Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Contents

Call Hezbollah attacks terrorism

Hezbollah is not a nation why not call their missle attacks hiding behind civillian terrorist attacks?Unicorn76 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Under that reasoning, shouldn't Israeli attacks on civilians in lebanon also be called terrorist attacks? they killed more civilians, and attacked hospitals and U.N. marked buildings. Look up Qana massacreMaz640 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference that your beloved terrorists do it on purpose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.245.167 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to " accidentally" bomb innocent civilians. Are you saying the murders of innocent civilians, the deaths of thousand of children, are justified by the killing of 42 Israelis in office buildings in cities? That because of those 42, Israel has a clear shot to bomb hospitals and homes, villages and even UN marked buildings? If that is your justification then there is something wrong with you. Then again, the US went into a war for the horrible attack of 9/11. So I see the precedent, but even the US didn't mercilessly attack well marked hospitals, especially those marked by an international coalition as safe havens. What is your justification of that? Did Israel really have justification? Was it not "on purpose". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maz640 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


There is too little mention of Hezbollah terrorists attacks on Israel. It's reason for existance. That should be in the first part of the lead.Nbaka is a joke (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC). Terrorism involves intentional killing of civilians. Israel can kill 500 civilians and Hezbollah can kill only 3, but only Hezbollah is the terrorist group because they target civilians; Israel does not (if they did, the death toll would be in the tens of thousands).

Also, why is this in WikiProject Terrorism if its "not" a terrorist group?--Metallurgist (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So is Irgun, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel withdrowal in not true

Israel has NOT withdrawn from Lebanon. The Blue Zone is on Lebanese land forced upon by the outside countries that have nothing to care about. The burden of proof falls on you to provide your source that the sovereign land of Lebanon is completely free from the Israeli infestation.

Khannez (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On June 16, 2000, the UN confirmed that Israel had indeed withdrawn its forces from all of Lebanon, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. Marokwitz (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for support Iran and Syria to Hezbollah

Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-illāh(i),[2] literally "Party of God") is a Shia paramilitary group and political party based in Lebanon.[3][4][5] It is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim worlds,[3] and is supported by Iran and Syria.[citation needed] Realdreamsplus (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See the section titled Funding. We try to avoid too many citations in the lead. ← George talk 03:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it would probably best to add this as a citation to the lead. To reduce clutter, I think the best solution is to unify multiple footnotes using bullets. Marokwitz (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Image?

So... where did the Hezbollah logo go? Kind of important...

Yeah, an image is neccesary, whether the Flag or some other type of bannerDONT MESS (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You can re-upload it with a fair use rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Who created/uploaded the original flag? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Some user who doesn't own the copyright. I just uploaded the logo under fair use, so shouldn't be a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed

Why was this sentence removed? [1]

There is no explanation now for what the box below it contains. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

From HIS perspective i presume not source
from mine it would be weasel words. Define "some"(Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)).
How about this: "Below is a list of other governments individuals and agency's that have criticized Hezbollah, citing terrorist activities, without those country's officially declaring Hezbollah as a terrorist organization." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have this table? The flags and country names hint that the view is held by the country's government, which isn't the case. I would recommend changing the table into a bullet list of groups and individuals. If there is something meaningful to breaking them down by country (which the current table doesn't indicate), we could use sections. ← George talk 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right that the countries names and flags implies that the views are from those countries, should we just have flags? What sentence do you think we should have before this list? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any need for the table, the flags, or any sentence to preceded them. There's no reason they can't stand as five independent paragraphs in that section. ← George talk 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Supreme deliciousness deleted with no explanation

Tendentious editing, his edits should be reverted. Those categories are relevant. 74.198.9.183 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed them before, and only GHschool kept adding them. They are not relevant, their presence is pure Israeli POV. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As the article clearly states, this so-called "Israeli POV" is shared by the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, Argentina, France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands. Indeed, these categories fit a worldwide understanding of the topic and are entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Those are ten countries you mentioned and half of them are not official views of those country's. To ad these three cats you will have to show worldview sources saying Hezbollah is an Islamic terrorist organization and that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization in Lebanon, and a reliable source showing its connected to "Islam and antisemitism". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The antisemitism cat was only added due to some questionable allegations, which were later refuted, attributed some remarks to Hassan Nasrallah. As for "terrorist", see WP:TERRORIST FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As the article makes clear, there is a worldwide consensus from experts in the study of antisemitism that Hezbollah fits the mold; thus Category:Islam and antisemitism is fitting. As for the "terrorist" categories, is FunkMonk suggesting that all of the listings of organizations under Category:Islamic terrorism (such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas) are breaches of the Wikipedia Manual of Style? Hezbollah is the second most famous/successful Islamic terror organization in the world. It is the poster child of Shia radicalism and political violence. Not listing it under Category:Islamic terrorism would be denial. --GHcool (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats an extreme minority pov, as I said, bring worldview source saying Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Opinion of few number of countries doesn't result in International view of a matter. Countries of the world are independent and have equal weight in their view points.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Worldwide view? pelase cite that worldwide view that is not clearly POV.
WORLDwide is not equal to WESTERN at anyrate. wherein the definition of antisemitism is nota WORLDwide either.
you are against the grain of consensus here, sto stop addign it back!(Lihaas (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).
I promise not to revert the article for seven days.
I don't understand the question. Scholars of antisemitism and of Hezbollah all over the world (Middle East, North America, Europe, EVERYWHERE) say that Hezbollah is antisemitic. The article states so and backs it up with sources from all over the entire world without exception. Citing sources saying that Hezbollah is antisemitic is as easy as citing sources saying that the Ku Klux Klan is antisemitic. There's really no way around it except through denialism. --GHcool (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I made my comment, just passing from here. This article suffers strong POV and need to be revised totally. I am repeating, view point of some countries CAN'T be concluded as the World's view point. Countries such as U.S. and Iran are independent sovereign states and their view points have equal weight in Wikipedia.--Aliwiki (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are abundant sources supporting valid accusations of Hezbollah's antisemitism. Indeed, in Hezbollah#Attitudes and actions concerning Jews and Judaism, 15 wide-ranging sources are cited in support of the antisemitism accusation. I don't see this removal as anything less then whitewashing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google search is not a source, bring those specific sources here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said directly above your comment, "in Hezbollah#Attitudes and actions concerning Jews and Judaism, 15 wide-ranging sources are cited in support of the antisemitism accusation."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I see many of those sources being opinion articles, CAMERA, Ynet, The Jewish Federation of America, Anti Defamation League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, are those part of the sources you are referring to? In the other sources, the NPR source Jeffrey Goldberg (who moved to Israel and served in the Israeli Defense Forces [2]) says: "Literally, one of the signs. There was a billboard that they had planted about ten feet from the Israeli border. And it was a billboard that had a blown-up photograph of a Hezbollah fighter holding the severed head of an Israeli commando, and basically threatening all sorts of, you know, vile acts to come against Israel. It's a very, very radical, anti�Semitic organization and we need to acknowledge that." That's not evidence that Hezbollah is anti Semitic, that's a poster showing a Hezbollah fighter holding the severed head of an Israeli commando, he also says: "Hezbollah itself, Hezbollah's ideologues, have very advanced and convoluted and complicated theories about Jews. I was in Bint Jbail, the town that people are talking about, one of the centers of the fighting. I was there four years ago, and you don't pick up that sort of European style anti-Semitism. By European style, I'm talking about the archaic sort of European style, fascist anti-Semitism. You pick, obviously, a great deal of resentment about Israel. There is not that same quality, the average person, that same quality of Iranian style theocratic anti-Semitism that one finds in the ruling councils of Hezbollah. You have resentment toward Israel, but I think many of the people there would be happy, and have been happy, to live in peace with Israel a few miles to the south." Its clear from that interview that this former IDF soldier is talking about his own personal opinions, and his opinions about Hezbollah are not facts. The NYT sources, one of them say Al Manar (not Hezbollah) said Israel spread HIV, the other one said Jews, so its not clear. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
this is why it's good to have so many sources. an editor can perhaps correctly argue that some of them are not up to par, but to argue that all 15 are insufficient—including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, NPR, and multiple New York Times articles—is nothing less then disruptive.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying those two sources do not have a pro-Israeli bias? They're in fact notoriously so. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times and NPR are certainly not considered to be "pro-Israeli." In fact, both are considered left-of-center. What kind of source would you consider legitimate regarding antisemitism concerns? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Never heard of a pro-Israeli bias in either the NYT or NPR. The NPR article, an interview with Jeff Goldberg of the New Yorker, lays it out in no uncertain terms. You could demand an inline citation to him but the source itself is solid. The NYT article is weaker, an antisemitic statement from the secretary of Hezbollah and not a characterization of the organization of the whole. I'd go through all of the sources but it really doesn't look like Hezbollah is limiting their rhetoric to political opponents only. Sol (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd just like to point out that Category:Antisemitism carries the notice:

Of course other categories about bigotry don't allow any listing of any individual or group, given the possibility of poorly sourced allegations and that point has been debated frequently on antisemitism category talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So what? We're talking about Category:Islam and antisemitism, not Category:Antisemitism. And this isn't poorly sourced at all. --GHcool (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As with the "Islamic terrorism" category, if no source specifically mentions actions of Hezbollah as "Islamic anti-Semitism" or whatever, using the category "Islam and anti-Semitim", which would appear to refer to Koranic verses or something other theology related, would be, again, WP:Synth. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A Lethal Obsession

Because some people here question the reliability of the New York Times and NPR (strange, huh?), I went to my local library and checked out a copy of A Lethal Obsession, Robert S. Wistrich's comprehensive, worldwide history of antisemitism from antiquity to the present day. Wistrich devotes an entire chapter of his 1,184-page volume to Hamas and Hezbollah. I can quote Wistrich all day, but this quotation sums it up:

"The anti-Semitism of Hezbollah leaders and spokesmen combines the image of seemingly invincible Jewish power ... and cunning with the contempt normally reserved for weak and cowardly enemies. Like the Hamas propaganda for holy war, that of Hezbollah has relied on the endless vilification of Jews as 'enemies of mankind,' 'conspiratorial, obstinate, and conceited' adversaries full of 'satanic plans' to enslave the Arabs. It fuses traditional Islamic anti-Judaism with Western conspiracy myths, Third Worldist anti-Zionism, and Iranian Shiite contempt for Jews as 'ritually impure' and corrupt infidels. Sheikh Fadlallah typically insists ... that Jews wish to undermine or obliterate Islam and Arab cultural identity in order to advance their economic and political domination" (766-767) (emphasis added).

Here is another gems I found today on the Internet: "A Hezbollah statement in 1992 vowed, 'It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.'"[3] Does anybody still doubt that if Category:Islam and antisemitism has any meaning at all, it applies to the article on Hezbollah? --GHcool (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

page split per WP:Article size

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

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

Places to trim/merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The name in Arabic

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

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

Category:Islamic Terrorism

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

  1. "Many intelligence analysts consider Hezballah ... the terrorist 'A Team' and a greater danger than al-Qaeda" (Donna Rosenthal, The Israelis, p. 74).
  2. "The Shiite Hezbollah has indeed become a trusted mentor and role model to the Sunni fundamentalist Hamas. Both organizations have inscribed on their banner the rejection of any treaties or peace agreements with Israel, energetically work for its demise and encourage suicide terrorism to that end" (Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, p. 731).
  3. "Dr. Bilal Na'im served as a assistant to the head of the Executive Council of Hizballah, the Iranian-controlled Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization" (Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem, p. 233).
  4. "In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, 'Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East ....'"[4]
  5. "An investigation by Telemundo and NBC News has uncovered details of an extensive smuggling network run by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group founded in Lebanon in 1982 that the United States has labeled an international terrorist organization."[5]
  6. "Hezbollah (Arabic for “the Party of God”) is a Lebanese-based terrorist organization that seeks to establish an Islamic state encompassing both Lebanon and Israel."[6] --GHcool (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
All those are views and claims by Americans and Israelis. Its an extreme minority pov, and its coming from the "enemies" of Hezbollah. It can only be attributed to them and does not make Hezbollah "terrorist". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is an "extreme minority" viewpoint. We judge the weight to afford viewpoints based on reliable sources, regardless of the nationality of the source, and regardless of whether they love or hate the subject they're writing about. I would wager that most reliable sources discussing Hezbollah in any great detail describe it several things: a political party, a resistance movement, and a terrorist organization. All three views have some validity, and Hezbollah and its image have changed over time, but I doubt that any of them is an extreme minority view among reliable sources. ← George talk 19:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Only a handful of country's label it as a terrorist organization, that is minority pov. Where the sources are common from is important, as American and Israeli sources most likely represents an American or Israeli pov, as can be seen in the sources above where they are calling Hezbollah "terrorist" while the vast majority of the world do not call Hezbollah "terrorist".Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what that matters. Are you arguing against inclusion on the basis of WP:UNDUE, or something else? When you invoke words like "minority pov" and "extreme minority pov", it implies that you're talking about Wikipedia's undue weight policies, which have nothing to do with how many countries hold a POV, nor whether those views are biased against the subject. WP:UNDUE is only concerned with how reliable sources - even biased ones - view a subject. Clearly a significant number of reliable sources have described Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. So what policy based reason are you citing for its exclusion, if not WP:UNDUE? ← George talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is whether or not they are a terrorist organization, but whether or not they're an Islamic terrorist organization. My personal definition of "Islamic terrorism" is some like "attacks committed, usually against civilian targets, that are intended to instill terror in a population, with the ultimate goal of establishing a government ruled by Sharia law." I'm not sure whether or not Hezbollah is Islamic—that is, whether or not they're trying to establish an Islamic government. From what I recall, when they were founded in the 1980s they planned to establish an Islamic government, but at some point they dropped the establishment of an Islamic state from their official agenda. The question is, should this category include articles on groups that formerly favored the establishment of an Islamic government, but then changed their policy? Or does Hezbollah still favor the establishment of an Islamic government, and are their terror attacks performed toward such an end? I think those questions need to be addressed, more so than whether or not Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. ← George talk 08:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
They most certainly are Islamic. Islamic terrorism doesn't necessarily denote the wish to create an Islamic state. It could also mean that Islam (or more accurately, Islamism) is a driving force in the group's ideology/theology. This article and others make this plainly clear. --GHcool (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that they don't need to be Islamist to be included in the "Islamic terrorism" category? To be honest, the whole concept of an "Islamic terrorism" category (or "Jewish terrorism", or "Christian terrorism", etc.) starts to approach some of the cases mentioned in WP:OVERCAT. I wonder if a better approach wouldn't be to use more granular categories. Why not just include two separate categories, something like "Islamic political parties" and "Terrorist organizations"? ← George talk 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not a terrorist organization, so that would be an inaccurate cat to have here. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is or not. But it's not really up to us to decide, it's up to reliable sources. And I think that mainstream reliable sources label Hezbollah a terrorist organization fairly often. Same question as I have above - what policy are you citing against including the category? I'm not totally clear. ← George talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
George, I wouldn't be opposed to that. However, considering that Category: Islamic terrorism exist, Hezbollah's absence from that category is highly questionable. --GHcool (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue, to me anyways, is that when you combine these controversial labels (which not everyone agrees with) into one label, even fewer people will agree with that joined label. I don't think that "Islamic terrorism" is the same as "terrorism committed by Muslims", so citing sources that describe Hezbollah as Islamic next to sources that describe it as a terrorist organization isn't sufficient for the combined category. If you want to stick with the specific term "Islamic terrorism", then I think you're going to need to cite sources that use that specific term, or very close derivatives ("Islamist terrorist organization", "Islamic terror group", et cetera). I would guess that it's more difficult to cite the combined term than the individual components of it, which is why I wonder if the separate categories don't make more sense, but I haven't really looked for specific sources, so your mileage may vary. ← George talk 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If plenty of sources do not specifically call it "Islamic terrorism" with these exact words, then GHcool's inclusion of the cat is nothing more than WP:Synth and should be reverted on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it has to be "Islamic terrorism" exactly, but it has to be significantly close (such as the list of synonymous phrases I listed). ← George talk 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How about these (emphasis added in all cases):
  1. "Hizballah employed anti-Israel terrorism to pursue its goal of turning Lebanon into a state and society ruled solely by the Shari'a" ("Terrorism," The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, p. 836).
  2. "Hizballah, the Iranian-controlled Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization" (Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem, p. 233).
  3. "Learn about the operations and organization of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other Islamic terror groups."[7]
  4. "Hezbollah (Arabic for “the Party of God”) is a Lebanese-based terrorist organization that seeks to establish an Islamic state encompassing both Lebanon and Israel."[8] --GHcool (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the general phrasing of these is good for supporting the category, but if I were you I would look for more diverse, more neutral sources. The first is by an Israeli scholar, the second an Israeli politician, and the last is a pro-Israel NGO. I'm not saying that they're not reliable, but when trying to make your case on talk in lieu of other editors' opposition, you'd be better off finding a wider range of sources. I don't have any plans to add or remove this category myself, just offering some advice. ← George talk 05:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It is still nothing but Israeli POV, and therefore not enough for inclusion of such libellous categories. You can mention it alright, but don't try to pass it off as being even close to an objective opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
GHcool, every single one of those sources you provided is either an American or Israeli source. They are representing an American and Israeli pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm not saying that American and Israeli sources are not reliable, what Im saying is that in some cases they represent an extreme minority pov (American/Israeli pov), and this is the case here. Here is another example: Haaretz, which is a reliable Israeli newspaper says: "the village of Ghajar, which straddles the Israeli-Lebanese border. " [9]... but Ghajar does not straddle the Israeli-Lebanese border, it straddles the Syrian Lebanese border, and no part of Ghajar is in Israel. The reliable source inaccurately claims that Golan "is Israel". So it is following an Israeli pov, not a world view.
The same thing with these American and Israeli sources, they may be reliable, just like Haaretz, but by claiming that Hezbollah is "terrorist" they represent an American and Israeli perspective, not a world view, as the international community does not hold the view that Hezbollah is "terrorist". Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Consensus

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

  • Yes. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hezbollah targets civilian specifically. Bbeehvh 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. Minority povs are not facts and can not be presented as such. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Supreme Deliciousness clearly says No. --GHcool (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Our opinions are irrelevant; if only American and Israeli sources mention these words in tandem, we can be sure that it is POV. And is POV appropriate in articles here? Yes, as long it is attributed specifically. But is it appropriate for categories, which are supposed to reflect some kind of objectivity? I'll let GHcool decide. Hope he doesn't mind quitting the facetiousness in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I was responding to Supreme Deliciousness's request for a consensus. This is the problem with deniers. They move the goalpost and when one tries to meet the new goalpost, they move the goalpost even further. Stop the special pleading and accept WP:RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who leads the March 8 Alliance?

I've partial reverted Lihaas' edit, in which they changed Hezbollah "leads the March 8 Alliance" to Hezbollah "is a part of the March 8 Alliance". Sources for Hezbollah leading the March 8 Alliance are readily available, a diverse variety of examples including CNN ([11][12]), the Chinese Xinhua ([13]) and People's Daily ([14]), and even the Iranian Press TV ([15]). If editors feel that further sources for this are necessary I'll gladly provide them, but I think it's pretty self-evident. ← George talk 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

the sources are wrong because FPM's Aoun is March 8's parliamentary leader (March 8 being a a parliamentary (NOT extraparliamentary) alliance where the group doesnt even agree on all issues outside parliament). the sources are more than likely based on Hezbollah being read as the most "powerful" party based on the Beirut-wide reaction couple years back.(Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).
Umm, are you saying we should just ignore Wikipedia's guidelines about citing sources, and instead replace material from reliable sources with your personal views? ← George talk 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That Aoun is March 8's parliamentary leader is not my view it is a verfiable fact.
[16] puts FPM and Hezbollah on level footing at least. + [17] Aoun's March 8 leadership + [18] FPM, Hezbollah, aMAL + [19] Aoun, Berri. i cant find other sources yet (arabic speakers may be better able to), but lets also show the reality of christian support for Hezbollah expecially with the "islamist" references here. We have Fgrangieh's Maarada and Aoun's FPM (with Bassil) and others. Also Druze support..(Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
This article is about Hezbollah, not about the March 8 alliance. You've now added far too much detail about the March 8 alliance itself to the very first sentence of the lead of the article on Hezbollah. The only thing the very poor sources you've cited say is that there are several individuals that lead the March 8 alliance, not which party dominates that leadership (which is Hezbollah). Multiple reliable sources state that Hezbollah leads the March 8 alliance (another here, published yesterday in the Lebanese Daily Star), and the fact that some of its leaders are not members of Hezbollah is a detail that belongs in the article about the March 8 alliance, not in the article about Hezbollah, let alone the lead. Your behavior of skirting 1RR isn't acceptable, and I highly suggest you self-revert. ← George talk 13:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, I'd like to remove "which withdrew from the government in January 2011 over inability to discuss issues pertaining to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon" from the first sentence in the lead. This is a lot of detail about the March 8 alliance, which has its own article, and the content smacks of WP:RECENTISM, so I don't think it should be included here. I'm going to hold off on removing it for a few days to see if anyone objects, given the recent spate of edit warring. ← George talk
ive temp. reverted the christian/druze part (even that was never a revert on my part at any time). the relevance of that goes with balancing pov that focuses unduly on labeling Hezbollah a militant group/terrorist group with its military activities while downplaying the political activities. The Islamists part are not countered but Hezbollah's own

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

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

Merging categories

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

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

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

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

George Galloway

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

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

GHcools forcing inclusion of unagreed cat

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

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

POV and biased sources

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

Zionism vs Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darrell Issa

The article contradicts itself. In one paragraph, it quotes Issa as he calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Then in the next paragraph it says that he claims it is not a terrorist organization. Upon reviewing the sources, it seems that the latter claim is the erroneous one. Serotrance (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.26.213.146 (talk)

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

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

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

Political position

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

It was re-added without discussion, though it had been previously removed. They are Islamist, and Islamism is a right-wing ideology as it is religious and holds to traditional, conservative values. Hizbullah is not "National Socialist", and the Nazis were authoritarian centrist (fascism), not leftist. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense to label Hezbollah as either right-wing or left-wing since these concepts includes many different ideas. Hezbollah is also not a political party, but a militant group. Davidelah (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a political party too. Why else would they have representatives in the Lebanese parliament? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
How about religious (i.e. Islamic) conservative, with the Sharia and all that. After all right-wing often includes libertarianism, which is not what Hezbollah is espousing, if they are fighting to imitated Iran. Davidelah (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And Libertarianism can be left-wing too, that's exactly what anarchism is about. "Left-Right" is an economical scale, not a social one; libertarianism and totalitarism are the opposites on the social scale, and both can be either right or left wing. That being said, we can't decide whether they're right wing or not. We have to find reliable sources for that. Walid Charara and Frédéric Domont define them as "Islamo-nationalists" in their book about the Hezbollah. Don Durandal (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I doubt that they are nationalist (fighting for Lebanon), but maybe that excludes "Islamo-nationalists," they rarely use the Lebanese flag if at all. Also if you read the right-wing article its seems to be a social thing also. Davidelah (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Position 2

I very much agree that Hezbollah has no business being labeled Right-Wing. Unfortunately we live in the same world that even labels Adolf Hitler and National Socialism as Far-Right, even though the very word Socialism takes is to the left spectrum of the political matrix. Second, Adolf Hitler was far from being a fascist, I could say that he was labeled so as an attempt to undermine the development of the Fascist ideology. If we'd judge other ideologies by its previous crimes, than Communist wouldn't be allowed anywhere in the world.

Hezbollah is not right-wing or left-wing. Besides Islamism is not right-wing! That is an awfully childish and biased way of putting things. A Religion and its values can't be translated into a political matrix, even though that religion is tied to the state in several cases.

I'd say it is of great display of ignorance by Wikipedia to label Hezbollah as right-wing. I'd even say it is greatly offensive for right-wingers. Right-Wing all over the world is closely connected to ideologies and movements that strive to end terrorist and that are at times xenophobic and racist towards Islamic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.97.171 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"...Hitler was far from being a fascist...he was labeled so as [sic] an attempt to undermine the development of the Fascist ideology"
Yes, Mussolini was a real saint. It was just those Leftists who besmirched his name, turning fascism into something negative. Il Duce was so good for progress, wasn't he?
Also, your argument about Right-wingers disliking Islam is invalid, because religious fundamentalists oppose each other and are by and large intolerant of other religions, even though they are all on the right.96.26.213.146 (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as there are no sources approving the right-wing political position, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability it should not be included. At the moment it looks a lot like Original Research. Maybe the western left-right scheme simply cannot be applied to an islamist party. RJFF (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Islamic socialism" in the infobox

The claim of "Islamic socialism" in Hezbollah's ideology stands only in the infobox. It is not mentioned anywhere in the article body, namely the ideology section, and it is not sourced. It seems very dubious to me, probably "Original Research". If there is no reference added soon, it should be deleted. RJFF (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No objections? No sources? OK, I delete it. -- RJFF (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah in the Arab and Muslim world

In this section a statement is made claiming that "Hezbollah support in the Arab world is on decline, and the Arab world except for the Palestinians appears to be united in blaming Iran and Syria for the fighting in Lebanon." The citation for this statement is an article in the Jerusalem Post, a very biased source. I seriously question the ability of the Jerusalem Post to decide who is to blame for the violence in Lebanon, especially given the three extremely deadly and controversial Israeli invasions of Lebanon. Soapy1 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is considered a reliable source on wikipedia. If you think there is a case of bias you can open a thread at RSN noticeboard. WikifanBe nice 02:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually the article in question is an editorial by KHALED ABU TOAMEH and hence not a reliable source for Arab public opinion.Poyani (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah's Founding Date

This article notes on numerous occasions that Hezbollah was founded or active in 1982 and attributes numerous activities to Hezbollah between 1982 and 1985 (for example bombing of US assets in Lebanon). However more authoritative and reliable sources note that Hezbollah was founded in 1985. The actions taken against US and French troops in 1982-1985 was claimed by Islamic Jihad Organizations, which existed parallel to Hezbollah between 1985 and 1992 (see article Islamic Jihad Organization). The US government claims that many members of IJO later joined Hezbollah and hence label IJO a "precursor" to Hezbollah"

Take for example this recent testimony of Brown University professor Dr. Melani Cammett to US Congressional Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

The precise origins of Hezbollah are difficult to pinpoint. Various individuals and groups, including those linked to the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and the kidnappings of Westerners during the 1980s, are said to be precursors to Hezbollah, which did not formally exist at the time. In 1985, Hezbollah officially announced its establishment with the publication of its Open Letter. The document outlined its philosophy of “oppression,” called for the established of an Islamic state in Lebanon modeled after Iran’s Islamic Republic, declared its opposition to the state of Israel, and detailed other aspects of its ideological orientation.

Is there any serious evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was formed in 1982 because it seems that we are just using this date because it is the year of the Israeli invasion? The current source is a BBC article which briefly goes over the movement's history. But I think this BBC article should be considered less reliable than the testimony of an academic expert before a government panel. Poyani (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Egypt classification of Hezbollah

The lead states that Hezbollah is currently classified by the government of Egypt as a terrorist organization. It cites the Los Angeles Times. But there are a few problems with this.

1. The link to the Los Angeles times is not a news item. It is a blog. 2. I think the entry from the Los Angeles Times blogger is being misinterpreted. The blogger did not state that the government of Egypt maintains a list of terrorist organizations (I don't think they even have one), to which it had added Hezbollah. It states that one Egyptian politician has used the adjective "terrorist" to describe Hezbollah (which the blogger approved). 3. The minister in question, along with the rest of his colleagues in the National Democratic Party, was overthrown in the 2011 Egyptian revolution.

For that reason I am removing Egypt, from the list. If anyone objects, please discuss. Poyani (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Sayyed Hassan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Sayyed Hassan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

scholarly views

all of the views seem to be supporting only one side, that hezbollah is a terrorist organization and i dont disagree but why call it scholarly views if they all conform to one view point? also i think chomsky and finklestein would not agree with that label, perhaps those are other view points that can be added. for example on May 8, 2006, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky began an eight-day visit to Lebanon and in a speech said:

Hezbollah's insistence on keeping its arms is justified... I think [Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan] Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and [a] persuasive argument that they [the arms] should be in the hands of Hezbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until – I think his position [is] reporting it correctly and it seems to me [a] reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, [and] the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can't be a deterrent. (Noam Chomsky, Al Manar TV, 13 May 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


The scholarly views are not those of actual scholars, the are closer to pudits or commentators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.154.185 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

typo correction

section History subsection 1980's paragraph 2 sentence 2 word 1 should be Iran not Israel Davidjholden (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a typo. It's from Uri Avnery's article "How Israel Empowers Islamist Movements" article. It's essentially his analysis presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. It should probably be removed or at the very least attributed to Avnery. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I prefer deletion since this seems like it falls under WP:Fringe. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, deletion seems better. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Hezbollah

I think we all can agree upon that it is terribly annoying that we don't have a flag file for infoboxes. Numerous creative solutions have all been tried, unfortunately only to get spoiled because of complicated copyright laws in Lebanon.

Some time ago, we had the same problem with the South Lebanon Army. However, after my frustration had reached a critical level, I decided to email the Government of Free Lebanon in Jerusalem and kindly ask them so release the rights of a file on their website for educational purpose. I didn't really have to 'persuade' them in any sort of way, as they gave in surprisingly easily and even thanked me - that's how you get treated when you adress people in a polite way. The result? This. And it's free for all versions of Wikipedia, not just the English one. You bet I was pleased when I finally made it!

Now, I was thinking that maybe we could try the same thing here. First of all, we need an email adress. Second, we need someone to do the job. Personally, I must admit I have some problems with this organization and may subsequently find it harder to adress them in a polite way. If anyone else would be willing to make an attempt, I would be very pleased.

Anyone interested in making a leap to increase the quality of Wikipedia? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to know who the artist is. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the name of the artist (which can be found on this page) is so essential as long as the copyrights belong to the organization itself. This is Hezbollah's official website, and an email adress should be there somewhere. Finding out how to contact them would be a start. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the less collaboration Wikipedia members have with Hezbollah, the better. --GHcool (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Let there be no doubt that I oppose this organization utterly, which is why I don't want to contact them. However, I will not call it collaboration when we're simply asking for permission to upload their flag. It worked with the SLA, and it might work with Hezbollah as well - as long as anyone is willing to do the job. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hezbollah has less to gain from releasing such rights, the SLA is basically dead. As for collaboration, the IDF just released all their photos to Commons, so there's precedent with at least one party in the conflict. IDF images are now flooding every Arab/Israeli conflict article, could need some counterbalance. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think they would lose anything by releasing the rights under the same license as the GFL did. Actually, I would rather think that spreading the flag would be in the organization's best interests - or at least they might think so if we try to persuade them in a polite way. I don't think making an attempt would hurt. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, their email address is english@moqawama.org. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Problem is it would allow their enemies to use the logo for any purpose as well without being able to sue them. I don't think they'd agree with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If they release it with the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, re-using will always require attribution. So they'd still be able to sue people who use it without attributing it back to its original owner.
By the way, is there any license that is specified for Wikipedia Commons only, and does not allow re-use? If such a thing existed, that would have been great. I don't happen to know to much about copyright laws, and unfortunately I have made a series of mistakes on Wikipedia Commons in the past. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no such license, for whatever reason. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Predicting the outcome does not really bring us anywhere. If anyone is willing to make an attempt I urge them to do so, and I am willing to help formulating an email in the same way as the request I sent to the GFL (even though it wouldn't have been sincerely from my part this time). You might wanna say that you support them and want to promote their ideas by uploading their flag to Wikipedia Commons, even if you might detest them indescribably much (and by the way, I know there are Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and should thereby have no problem emailing them). Empty infoboxes on articles about the battles of the 2006 Lebanon War are annoying, right? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I am copying this discussion to Talk:Flag of Hezbollah. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
What is more annoying about the 2006 article is that it is completely dominated by Israeli images, even though there are plenty unused ones from Lebanon available, which suffered hundreds of times more. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you leave that for a more suitable occasion? I'm really trying to help here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously now. Is anyone, perhaps someone sympathic to Hezbollah's cause, willing to make an attempt to convince them to release the rights and allow us to upload their flag on Commons? Even if we fail, I think it's worth making an attempt. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? lol. I've just send them an e-mail.

Permission to use an image

Hello,

I'm an editor in Wikipedia and I'm writing this to request to use one of your images. The image is Hezbollah flag. In Wikipedia, we can only use images that are released under free licenses. To allow us to use the image in Wikipedia, you have to send a declaration of consent e-mail to Wikipedia's official e-mail. For more information, please visit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

If you have more images that you want to publish to the public, you can upload them to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons, then send a declaration e-mail same as above. Currently many articles in Wikipedia contains images released from the Israeli Defense Force, and only few images showing the over viewpoint, thus if you would like your viewpoint to be more emphasized, you may as well upload images/release them under a free licence.

Please note that I do no work for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation. If you have any questions, you can contact me on this e-mail or my Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bahraini_Activist

Regards, Mohamed CJ

Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism category again

The organization is not anti-Jewish, it has met with anti-Zionist Jews many times. Even if someone could dig out an old anti-Jewish quote from a Hezbollah member, it doesn't matter. The organization itself isn't anti-Jewish. Mel Gibson isn't categorised under "anti-Semitism" for a single remark either. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that in the sense that the ideology article does go into that issue in more detail than here. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I should remind you all Hezbollah was behind the AMIA bombing and other attacks against Jews around world. It's not a minor detail that Hezbollah's ideology and Nasrallah himself made several antisemitic remarks. The fact that their leaders met with anti-Zionist Jews (like Finkelstein) doesn't change anything. There were many "acceptable" Jews for antisemitic ideologies through history (Nazism was an exception, not the rule). Just two examples of antisemitism by Hezbollah: 1, 2. And yes, Mel Gibson is antisemite too.--8HGasma (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, they were accused without proof. FunkMonk (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Eh, have you read the prosecutor Nismann's report? There is plenty of proofs (800 sides). It was approved by the Argentine Justice and endorsed by Interpol. Just a fact: the perpetrator of the 1994 attack, was Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a Hezbollah operative.--8HGasma (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Even his Wiki article says "allegedly", so I sure won't take that at face value. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The investigators exhibited two photos of Berro and said he belonged to Hezbollah, it was corroborated by Berro's brothers, who declared to the justice of Detroit, where they live at present. Also, Berro was recognized in pictures showed to witness Nicolasa Romero, who had seen the bomber driver handling the Trafic at the corner of AMIA before detonating. The image coincides with the identikit made by the Federal police. Just to name a some evidence...--8HGasma (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you convince me or anyone else here, if it is controversial to call the organization anti-Semitic, it can be used in the article, but categorising it as such is almost the same as stating it is widely accepted. Which it is not, by any stretch. And oh, I'm still not convinced. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The article Nazi Party is not categorised as an antisemitic topic but Nazism is. Ergo, Hezbollah should not be categorised as Category:Islam and antisemitism but Ideology of Hezbollah should (and is). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Who keeps adding the cat? Stop. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The notion that Hezbollah is not anti-Jewish is quite simply the most hilarious thing I have read this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations. FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Spelling of Hezbollah

I have noticed three different spellings: Hizbullah, Hezbollah and Hizbollah, can they all be made the same? thanks, (KingHiggins (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

What do you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
He probably means that the spelling of the name of the organization should be consistent throughout the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, heh, in that case, yes, they should preferably be the same as the title. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Presence in Latin America

Here's some info on Hezbollah's presence in Latin America. [20] [21] [22] ComputerJA (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Involvement in the Syrian civil war"

This section is extremely POV, and only uses partisan sources. There is no proof at all that Hezbollah is involved. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Renamed to repercussions, as the sources note more of an impact inside Leb than Syr. Hcobb (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hezbollah is from the far-right"

http://www.shafaqna.com/english/shafaq/item/4959-rt-tourist-terror-at-least-seven-israelis-killed-in-bulgaria-bus-bomb-attack.htm Michaelm (talk)

Who is "Shia International News Association" and why is their opinion reliable? Zerotalk 10:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic educational materials to 5 year old scouts

Currently the citations for this claim are the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Neither of them appear to be suitable for sourcing of facts. I propose to remove the claim unless some better sourcing can be found. Dlv999 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Simon Wiesenthal Center satisfies all the requirements to be a reliable source. --GHcool (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Simon_Wiesenthal_Center Dlv999 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless a suitable source is produced I'm going to remove the material on the basis of the RSN discussion where there is largely a consensus against using the source.Dlv999 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ADL, CAMERA and MEMRI being used for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice

None of these organizations meet the requirements for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice. If they are to be used they would need to be attributed. Regarding this edit, restoring these sources without attribution is nonsensical as we have an RS for the statement (the Economist) that does not require attribution. Dlv999 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

we have discussed this about million times all around wikiland. my simple suggestion on each page where this shows up is: adl, camera, memri, ngo monitor, jcpa, wrmea, poica, elec intifada, etc - are all in the same category. either accept them or not. (i vote for not). they are all clearly pov and can only be used for their own opinion, and then, only if relevant to the article. so, until that is decided i vote to keep them all. once decided, i vote to remove them all. Soosim (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with removing them all except in very limited circumstances (to be negotiated). It would hardly ever make an article worse and would almost always make an article better). Zerotalk 07:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
hey zero - can you make that comment over at RS noticeboard? there are sections for EI, WRMEA, and many others. the excuse is that each case must be determined on its own. and because of that, we get so much POV stuff (from both sides) that it just gums up the works. i would rather the rule be 'none of the following (list x) are RS' with the following exceptions (list y). Soosim (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Zero perfectly summarized the point.
I add any good faith editor can understand why these sources cannot be reliable given they are driven by a political goal. In their field of actions scholars wrote books that can be used for analysis and reports of events. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Dlv999 - i am disappointed by your edit summary. this talk page did NOT say that you could remove camera and memri, etc. and while i have no problem with their removal - particularly since other RS exists - your edit summary is not telling the truth. no reason to lie, as i see it. Soosim (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Well apart from you everyone says they are not appropriate. You say they can be used for their own opinion, but what is the point in attributing poor quality sources when we have a 3rd party RS for the statement that does not require attribution? Also your position here does not seem to be consistent. You say that CAMERA, MEMRI ADL ect are in the same category as wrmea and they all should stay or all should go, but you removed wrmea as a source, and have been strongly advocating for its removal at WP:RSN yet you seem to be arguing that CAMERA, MEMRI ADL should stay. Dlv999 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

All of are pretty mainstream when it comes to the topic of anti-Semitism. There's no reason to call them unreliable, but whatevs. The Economist works. --GHcool (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

All of these sources are listed by Sourcewatch. They are not worthy of being used as a source on WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.192.83 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Transcript of an interview of Jeffrey Goldberg by NPR radio being used for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice

This is a ridiculous source for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice. As it is an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg the conversation represents the opinion of Jeffrey Goldberg not a factual news report by NPR, at best it should be used for the opinions of Goldberg. This edit [23] which restored the source for verification of a factual statement is nonsensical, because we have other suitable RS which verify the statement and do not need attribution. Dlv999 (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ideology: Anti-imperialism

Anti-imperialism was removed[24] from ideology by a sockpuppet of blocked user AndresHerutJaim, citing his own opinion on the topic. I restored it as ant-imperialism is clearly a part of Hezbollah's ideology as discussed in the Hezbollah manifesto and reported by this article. NMMNG removed the material in favour of the AJH sock without citing any evidence or policy based reasons.

For RS discussing Hezbollah's anti-imperialist ideology see e.g.

I looked at the article and this seems to be recently added. I don't know if the person who deleted it is a sock or not.
Anyway, of the two sources above which I can actually read, neither seems to support putting "anti-imperialist" as fact in the infobox. The first source uses it once in passing, the second source says it's what the author claims. If we're using what outsiders claim about the organization, I could also put "anti-semitic" there. Would you like that compromise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The usual ridiculous levels of parsing of sources for anything that is not 100% compatible with the Israeli Foreign Ministry position on a given topic. The first source has two separate page citations so please explain to me how the term is used "once" and please explain to me how an (approximately) one page discussion of Hezbollah's anti imperialist ideology in the first source (pg 20) is "in passing". Regarding the second source, the author is an assistant professor of Arab politics published by a prestigious academic press. He discusses "Hezbollah's anti-imperialist ideology", citing statements made by Hezbollah. I'm not particularly interested in getting into a hypothetical discussion as you haven't produced any sources, but if you have high quality academic sources and you accurately represent what they say I'm not going to get in your way, I would appreciate if you would do the same. Dlv999 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hezbollah is a proxy of foreign powers: Iran and Syria, so adding "anti-imperialism" in the infobox is not remotely serious nor NPOV.--MelissaLond (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
We write articles based on what RS say, not based on editors personal views on a topic. Dlv999 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would restore that. OR does not trump RS. If NMMNG has sources that refute that Hezbollah is anti-Imperialism he is free to bring them up, but without them the article will say what the sources do. nableezy - 15:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Designation (or view rather, of Hezbollah in Lebanon)

I cut down the unnecessary excess of Gebran Tueni's quoted opinion of Hezbollah: “Ask Mr. Nasrallah whether there would be a place for Christians in the Islamic Republic of Lebanon,” he said, “You might remind him that we are not an external force. We’ve been here longer than the Muslims—we are not Afrikaners!" Obviously undue weight given to Tueni. These lines more than suffice: "Gebran Tueni, a conservative, Orthodox Christian editor of an-Nahar, referred to Hezbollah as an "Iranian import and said “they have nothing to do with Arab civilization.” Tuení believed that Hezbollah’s evolution is cosmetic, concealing a sinister long-term strategy to Islamicize Lebanon and lead it into a ruinous war with Israel." Also, I clarified that Tueni's attackers have not been identified instead of the previous sentence which just states he was assassinated in 2005 to avoid implication that Hezbollah was behind his killing. On a slightly separate note, the section is pretty skewed towards Hezbollah's critics in Lebanon presenting the critical opinions of unnamed government officials, Saad Hariri unnamed Future movement official, Gebran Tueni and the generally negative views of many anti-government Syrians who feel betrayed by the organization's stance on the ongoing Syrian uprising/civil war. The latter are not Lebanese by the way. Doesn't Hezbollah have some supporters in the country too? (rhetorical question). --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah does not want an Islamic state

See latest development: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/14777 FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RS being removed???

an editor removed my RS on ahbash hezbollah clash..so what is the explanation??? Baboon43 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a legit edit with what seems to be a valid and reliable source, though the edit itself could use some copyediting for style. I don't see why anyone would remove it, either. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dutch terrorist designation

I don't think there are enough sources for Netherland's designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist org. Could someone please add more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.162.22 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The governments of the U.S...first paragraph

The "U.S." is a shortened version of the United States of America. It is only used when the United States of America is already noted and can be shortened. It is not correct to reference the United States of America as U.S. without previously stating the full name. The full name of the country should be listed. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This also applies to the "U.K." It should be "United Kingdom," because the latter has not been mentioned. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

EU and Hezbollah

As of today the European Union has designated Hezbollah as terror organisation. Please include this in the opening paragraph. --Gilisa (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Hezbollah Flag Use Discussion

Controversy over the use of Hezbollah's flag has been going on for a while, but it has ust been brought to my attention with the removal of a Hezbollah flag thumbnail from Battle of al-Qusayr (2013. It was removed due to alleged copyright violations. What startles me is that this flag is used on so many other pages (ex. Hezbollah, for starters). The flag on that page is still around, for whatever reason, although the original was a Commons file that is now deleted.

I dug up the exact reason why: Copyright violation. Hezbollah has never come out and said that their flag can or cannot be used for non-profit purposes (and, to be honest, they love publicity), so a handful of people in a 2010 Commons deletion discussion concluded that, since no one was going to directly contact Hezbollah to ask them about it, the image could not be used. Under US law, the image is evidently fair use. Moreover, countless news organizations use the flag. I am not versed in Lebanese copyright law (nor do I know where I could find the info on it), but this is utterly absurd.

This seems to set some kind of bizarre precedent. If we cannot directly contact a foreign group with a flag for confirmation of fair use, must we not use their flag? What about the Lords Resistance Army? If you thought contacting Hezbollah was hard, try contacting those guys. Hell, I doubt al-Qaeda has sent Wikipedia a letter authorizing use of their flag. While I understand Hezbollah is a unique case as a quasi-governmental, non-state actor, this precedent could be used to delete countless flags across the wiki. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but it has never been made clear.

Is usage of these files against Wikipedia's current copyright policies/precedents? Perhaps, but it's in the rare case like this that we must consider WP:IAR. I am setting this up as the new discussion section for Hezbollah's flag usage.Marechal Ney (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • A lot of misunderstanding there. The fact that someone has not explicitly stated an image cannot be used for all purposes does not mean the contrary, and we cannot assume that it does. That's pretty much end of story. And the al-Qaeda flag is a different story altogether, since there is no design, only text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could uploading a new version of the flag help? Charles Essie (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem would be the same. FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah has now been listed as a terrorist organization by the EU. Does this somehow affect their copyright? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No. See also the Hamas logo. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Defection of Israeli Officer and drug-dealer Elhanan Tannenbaum

I do think there is a distinct lack of information about the criminal drug-dealing israeli, Elhannan Tannenbaum, who was exchanged after his defection in a prisoner-swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.211.153.194 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah's Nazi-style salute

When did they adopt the straight arm salute? What do they mean by it? Nothing about it in the article.95.146.141.219 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The article includes misleading information regarding Hezbollah's funding.

This line:

It receives financial and political support from Iran and Syria

... is not supported by the cited source. The source says:

The United States, Britain, Israel and other Western countries consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization that they say has received weapons and also financial and political support from Iran and Syria.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG20Ak02.html


According to a BBC report from 12th June 2013:

A recent report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) on the impact of international sanctions on Iran found no indication that the sanctions had affected Iran's regional role.

And the report's principal author says there is no evidence of any financial support provided to Hezbollah. "There isn't a single line in the budget that confirms any aid or financial support to Hezbollah", Ali Vaez contends.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22878198

92.22.7.162 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


The BBC story linked above is titled "Hezbollah heartlands recover with Iran's help"
here is the article lede:
In the years since the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia movement's strongholds have recovered from the widespread destruction they suffered - in large part down to major investment from its closest ally, Iran.
The assistance has helped consolidate the relationship, but while Iran's role has drawn praise from Lebanese Shia, others are suspicious of its motives, as Carine Torbey reports from Beirut. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I could find no mention of Syria or Hezbollah in the The ICG article: Spider Web: The Making and Unmaking of Iran Sanctions
But here are some better sources The Best Guerrilla Force in the World
"The amount of Iranian funds reaching Hezbollah was estimated at $25 million a month, but some reports suggested it increased sharply, perhaps doubled, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over as president in Tehran last year, the specialist said." --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


First of all, the strongholds mentioned in the BBC article would be areas in Lebanon, as that is where Hezbollah is based. The article continues: Modern buildings have risen from the ruins and some new structures have been added to the area, a stronghold of Hezbollah, leaving no doubt as to what is meant by the term strongholds.

Just as British government investment in infrastructure in Northern Ireland, a stronghold of the IRA, does not mean the British government financed the IRA, and Qatari investment in Gaza infrastructure does not mean Qatar finances Hamas, Iranian investment in infrastructure in Lebanon does not mean Iran financed Hezbollah.

Secondly, why do you say a Washington Post article from 2006, which quotes an anonymous 'specialist,' who's alleged research is based on un-named documents, is a better source than a BBC article from last month which quotes Ali Vaez, who's knowledge on the topic is based on the recent ICG report that he was the principle author of?

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/staff/field/mena/ali-vaez.aspx

Let's quote BBC more fully:
...And the report's principal author says there is no evidence of any financial support provided to Hezbollah. "There isn't a single line in the budget that confirms any aid or financial support to Hezbollah", Ali Vaez contends.
it then goes on to say
But in one specific area, this support is clear and tangible: reconstruction and development projects.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22878198
--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Although the text on the wiki page I originally quoted has been changed since I quoted it, it now reads:

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

This line is not supported by any cited source whatsoever. It is no less misleading than the text I originally quoted, and it does not take account of Ali Vaez's findings.

92.22.72.103 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Suicide and terror attacks section to be seperated into seperate sections

The article is more clear and specific such since these fall into seperate designations as per UN definitions of terrorist acts. When a suicide bomber attacks invading forces or other forces then it is an act of war as in resistance to occupation by armed forces, whereas when it targets civilians or other innocent parties it is an act of terrorism as per UN definitions. YussefIbnMyriam (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

Jameswa4 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlock the page

Why now allow this page which is biased in favor of Hezbollah to be balanced. Since most progressive countries view Hezbollah as a terrorist group that should be in the lead.72.74.168.119 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment (talk) Just because the "progressive" countries view them as a terrorist organization, doesn't mean that they are actually of terrorist nature. Having that in the lead is editorializing the article, and implying that because some countries believe them to be a terrorist organization, it is true. Adamh4 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Quit the political correctness, Hezbollah is. A terrorist group by any definition96.56.73.170 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

There is an inaccuracy regarding the UN position on the Shebaa Farms issue. The article states:

"Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and their withdrawal was verified by the United Nations as being in accordance with resolution 425 of March 19, 1978, however Lebanon considers the Shebaa farms—a 26-km² (10-mi²) piece of land captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war and considered by the UN to be disputed territory between Syria and Israel—to be Lebanese territory."

In fact, the UN does not consider it to be "disputed" between Syria and Israel and the source cited does not support this. The UN considers it Syrian and occupied by Israel.

2601:A:3C00:208:1C5:2BC4:117E:57B9 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added, omitted, or changed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've implemented this correction and added a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Re-Nazi salute

The Salute has nothing to do with Fascism at all. The Salute by Hezballah can be seen by many other groups in the Levent and Iraq. Such as the Syrian Ba'ath party it is a symbol of Nationalism for one and also it is a sing of power and Phoenician pride. But mainly power. It is a very nice and powering salute. WarriorofShiism (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-Nazi Salute

It has nothing to do with Fascism. It is a sing of Nationalism and Power. It is popular in the levant and Iraq because of this and is also a symbol of Phoenician Pride and Resistance similar can be seen by the Ba'ath Party of Syria Hamas and even Christian factions in Lebanon. WarriorofShiism (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Making the lead more coherent and up-to-date

I rearranged the lead so that it become more coherent.

  • Par 1- General information about Hezbollah.
  • Par 2- Establishment and Goals.
  • Par 3- Military and political activities
  • Par 4- Terrorist allegations

In addition, I added some sentences about involvement in the Syrian Civil war.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was just reading this article and one sentence in the lede stood out:

"Its paramilitary wing is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab world and in Shiite communities"

The problem is, the "Arab world" part is no longer accurate, and this assertion is based on one noticably old source from 2006 (making it 8 years old—almost a decade). I propose that this is modified to reflect the contemporary image of Hezbollah; it is now seen as an entity promoting Shi'ite interests, not a pan-Arab "resistance movement" opposing Israel. Here is one of many sources: [25] Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Nulla Taciti; yes, you are right. It was correct, when I added that information about 2007-2008. The situation has been changed during these years while I was not active here as before. However I think "promoting Shi'ite interests" is over simplification to some extent. In fact, Hezbollah's political Alliance is a combination of the religio-political groups. Furthermore, the relation between Hezbollah and the religious minorities like Orthodox Christians has been strengthened during recent years. You see, the minorities consider it as a shield against Salafism.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see sources regarding Hezbollah's "strengthened" relationship with Christians. From what I can make out, this too appears to be based on dated perceptions, as recent Hezbollah statements appear to be hostile towards Maronite Christians [26]. This seems to be a trend, with Hezbollah also taking a more hostile stance towards the Druze community as well lately [27]. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Maronite Christians are divided into several political groups and Hezbollah has good relations with some of them especially Michel Aoun. I think we should separate Lebanese view towards Hezbollah which depends on socio-political divisions in Lebanon and outside view towards them . I agree that in the Middle East Sunnis, especially religious ones, have bad sentiment while I am not sure about secular pan-Arabs. Some of them may support Hezbollah activities. We should check whether there is any survey which shows the people's views in this regard.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Funding by Iran

@Nulla Taciti: Care to explain your revert? In any case, one is not supposed to simply reinstate the edit if it is reverted. See WP:BRD. Kingsindian (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain why you deleted the reference from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy? Feel free to remove the "funding by Iran" in the first paragraph though—hadn't even noticed that part in your edit. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah my mistake. Sorry. I didn't realize the other reference was to a separate sentence. I will just remove the Iran part from the first paragraph. Kingsindian (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Israel's comments on terrorist activities

If editors want to add information related to the following link: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/2005/pages/summary%20of%20terrorist%20activity%202004.aspx a decision would be needed on where and how it be added. It is not a designation of terrorist organisation. See TP at List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations Gregkaye 07:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015 - correction to a citation URL which currently 404s

In the 4th paragraph of the main summary there is a typo in the referenced URL.. the URL contains "/middle east/" and it should be "/middleeast/". Only a single space needs to be removed, but I have included the current and corrected mediawiki text below.

Please change

Since 2012, Hezbollah has helped the Syrian government during the Syrian civil war in its fight against the Syrian opposition, which Hezbollah has described as a Zionist plot and a "Wahhabi-Zionist conspiracy" to destroy its alliance with Assad against Israel.[1]

to

Since 2012, Hezbollah has helped the Syrian government during the Syrian civil war in its fight against the Syrian opposition, which Hezbollah has described as a Zionist plot and a "Wahhabi-Zionist conspiracy" to destroy its alliance with Assad against Israel.[2] Brianweaver1 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

The second link to their official sites no longer works. 82.194.204.143 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -It appears to be down at this moment and may be working some time later. For now, I've tagged it as dead link. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

12 or 14 seats in parlament?

It says different things. What is correct? Herr X (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

@Averysoda: hi, Why you reverted my edits? I deleted sources that they were very old and no longer exist. I changed the dead links to update links or citation needed link tags. Hananeh.M.h (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC) 06:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced coverage of the Hezbollah-Israeli operations against each other

The coverage of the operations is unbalanced. Hananeh.M.h (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

Regarding this, on Hezbollah:

The Gulf Cooperation Council,[15] Canada,[16] and Israel[17] have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, though in 2015 an assessment from the U.S. director of National Intelligence removed it from its list of terror threats.[18] The European Union and New Zealand has proscribed Hezbollah's military wing, but does not list Hezbollah as a whole as a terrorist organization.[19][20]

please correct the erroneous grammar. Correct would be:

The Gulf Cooperation Council,[15] Canada,[16] and Israel[17] have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, though in 2015 an assessment from the U.S. director of National Intelligence removed it from its list of terror threats.[18] The European Union and New Zealand have proscribed Hezbollah's military wing, but do not list Hezbollah as a whole as a terrorist organization.[19][20]

I changed "has" to "have", and "does" to "do".

I shall be quoting that passage in its corrected form and will hope that any web-search for it in that form will not be blocked by the continuance of the grammatical errors in it.

208.65.167.177 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- haminoon (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Biased, biased source

Graceorihuel (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC) In order to have an unbiased article, "antisemitism" should not be put as Hezbollah's ideology. The used source was Jerusalem Post; a news paper from a country that does not even have diplomatic relations with Lebanon.

I added other sources. --GHcool (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

France considering Hezbollah as a terrorist organization

In the table of countries listing Hezbollah as terrorist organization, it's written that France considers the whole organization as terrorist. However only the military wing is considered terrorist. http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/410307 page 130 The document is a list of all the persons and organizations considered as terrorist by France government. This list is edited by the french ministry of economy and published the 3rd of March, 2015. It's possible to read there (p130) "Hezbollah branche militaire", which quite obviously means "Hezbollah military branch".

I request a change from "The entire organization Hezbollah" to "Hezbollah's military wing" for France in this table. Semi-protected edit The countries could be set in alphabetical order.

Olgir16 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The page you cited www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/410307 appears dead to me, and there is still a citation in the table. Have you another source? crh23 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The citation, however, also mentions that France only supported the designation of the military wing: Last week, at a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that the French government supports adding the armed wing of Hezbollah to the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations.

The designation by the French government could play a pivotal role in persuading the rest of the European Union to blacklist Hezbollah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.28.34 (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah WAS anti-Semitic, but is oficially not anymore

Hezbollah changed a number of views in the last 6 years, it new manifesto now officially rejects anti-Semitism.

  • On 30 November 2009, while reading the party's new political manifesto, Hassan Nasrallah declared "Our problem with [the Israelis] is not that they are Jews, but that they are occupiers who are raping our land and holy places." [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.220.103 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. --GHcool (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It needs more verification than simply a statement from the group. There should be third-party evaluations of its ideology, whether it has evolved or not. Kingsindian  08:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It hasn't. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, more than statements from the group is needed and I don't think the new politicial manifesto from the end of 2009 was the new era or something like that as Hezbollah have also in other times said they are not antisemites.
Right now, the infobox and section is very one-sided. Of course if you search for certain words, you can find any statement (especially in well-covered conflicts like this one) that support your view but that is not the correct way to work on an encyclopedic article. It is only a collection of sources that see Hezbollah as antisemites and no other view is given, so it is really unbalanced. It is the same when it comes to if it is a terrorist organization, just look at the section "Scholarly views". --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the fact that Hezbollah has publicily supported repairing Lebanese synagogues and has stated that they are not at war with jews, neither want to enforce shia islam on the Lebanese populations. This wiki article is usa propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghen_Abraham_Synagogue#Renovation_plans

Hezbollah in Shia Portal

Can any one suggest a suitable image to be used here? The image will be shown in the Shia portal. Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

IDF Flickr images added to "Armed strength" section

I have removed the images added in this edit, because they all come from IDF's Flickr account. The only images in the section (all 3 of them) are like this, and one is blatantly propagandistic (the last one). If you want to add images of military weaponry, please find a neutral WP:RS. Kingsindian  17:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's use images from third party sources and not propaganda images from the IDF. Zerotalk 10:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We can't just deny the existence of allegations against hezbollah. There needs to be something to illustrate them. On another note, last time I checked hezbollah does not deny its iranian connections thus making at least one of the images agreeable to its sympathizers. I really don't see why anyone would be against all of these images unless they had a bias they wanted to impose. As for finding neutral images it is kind of hard as hizbollah imposes a very aggressive media censorship policy. [29]. If someone were up to the task they could take a step forward to resolving this dispute by adding some images on this topic, I tried but as you can see my sentiments are not echoed all that much here.

Iwant2write (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit above is exactly the reason why I feel the addition of these images is inappropriate. Images are not meant to illustrate one point of view in a matter, they are meant to support and enlarge upon the text already present. The text is talking about military weaponry, so one should add images about military weaponry. What is the propaganda poster from the IDF alleging Hezbollah violations of UNSC resolution doing there? Also, image balance is as important as text balance, indeed even more so, since images are eye-catching. If you can't find neutral sources for the images, it's best to simply not add them. Though I very doubt that one can't find images if one looks hard enough. Kingsindian  17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Due to the value of the images in creating a narrative I felt images were necessary to illustrate what was a nearly absent viewpoint in this article. The images including the poster were meant to show how hezbollah possessing weapons is a violation of international law. If neutral images made by third parties were easy to find I would have done so already but omitting them feels like performing an act of censorship. If it can be done by just looking hard enough, perhaps you ought to demonstrate. Don't worry though I won't re-add the 3 images, I know that the editors here will undo all of my edits if I try. Iwant2write (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Hezbollah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with sources and AMIA bombings

this article is full with articles made by Israel and usa-aligned scholars. All of this makes it blatantly biased. the AMIA bombing sources and burgas bus attack are just an example of this. the main articles of burgas attack and amia say that Hezbollah and iran have denied the claims of it making these attacks while THIS article wiki claims that Hezbollah has claimed the attack using as source a article authored by an american. In the burgas case, according to the burgas wiki article new evidence point to Bulgarian salafist groups being responsible, and Hezbollah never claimed responsability for it, instead of the article accepting that these are claims and not necessarily prooved facts, it just affirms that Hezbollah did them and even says they claimed them in contradiction with Hezbollah itself..

I wish you had signed your comment. But I concur with you on that. I also found it quite strange that the page claims as a fact that Hezbollah was involved in AMIA bombing and, worse, that they themselves have claimed responsibility! We know it's such a blatant falsity and it is odd that this has stayed up there. AMIA has been a highly controversial case, and to this day, it is firmly established that Hezbollah has categorically denied responsibility, and these are all thoroughly attested to in AMIA bombing. So that blatantly false statement should be removed and replaced with a statement of the established fact. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Users starting revert wars over poorly substatiated quotes.

User Jaconiah 74 is defending a version of this article wihch quotes Steven Levit's allegations that hezbollah claimed responsibility of 1992 and 1994 buenos aires bombing of Israel embassy and Amia respectively. However, Levitt claims that an alleged front of a front of Hebollah claimed responsibility for those. This is speculative at best and disingenuous at worst, therefore it can't be used as a reliable source. On the other hand, multiple established media sources quote Hezbollah officials denying responsibility of said bomings.

I edited the article accordingly and user Jaconiah 74 started a revert war over it, violating timing rules in the process.

Maybe I would respect you and your edit if you hadn't replaced Levitt source, which clearly states that Hezbollah assumed responsibility. Perhaps we could present both points of view. In any case, you have to gain consensus on the talk page before making controversial changes.--Jaconiah 74 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

To defend such a blatant falsity that Hezbollah has claimed responsibility can only be interpreted as willful dishonesty. It is by now beyond question that Hezbollah has categorically rejected role and the case remains unsolved to this date. These are thoroughly attested to in AMIA bombing. So that blatant, obvious, false statement must be removed right away even before deciding on an alternative that reflects the fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the lead

The lead for this article is an absolute disaster. There is no coherence, and it jumps along chronologically all over the place. I propose, 4 paras per MOS:LEAD

  1. Definition: political party in Lebanon/paramilitary, ideology, leadership, listing as terrorist group by various countries
  2. History, funding by Iran, opposition to Israel, military activities until 2000
  3. Activities inside Lebanon, social, political
  4. Military activities post 2000 including 2006 war and Syrian Civil war. Kingsindian (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


I agree that the lead is haphazardly organized. However I think that a comparable article such as Hamas should serve as a model for restructuring the lead for Hezbollah. For example the terrorist designations should be in the first paragraph to be honest. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The Hamas lead is another disaster, cramming all the countries which consider Hamas to be terrorist in the first paragraph. The lead is supposed to be a summary, not the place to list all the countries which consider X as terrorist. I do not see any difference in giving the terrorist allegations in the first or the fourth paragraph; anyway, this can be discussed. Are you fine with the rest of the organization? Kingsindian (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The main thing to do to the lead would be to trim the historical information to be far more concise, add more to its current activities inside Lebanon, and flesh out the final paragraph regarding the Syrian Civil War (which has come to eclipse the 2006 war with Israel as the group's defining moment). So you have the right idea, let's see how you implement it. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"The lead is supposed to be a summary, not the place to list all the countries which consider X as terrorist." REALLY? The same goes for al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Irgun, ETA and all the other articles in Wikipedia about terrorist organizations??--Wlglunight93 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what Irgun is doing in that list. WP:OSE is anyway not a good rationale. If there is a very long list of countries which consider X terrorist, it is indeed best to summarize them in the lead, especially if there is plenty of other stuff which can be put there. If there are a few countries, we can just list them. Anyway, are you fine with the rest of the organization? Kingsindian (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


still needs to have terrorist in the first paragraph. If the U.S Europe and Israel designate a terrorist group that is sufficent.Eclpise the left (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC) I have arranged the lead according to the above description. I have mostly just rearranged, except some removals. I have left the material which I have removed as comments. I have added just two sentences at the end of the second paragraph. Also, I have put the countries declaring Hezbollah terrorist in the first paragraph for now. It can be discussed later. Comments on this and other things are welcome. Kingsindian  03:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added March 8 and March 14, the two major groupings in Lebanon in the lead, and indicated, Hezbollah's membership in March 8. Kingsindian  18:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Much better organized, looks fine. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Alleged suicide and terror attacks

Why do we allow alleged attacks? some of the evidence is very weak and hezbollah have denied involvement. For example the 1994 London Israeli embassy bombing where 5 Palestinians where arrested and sent to prison. They had nothing to do with hezbollah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lard baron (talkcontribs) 16:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah labelled a terrorist organization by Gulf Arab states

Here and in many other sources. Do you think it should be mentioned in the lead, perhaps right after 'There is also "wide difference" between American and Arab perception of Hezbollah.' ? WarKosign 12:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidently this new move affects that statement in the lead, and therefore the latter should be remodulated. It should not be overplayed there of course. The date should be noted. This is self-evidently a Gulf State move in the larger Syro-Iraqi conflict, and it reflects a Sunni/Shiite hostility rather than 'Arab' viewpoint, since Arabs encompass those 2 (and other) confessions. The sentence 'There is also "wide difference" between American and Arab perception of Hezbollah' in any case is stupid. We are talking about gaps in official positions between various US administrations, and a number of Arab states (not 'Americans' and 'Arabs'. I'd reconsider whether statements like this are worthy of the lead altogether.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many inept sentences in that lead, e.g.'occupied a strip of south Lebanon, which was controlled by the South Lebanon Army (SLA), a militia supported by Israel.' The SLA dis not at the time of the Israeli invasion control all the territory that Israeli then occupied. It was, before the invasion, highly fragmented, and the PLO had its own extensive zones, as did other Lebanese militia.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the 'There is also "wide difference" between American and Arab perception of Hezbollah' part was very clumsily worded, and was based on a completely outdated 2006 reference—since the Syrian Civil War, the view of Hezbollah as a sectarian terrorist group is for the most part even more negative than in the Western world. Also not sure why the designations had been removed, as this listing of what various country's have designated is standard for similar militant/terrorist groups. Feel free to modify those other aspects of the lede that you have pointed out. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I've removed this.

In 2015, several Hezbollah officials were sanctioned by the US for their role in facilitating military activity in the ongoing Syrian Civil War.[4] In early 2016, US Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper reiterated that “Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners worldwide,” stressing the role of associated proxy groups.[5]

It is already stated the U.S. thinks all of Hezbollah a terrorist group. Giving particular details of two actions by the U.S. re Hezbollah in the lead violates WP:LEAD, and the details themselves are yawningly nugatory. The lead has zero mention, which editors of the page per WP:NPOV are required to add, of the many states who don't make this (predictable) classification, which is political and geostrategic and not descriptive. As with the Hamas article balancing sentences naming the countries that do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization (Lebanon for one!) are required. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Now it was labelled a terrorist organization by the Arab League as well. WarKosign 17:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose putting a list of states which designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in the lead; the previous paragraph was much more comprehensive and suited for the lead: Hezbollah's status as a "militia", a "national resistance movement" and legitimate political party, a "terrorist group", or some combination thereof is a contentious issue.[40] --Z 17:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I very strongly SUPPORT putting a list in the lead - the last paragraph reads very well at this time. 98.67.184.130 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I support it too as this is an important disclaimer for the reader; this is vital knowledge about the group people should be aware of, and much like other similar articles like al-Qaeda these designations are listed in the lede. Wikipedia should severe as a good source of information and attempting to bury important details does the opposite of this. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nulla Taciti and 98.67.184.130: (diff) There is hell of difference between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. As already discussed in the article, and discussed in more detail in the references I had added, labeling Hezbollah as a "militant group", "national movement", and especially "terrorist group" is usually politically-motivated, and by listing states that categorize Hezbollah as "terrorist group" you would actually hide this fact. Nevertheless, the lead section of article is supposed to be a summary of its content, and this subject is already discussed extensively in the section Hezbollah#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization_or_resistance_movement, which also contains a list of states/organizations designating Hezbollah as a terrorist group. The paragraph you removed was a good summary of that section; by replacing it with a crude list of states/organizations designating Hezbollah as a terrorist group, the article seems to try to make a point. --Z 19:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the most important information from an article, alerting readers to the fact that Hezbollah is considered to be a dangerous terrorist organization throughout much of the world (and the Arab World specifically) obviously fits this description. And I'd disagree about the al-Qaeda comparison; while al-Qaeda represents the zenith of Sunni Jihadism, Hezbollah represents the zenith of Shiite Jihadism. They are both guilty of war crimes, sectarianism, and gross human rights abuses, and up until recently the groups cooperated in the September 11 attacks (US Court Says Hezbollah, Tehran Responsible for 9/11 Attacks) and Islamic terrorism in Bosnia (see Foreign fighters in the Bosnian War). Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
You are talking about your interpretation of the sources, which is irrelevant here in WP. Again: Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the information in sources, not your interpretation of the information in sources, and the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article. Thanks for enlightening us about who did the 9/11 by the way. --Z 21:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hezbollah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

There is some negative attributes such anti-Wahabi, anti-wset, etc as ideology in the template. I think these negative approaches can not be called ideology. I suggest to remove them.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

At least, remove the quotation marks around "Western imperialism" right underneath the yellow flag. Hezbollah is not anti "Western imperialism". It is anti Western imperialism. There is a difference.--217.170.192.141 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that it should not be "anti--western imperialism" at all. It should simply be anti-imperialism, surely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatama (talkcontribs) 11:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hezbollah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering about the page title and english spelling of the name

From where does the spelling "hezbollah" arise, may I ask? Clearly, the first part of their name is pronounced "hizb", isn't it? So why is the english spelling different?

Also, the second part of their name would clearly be "allah", not "ollah"? (As our article says, their name means the "party of Allah"). Do forgive me if this issue has been raised before, and if that's the case, direct me to the relevant conversation in the archives. I'm cautious about having anything to do with arab-israeli articles, but this issue caught my attention. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The pronunciation doesnt really impact how we spell it, we go based on what is the most common spelling in reliable sources, and while I have seen variants in my experience Hezbollah is the most common. As to the question of pronunciation, the hezb and the al blend together, with the stress on the final aa of the word. like hez-bul-AA. nableezy - 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

France and Hezbollah

I don't know why I cannot edit this article, but could someone remove France from the list in the introduction and in the "Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement" section? If you read carefully the sources (or this other source), you'll see that Fabius supported the inclusion of the military wing of the Hezbollah in the list of terrorist organizations, which is the same position as the European Union. Seudo (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Armed Strength Section

In the second to last paragraph of the armed strength section it says "As of July 2012, Hezbollah was "reported to have up to 50,000 missiles—more than three times the 13,000 it reportedly held when it began launching rockets at Israel six years ago, leading to the Second Lebanon War."[180] By June 2013, this figure had risen to 60–80,000 missiles and rockets.[181] Hezbollah has also used drones against Israel, by penetrating air defense systems, in a report verified by Nasrallah, who added, "This is only part of our capabilities".[182][183]"

The reference 181, for the second sentence points to: Terrill, W. Andrew (Spring 2015). "Iran's Strategy for Saving Asad". Middle East Journal. Middle East Institute. 69 (2). Retrieved May 27, 2015 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required (help)). The article linked is https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3666476811.html

I could not view the full source on my own, but I found what looks to be the complete article here: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3666476811/iran-s-strategy-for-saving-asad


Nowhere in these references do I see anything to do with the increase of missiles and and rockets to something like 60-80,000. In fact it does not reference arms at all in the link.

Are there any sources for modern armaments and military size that could be used to replace this reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfwayHoagie (talkcontribs) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1998 US embassy bombings

The citation here is an op-ed by a former Bush speechwriter / perennial Iran hawk Marc Thiessen, which in turn cites a default judgment against Iran which explicitly states "In evaluating the plaintiffs' proof, the court may "accept as true the plaintiffs' uncontroverted evidence."" (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/bates-opinion-3.pdf).

While it is fair that, absent a response from the defendant, the family be awarded damages in default, using that default judgment as encyclopedic documentation is a very different matter.

It seems that such an explosive claim should have some more reliable documentation.

2601:647:4501:2510:594E:D383:FA56:41F (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right. Removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

History

1980s Main articles: Lebanese civil war and South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000)

The link labeled "South Lebanon conflict (1982-2000)" takes you to a page titled "South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)"

There is a 3 year disparity between the link and the article for the start date of that conflict.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_conflict_(1985%E2%80%932000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfwayHoagie (talkcontribs) 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hezbollah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barnard, Anne (January 3, 2014). east/mystery-in-hezbollah-operatives-life-and-death.html "Mystery in Hezbollah Operatives Life and Death" Check |url= value (help). The New York Times. 
  2. ^ Barnard, Anne (January 3, 2014). "Mystery in Hezbollah Operatives Life and Death". The New York Times. 
  3. ^ Ladki, Nadim. "Hezbollah cuts Islamist rhetoric in new manifesto". Reuters. Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  4. ^ "U.S. imposes sanctions on Hezbollah officials for Syria support". Reuters. Retrieved 15 October 2015. 
  5. ^ Top Intel Officials: U.S. Faces Highest Terror Threat Level Since 9/11