Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Islamic State?

Havent Hezbollah abandoned that statement when their former leader died? I will remove this until citation is shown. This will just cause confusion since Hezbollah's goal is not making Lebanon into an Islamic State now and viewers will get the wrong picture of this and see the organisation as a fundamentalistic organisation.

Also, this is not possible since in the Government, every religious group must be represented in the Government, making it impossible. Edit: Yes, after I read I saw that this sentence was written: "Although Hezbollah originally aimed to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic, Hezbollah's spiritual guide Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah[52]claims this goal has been abandoned." Should say enough =)

Censoring of Argentine prosecutor's religion

First of all, how dare you give yourself the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant on Wikipedia. You are nothing more than someone with enough free time to spend hours a day censoring articles. You do not have the authority you gave yourself.

Second, in case you have been in a cave, there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people. The prosecutor's religion could have very likely played a role in his discretionary decision. Even if it didn't play a role, there is no need to censor that information. I don't want to waste my time disputing this with you further. Please call a responsible Wikipedia moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.183.177 (talk • contribs)

So, you have only confirmed that you want to insert the prosecutor's religion into this article solely to buttress your insinuations. Beit Or 08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Er yeah, and the notion that there is a "global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people" isn't the most accurate according to everyone. Now, I could be open to noting the prosecutor's religion, but we need evidence that it is notable. If you could find a neutral source who notes the prosecutor's religion in this context that would go a long way to persuading us to include it. JoshuaZ 08:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is true why is it relevant? It would likely only be used to insinuate that the proecutor is somehow bias because of his religion, which is simply ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please get a responsible moderator here? Why are you so afraid of people learning that the prosecutor is Jewish? You don't think it's possible that a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians? Wikipedia is an intellectually honest forum, and is allowed to contain facts you don't like. Please call a responsible moderator as I don't have time to get into an edit war with dozens of Israeli censors. --75.17.183.177 08:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One could just as easily ask why you are so ocncerned with people knowing he is Jewish (without a source I might add).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How dare you claim the information is uncited? Do you have any ability to discern truth from mis-truth? The cite is right next to the article. The information is relevant because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religious and political affiliation. You have no right to censor this information. It's disgusting that a mob of Israeli censors are allowed to monitor and destroy the objectivity of Wikipedia. --75.17.183.177 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to people familiar with my work on Wikipedia, but I support the publishing of Alberto Nisman's religion. It is cited and I have no reason to challenge the reliability of the source or accuracy of the statement. On the other hand, to ensure NPOV, if we include information about one of the prosecuter's religion, we must include information about all of the prosecuters' religions. The entire statement from "The Jewish Week" that 75.17.183.177 refers to reads: "Nisman, who is Jewish, and [Marcelo Martinez] Burgos, who isn’t, oversee a staff of some 45 people ...."[1] If we do not include the religion of Burgos and the fact that 45 people work for them (and let's be honest, most of those people are probably Roman Catholic), we would be distoring the truth slightly implying that only a Jew would come to the conclusion that Hezbollah is responsible for the AMIA bombing, or, in the words of 75.17.183.177, that "a Jewish person in authority might use his discretionary power to target Muslims and Iranians."

P.S. Mr. 75.17.183.177, am I correct in assuming that you believe in a tangible link between Hezbollah and "Iranians?" :) --GHcool 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Week tells us who is and who isn't Jewish because it is, well, The Jewish Week. I can't think of any good reason why Wikipedia should discuss religious and ethnic affilitations of otherwise non-notable people. Beit Or 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, mentioning his religion is irrelevant and completely unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE get a Non-Israeli and objective moderator to resolve this? --75.17.183.177 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I for one am not Israeli and even if all of us were it wouldn't matter just as your nationality and religion has no bearing either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From your edit history it is crystal clear that you spend your day censoring articles in the way the other Israeli censors do. --75.17.183.177 08:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

comment Yeah sometime some people censor things in wikipedia, for example like what they did here --Nielswik_(talk) 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think adding fact that he is jewish is not a bad idea. For example, why we need to specify Hizbullah is Shia Islamist militant (1st paraghraph) or is an armed Sunni Islamist organization in Al-Qaeda's description? --Nielswik_(talk) 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really sad that a mob of Israeli censors can effectively censor information with edit wars. Simply disgusting. I don't know what to say. --75.17.183.177 09:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the Israeli censor Beit Or contrived another reason to hide this information (that Nisman isn't the only prosecutor) -- If you google the story, or google Nisman's name, you will get 1000s of hits confirming that he is the lead prosecutor. Here is a link http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=alberto+nisman&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 for you --75.17.183.177 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nieswik, I left the name (which is perhaps relevant if he was the chief prosecutor, but not if he was just one of them), but his religion/ethnicity is completely irrelevant. Please don't add it again, unless you can find a reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful). Please review WP:NOR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now the news article isn't reliable? Since when did pro-Israel censors decide which news sources were and weren't reliable? So when you don't like the information you attack the reporter? Stop censoring the information. --75.17.183.177 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the following entry in Wikipedia's request for unprotection page [2].

There has been an endless edit war between pro-Israeli censors and other users regarding disclosure of the fact that an Argentine prosecutor, who filed charges against various Muslims for a 12 year old event, is Jewish. I think this is relevant information because it may indicate that the prosecutor's discretionary decision was motivated by his religion. As anyone knows, the world is currently embroiled in a war between Muslims and Jews. Knowing the religious affiliation of a person can be very important to understanding why he did what he did. Unfortunately, a group of pro-Israel censors (their affiliation is clear from their edit history) refuses to allows the publication of the fact that the prosecutor is Jewish, even though it is well cited [2]. First they claimed it was irrelevant. They gave themselves, and not the readers, the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant. Then they claimed that he wasn't the prosecutor and was only working as part of a team. A quick google search of Alberto Nisman [3] reveals that he is the lead prosecutor. He runs the team and he is the sole prosecutor listed in all of the mainstream articles. Then they claimed that Jewish week isn't a respectable news source. They had the nerve to attack the reporter's (Larry Luxner) journalism! Then one of the pro-Israeli censors accused me of racism and banned my IP, simply for daring to suggest that a Jewish person's religion might have something to do with the discretionary decisions he makes towards Muslims! Their actions have now reached the height of intellectual dishonesty. Rather than disclose the information and let readers decide if it's relevant, they want to hide it, and deny the readers the ability to think for themselves. Please correct the articles under "hezbollah", "AMIA bombing" and "Rafsanjani" to add four simple words disclosing the fact that the lead prosecutor is Jewish. Please keep wikipedia as an objective source of information, and not a tool controlled by a mob of pro-Israel censors.." Although pro-Israeli censors seemingly dominate wikipedia (I seriously wonder if some of them are paid), they do not dominate the world and Wikipedia will be less relevant if it only presents facts they like. Alternatively, please set up an Alberto Nisman article and provide a biography of his life and accomplishments, and like every other biography article, disclose his religion. Your prompt and fair attention to this matter is appreciated. Footnote - The pro-Israeli censors are listed below. Their affiliation is clear from their edit history and user pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GHcool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amoruso http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg

Yep, I'm sure people will respond to that pretty well, and if they don't they must be Israelis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like 75.5.1.216's request was declined, but let's get the order of events clear:

1. 75.17.183.177 accused well-meaning Wikipedias of censorship.
2. Those Wikipedians challenged the relevance of Nisman's religion to the article on Hezbollah.
3. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman's religion may have swayed him to "target Muslims and Iranians" because "there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people."
4. I, GHcool, offered a fair, NPOV compromise to the problem: we should inform the public on Nisman's religion if and only if we include the religious affiliations of the other prosecuters as well.
5. 75.17.183.177 argued that Nisman was the lead prosecuter and implied that therefore his religion is more important to the article than all of the other prosecuters' religions.
6. SlimVirgin, a neutral Wikipedian, agreed with Beit Or other like minds that Nisman's religion is irrelevent to the article on Hezbollah. She suggested that 75.17.183.177 find a "reliable source who discusses it and argues that it's relevant (but even then we'd have to be careful)."
7. 75.17.183.177 misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally) SlimVirgin's suggestion to mean that his source that told Nisman's religion, "The Jewish Week," was an unreliable source.
8. 75.17.183.177 filed a complaint with the folks at the Wikipedia unprotection page.
9. That complaint was rejected. Long live NPOV.

--GHcool 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a statement in the arbitration complaint against your mob. I was not surprised that someone had previously filed a complaint against you. I also thank God that my existence is not so devious that I have to spend my days censoring information. Enjoy your misery as your efforts are largely futile. The real world thinks for themselves. --75.5.2.227 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. I don't see any complaint against me on that page. --GHcool 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my arbitration request was deleted. User Jayjg (his edit history is replete with pro-Israel wikipedia censorship) deemed the addition of Nisman's religion racist and banned me. Further, user Thatcher131 deemed that since I had been banned, I would not be given an arbitration request. So now it is impossible to even get a hearing on whether this information should be included. This whole affair is really beyond sad and is an indication that pro-Israeli censors are not interested in truth, but are rather interested in imposing their will. Having now dealt with you first hand, I am no longer confused as to why most of the civilized world holds a negative view of Israel and Israelis. May fate continue to justly bring misery to your oppressive lives, and may you waste your weeks futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I can think of no better prison for you. --75.28.17.156 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Misery over the futile attempt to convince people to act ethically is, unfortunately, a uniquely Jewish curse; one that has prevailed throughout history. If it truly is a "prison" for us, then I can think of no better one either. Fortunately, there are some days in which this otherwise futile goal is achieved. This was one of those days.  :) --GHcool 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I read that God sometimes hates a group of people so much that he no longer gives them the ability to discern what is and isn't right. He creates a prison for them, but by denying them the ability to discern truth, he denies them the ability to break out. Although I don't know why God would torment one group to a life of endless misery and futility, I thank God that I and most of the civilized world, have been spared from your prison. Again, may you waste your hours futilely attempting to control people's thoughts. I will leave this mess, and for that I feel blessed. --75.28.17.156 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether your speculations are true or not, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and especially the part Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you start accusing for any reason on any Wikipedian that has been around far longer than you in here. I have been active in here for no more than two months, and I do not have a stance in this arguments about the point of view on the Jewish things. However, I have been here long enough to have a rough aspect of and respect the policies in here. Furthermore, just because you deem yourself higher status than us does not mean that it is or will be true in any way, and barely anyone would be affected by your condemnation on us. If you have any complaints about it being a legitimate source, try to resolve the dispute in a peaceful way.

By the way, the arbitration committee is for the last resort in such case that everything else fails. I sincerely hope that you could one day become one of the Wikipedians and am looking forward for it. Cheers, Vic226 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation

I am a tool. I've noticed that there are a few citations at the bottom that are blank... they are used in parts of the article, and seem to me to be there simply to imply that a certain claim is verified, yet there is no verification... there isn't even a bad link... the footnote is totally blank. What do I/we do about things like this? --GaelicWizard 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed that some sources are, well, poor. For example, citation #7 is to a BBC article. The BBC article has /no/ references (that I could find), which I think make it unsuitable for use as a reference itself. Furthermore, the BBC is known for being fairly unfriendly towards Israel in its news coverage. Further-furthermore, the article itself wavers back and forth on the information it presents: It starts by praising Hezbollah, then calls it a terrorist organization, then back and forth throughout the article.I think it should be removed, especially since it is referenced several times in the text. --GaelicWizard 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. Nowhere in the text does the author even implicate praise. The impartiality of it may be debated, but certainly not this.

Although the BBC article gives no references and has a history of anti-Israel bias, this specific report seems pretty well researched. I do not think it should be deleted, but I do encourage anyone to add more footnotes to other articles supporting the same or similar findings. If I have the time, perhaps I will do some of this myself. (EDIT: Done. The BBC article is now footnote #8) --GHcool 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC recently carried out a survey on its coverage of Israel/Palestine and discovered that it was (quite strongly) biased towards the Israeli position [3] - that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in the amount of talk time given to non-party political Israelis and Palestinians; - that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of Israeli and Palestinian actors; - that some important themes were relatively overlooked in the coverage of the conflict, most notably in the recent period, the annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem; - that BBC journalists generally did not provide historical context in their reporting of the conflict; - that BBC broadcast news reported Israeli and Palestinian fatalities differently in that Israeli fatalities generally receive greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities etc. PalestineRemembered 17:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This does not make much sense. You (prior users) have asserted that the article has a weak base because their is not much supporting evidence; where's yours?

It seems that Yahoo! News has changed their URL scheme, which means that all the citations that reference Yahoo! News don't work... I'll try to find the new URLs. Is there a better way to do this? Also, can I just change the URL of the citation? Do I have to list it here first? I don't want to step on anyone's toes. :-) --GaelicWizard 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations #138, #142, and #144 are exactly the same: "Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (2006-04-28). Country Reports on Terrorism: State Sponsors of Terror Overview. Retrieved on 17 July 2006. " Someone please tell me that it is O.K. to just start changing things. I'm uncertain if things like citations should be as easily changed as article wording. --GaelicWizard 22:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be much happier if you did; I would like to know where I can find more proof of the impartiality of the article.

Citation #134, along with not having a description, has nothing to do with the section it supposedly supports (Hezbollah's social expenditures), but rather Sunni-Shi'ite tensions.--Chobbs138 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist organization III

This is really getting ridiculous. Your arguing is pointless and won't change anything. No matter what you say one thing is for certain, and that is that there is absolutely no one who after reading your arguments will say to himself "He's right, Hezbollah really is/isn't a terrorist organization". Everyone has his made up conclusion and there is nothing you say that can change that. (I am sure that everyone arguing here gets that by now). Every argument/accusation has been argued against so far, and there is no such thing as a neutral citation on this subject on the internet (Either it's from Israel and its supporters, or from Hezbollah and its supporters).

My advice is for you to do something like this: "There are two main views on Hezbollah - One from Israel, America.... stating that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization (And this is where Itzse, GHcool and all their wiki friends can talk like they never talked before.)" "The second view comes from the Lebanon, Iran.... stating that Hezbollah is a resistance group (And this is the place Mac, Palestineremembers and the rest of their wiki alias can write till their hearth's content).

Because there are two types of points of view on this subject, you can simply divide them into the two mentioned categories and be done with it. What you are doing can never satisfy both sides and it certainly isn't neutral and can never be neutral. Overhere 18:15, 20 October 2006

The suggestion is extremely reasonable. I agree wholeheartedly. --GHcool 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't get it. Do you people think that you will accomplish anything here. To spoil you the exciting climax I will tell you how all this will end. Another war will erupt (Not between Hezbollah and Israel but between some other countries-possibly involving Iran and US) and everyone who is arguing for Hezbollah here will go to that new page to defend Iran, while everyone supporting Israel will go there to support US. And so on until who knows what (possibly a completely new war).

And if you think "People will get tired of arguing and move on and this arguing will stop" you are mistaken. Some people who argued before have realized the stupiditness of it and have moved on, only the problem is that the next day a new determined user ready to share his "neutral" point of view with the rest of the "mistaken" users would join the never-ending battle (I am pretty sure that most of these arguments have been argued and are being repeated). Overhere 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Overhere: Finally some words to the point. I agree with you that the proper way to go; is to properly give both points of view and let the reader decide. But I predict that it will not last because those that are here to push their point of view will only concentrate on tearing down anything negative to their POV under the masks of NPOV/POV until we get tired and finally give up. But let’s at least try; and if we succeed in turning this into a neutral & fair article; then what's good over here should be good over there & everywhere. Itzse 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I will now attempt to cut the Gordian Knot.

Having just read through this extremely long debate, let me propose a solution. On the one hand, in the interests of fairness we should not unequivocally state that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. On the other hand, a great many people feel very, very passionately that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I propose bumping the word 'terrorist' up into the very first sentence, rather than the third, although leaving its reference (in slightly modified form) in the third sentence, since that's really about what, for political reasons, various national governments have formally labeled it. The very first thing that many people think when they hear 'Hezbollah' is 'terrorist', and the entry should reflect that, not halfheartedly bury it mid-paragraph. But again, this should only indicate how wide and fervent the perception of Hezbollah as terrorist is, not explicitly label the organization as such. That equivocation plus the first paragraph assertion that the label is highly controversial in Arab states, is, I believe, satisfactorily fair. (Let's see how long this lasts.)

For my own POV, I do acknowledge other arguments but do also consider Hezbollah terroristic. I would recommend subtracting the highly volatile Israel debate as a basis for argument, and substitute Hezbollah's involvement in the AMIA bombing, which occurred on Argentinian soil, killed 84 people and injured almost 300, which is much more unequivocally a terrorist act than anything committed against Israel, beneficial social programs or no.Ford MF 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Most of the Arab world does not recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, so you would have to add that in the first sentence too. Also, there isn't a shred of evidence that Hezbollah was involved in the AMIA bombings. A man arrested in Britain on Argentina's request had to be released due to lack of evidence a year ago. Count Iblis 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Ford MF's compromise is quite acceptable. If you want to add that most of the Arab world does not recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and have the citatations to back that up, you can add that,too, but it's easily verifiable that it is considered a terrorist organization in the Western world. Your statement that there isn't a shred of evidence that Hezbollah was involved in the AMIA bombings is simply ludicrous. For there to be an international warrant for the arrest of Imad Mugniyah impleis, ipso facto, that there is evidence for Hezbollah involvement. Isarig 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've modified that sentence a bit. I'm not sure that the involvement of a Hezbollah member in a terror attack would imply that the organization itself is terrorist. Even if this figure is a high ranking Hezbollah member, you would need a bit more than the actions of a person. If, say, a high ranking US general was involved in Abu Graib abuses, that would still not be sufficient evidence for the claim that the US, military as an institution is guilty of such abuses. Count Iblis 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with your modification. Regarding the second part of your post - if the US military authorities subsequently aided and abetted that General in escaping justice or even failed to prosecute him, that would be sufficient evidence for a claim that the US military as an institution is guilty of such abuses. Isarig 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph as currently modified by Isarig and Count Iblis is a better, fairer and more succint compromise than what I originally wrote, and hope that it stays that way. Thanks! Ford MF 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig: I agree that then to some extent the military would be responsible. But then, you can find examples in history where similar things did happen. Take e.g. the US involvement in the coup that led to the overthrow of Allende, or take the attempts on Castro's life, or perhaps the French who blew up the GreenPeace ship Rainbow Warrior in a harbor in New Zealand killing a Dutch photographer.

So, are the French guilty of terrorism? Accepting for arguments sake that the attack was illegal, I would still say no. The French state doesn't have the intention of killing civilians. The French government doesn't spend its time planning terror attacks. But they may be criminally responsible for the actions of their secret agents. I take a similar view on Hezbollah. I'm not saying that their members are not guilty of terror attacks. Perhaps the organization itself can be held criminally responsible for some illegal attacks.

But my POV is that, barring evidence to the contrary, they are not a terror organization, in the sense of being an organization that is devoted to planning and organizing terror attacks like e.g. Al Qa'ida is. If we were to say that an organization can be a terror organization even if they are very indirectly involved in terror attacks, then we should be prepared to apply that standard to ourselves or our governments as well. If we don't do that then you get into all sorts of nasty POV debates about Israel the US etc. about whether some actions by these states constitutes state terrorism etc. Count Iblis 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Count Iblis, I don't agree. Punitive force is a prerogative of national governments. That's why countries can declare war whereas individuals and organizations, by definition, cannot. If the United States declares war on Germany and kills Germans, then it is an act of war. If I, or, say, the New York Yankees, declares war on Germany and we kill some Germans, than we are merely crazy people and murderers. Ford MF 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ford MF, I do agree that governments can declare war legally. But they can also act in illegal ways, take e.g. the Iran Contra affair, Watergate, the assassination attempts on Castro. All these things were investigated by the Senate. My opinion is that even if, say, Kissinger was directly involved in some political assassination abroad in a way that violates the US constitution (I don't think he was), then that in itself would not make the US a terrorist country. Count Iblis 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

....if only the majority of you werent lied to and knew the truth of what israel is up to and has been doing for the past 30 years, then you would understand. its a shame your knowledge is wasted on this. 71.251.113.3 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's a shame that with your superior expertise you don't make an account, login, and actually improve Wikipedia, instead of anonymously trolling without making something even vaguely reminiscent of a helpful suggestion. Please review some helpful Wiki contributor guidelines. In fact, I think I better go and read that again myself. Ford MF 09:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel existence is a crime against humanity, and against all laws and legeslations, therefore, any person claiming to be an 'israeli' shouldn't excpect welcome from palestinians and surrounding arabic countries. In my opinion, any military attack against "israeli" citizen is a legit resistance against occupation. you can't take others land then act like if you were 'innocent'.

Why, if it isn't another unsigned bit of nonsense condemning Israel's existance. Way to go, Whatever-Your-Name-Is. Feel free to contribute something of value next time. --GHcool 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, who began terrorising? Hezbollah entered Israel, captured two israels and caused no fear, in order to get back the prisoners Israle had captured, even just regural farmers. "Terrorist" is defined as using violence to fear a certain people. I guess that did not happen in this case. No evacuation occoured and Hezbollah caused no damage to Civilians, untill Israel responded to raid Lebanon, destroying most of its infrastructure. Who are the terrorists actually?

Wow. At least the last unsigned bit of nonsense was written by someone who displayed a mastery of basic grammar and spelling most people learned in elementary school. The anti-Israel folks are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. --GHcool 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to "Itsze", shooting rockets is nothing considering what the Zionist regime did in the early 1900s when it landed on the shores of Palestine and massacred Palestinians by the thousand. Haramzadi 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Accusation: "[W]hat the Zionist regime did in the early 1900s when it landed on the shores of Palestine [was massacre] Palestinians by the thousand [sic]." - Haramzadi 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC). The Realtiy: There is no reference to any such massacre in any history book or encyclopedia I have encountered. Such a massacre could not have taken place anyway because before 1948, there was nothing in existence that could be accurately labeled "the Zionist regime" no matter how liberally one defines either term. I challenge anyone to find a reliable source stating that any Zionist, Zionist institution, or even any Jewish institution was responsible for anything that could be described as a "massacre by the thousands" that took place "in the early 1900s" (i.e. the first twenty or so years of the twentieth century). --GHcool 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Resistance vs. Jihad edit war

It seems most exact to label this "Jihad". This is an Islamic term and an undeniably Islamic organization. The rest of the sentence was written to lead into the word "Jihad". Could we defend the use of the word "resistance" instead instead of edit warring on the article page? Of course, it sounds more pc to Western ears but it is less exact. Elizmr 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Did Hezbollah actually call a Jihad against Israel or a call to resist Israel? If they call for the extinction of Israel I would consider that a call to Jihad and not a resistance Drew1369 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah rarely refer to the conflict with israel as 'jihad', first of all, because lebanon is not an islamic country, using the term 'jihad' would make christinians and other lebanese faction feel 'excluded'. on the second place, jihad is actually a very complex and subjective term, so using the term 'resistance' is more accurate then 'jihad'. PS for drew: sorry to tell you, but you have no clue about jihad obviously: what have 'calling for the extinction of israel' to do with jihad?

Salute given by recruits.

Um how could that be described as anything other than a Nazi salute that they are giving. It is of the clear form - right arm straight and raised high. And it fits anyway, given their pathological hatred of Israeli Jews. How can you possibly deny this. Why are my edits being reverted? -- 130.216.191.184 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.184 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for the 3 revert rule. Please note that editting personal opinions is considered original research in wikipedia. If would be insane to say that the below pictures are of Bush making a Nazi salute:

• [4]
• [5] -- Szvest 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Yeah, that's what it looks like, but agree with the above, can't say that on the page without a cite. Elizmr 22:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, that kind of salute is common everywhere else, that's more a sign of an excellent organisation and discipline, rather then nazi influence. (some IP)

Whether the salute is Roman or Nazi, or if the Nazi salute more properly should be labeled Roman is pure conjecture. It conveys POV, not additional information. After WWII many Arab countries hired fled German specialists to strengten both their armies against anglo-french colonialism, and their police to counter internal strife; it's reasonable to assume that the salute is rooted in that era, as there are no depictions of Arab armies saluting that way in Ottoman times or before - however, so far that's conjecture too. On the other hand, specifying the type of ceremony conveys additional information to the reader, who according to WP principles should be left alone to interpret the facts WP presents. He can be trusted to know both Cesar and Hitler; Hezbolla supporters are more likely to associate the first, detractors will prefer the latter - no need to tell the reader what to think. --tickle me 12:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think it might be about time that we protect this page again. There's been a lot of vandalism in the past couple of days. --GHcool 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

After this business with Mr. 75.17.183.177 (see below), can we seriously start moving forward on protecting this page once again? --GHcool 09:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's sad what a human being becomes so devoid that he believes censorship will accomplish his goals. You and your mob of Israeli censors (and it is crystal clear where you come from based on your edit history) have ruined Wikipedia as a source of objective information on anything related to the middle-east conflict. --75.17.183.177 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding sourced materials is not vandalism. removing it is --Nielswik_(talk) 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever protected the page. --GHcool 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah charged over Argentina bomb

This story from the BBC might be useful for this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6085768.stm Hypnosadist 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting news, but there is good reason to be skeptical  :) Count Iblis 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New article created about this.Hypnosadist 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) AMIA Bombing

New? The article is almost 3 years old... Mariano(t/c) 11:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortening the article

I tried to shorten the article after moving it to the sub-articles. I hope my work hasn't made the article POV. I attempted to remove opposite viwpoints or save both of them.--Sa.vakilian 10:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So far, it seems ok to me. --GHcool 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this decided once and for all. Are we moving sections such as "Military activities" to Hezbollah military activities, "Foreign relations" to Hezbollah foreign relations, etc. or are we not? If we are, let's do it so that we aren't redundant. If not, then let's delete those new pages. --GHcool 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

al-Qaeda

I propose to remove this part. I think it's not so important and just some minor quotations and analysises .

However, Ali Mohamed, "a former U.S. Green Beret ... pleaded guilty to conspiring with [Osama] bin Laden to bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. ... Hezbollah, he testified, provided explosives training to al Qaeda." According to Middle East Quarterly and the Washington Post, "Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah.""Iran's Link to Al-Qaeda: The 9-11 Commission's Evidence." Middle East Forum. Fall 2004. 18 September 2006.</ref> In a 2002 article, the Washington Post claimed:

"The new cooperation ... includes coordination on explosives and tactics training, money laundering, weapons smuggling and acquiring forged documents, according to knowledgeable sources. This new alliance, even if informal, has greatly concerned U.S. officials in Washington and intelligence operatives abroad who believe the assets and organization of Hezbollah's formidable militant wing will enable a hobbled al Qaeda network to increase its ability to launch attacks against American targets."

Some American newspapers have suggested a broader alliance between Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

But if we want to maintain it , then we should maintain this part which I removed:

Saint Petersburg Times and ABC News and MSNBC report that there exists no evidence of a connection between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.

--Count Iblis

I agree. It should be moved to a seperate article and linked to the Hezbollah article similarly to how Hezbollah political activities currently is. --GHcool 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When I said it should be moved to a seperate article, I meant that the entire al-Qaeda section should be moved in its entirety to a seperate article; not just the Ali Mohamed testimony. As it currently stands, the Hezbollah foreign relations article is complete, but the Hezbollah section on Al-Qaeda either must be deleted in full to accomodate for the redunancy of the Hezbollah foreign relations article or not deleted at all (though I don't see much point in the latter). --GHcool 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do it if you think there is enough information to make a new article.--Sa.vakilian 10:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the attempt to connect al-Qaeda and Hezbollah in this article. It is so weak and labored and pathetic that it deserves to be immortalized.

Ali Mohamed's testimony

I think that the paragraph about this is extremely misleading. There should at least be a sentence explaining that this doesn't imply that there is any evidence for a link with Al Qa'ida, because in the US a plea doesn't have to be based on facts. In most other legal systems this is not the case, so people not familiar with the US system will think that there is strong evidence for a link between Hezbollah and Al Qa'ida. Count Iblis

Where does it say that Mohamed's testimony was a plea bargain? Not in the Washington Post article currently cited.[6] --GHcool 17:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the NGC documentary (I'll try to find the sources). And even just a plea in the US is not what it is in the rest of the world. It has to be mentioned that if you make a plea then the evidence is no longer reviewed. So, we cannot say that there is any evidence at all. Count Iblis 18:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Plea-bargain mentioned here. Count Iblis 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well. The information from the Pacific News source belongs in the article. On the other hand, although the evidence may be relatively weak, to say that there isn't "any evidence at all" is also stretching the truth. I think the way it stands now, that "There is no concrete evidence of Hezbollah contact or cooperation with al-Qaida" (emphasis added) is the most fair way to reconcile both viewpoints. --GHcool 18:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Israeli War Crimes

The 2nd introductory paragraph says "Hezbollah's supporters justify its violence against Israeli civilians[17] as reciprocal to Israeli war crimes and in retaliation of bombing of Lebanese civilians and occupation of Lebanese territory" I think it should be changed to "alleged Israeli war crimes" since there has been confirmation that Israel has committed war crimes against Lebanon.

See reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for confirmation of Israeli war crimes in Lebanon Rm uk 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Official article change from Hezbollah to HizbAllah

The group Hezbollah does not exist. The name of the group is "Party of God" which is pronounced and spelled "HizbAllah".

Im not sure why Americans and Europeans have butchered and anglicized the name into a "gitmo"-type of word by using the "oll" in "all". It's "HizbAllah".

Of course, you are correct. "Hezbollah" is the most common English spelling I've seen, but I've also seen "Hizbullah," which is closer to the correct pronunciation. I have never seen "HizbAllah." --GHcool 06:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you might not really understand the concept of a transliteration. They are just about always imperfect, but thats not their real point, they exist so that one can put a proper noun of one language and writing system into something that makes sense to another language. Generally, the more different the languages the less accurate the transliteration.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of reference

There was written in the lead and intro: "The European Union acknowledges that Hezbollah uses terrorist tactics but for political and other reasons does not list it as a terrorist organization. "[7]

Apparantly this reference doesn't support the claim. There is just written:"Unlike the United States, the European Union does not list Hezbollah, a Shiite Islamic group that takes "its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini," as a terrorist organization."

in addition "Malloch Brown" is U.N. Deputy Secretary-General and his opinion doesn't relate to EU.

So I removed this part.--Sa.vakilian 07:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough since the reference doesn't directly support the claim, but I think its safe to say that this is the real reason. --GHcool 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Irrilated part

I believe this part is irrilated. I don't think that any channel is responsible for whatever may said by non-official persons like Lebanese Cleric Fathi Yakan - head of the Lebanese Islamic Action Front "Lebanese Cleric Fathi Yakan: Whoever Disputes Hizbullah's Victory over the Descendents of Apes and Pigs Has Mental AIDS."--Sa.vakilian 07:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving some part of History

I moved Attacks against Western targets from this article to History of Hezbollah. As our previous consensus we don't want to put all of details in the main article because it's about 100 kb.--Sa.vakilian 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Organizational Chart of the party

Is there anyone who can draw Hezbollah's structure in wikipedia on the basis of In the Path of Hizbullah . Then put it in this article or Hezbollah political activities.--Sa.vakilian 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Quran qoute should be deleted

In the section Position on use of armed strength to achieve aims This Quran qoute should be deleted:

The Qur'an states, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (Al-Baqarah 190-193)[85]

The qoute is from a non Hezbollah-affiliated website and thus it is irrelevant to Hezbollah's stance on the use of armed strength. Hezbollah may also use this surah to legitimize the use of armed strength, but one would have to cite directly to a Hezbollah source to prove so. You can probably find some usuable qoutes in Naem Qassem's book Hizbullah: The story from within published in 2006 or from Hezbollah website.

-Lars

Fixed. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination as a good article

I want to nominate this article as a good article. Please write your ideas here on the basis of Wikipedia:What is a good article?--Sa.vakilian 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I respectfully oppose. This Article fails to meet the requirements of criterion No. 4 NPOV which is a pre-requisite for a Good Article Nomination. This Article is dominated by ONE POV. Lcnj 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support - The article is sufficiently NPOV (as evidenced by the fact that there is no NPOV tag anywhere in the article), but it still could be "pruned." The article is currently 98 kB. Wikipedia:What is a good article? says it should be closer to 25 kB. On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say that 74% of the article needs to be deleted before it is a "good article." I've already begun pruning the article so that it is more to the point, but without compromising the content. --GHcool 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

God or Allah

From God:

This article discusses the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. See God (word) for the etymology and capitalization of the term. See deity, god (male deity) or goddess for details on polytheistic usages. See Names of God for terms used in other languages or specific belief systems. See God (disambiguation) for other uses. A classic conception of the Christian God: Detail of Sistine Chapel fresco Creation of the Sun and Moon by 16th Century painter Michelangelo.God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality. Often characterized as a male figure, he is believed variously to be the sole omnipotent creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe. [1]

From Allah:

Allah is the Arabic language word referring to "God", "the Lord" and, literally according to the Qur'an, to the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" in the Abrahamic religions. It does not mean "a god", but rather "the Only God", the Supreme Creator of the universe, and it is the main term for the deity in Islam. However, "Allah" is not restricted to just Islam, and used by Christians and Jews according to geographic region.

Zeq 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the criteria of the Wikipedia definitions for the terms, the choice is clearly "Allah" since "Hizbullah" is clearly meant to mean "party of the God of Abraham" (as opposed to "party of a deity." On the other hand, if we were using the criteria that the phrase should be not definitional, but translational, than "party of God" (with a capital G, which in common usage refers to the God of Abraham) would be more appropriate. Personally, I'm leaning towards "party of Allah" because it gives more information about the party's religious alliance(i.e. a "Party of God" could theoretically be a Christian or Jewish political party), but I don't really mind either translation since both "God" and "Allah" refer to the same deity and because both terms are understood by most English speakers. --GHcool 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's frequently translated into English as the Party of God and into French as the Parti de Dieu. I don't see why we should do anything different. Palmiro | Talk 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopdia and we have link. God goes to one article and Allah is another. Since Hizballa is Hizb of Allah and we have Allah as a value in wikipedia we can avod the translation and use the source. Source is always more accurate than translation. Zeq 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if the use of source language terminology without translation in the target language creates an entirely different effect on the target language reader from the effect on the source language reader. I think this is a clear case where this applies. Palmiro | Talk 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, this is a foreign word, and the article is providing a translation of the foreign word into English, on the English Wikipedia; there is nothing illlogical about that. Also, while not policy at the moment, the Manual of Style for Islamic articles has this to say;

In English-language articles, Arabic terms should be translated into standard English wherever possible without compromising the meaning of the text. For example, "Allah" should be translated as "God", but a literal translation of "Deen" as "path" would obscure the special meaning of this term as used in Islam (although "way of life" might be acceptable).

I feel that is fair and logical reasoning there, and if there is an objection to it, perhaps it should be taken up in the style page rather than within an article, lest we repeat this debate on every Islamic-related wiki page. Tarc 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I advise to use this form:[[Allah|God]]--Sa.vakilian 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Allah (Sub7anoohoo wa ta3aala) and God are the same for Arab Christians and Moslems. Those who say that Allah is just a "Muslim God" are WRONG. I somehow agree with Sa.vakilian about the of:[[Allah|God]]--Lcnj 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pruning

I did a significant amount of pruning. I got the article from 98 kB down to 89 kB. I hope I didn't delete anything vital. Please don't hesitate to use this talk page if my pruning requires further discussion. --GHcool 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've edited this article scince July and I'm aware of too many editorial wars. So can predict what will happen because of these edition. So take these advices seriously.--Sa.vakilian 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1-The lead: I'm agree with you about deleting this part but it will result in editorial war.

"Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel consider Hezbollah, or its external security arm, a terrorist organization. All other countries do not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and all Arab countries consider it a resistance organization. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The terrorist label is controversial and highly political as many Arab and Muslim states support Hezbollah's goals and consider it legitimate. Russia says that it doesn't list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization because it does not view Hezbollah as a threat to Russia's [8] Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians[9] Hezbollah's supporters justify the killing of Israeli civilians[10] as reciprocal to Israeli crimes and retaliation for Israel's occupation of Lebanese territory.[11][12] [13][14]"

Please look at Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead. I'm completely sure somebody will add this in the lead as soon as possible.

• 2-Intro: I think this part is very important but we can merge it in the history.

"Its origins started in the early 1980s in a milieu which included the recent Iranian Islamic Revolution, political and secular conflict in Lebanon, and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was the main focus of Hezbollah's early activities. [15] Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was the main focus of Hezbollah's early activities."

• 3-Ideology:I prefer to delete this quotation completely but not some pat of it.

Christians and Jews differ with Muslims concerning the interpretation of the unity of God and the personality of God. Despite that, the Qur'an commands: Turn to the principle of unity--the unity of God and the unity of mankind. We interpret this to mean that we can meet with Marxists on the common ground of standing up to the forces of international arrogance; we can meet nationalists, even secular nationalists, on the common ground of Arab causes, which are also Islamic causes. Islam recognizes the Other. ... So Islam does not negate the Other; it invites the Other to dialogue."

• 4-Other quotations: I oppose to removing other quotations compeletly or partly.

Except this dubios quotation:Journalist Paul Martin, writing in The Washington Times, quoted Hassan Nasrallah as saying, "I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don't be shy about it." However the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that it was unable to find any record of the speech and suggested that it had been fabricated.[16]

• 5-Designation as a terrorist organization: Please don't delete the table in this part, It makes the article clearer.--Sa.vakilian 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following are my responses ...

• 1-The lead: Your suggestion to delete this is absolutely out of the question. Not only will it result in an edit war, but it will also compromise the article as a whole because foreign designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is one of the key factors in a complete understanding of Hezbollah.

• 2-Intro: I agree. This can be pruned and incorporated into the history of Hezbollah article.

• 3-Ideology: I don't really have an opinion on this. It wouldn't bother me if it were all deleted, but it wouldn't bother me if none were deleted. I shortened the sentence that began with "We interpret this ..." a little because I thought it was a long and combersome sentence stylistically, but it was probably the most minor bit of pruning I did.

• 4-Other quotations: This needs to be addressed on a quote by quote basis. As for the quote you have an issue with, I deleted it not because it was dubious, but because it was immediately contradicted and so it was just taking up space for nothing.

• 5-Designation as a terrorist organization: Agreed. The table should not be deleted.

--GHcool 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

References?

What has happened to the references section. It looks like a load of html text. What can we do about it? Emperor Jackal 10:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just noticed that too as a new visitor to the article, A huge section of the references is displaying the wiki code, instead of regular linked text. As a new wikipedian, I'm unfortunately not that expert yet to solve the problem, can some one else please tend to it ?--Goarany 08:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

the citations need help

the citations need help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallus1 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 December 2006

Yes, the references need some maintenance. There are 6 or 7 references with no text showing - the note defining them must have been deleted at some point. One of those refs is re-used a bunch of times too. Gimmetrow 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion polls?

Any wikipedia guidelines on the usage of opinion polls as sources? Seems that some users are insistent on keeping a Bill O'Reilly online quickpoll (which is in no way, shape or form statistically valid) in the article. Tarc 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, if polls must be included, they should be kept in a separate Outside Views of Hezbollah article. Quoting US polls opens the article to questions of NPOV. The same NPOV questions would arise if Lebanese polls were cited instead. Abe Froman 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I prefer the polls to stay in the Hezbollah article is because not long ago, someone deleted the Bill O'Reily poll by saying it does not represent a majority opinion. Although I agreed that the Bill O'Reily poll was not a very trustworthy or scientific poll, I was less sure that its conclusions were false. I did my own research and found many, many, many actual scientific polls indicated the same or similar findings. I wanted to make it clear that most Americans blame Hezbollah for beginning the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War and for the staggaring civilian casualties on both sides. I wouldn't mind that much if the polls were moved to a seperate article as long as the main Hezbollah article mentions that the organization is extremely unpopular to a large majority of Americans. --GHcool 06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would probably agree with GHcool that most Americans blame Hezbollah for the war. But I would also guess that most Americans hate the Hezbollah for the simple reason that they are Arab. (I wonder how many americans could actually distinguis between the Hezbollah and the Phalange? But this is an article about the Hezbollah, not about the bigoted attitudes of many americans. The lebanon polls are interresting in that they do illustrate the enourmously strengthened position on the Hezbollah in the aftermath of the war, and provides useful background to the curremy Hezbollah campaign to bring down the Siniora government. There have been 800000 people in demonstrations and constand encampments in Beirut over the last month. Why is this not even mentioned in this article!? Abu ali 09:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of some polls, but they should be statistically valid ones. An online sampling from Bill O'Reilly's site would be just as bad as an online quick-poll from al-Jazeera. Tarc 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Abu ali makes a valid point regarding the asttitude of Americans. The question is how to incude this in the article. One cannot just say that "US attitude is biased", because that would be POV, even though it is true. One also cannot just omit the result of opinion polls, unless they are not statistically valid, I agree with Tarc in this respect. The way to address this point is to look at actual events in the past relating to the US bias about Hezbollah and perhaps Arabs in general. E.g. it should be mentioned that immediately after the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania the FBI suspected Hezbollah, not Al Qa'Ida. Just hours after the Oklahoma bombing a Jordanian man was arrested. There are many more examples of US actions that were motivated by biased assumptions that later have been prove to be false. The current wiki article only focusses on unresolved things that one cannot be sure about, such as the AIMA bombing. Count Iblis 13:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is glossing over the fact that attaching polls to this article implicitly endorses a national point of view. Add an American poll, and inevitably a countermanding Lebanese poll will be attached... Followed by an Israeli poll, a French poll, maybe a Micronesian poll. Better to not have them in the article. A separate Outside Views of Hezbollah, linked to the main Hezbollah article, could be used if some editors feel polls must be included. Abe Froman 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The key point is that the Hezbollah are a Lebanese organisation and Lebanese polls can show what support they have in Lebanese society, whether this support extends beyond the Shiite population and how this support changes over time. I have absolutely no idea what what can be gained by adding polls from America. Abu ali 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase Biggie Smalls. More Polls, more problems. Abe Froman 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, what could be gained by adding polls from America is to combat the demonstrably false statement that most Americans do not blame Hezbollah for the recent war or for the devastating collateral damage to civilians on both sides. As for charges of American "bias" toward an anti-Hezbollah mindset, consider that Hezbollah has committed terrorist attacks against American targets at least 8 times. For this reason, American polls are valuable because they are a America is a combatant (not by its own choice, mind you). Naturally, Lebanese polls are also valuable. I'm fine with making a new article titled "Outside views of Hezbollah" provided that a one or two sentence summary (for example, "Most Americans are primarily blame Hezbollah for ongoing violence in Lebanon.") is included in the main Hezbollah article. --GHcool 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to demonstrate the USA's overall opinion of Hezbollah without resorting to polls. For example, the State Department considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization and has Hezbollah on their Foreign Terrorist Organization list. [17] American voters choose the people who run the State Department. Why not use the Foreign Terrorist Organization list [18] list to indicate overall opinion? Abe Froman 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"As for charges of American "bias" toward an anti-Hezbollah mindset, consider that Hezbollah has committed terrorist attacks against American targets at least 8 times."

Some of these attacks can hardly be called "terrorist" attacks. Also the involvement of Hezbollah is only alledged, not proven. E.g. the attack against the US marines is clearly an attack against a legitimate military target. The fact that the US does consider this as a terror attack speaks volumes about US bias in these matters. Count Iblis 19:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis, are you saying that because not all of the attacks by Hezbollah were against American civilian targets and that they also attacked U.S. military targets, the U.S. should be less biased toward Hezbollah? And are you saying that the opinions of the victims of these attacks (including and especially the U.S. military) are not valuable to an encyclopedic article on the attackers? --GHcool 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be better, also for US interests, if they did away with bias and looked at the situation objectively. Opinions of victims of attacks are very often not objective. These can be mentioned regardless of that, because it is a view that is expressed in the real world and wikipedia reports about the real world. I think that the US legal system is a good example of how objectivity goes out the window once you give victims too much of a voice. The US has the largest number of innocent persons behind bars of the Western World.Count Iblis 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your notion that the victim's account of an attack should not be given too much of a voice is absurd. Consider the implications. Would you extend this opinion to victims of rape or would you say that their testimony is often given "too much of a voice?" How about victims of the Holocaust? Are they given "too much of a voice" in the analysis of European history during the war years? We are heading into the realm of argument for argument's sake, which doesn't necessarily help the article. --GHcool 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Testimony of victims is useful when it is relevant. In case of rape it is certainly very relevant. But now let's take this example. A US judge recently ruled that Iran was responsible for the Khobar bombings. How did he arrive at that ruling? Well, he heard testimony of witnesses and the testimony of an FBI official. But they had no proof whatsoever about the involvement of Iran's government in that attack. It was just speculation and the need to "do justice for the victims", which in my opinion is a nonsensical way to find out the truth. Only rigorous scientific methods can be used to find out what happened. Count Iblis 13:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Iranians in this case and Hezbollah in the 1980s terrorist attacks deserve a fair trial in accordance with international law either in the International Court of Justice or another unbiased international organization. America could have made submitted their case to the ICJ, but it doesn't seem likely that whatever the outcome or lack of an outcome the trial would produce would significantly affect American public opinion. --GHcool 20:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I've found this part unclear. I suggest to replace it with this:

Although UN Security Council Resolution 1559, calls for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militia",[19], The UN actors have denied that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and analogized it to anti-Nazi resistance movements.[20].

Hezbollah has close relations with Iran.[21] It also has ties with the Alawite leadership in Syria, specifically with President Hafez al-Assad (until his death in 2000) and his son and successor Bashar al-Assad.[22]Hezbollas has declared his support for the ongoing al-Aqsa intifada.

There is no concrete evidence of Hezbollah contact or cooperation with al-Qaeda. [23] Hezbollah's leaders denies links to al-Qaeda, present or past.[24][25] Also some of the al-Qaeda's leaders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[26] and Wahhabists clerics consider Hezbollah to be apostate. [27][28] But United States intelligence officials speculate there has been contact between Hezbollah and low-level al-Qaeda figures who fled Afghanistan for Lebanon.[29][[30]

--Sa.vakilian 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with your proposal, except I think the statement about the denial that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and it is analogous to anti-Nazi resistance movements is misleading because it represents a minority opinion and you cited an editorial. I already improved the wording of this statement on the Hezbollah foreign relations article. As long as you take out that statement, its fine. --GHcool 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is Israeli viewpoint that UN is biased and it supports Hezbollah. What do you suggest instead to improve the article?--Sa.vakilian 04:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The Jerusalem Post is an Israeli newspaper and the editorial was against the UN's unreasonable bias against Israel, but very few would describe Hezbollah as anaogous to any anti-Nazi resistance movement. As for the denial that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I would prefer we word it differently such as "UN actors are hesitant to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization." I think this is more accurate since most member states seem to neither deny nor affirm that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. --GHcool 07:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Or "UN actors have refused to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization."--Sa.vakilian 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "Many UN actors have refused to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization." (because some have described Hezbollah in that way). --GHcool 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Sa.vakilian 03:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How about - after kicking Israel's butt out of their country many opinions of Hezbollah have changed for the better. With a slight upgrade in their weapons, Hezbollah looks appears capable and ready to improve Israel's general attitude toward their neighbors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Military activities

Went back a checked the main article - what a joke. You forgot to mention their military capacity. Being able to fight the Israeli army to a stand-still with a minimum of modern equipment must be good for at least a line or two in wiki. How about an article on the war - maybe you have one already, yes no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Yes: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. --GHcool 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference problem again..

A few months back I spent a lot of time getting the references in order. I applied the {{cite}} template to them all and then organised the multiple reference so that the first reference were given a name, and the rest simply referred to that name.

The problem now is that many of the original references either have been simply deleted, or redone but without the name and the template. This has orhpaned a TON of references in this article. A shame really because this controversial article needs those references..

I can start redoing it all again, but it seems the problem is that many editors are not aware of the importance of the cite templates Name tag.

One solution could be to take all references and give them names in their own section, and then refer to them name in the rest of the article. In case an editor removes a reference in the text, it would not remove the main reference and the other parts of the text would not be affected? I am not sure if there are better solutions. Thoughts? mceder (u t c) 09:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't so controversial at present, But it may be shortened. I suggest not to use this method in this article now. Unfortunately we(especially I)'ve made mistake by moving some part of this article to other articles like Hezbollah ideology without paying attention to the refrences. Please refer to other related articles and check whether they have similar problem or not.

--Sa.vakilian 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to defining it as "Party of [[Allah|God]]" so that the text reads "Party of God," but the link to for the word "God" is to the article for "Allah?" --GHcool 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad, GHcool... I did not pay close attention to figure out that the context was about the "Party of God" and not God Almighty. While my contribution above holds true, the correct translation of "Hezbollah" in English is "Party of God" NOT "Party of Allah". So, I can no longer agree with [[Allah|God]] Lcnj 05:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already settled in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah --Striver 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Striver. In English, and specifically in an English language encyclopedia, the correct translation of "اللَّه" (Allah) is simply God. Lcnj 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of this discussion is to redirect GOD To Allah (or allah to GOD - why is it that we have two articles on the same entity ? this is opposed to any Wikipedia convention and style. Zeq 07:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The logical conclusion is to leave it as it was. We have two different cultures/religions that approach said God in different ways, even if it is the same deity. Tarc 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)