their credibility than it might appear). PR^talk 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the ADL ref in. The ref is not necessary. Only reason I left it in is that somebody put it everywhere and I don't have time to change all references. The fact is based purely on the resolution itself, which says Hezbollah has to lay down their arms, and they have not. Feel free to remove the ADL reference. I am not going to argue about their RS here. I know they have a bias, that is not what I am discussing. I would never use ADL as a reference, because I know it won't fly here, even if what they say, in whatever context it used it, was 100% defensible, because some of what they say isn't.Sposer (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs and of both major religions"

We are talking about the murder of 659(?) people, most of them innocents whose only crime was to come to Lebanon to try to help make peace. Which of these "41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs and of both major religions" murderers were guilty of the 1983 bombing and murder of 305 people? -- 241 American servicemen + 58 French servicemen + 6 others? Do we have any idea if these "41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs and of both major religions" suicide bombers were recruited or coerced by Hezbollah or were members of Hezbollah? It strikes me that putting this in is to try to suggest that suicide bombers were not Muslim, and in so doing, you are making a ridiculous sentence that makes the idea stand out more than if you simply said: " Suicide bombers killed 659 people in Syria during the years ()-().The majority of these suicide bombers were not Muslim," which is apparently what the article says, although that's arguable. Nor am I certain what information this tells us about Hezbollah, either. It is acknowledged in the article that Hezbollah is an Islamic-based Shia organisation. But I will not start a revert war over something so uniquely silly (if tragic) : "there were 36 suicide attacks in Lebanon directed against American, French and Israelis forces by 41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs and of both major religions, killing 659. If there is consensus for such nonsense, far be it from me to argue over it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we please edit to policy? Which says that we quote from RS, we don't soap-box over the motives that we think people have for their actions. PR^talk 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"there were 36 suicide attacks in Lebanon directed against American, French and Israelis forces by 41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs and of both major religions, killing 659. Why should that information come under Hizb'allah?.....Try another article to parachute it into....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky problem to accurately reflect what's in the RS. However, we mustn't mislead people and leave them thinking that, because Hezbollah is Islamicist, that it was the driving force for suicide bombing at this time. The article I'm looking at doesn't say that, and implies that it was not. PR^talk 10:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

TB, the point of the text is to show up that the situation in Lebanon was extraordinarily complex, with 100s of competing, allied and/or coalescing groups and militias. It would be wholly inaccurate to imply that every suicide bombing was committed by Hezbollah or even by Shia Islamic "fundamentalists" associated with them. There are of course problems with this whole section (I suggested a broad outline for a rewrite above, even if I don't really want to get too involved in actually doing it). I have also acknowledged that this specific part of it needs a better explanation and better references. I've now looked up some of this in Pape's actual book. Interestingly he does seem to suggest/assume that the attacks listed were part of an overall Hezbollah campaign, but equally is explicit that many of the individuals involved were members of other groups such as the Communist Party, the Syrian Socialist National Party rather than being from Hezbollah. Other media and academic sources I have seen and read are even more specific in questioning a Hezbollah role in a lot of the attacks. This is simply about being accurate as to what is reported in reliable sources, not about trying to represent Hezbollah as some sort of pacifist social group, which they are clearly not - there are plenty of attacks which they undoubtedly were responsible for, and they are quite open about admitting that of course.

As for the soapier parts of your comment above, it's probably best not to carry on with a debate here, but I would quickly recommend that you read this short news piece, as it gives an insight into why many in Lebanon did not see the US or French intervention in the 1980s as being about "bringing peace". --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, Nick, I am well aware of the complex situation in Lebanon during their so-called "civil" war and the role of US as well as neighboring countries in it. Hey but thanks for the article. It had an interesting, not unpredictable, view of the situation. As for my "soapbox"-- there is nothing soapy about the fact that that suicide bombing, directed at a general population of "foreigners" and "off-duty" soldiers, by an un-uniformed militia, is a war crime according to international law. One last point, I agree with AK's comment above, though I might have worded it somewhat differently. Cheers, Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only does this appear to be soap-boxing, bearing no relationship I can see to changes in the article, but it looks like a historical distortion and nationalist snub to the bombed people of Lebanon. However, I'm pleased to discover you're a supporter of International Law - are you equally keen on people being prosecuted for breaking it? PR^talk 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Come now, PR. You've as solid a record as a saponific pugilist as I have for boxing bubbles, so we should lay off these WP:SOAP accusations on the wiki charge-sheet, on the principle of TPCTKP (ain't that, Pop Calling Ma Kettle Black?). Let's loosen up a little. We're all adult enough to cut a a bit of slack (rope) on the rules, and not just to lynch each other! Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, come off it, Nickhh! You can't reliably-source to the Christian Monitor. It is, after all, one of Noam Chomsky's favourite mags.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't say that out loud on a talk page! Casual readers will now assume it's an extremist left-wing propaganda sheet (having first maybe assumed it's some kind of religious fanzine). And all I think Chomsky has ever actually said is something to the effect that it's better than the New York Times, which is not to say much according to his view of these things of course. --Nickhh (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Internal violence

I've reverted twice the following passage:-

However, after Hezbollah turned its weapons internally, violently overran the Sunni neighborhoods of Beirut and shelled and attempted to invade the Druze villages in Mount Lebanon, the attitude towards Hezbollah has shifted dramatically throughout the Islamic World, especially in the Sunni-Muslim societies. Hezbollah and the Velayat-e Faqih regime are now viewed with great suspicion and increased anxiety.

The editor in question uses improper English 'after Hezbollah turned its weapons internally sounds like they shot themselves up and did their adversaries a favour by a lead-scythed version of 'harakiri.

Nothing is sourced, and true or not, this is just editorializing.

They didn't 'attempt'. They overran several Druze villages, and, as with the Beirut suburbs, then withdrew, handing over their positions to the Lebanese army. So even the facts are wrong.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The two references supplied ostensibly to RS the new content are nothing on the kind. Clearly this is a put-on. The text must be removed .Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is precisely what Wikipedia needs less of. I think the editor in question needs to look at WP:OR. Personal opinions and interpretation are very rarely constitute "FACTS" or "THE TRUTH". --Nickhh (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm close to being clobbered with 3RR (I'm starting to miss these sanctions, Nickhh, esp. after noting a light bit of fun being taken as uncivil. So if the disruption recurs, I hope a few others in here jump on it.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm hoping editors on this page can resolve the matters without violating either WP:3RR or WP:CIV (this goes out to all involved) and instead work out their differences through the proper policies. Content-wise, there is some relevance to the changes suggested, however, I believe the tone should be taken down a notch as well as it should be supported by relevant sources. Please post sources and suggested article changes here on the talk page and discuss them before further changes to the article space. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

terrorist organisation

they are an internationally reconized terrorist organization that purposly targets civilians they should have paramilitary changed to terrorist Psycowitz (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't, and we have covered this ground many, many times before. Read thru the archives of this talk page, and WP:WTA. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read former debates about Hezbollah terrorist allegations and don't waste your time.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hezbullah committed acts of terrorism but so has every other political entity in the world(colonization killing of civillians and what not) . I think this summarises the whole debate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.121.112 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 

Arabic classical pronunication

ḥizbu-'llāh(i) -u nominative case marker in Idafa, inital a in Allah is silent!

Initial letter alif is usually dropped. Hence, expresssions: bi-'llaahi, wa-'llahi, etc. Final i (often dropped - is the genitive case marker). The 1st word ends in -u in nominative case, -a in accusative, -i in genitive.

ḥizbu-'llāh(i) - nominative

ḥizbi-'llāh(i) - genitive

ḥizba-'llāh(i) - accusative

--Anatoli (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You can add it in the fotenote beside [32].--Seyyed(t-c) 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So the stress is on the final syllable in classical Arabic and (usually) on the penultimate in current Arabic, and the transcription in the article corresponds to the classical Arabic pronunciation only? Or to the Persian pronunciation? Please clarify in the footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.44.132 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Imad Fayez Mugniyah picture

Yesterday, Sa.vakilian added a picture of Imad Fayez Mugniyah to the section about assassinated Hezbollah leaders. Do we really need this? I think it makes the article bigger without adding much and would suggest that the picture be cut out. What do other people think? --GHcool (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) whats the point of the picture anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.121.112 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict with Al Qaeda

In April 2006, Al Qaeda tried and failed to murder Hasan Nasrallah. The orginazation has also condemned Hezbollah as an institution. Nasrallah himself has also said that "Well, of course, the method of Osama bin Laden, and the fashion of bin Laden, we do not endorse them. And many of the operations that they have carried out, we condemned them very clearly." [33]

Right now, the article spends virtually no attention on this conflict. 129.120.86.253 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nasrallah's recent comments

Should this get added under policy towards Israel? Its pretty straight forward, from their leader on a legitimate source (BBC): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7943357.stm Specifically ""As long as Hezbollah exists, it will never recognise Israel.", -Nasrallah. BCapp 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think it should but it shouldn't be decontextualised i.e. it's a response to negotiation pre-conditions. Here's another 2 RS with the story http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/03/200931322165471789.html and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070934.htmlSean.hoyland - talk 09:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that it should be decontextualized. Sources look good to me. BCapp 14:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)

I agree wholeheartedly. --GHcool (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

..and I added the context. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sean (I assume thats your name). BCapp 16:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)

editing needed ...

in this sentence : Israel had become militarily involved in Lebanon in combat with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had invited into Lebanon after Black September in Jordan. which had been invited ? and I guess that : Hezballah decided to take part in the elections and that : low is to be understood : law I just started reading, I'm not sure I'll list all of these upsetting typos ! 77.124.164.31 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Smokescreen

Propose adding a link to the Wikipedia article on Hezbollah fund raising activities in the United States, known by the DOJ name Operation Smokescreen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Smokescreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mungurk (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That article needs some attention to comply with WP:NPOV or rather WP:WTA in particular. You seem to have been a major contributor. Would you be willing to fix it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)...and by that I mean that the word terror <something> is used 8 times and terrorist 4 times with only 2 cases of compliance with WP:WTA via attribution of the term to the source via direct quote. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Your suggestions are noted and are fixed.

Mungurk (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

great. thanks. i've removed the pov tag and the orphan tag as it's now linked here and in the main fund raising article. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be section regarding Hezbollah in Egypt

It is significant Drsmoo (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight for 2 countries

The fringe POV of those calling Hezbollah "terrorist organization" should not dominate the introduction. Kupredu (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fringe POV nor is it for only two countries. --GHcool (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the language used in edits has been dismissive, but there is a case that naming six states that are anti and none in the previous sentence whose populations are pro is unbalanced. Also there is no mention of rather broader but less formal or severe condemnation. Something like

"However, Hezbollah's actions have received condemnation from many governments, including some Arab ones, and the United States together with five other Western countries list Hezbollah in whole or in part as terrorist."

would be a more accurate reflection of the text lower down and better meet WP:lede.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, however, I think its relevant to mention at Israel also views Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. --GHcool (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Next try:

"However, many governments, including Arab ones, have condemned actions by Hezbollah. Six Western countries, including Israel and the United States, list it in whole or in part as terrorist."

I'm not sure whether we should qualify what sort of actions. --Peter cohen (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Last one seems fitting. Which Arab ones, by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are the ones mentioned lower down the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. That makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --GHcool (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've updated the article. I've opted for what I consider the minimum referencing I can get away with. If I gave refs for the four listing countries that are named plus any other non-Arab countries criticising Hezbollah, then the edit page would become increasingly hard to follow.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The new round of edit-warring and "many"

Looking at 2006_Lebanese_War#International_action_and_reaction and the reaction article linked form there, the following all are described as criticising Hezbollah in some way: Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, India, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Norway, the PLA, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, the US and the Vatican. That's enough to count as "many" which, of course, is not the same as "most". I do not wish to deny that a lot of these also criticised Israel or to imply that there were not other governments that supported Hezbollah. However, this should close the issue as far as that one word is concerned. I am therefore going to reinstate "many" and I hope that the edit warriors do not remove it.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the list: The UN Secretary General in Egypt and across blue line (2 articles) : [34] [35] The Egypt reference is probably not RS, but just showing it is not "some" or "a few". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference and Similarity between Al-qaeda and Hisbullah liberations....

Asalamu Alikum, I m 23 male, a muslim, pursuing Masters in Computer Programming, from Kashmir. I Have a question that has been executing in my mind since when i come to know about Osama Bin Laden (Al-Qaeda) and Hizbullah. Plz tell me what is the Main difference and Common things among these two liberations. In Kashmir there is also some sort of conflict between two countries, India and Pakistan, and here are also small liberations as well i m in dalemma... Thanking U —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.66.9 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Countries listing Hezbollah as terrorist

Following the removal of the mention of six countries in the lead, I decided to check our references. I've updated a couple of details. We were somewhat inaccurate on the Netherlands, seeWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Netherlands#Help_wanted_confirming_that_Hezbollah_is_listed_as_terrorist_in_the_Netherlands for more details.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter. I've fixed it so that it says six countries "regard" Hezbollah as terrorist. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are sure that only six do? I'm tempted to fact tag that. Didn't we just catalogue those with formal lists, there possibly being more which are not so formal about things. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that six "regard" Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (in whole, or in part) works. If reliable sources can be found that other nations regard them as such, they can be added too. The problem will be the grey areas when some government official makes a remark labeling them as a terrorist organization. For example, Michel Aoun, a current Christian member of parliament, and former military general who was the President and Prime Minister of one of Lebanon's two rival governments during the civil war, is now very closely allied with Hezbollah. But in 2002, while in exile, he was quoted as saying that Hezbollah was a terrorist group.[36] Lebanon is a bit of a special case, due to it's constantly shifting political dynamics, but how will we decide if the government considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist group when we only have the words of a couple politicians? Here's another example - French President Nicolas Sarkozy "calls Hezbollah terrorists."[37] I wouldn't say that Lebanon or France consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization officially, so where do we draw the line? ← George ^[talk] 00:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very hard to show more than six. European Parliament considers Hezbollah terrorist by a majority, but because a unanimous vote is required, you cannot say the countries that seek it all consider Hezbollah, or part of it even, terrorist. The only countries that have made official statements or have official lists are the six, so even though probably 95% of Western countries privately consider them (or some part of them) to be terrorists, we cannot say that on Wikipedia.Sposer (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As the Netherlands don't seem to have a formal list, I don't know how different the status indicated in our two references is from other countries. That's why my instinct was to just mention the five with lists.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics implying broad Lebanese support for Hizballah in 2006 war are misleading

Upon reading the source (in and of itself, and considering the region, not the most reputable), the claim that 86% of all Lebanese support Hizballah is not true. That number (according to the source) is the percentage of people who approve of Hizballah retaliating against "Israeli aggresion", rather than those that support Hizballah's war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.240.16 (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to be a direct quote from the survey, and cited the original source instead of the SF Gate article about the survey. ← George ^[talk] 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Entries

1. 2.6 Armed strength
2. 6.3 Armed strength

These entries appear to be precisely duplicated. Removal suggested.

el amin

the guy got kicked out of HA and is now working against it . So I dont his open letter should be added considering the group disapproves of him.

External link : Islamic Resistance in Lebanon official website

http://english.moqawama.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitcarsons (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah in the United States

Include a link to Arab American Institute, which advocates for Hezbollah in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.183.125 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source that states that they advocate for Hezbollah. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 presidential elections in iran

On June 16, Der Spiegel cited Voice of America as reporting that the Iranian government had recruited as many as 5,000 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters to clash with protesters.[77] On 17 June the Jerusalem Post quoted two Iranian protesters who stated that "Palestinian forces" (which the article states are members of Hamas) were working with the Basij in helping crush the protests.[78] A Jerusalem-based reporter for WorldNet Daily asked multiple Hamas officials to comment on this accusation, including spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, parliamentarian Mushir-al-Masri, and top Gaza political advisor Ahmed Yousef. All Hamas officials strongly denied any Hamas involvement in responding to the Iranian election protests and called the accusations "completely untrue", questioning why the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces would require help from Hamas.[79] On June 19 CNN reported that the Basij are receiving assistance from non-Iranian, possibly Arabic-speaking members who are suspected of being Lebanese Hezbollah militiamen.[80] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.161.110 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Six Western countries"

The intro indicates that "Six western countries, including Israel and the United States, regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization." This was uncited, and contradicted the section discussing terrorism, which lists only 5 such "Western countries". I added a cite needed tag, and a user added an inline citation redirecting the reader to that same section. One of the two has to be wrong. Additionally, what's the point in only listing two of the five/six nations that consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Either list them all or better yet, just discuss it in the dedicated section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The list is U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Netherlands and Israel. Two of them make a distinction from Hezbollah overall and its military arm. This article gives a list: http://euobserver.com/9/26754.Sposer (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that source and changed to wording to say "Several western countries" instead of six, because as the article discusses, there is a significant difference in the ways these countries consider Hezbollah a "terrorist organization."--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom cloud

Was this edit really necessary? Does anybody deny that the slogan uses "Zionists" as a euphemism for Israel/Israelis? Does anybody deny that the image of a mushroom cloud in the poster is a reference to Iranian nuclear capabilities? I would have reverted it immediately, but I recently promised not to do such things as often as I had been. I propose that this sentence be restored into the article. --GHcool (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By Hezbollah's words, they consider Jews living in Israel to be Zionists – that is, Israeli Jews. I don't believe that they consider everyone in Israel (e.g., Israeli Arabs) to be Zionists. It's probably okay to include the statement about the poster, but maybe we should rename this section something like "Attitudes, statements, and actions concerning Israel and Zionism"... ← George ^[talk] 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept. --GHcool (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Another option might be to put a "Zionist Jews" subsection in the "Attitudes... concerning Jews..." section, and place this there. I'll leave it up to you which you prefer; I think either is fine. Cheers. ← George ^[talk]

Add source plz

"Report: Hezbollah funded by drug trade Drug dealers on behalf of Hezbollah transfer millions to Lebanese group via European narcotics transactions, Der Spiegel says; two Lebanese suspects detained in Germany after authorities seize large sums in cash"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3831853,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minozig (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism or huge spelling error

I am a native Arabic speaker and Shi'a Muslim; the way that فاث followers of Shi'a Islam are called in this article is wrong. There is no way in Arabic to spell Shi'a as "Shiites" this is either clear vandalism or a big mistake. I ask whomever responsible for editing this page to please correct this spelling to either Shi'a or Shi'ah or Shi'as. --MSA89 02:29 November 25, 2009

ya i know it is really shameful i mean why did the britsh have to call us this for god's sake.

If there are any more I'll take them out Maz640 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The word looks in English like "shit," but that is not the way English speakers read the word. We read it like "Shee-ites." In English, a word with "-ites" at the end of it means that it is a person who belongs to a group. So an "Israelite" is from the people of Israel, a "Yemenite" is from the people of Yemen, and a "Shiite" is from the people of the Shi'a branch of Islam. I hope this explains it. --GHcool (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also covered in the opening of the Shia Islam article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Manifesto

Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussions of the subject. Thanks. Celestra (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

source

Denial is not very clear in haaretz and the name for the haaretz article is incorrect. [38] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The denial is as clear as can be, it says 'the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "The Syrian Arab Republic denies these fabrications."'. I've corrected the article's title. Don't use primary sources (gov't press releases) when secondary sources in reliabel mainstream media are available. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You also reverted copy editing: [39] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Attacks against the Multinational force in Iraq"

Removed this section, either it is Incorporated into another section or kept out, it does not deserve its own section. It is a claim by one man, and pretty surely just libel. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Women's Rights

I think a section ought to be included on their position regarding women's rights. Exiledone (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold and add it.Lihaas (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism

I've noticed most of the information in this article seems to be leaning towards Hezbollah being an evil force attacking mercilessly with little or no provocation. In other words, it is leaning to the side that denouces Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Could someone manage to go through and change those parts? For example, when mentioning the 2006 war, it is noted Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. It does not note, however, that Israel also bombed and shelled many more civilianss than Hezbollah did. If things like this abscence of information (intended to sway the readers opinion) could be removed, this article would be much more "neutral". Just wanted some admin to consider that. If you want to comment to me personally about this, please do it on my talk page. Maz640 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead adn update this if you feel so. Be WP:BoldLihaas (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way, this page is so sensitive to the moslem side you can't call a bunch of thugs who hide behind children terrorists.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting username. But, no, you cant call those "thugs" terrorist. nableezy - 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes because the politically correct are so scared to offend people even when Hezbollah or the Palestinian Hamas or other criminal are terrorist you can't call them that.21:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke (talk • contribs)

Nableezy, your sources say that the individuals were convicted for their idiotic behavior. For Hezbollah and Hamas, its standard policy and there are no trials.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Update External Links, Please

The "official" sources listed on this page are very old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If know the new ones replace 'em. Leave a note here if you must, instead of potential controversy that may arise.Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

in light of the hezbollah controvesy (particularly out west) there have been some unusual strands of support. One was the Lebanese [Shia] singer (who's brother was killed some years ago). Such support should be listed perhaps in a subsection somewhere.Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

I removed this image [40] because the source says "flickr" without any affirmation that it was a Hezbollah rocket that hit it during the war. (not even listed as affirmed by israeli media/government.(Lihaas (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

POV insertion

In the following edit the source for such "antisemitic" statements is made ONLY by POV sources, either other sources be found that dont have a conflict of interest or the explicit caveat as to who did the accusing be added.

As an aside, the links added about the scouts is not referred in the sources (one could check the source instead of affirming the "addition of sourced content") -- one source doesnt even workLihaas (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is NPR a POV source? What about the New York Times? Both are now cited along with a Ynetnews article. Thanks for your help. --GHcool (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Trimming

We haven't done any trimming since 2007 when the article was 101 kb. Now it has grown to 117 kb! Time for more trimming. --GHcool (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

but removals of what? seem arbitrary. some of them are removals of cited info. Trimming for article size doesnt have remove info. A requisite page can be created for certain section. Ie- trimming can shorted the history/ideology pages to another page. Please discuss removals insteadl of "time for trimming." Simply taking out 27k bytes (almost 25%) of the page without a discussion, tag or reason for removing what is POV itself. ([41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46])

To discuss shortening such a long page we can come upw ith suggestion here. Ideology seems to have its own page so one can move info there, perhaps a new "social services" page? Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the most compelling changes I made and why I made them:

1. The "Foundation" section is sorta wishy-washy and boring and probably should go in the History of Hezbollah article if it should go anywhere. It deserves to be cut completely from this article. Y
2. Some of the other stuff in the history section are nitty-gritty details that probably would be more appropriate in the History of Hezbollah. Consider the two consecutive paragraphs in the "After 1990" section beginning with "The process started with the election ..." and "In 1992, Hezbollah decided to participate in election ..." Y
3. I copied and pasted much of the stuff I cut from the "Ideology" section into the Ideology of Hezbollah article. This includes the 2009 manifesto update and the entire "Shia Islamism" section. It can and should be cut from this main article. Y
4. This article seriously beats a dead horse about Hezbollah's opposition to the existence of Israel in the "attitudes about Israel" section. I practically cut the section in half without missing anything vital. All of the stuff I cut is pasted into Ideology of Hezbollah. Y
5. The paragraph on Magen Avraham Synagogue is so minor as to be almost completely irrelevant to an overall understanding of Hezbollah.
6. The long, naked blockquote in the "Organization" section can and should be cut. It tells us nothing that the surrounding paragraphs don't tell us.
7. Lihaas's suggestion regarding creating a "social services" article has merit. There should be no more than 3 paragraphs about Hezbollah's social services in this overview article. Y
8. The Singapore sentence is pretty minor and can be cut.
9. The paragraph beginning with "Nasrallah denied any ..." can/should be cut. The source it is cited to sucks anyway. Y
10. The "Conflict with Israel" is overly cited. Do we really need more than one source per bullet point? Y
11. The "Targeting policy" section can be trimmed in half. --GHcool (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1. on the issue of the History moves, as opposed to removing sourced info we can move it to the other pages as you said. Y
2. per ideology moves your edit summaries didnt indicate why nor did the talk, if that is placed somewhere then i agree with your cutting length. Y
3. The Synagogue section is not minor. For the all the info and section concerning "Hezbollah's attitude to jews and judaism" (which is negative views this is a very NPOV addition to the other side.
4. per #s 6-11 (although weve agreed, i think, on #7 to move to a new page) dont explain why the cut on sourced info. Issues of "minor" relevance are subjective to an encyclopaedia that is to inform. So i disagree here. Although # of sources can be cut if the 1 or so are good. With the "sucky source" a requisite tag can be added, if nothing is forthcoming then it can go. Per the "targeting policy" why can it be trimmed in half to remove info? Y(Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the suggested edits. Marokwitz (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it needs more trimming, and any section moe than 15-20 lines or 3 parragraphs may want to be summarized, then made into it's own article. 101kb is way too big. ANY article expansion more than just a couple words should be discussed here first, too.Maz640 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)