Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Hezbollah. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Related threads have been gathered here. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this part "and started again on July 12, 2006 after Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers and killing of eight others in a cross-border raid into Northern Israel...Hezbollah's cross-border raid prompted Israel to bomb Hezbollah targets within Lebanon, in response Hezbollah has persisted at firing hundreds of Ketusha rockets each day at northern Israel. Israel has responded by waging a ground and air war against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including dropping depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs. " shouldn't be written in lead. Of course it should be moved to History of Hezbollah. But Shamir has insisted on remaining it. I want to know the other ideas.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with Sa.vakilian. The lead should very briefly sum up what the organization stands for and its history. The focus of this article has to be the organization of Hizbullah, not the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which has its own article. Bertilvidet 08:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian as well, for what it's worth. The disputed section is gone now. But maybe it will back! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears POV is creeping back into the lead. The statement

It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada[7]

seems unnecessary, since there is a section in the body about which entities designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Also, the sources referenced by this statement

. But other countries don't agree with them. The Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against occupation[8][9].

Don't substantiate the claims that the Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against the occupation.

Jonexsyd 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence One of Hezbollah's principal declared aims is to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon that lasted from 1982 through 2000 and again starting in July of 2006 due to attacks inflicted on Israel by Hezbollah and the continuous occupation of the Shebaa Farms. is starting to sound non-sensical. Tense of "aims is" is wrong given than the 1982-2000 conflict is in the past.

Will make an edit that fixes the tense issue and removes POV statements. Jonexsyd 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the phrase "It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada." in the lead. It gives the impression that only those countries consider it a terrorist organization. Should we add something like "many western countries"? Or is that too unspecific and POV as well? What do you think? Any ideas? --Splette ^Talk 12:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't just use the international definition of terrorism, which is the intentional targeting of civilians for advancing political agenda and be done with it.Labaneh 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we use this definition then we should say the government of U.S. and Israel are terrorist too.--Sa.vakilian 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the emphasis here is on targeting civilians which neither US nor Israel do in my opinion. But this article is not about mine or your opinion. So lets better not start a political discussion here. Also I wasn't trying to suggest here to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the lead. It's just that the mentioning of US, Canada and Isreal makes it look like these are all countries. It would be interesting to see if/what other countries officialy recognize Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Does anyone have any information (with source) on this? --Splette ^Talk 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the lead - what justification has been given for putting the terrorist designation ahead of the resistance movement designation in the lead? In other words: who decides whether the less negative or more negative characterisation of an entity should lead? Do negative characterisations always take precedence? If not, why so in this case?

Jonexsyd 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I put POV tag and put description here[1]. --Sa.vakilian 13:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A tag is mostly meant to stimulate discussion, and there is quite a bit already ongoing. I'd propoe that we remove it. - brenneman ^{L} 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the debates. It shows neutrality of the lead is disputed.--Sa.vakilian 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is not neutral in the lead? Elizmr 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian, the lead is clearly POV as of 03:35, 13 August 2006. Compare it with the lead of 21:19, 8 August 2006, which was fine.

• The Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh,[2] meaning Party of God) is a Shi’a Islamic organization and political party in Lebanon, comprising a military and a civilian arm, whose primary stated goal is to defend Southern Lebanon against present or future Israeli occupation.[3][4][5][6] The current Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has held the office since 1992.

• The United States, Canada, and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but the European Union and the United Nations have no official position on the matter.[7][8] The vast majority of Lebanese and some Muslim states regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against present or future Israeli occupation.[9]

See also here, where the issue was raised, discussed and ignored. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead is wrong.Please look at this sentence: "Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below) considered by some to be terrorist attacks, but has not claimed responsibility for any of these acts. It is viewed by many Muslim countries, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist, as an organization of legitimate resistance against Israel. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization."

Hezbollah and its supporters accept its responsibility for military attacks to Israeli armies and civilians in Lebanon and Israel but there is disagreement about what it should be called . It's called legitimate resistance, retaliate attacks, fighting with Israel as a illegal and illegitimate state or terrorist acts.

So this sentence isn't suitable. The first sentence is fault and the second one too. Who do not recognize Israel's right to exist called Hezbollah attacks "Jihad" and who are opposo to occupation of Lebanon by Israel called it legitimate resistance.

Please look at to [2] too.--Sa.vakilian 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Sa.vakilian 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see your point. Let's figure out how to make this work. I'll write something and please let me know what you think. By the way--I did not take out the tag. Elizmr 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that is glossed over in this article is the internal power struggle in the early '90's, when Hezbollah was under pressure from Syria to become a political party and Secretary-General Tufayli was ousted (later discredited, then outlawed with H's tacit agreement, then disappeared (unknown whether exile or death). It seems to me that Hezbollah under Musawi and Nasrullah is a very different group from the one that (maybe) executed the spectacular attacks in the '80's and that (maybe) the Argentine bombings were the last gasp of the more radical elements. It is very clear from sources already quoted in the article (e.g. http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/norton.html) that there has been a change - perhaps big, perhaps small, perhaps not enough - since the early days. I suggest that any discussion of the major attacks should note who was Sec-Gen at the time. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved some part of lead to the introduction .

Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below). The characterization of these attacks varies widely. They are viewed by many Muslim countries, who for the most part do not recognize Israel's statehood, as legitimate acts of resistance, or Jihad, against Israel. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when most of these attacks took place and is still considered by Hezbollah, but not the UN, to occupy a small piece of land. Others consider these attacks to be "terrorist" acts.

Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization''.^[1][2][3]

I'd rather to achive a consensus then move this part to lead again.--Sa.vakilian 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This lead is 100% POV and should be deleted.

"widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings" Who "widely believed" this statement, you? You cannont use "widely". And which incidents are you refering to? "Multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings" name them and show proof.

"They are viewed by many Muslim countries, who for the most part do not recognize Israel's statehood, as legitimate acts of resistance, or Jihad, against Israel"

Are you joking? This is trash. Who are the "many Muslim countries"? MOST MUSLIM COUNTRIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE SHI'ITE MUSLIMS, BECAUSE 90% OF MUSLIME ARE SUNNI NOT SHI'ITE!! Here is just one artile proving this http://www.nysun.com/article/36373

SO YOU ARE 100% WRONG THAT THEY HAVE THIS SUPPORT! Only Iran and Syria support Hezbollah because Iran is the only almost 100% shi'ite muslim country on earth.

I could go on and on about your dumb posting. Delete it.

SkyEarth --SkyEarth 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and we can have a rational discussion and - hopefully - come to a consensus on this issue which you feel deserves the pressing of your caps lock key. ~ clearthought 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clearthought, I am 100% calm. I am not Jewish or Arab/Muslim but I am tired of all the mistakes making it through as "facts". Can't we learn that there are several "strands" of Islam like Christianity (protestans vs. Catholics). The Sunnis are the "Kings" of Islam. 90% of muslims worldwide are Sunni. The only country that is 88%+ Shi'ite is Iran. Therefore, it is only natural they are so supportive of Hezbollah, i.e. a Shi'ite movement. The rest of the Arab world hates shi'ites and are extreamly suspicious Shi'ites due to the fact that it come from Iran which is NEITHER ARAB NOR SUNNI. So, most Arab govt' are deeply worried about Hezbollah gaining influcence and therefore issue fatwas against Hezbollah (http://www.nysun.com/article/36373).

And the Syrians only support it because they are still at war with Israel and it is a marriage of conveinence.

So it is really is a lot more complex than most people think. Thank you for your attention. --SkyEarth 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, that is only one Saudi Sheik. Many Sunnis have supported - to a certain extent - there Shia 'adversaries', but nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, all under the US's grip (to a certain extent), have partially condoned Hezbollah. This Slate feature might be helpful to all trying to understand the situation. This BBC News page (and linked pages) may also be of use. ~ clearthought 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clearthough, Agree with above. The problem is that they (the Arabs) are foes of both Iran and Israel. The Shi'ite Persians on one hand and the Jewish Israelis on the other. They are Sunni Arab and are caught between which ones they "hate" and "fear" the least. And, right now I would say that they hate and fear Isreal less than Iran. I think because of the Shi'ite/sunni fight in Iraq this has caused them to tip more in favour or hating Israel less than Iran. But, nevertheless, most sunni arab muslims in power fear the shi'ite rise. So therefore, Hezbollah is both loved and hated. --SkyEarth 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can't beleive the guy who tried to talk us into that most of the Muslim world is against Hezbolla, the only logical explanation is that he comes from another galaxy, the (fatwa) he quoted from the saudi sheikh was condemned by all muslims (especially sunnis), by now muslims know that the alleged saudi sheikh's fatwa was a dirty trick, Americans order their puppets in KSA to pressure the resistence in lebanon, who in turn give orders to their puppets to issue such statements. Yes sunnis & shiaa have their differences, but by no means do one side prefer Israel to the other, Republicans & democrats hate the guts of each other, but i don't think democrats would prefer taliban to republicans. So yes, ALL muslims are backing Hezbolla 101%, & i mean muslim people, so don't quote from a government official or an arab president, cause we consider them our enemies same like israel. Arabs & muslims regard hezbolla as heros & as their only hope, don't ever say that hezbolla is hated or feared in the Muslim world, & don't ommit the feelings of 1.3 billion muslims because some good for nothing saudi sheikh was trying to comply with what his prince asked him to say.

I think something about the "operational history" should be in the lead. I worded the above to underline that there is a widely disparate view of these attacks. Could we discuss and come to consensus about what we could say that we could all be happy with? Elizmr 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I try to make this part neutral, NPOV and fair. Of course my English isn't very well thus I may make some mistakes. Please look at following text and write your idea.

Hezbollah and Israel have participated in too many military clashes against each other sience 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. Also both of them have attacked on civilians and assassinated or captured each other.^[4][5]

There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be called. Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement ^[6] because Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when most of these attacks took place and is still considered by Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms also Israel has held some Lebanese in the jail. The muslims who recognize Israel as an illigitimate state called it Jihad. Russia^[7] , the European Union^[8], China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia among others do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The United States, Canada, and Israel consider Hezbollah a full terrorist organization while the Australians and Dutch only view Hezbollah's external Security Organization as a terrorist Group. UN do not considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.(ref. Designation as a 'terrorist' organization)"--Sa.vakilian 08:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Everyone, I still do not agree that they have wide support in the muslim world. Please read Clearthough's and SkyEarth's comment's above. Everyone can agree that is has always been popular with the shi'ites but it has not always been popular with the sunni's until recently.--82.35.35.4 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sa.vakilian. Here's my edit. I think we should focus on Hezbollah's acts here, rather than Israels (because this article is about Hezbollah), but say CLEARLY and strongly why Hezbollah feels they are justified becuas that is important. Is that general idea ok? Also, I think we should say that not all of the Arab Muslim world feels this way because of the comment above. What do you think? Below, the first part is background to the second part.

Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings^{[9] [10] [11][12]}, murders^{[13][14][15] [16]}, hijackings^[17], and bombings^{[18] [19][20][21]} (note: for Israeli attacks on Hezbollah please see x). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization (see section x below).

Elizmr 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to the above discussion (not an expert or even very well-informed - in fact I came to read the article so I would be better informed) but here are a few thoughts (hopefully helpful):

(1) The article is indeed really long and should be split into side articles

(2) The level of writing ability for large parts of the article seems low, especially compared to other articles of this level/type. I mean no offense by this (as I wish I could read/write/speak another language) but it reads as though it was written by mostly non-native writers.

(3) Whoever spent all the time finding/citing sources is to be commended - been there/done that and it's a LOT of effort.

(4) Large parts of the article do tend to come across as POV, from both for and against sides though it reads to me as being largely written by pro-Hezbollah writers. (Note that I'm sure there's some bias in me too, as a typical American) Sources are helpful and add legitimacy, but when opinions are cited as fact, it still violates the NPOV principle.

I hope that helps, just a neutral wikipedian's thoughts. David Schroder 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the whole article until some balance can be achieved. Elizmr 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed due to insufficient rationale. If you wish to tag the article, go ahead, but if there is no specific reason given, with a current wording and a suggested wording that we can look at and vote on, it will be removed again. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting my paragraph (see above) in the lead. I'm assuming this is ok with others since no one has made comments. Elizmr 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved a long paragraph to here because it was very long and not suitable for lead.

"Another founding objective of the organization was elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel),^{[22] [23]} and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings^{[24] [25] [26][27]}, murders^{[28][29][30] [31]}, hijackings^[32], and bombings^{[33] [34][35][36]}. (note: Israel's retialitory attacks not discussed here). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization. "

Please discuss here to acheive consensus about what ara proposed.--Sa.vakilian 02:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian: I have discussed with you and incorporated your points and others to the best of my abilities. You keep deleting this but have not said anything specifically about what you disagree with. This is highly relevant well sourced information about HEzbollah which describes a crux issue. It is competely acceptable for the lead. Please stop taking it out. Instead, please tell me exactly what you feel is wrong with it, OK? Elizmr 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Elimer's comment review. 1- "violent acts" should be changed to "acts" otherwise it is POV. "violent acts" is not neutral. "violent" has a strong and negative meaning 2- "Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state." This is false; Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/01/international/i131823D79.DTL), Turkey, Mauritania, Azerbijan (http://www.azembassy.com/archive/2002/media/cjn29apr02.htm) and more HAVE ESTABLISHED REALTIONS WITH ISRAEL; 3- Do no use "jihad" only; Use resistance (Jihad); Jihad has a negative meaning in English. 4- REMOVE "violent" to acts of "resistance" 5- Finish with some states consider hezbollah a "resistance" movement and other consider it a "terroist" organ.

You are expressing a POV wheater you like it or not. --SkyEarth 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel's actions against Hezbollah MUST be expressed here. Or it is POV. It is an organization that is centered around fighting Israel so the battles need to be chronicled; You also cannot use "kidnap" http://www.answers.com/topic/kidnap ; This is not a neutral word. Kidnapping is a crime. Therefore by using it you are suggesting this is a crime. But not everyone will agree with this. Some people will see it as a crime. Others will see it as a strategy to get their own people released that were supposidly "kidnapped"; YOU MUST USE THE WORD "CAPTURE"; Capturing civilian/soldiers to use as bargining tools....

Re SkyEarth's precepts:

• It is perfectly acceptable to refer to "violent acts", to differentiate them from "non-violent acts"
• The quotation is not false, but it could certainly be made more precise. But why bother? This isn't an article about the Arab and Muslim world, it's an article about Hezbollah. Only H's views (and outside analysis of H's views) need to be reported.
• Jihad is perfectly acceptable; Hezbollah has used it to characterize its actions.
• "resistance" is how H describes its violent actions; others describe their violent actions using other terms. Care should be taken to maintain the integrity of paraphrased statements.
• Finish however you like.

JiHymas@himivest.com 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am tagging the article as POV because

1)all the content about hezbollah's violent methodologies in history, etc, has been removed to new articles without being summarized in this one 2)crux issues about history of the organization re: elimination of Israel, history of violence, how this is regarded in the Jihad sense and in the terrorist sense--acknowledging both viewpoints has been repeatedly repeatedly deleted by various editors 3)a un-biased Wikipedian above noted the article had a proHezbollah point of view I would really appreciate it if this tag were not removed dismissively. Elizmr 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian:Length was not an issue that you mentioned before. A lot of the length is due to adding stuff to reflect many viewpoints. Hez is an organization that is based on resistance against Israel. Isn't this true? The issue of views and goals re: Israel belongs in the lead, as does something about where these views come from, what methods have been used to achieve the goals, and viewpoints about the methods. What do you suggest we cut out? I would be willing to do a one or two sentence summary of my paragraph for the lead and then place the whole paragraph in the intro, but you keep deleting it entirely. I just can't find this acceptable. Elizmr 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose this one:"Hezbollah and Israel have participated in many military clashes against each other since 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. The conflicts have been the cause or the result of various kidnappings and assassinations.^[37][38]There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be defined as. 6 or 7 countries recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization the others (mostly muslims) recognized them as a legitimate resistance"

I think it's NPOV and short. We don't need too much details in the lead. If we put the name of one country then we should write the name of other countris too. so we can refer to Outside views of Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of various countries and their characterization is less important than a summary of what the org stands for and what it has done. If we kept what is in the lead short, are you willing to expand somewhat along the lines of what I had written:

Calls continue for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. The State of Israel), a founding objective of the organization. ^{[22] [23]} and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings^{[39] [40] [41][42]}, murders^{[43][44][45] [46]}, hijackings^[47], and bombings^{[48] [49][50][51]}. (note: Israel's retialitory attacks not discussed here). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization. "

in the intro?

I would really appreciate it if this tag were not removed dismissively. Elizmr 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tag might have a better chance of standing up if you are more specific about your complaints and if you attempt in good faith to form a consensus prior to slapping a NPOV tag on the entire article. My memory's getting a little poor in my old age, but I can only recall one debate in which you joined that had to do with specific contentious issue with which you were involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Widened_or_Abandoned. In that topic heading you made three contributions: two were mere assertions that you were right and the third advised that you'd gone ahead and made the change you desired unilaterally. (How you and Sa.vikalian can speak with such certainty as to what is and is not the subject of nods and winks at high-level Hezbollah meetings is quite beyond me. Half the time, I can't even figure out if my girlfriend wants me to stay or go.)

• Your claim that "'1)all the content about hezbollah's violent methodologies in history, etc, has been removed to new articles without being summarized in this one'" is without foundation. There are plenty of direct references in "Stance on the use of 'terrorist' tactics", "Position on Israel", "Relationship to Hamas and Palestinian national movement" and "Assistance from abroad".
• With respect to "History" specifically, this was discussed and consensus reached under the heading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Remove_.22Operational_History.22 . You received no support for your somewhat unspecific position; in fact, your contributions were unspecific complaints and a novel definition of the word "consensus"
• Your remaining claims are too general to warrant retaining the tag.

I vote: Remove Tag. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, it looks like you screwed up the references... And, this sentence Hezbollah attempts to maintain websites to run recruitment videos and post bank account numbers where supporters can donate funds.[72] These websites are also considered "an inseparable part of the psychological war"[73] and are tracked by other groups with a view to their closure.[74] seems made up. The links have nothing to do with that sentence. Coolintro 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All references were garbled by the extra ref tag in this revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=69941351&oldid=69941078 I've fixed it. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up the refs. It was not intentional. Consensus means everyone's opinions are considered and listened to. What is novel about that? In the middle of a Hazbollah-provoked war, three people decided to bury the operational history of Hezbollah on a separate page due to the length of the article, while overlooking much repetitive prose and devoting great swaths to social programs, etc. This effectively whitewashes the organization. I will take the tag off the article when, for a start, the article acknowledges Hezbollah's violent methods (I was going to say "past methods" but recent kidnapping and murders did not really allow me to do this) and future plans rather than putting the ortanization forth as a benign public service organization committed to supporting the development of a pluralistic society in Lebanon. It is ok to say anything positive anyone wants about Hezbollah. Given the facts and the cites, I will even write it. But to refuse to air the other side is not Wikipedian. I haven't been able to devote much productive work to this because every time I add a few well-refed sentences they are immediately deleted. Previously, I argued that an analysis from a short BBC piece which did not quote any other literature was not a sufficient cite to support a claim of what Hezbollah's goals are in the lead of the article. I did not say my opinion was "right" or "wrong", I just said I thought the evidence was not sufficient. Finally, when you quote (?me) saying the following: How you and Sa.vikalian can speak with such certainty as to what is and is not the subject of nods and winks at high-level Hezbollah meetings is quite beyond me. Half the time, I can't even figure out if my girlfriend wants me to stay or go. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your comment that my claims are too general to support the tag are your own value judgement. It looks like you are a new editor on Wikipedia and you are doing a nice job, but I think it is important to remember that you are not the "supervising" editor on this article and everything on Wikipedia is a group project. Elizmr 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: What do you mean from "three people decided to bury the operational history of Hezbollah on a separate page due to the length of the article". I proposed it and I defend my work. This article is too long. Also The history of Hezbollah is not only the the Hezbollah's operation against Israel but it includes the assassinations, bombings and kidnapings which has done by Israel against Hezbollah[3]. You always blame as if Hezbollah is terrorist and Israel only defends on itself and it does some retality attacks. You forget Israel runover Lebanon in 1982. You forget Israel assassinated Hezbollah last Secretary-General and his family. You forget what happened in Qana in 1996. You forget Israel has held some Lebanese for more than 20 years and you forget many other things. Please read this.

I beleive the wikipedians can't judge which one is self defence and which one is terror by themselves.

So I propose this sentence for the lead:"Hezbollah and Israel have participated in many military clashes against each other since 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. The conflicts have been the cause or the result of various kidnappings and assassinations against each other.[4],

[5]There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be defined as. 6 or 7 countries recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization the others recognized them as a legitimate resistance" --Sa.vakilian 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian, I think that your pov that the violence is all mutual with hostilities going equally in both directions is competely and totally valid and should be aired here. There are other povs too which need to be aired if the article is to be balanced. The sentence you have written does not do justice to all points of view. Elizmr 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV. I think Israel occupied Lebanon and killed innocent people and Hezbollah tried to withdraw them. I just propose this sentence help to acheive consensus. If you think there is another NPOV sentence, Please write it and don't blame me.--Sa.vakilian 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When we say that Hezbollah's violent acts are legitimate acts of Jihad and explain all the background--Israeli occupation, Sheba farms, etc--your point of view is aired, isn't it? I tried to write that sentence to express this explicitly. The other point of view, that the violent acts are terrorist also needs to be aired. The best intro sentence just outlines the attacks under discussion. The intro sentence does not need to say anything about WHY, because that comes in the next two bits. With this section in place as it currently stands, I think we are moving towards NPOV. Elizmr 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this paragraph: "Hezbollah is currently one of the two main organizations representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc, but the only militant one.[28] It is also a recognised political party in Lebanon,[29] currently taking just over 10% of the seats (14 out of 128) in the Parliament of Lebanon. The bloc it forms with others, the Resistance and Development Bloc, 27.3% (see Lebanese general election, 2005). Hezbollah also organises an extensive social development programme which runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad al-Bina') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon.[30]"

This paragraph is a seprate part of the introduction but Elizmr has put it after the debates about "what Hezbollah is called with different countries" and also joins this two issue with this sentence "One argument against labeling Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization is their wider mission and spectrum of activities as a religious, political, and social group."

Elizmr, you'll find this two issue completely seprate if look at the history and I beleive they should be seperate.--Sa.vakilian 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I was trying to condense the section but I certainly see your point. Do you want to put it back or should I? Elizmr 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas you just deleted some well thought out and well edit sumaried work I did on the introduction and your edit summary refers to the history section. You have been very attacking on the talk page, accusing me of not looking for consensus, etc. I am working hard on the article to get the NPOV tag off it. I think your repeated reversions of my edits are a little bit personally motivated at this point. Could you try to look at my work on its own merit? I am a good editor, and trying to be fair. Elizmr 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the person responsible for the POV tag, "working hard on the article to get the NPOV tag off it" is disingenuous to say the least. Get consensus, if you can, and then make the changes. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly disingenuous. I felt the article was/is slanted. That is why I put the tag on. I explained why (and I know you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, but many articles are tagged with much less discussion). I am working making edits to add some balance to the article so that we can take it off. Why is that disingenuous? Elizmr 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21_Hezbollah JiHymas@himivest.com 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Because this page become too long I propose to move it to archives. Also I propose rearrange archives on the basis of topics. I think a historically archives cause the last debates missed. So we can make POV Discussions, Structure Discussions and so on. I can help you with it if you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mcedar's just moved a lot of material into another archive - beating me to it! I had been planning, on August 22, to move every heading that had no entries dated later than August 15; he appears to have taken a more subjective approach. I think that it's appropriate to leave headings up for at least a week to allow all editors a chance to weigh in. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean if there is a debate in the next year about POV of the article, new editors can't find the last debates in this issue easily. Please pay attention to this problem [6]--Sa.vakilian 03:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with re-arranging the archives by topic. Sounds like an enormous task, but if you want to do it, go ahead! I suspect that it would be much easier and just as useful to create an index to the archives, so they were arranged (at least approximately!) by date, but accessible by topic. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea Sa.vakilian. Thanks for it. Elizmr 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One comment, however. In working with the archives it is important not to edit too heavily or things can get removed from context. Elizmr 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a new archive for POV and disputed issues. I didn't move anything and just copied them from former archives to new one. I did this on the basis of frequency of using "POV" and "disputed" so please read it carefully and remove anything which doesn't relate. Also I rearrange former archives. I moved all of debates which happened in July to Archive 2 and all of debates which had been ended before 8 August to archive 3.--Sa.vakilian 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed this bit of text from the intro: Sheba farms...."which Syria has no intention of ceding to Lebanon; is used as a pretext by Hezbollah to justify "resistance." I see the point that Hezbollah may be using this as a pretext, but this sentence was making the point of why Hezbollah considers their violent acts to be Jihad and it makes that less clear. Also, if this idea (pretext) is going to be in the article, we need a cite. Could we work the idea in elsewhere? Elizmr 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article that references the Hezbollah and should be added to the reference section.

• "Qassem meets U.S. delegation of women," Lebanon Daily Star, November 11, 2005

Under the woman's rights section, it is claimed Hezbollah referred to Iran as its 'model and example'; Iran made this claim.

The source on this sentence is crap. It reads like a machine translation, it refers to a photo that's not presented on the page, and -- most importantly -- describes one truck of Hezbollah troops conducting operations in civilian clothes, not general practice. Is there a better reference available? —ptk✰fgs 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed altogether - it's POV to me. All armies including the IDF have plain clothes units (Duvdevan etc) so I don't see it as relevant. Riddley 14:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about this. If Hezbollah fighters are not in uniform and there are deaths in combat, how are civilians vs. Hezbollah fighters counted? Elizmr 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple. All casualties except for the token few admitted by Hezbollah are counted as civilian. Isarig 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, it is quite relevant. Do you have sources/cites? Elizmr 09:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a tongue-in-cheek edit. However, I don't see how it's possible for it to be any other way. Isarig 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, since ALL Israeli men over 18 have to serve in the armed forces--as apposed to Lebanon where joining the Hezbollah is optional, how can you really define ANY Israeli male over the age of 18 as "civilian"? In fact, that same point was made by the Abu Nidal group following the Munich attack on Jewish athletes. ALL of them had served in the IDF, and therefore were soldiers and not innocent civilians. The real question, though, is if a soldier on leave with his wife and children renders his whole family legitimate targets of mass murder via air attacks, a belief Israel feels is legitimate, then any attack on Israel that kills any males is a legitimate pursuit of military objectives, and any women and children killed, were killed "accidentally", and are "collateral damage". You have to be willing to make the same argument both ways.

You can roughly estimate the numbers as follows. We want to know what fraction P of the killed people were fighters. Suppose all the fighters are male of an age between 18 and 50. From the population census you can determine what fraction of the population is male and in this age range. Let's call this fraction f. Then, as a function of P and f the fraction of killed males in the age range will be:

(1-P)f + P = f + (1-f)P

Because the fraction of people killed who are not fighters is (1-P) and a fraction f of those are male in the given age range and all the killed fighters are in the age range.

Count Iblis 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your formula does not allow us to solve for P. It is a tautology, expanding into f-fP +P= f + P -fP. Isarig 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The formula is ok. The tautology is just my simplification of the formula. Let me give an example. Suppose that demographic studies show that f = 1/4 (fraction of men of fighting age). Suppose that the statistics of the casualties shows that 1/2 of all the casualties are men of fighting age. Then you solve P from the equation:

1/4 + (1-1/4)P = 1/2 -->

P = 1/3

Count Iblis 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is better, but still incorrect. You are assuming that f, which is a percentage of the general population, will hold constant when applied to a much smaller subset of people, who are NOT randomly selected. There is no reason to make that assumption, and good reason to assume that it will NOT be the same f. Using your example, suppose that an attack killed a subset of the population comprised of a bunch of fighters hiding with their wives. 1/2 of all the casualties are men of fighting age (the fighters), but in the subset of people killed, f != 1/4. In this subset f=1/2. Your formula can only be used if one assumes that the attacks were totaly random (which they are not) or if one assumes that the distribution of the population in the targets is the same as in the genral population - an assumption that is implausible, to say the least, when you consider that most civilians had fled the attacked areas for safety. Isarig 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is an oversimplification. There are indeed some conditions that have to be met. The formula doesn't assume that the attacks are random, only that when an attack kills innocent people (with probability 1-P) that it will randomly kill people. But anyway, it is possible to refine the model to take into account the points you raise.

The nice thing about such an approach is that you can estimate the number of killed fighters from the statistics of the killed people and the general population without having to find out exactly who of the killed persons was a fighter and who wasn't. Count Iblis 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've come up with a formula for ... whatever, but this is still WP:OR and if the article is going to discuss Hezbollah uniform policy we need a source for it. Other than that I think we're done here. —ptk✰fgs 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research??? I guess that these methods were invented somewhere in the 18-th century :). And surely original research is allowed on the talk pages :) Count Iblis 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that article talk pages are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.. Please.. This talk page is rough enough to keep up with.. The sentence that started this discussion has been removed a while back. If we need to further discuss that, lets do so. Mceder 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would the Hezbollah article fit under this category ? LindaWarheads 07:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on our viewpoint about the relation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. If they are similiare or have close relation then I agree with you. But I think they are different. So we can put Hezbollah like Hamas, Islamic Republic of Iran and some other groups in Islam and anti-Zionism.--Sa.vakilian 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It could go in both, probably. There is no doubt that Hezbollah is anti-Zionist, but a Lebanese Shiite academic has argued that it is also anti-Semetic.

I am not sure the categories in question are all that helpful, in any case, due to the contentiousness of the topics, and am afraid this question might have been raised here to introduce discord. Elizmr 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you guys read the whole article? What is this then?
Hassan Nasrallah has a history of making anti-Semitic statements (e.g. "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide").
I think it clarifies Nasrallah's (and Hezbollah's) position as anti-semitic.

I took the pov tag off the article afer recent changes. I think the clean-up tag could come off--what do people think? Elizmr 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a little more cleanup would be a good idea. Wjbean

I don't understand how the structural order relates to POV. I think the article is NPOV either military activity comes first or not.--Sa.vakilian 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some desent on when Hezbollah was founded. Clearly it was formed as a [b]movement[/b] in 1982 in response to Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Clearly it was declared as an official [b]organization[/b] with a published manifesto in 1985. But the first or second paragraph do not quite make clear how Hezbollah differed in 1982 and 1985. Wjbean

I made some topic archives to prevent repeated debates. I copied some of the debates there but you can complete my efforts .--Sa.vakilian 05:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is really helpful of you to keep the debates cleaned up. What a great wikipedian you are! Elizmr 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Article appears to be locked against editing. Could someone please remove this duplicated text from Social services? It is duplicated under Funding.

Hezbollah mainly gets its money from donations, known as zakat is the duty of any Muslim. Lebanese Shi’ites often make contributions directly after prayers, leaving change in the two-handed Hezbollah collection tins. Hezbolla receives financial support from Iran. [107]. -213.219.141.119 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would do it, but I kind of agree with it being duplicated. The note is in context, IMHO, in its place at Social services, explaining where the money is coming from to fund the hospitals etc. The Funding section is far removed from that part of it. I will leave it to someone else who feel more strongly about it then I do perhaps. Mceder 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh! But I did add the sprotected template after verifying this is still sprotected! Yay me! Mceder 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me. This was my mistake. So I removed one of them.--Sa.vakilian 03:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could we add tags like these "‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}" (ie "wavy bracket wavy bracket fact wavy bracket wavy bracket")to stuff that needs sources rather commenting out to hide them? I think this is standard procedure. The tags serve the purpose of letting editors see that a cite is needed and going to find it. When something is commented out, people don't see it so no one will know cites are being requested. Elizmr 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. And I added {{fact}} but nobody added any references after one or two week. So I hided them instead of deleting.--Sa.vakilian 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems better to leave them anyway unless they are completely outrageous. The little {{fact}} tag shows that the information is suspect. Or maybe put a note on the user page of the person who put them in in the first place asking them to come and leave cites. You and I have been editing every day recently, but some people don't check as often and a week doesn't really feel like enough. I am not the wiki police however, just a suggestion. Elizmr 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The EU Council designates Imad Mugniyah as a terrorist, claiming he is Hezbollah's "Senior Intelligence Officer".[182] [183] [184][185][186] This is backed by 5 references. Do we really need that? Can we pick one good un' and remove the rest? Mceder 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• This has now been done. ^{[52][53][54][55]} Mceder 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than removing references, if there are two many footnotes you can combine many citations into one footnote. This is probably a better idea, for future reference. Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)