Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 8

message: I have received a response to a query directed to the Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism:
(Addresses and identification codes redacted)
:Dear Mr. Hymas
:Thank you for your e-mail in which you show interet in the Dutch practice concerning foreign organizations which are deemed to have a terrorist objective. I apologize for the delay in answering your questions. I can answer your questions as follows.
:Regarding Hezbollah, I can inform you that the Dutch government is not able to take any legal action concerning an organisation if that organisation is not officially recognized in the Netherlands. Hezbollah has no legal basis in the Netherlands and therefore does not have an official status under Dutch practice and cannot be subjected to legal action.
:The Netherlands does not keep a list of organisations that are banned by Dutch courts. If an organisation is banned by a Dutch court, this organisation is dissolved and siezes (sic)  to exist. Therefore, the Netherlands does not have a list of such organisations. I can inform you however, that the Dutch government follows the EU list of terrrorist organisations. The Dutch government has recently launched new legislation by which organisations on the EU list are automatically forbidden in the Netherlands. This legislation is expected to be approved by the Dutch parliament at the end of this year.
:I hope my letter provides answers to your questions.
:Yours sincerely
(Remainder redacted)
Should anyone wish an electronic version of this communication, please contact me. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch Position on Hezbollah 

message: I reworked the intro as follows:
*paragraph one: historial background on origins
*paragraph two: state the controversy, list violent acts and positions on these acts
*paragraph three: state the postion: it is jihad and resistance
*paragraph four: state the position: it is terrorism
*paragraph five: controversy of maintence of arms after end of civil war and currently
I removed stuff that was well covered elsewhere about politics, ideology etc and just focused the intro on the above.  There were a few places where the same info was repeated a few times.  I eliminated this redundancy.  NOthing was removed completely.  
I changed the name of the section to "intro and background" Elizmr 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intro is going to become a new article. I want to edit lead and intro as soon as possible, but I'm too busy these days.--Sa.vakilian 06:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me. My English is not well. I mean it becomes a new article by too many unnecessary stuff and I want to shorten it by moving some part of it  body.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Sorry I misunderstood.  What is unnecessary?  I agree it should be shortened.  Elizmr 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Would anyone object if I deleted the cleanup bannar at the beginning of the article? I think we should keep the cleanup bannar in the "al-Qaeda" though.  --GHcool 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look religion is the cause of all problems, lets be sensible people. It depend on your religion. Me I am nearly atheist so my opinions are not as bias as some. I think take everyone is wrong we just need to look past religion and at each idea with as little bias as possible. In a nutshell we all belong to the religion of mankind. Killing is wrong no matter which way you twist it. Both sides kill and get killed. If they just took the principle of live and let live they would be doing a lot better.  Most religions are very peaceful its the few groups that give them a negative rap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitapronin (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My opinion is yeah, let's take down the banner.--G-Dett 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me if the banner goes away.  Elizmr 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Bannar 

message: Are there any citable refs on this?   Instead of edit warring, why don't we include all estimates with appropriate refs?  We can say the true number is unknown, but "source x" says "number y" and "source a" says "number b".  Elizmr 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some different data about how many Lebanese are Israel's jail, but I haven't seen anyone clarifies how many Hezbollah's members are in Israel's jails.--Sa.vakilian 10:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post the data you have available.  Elizmr 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please look at these sites: and --Sa.vakilian 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These cites would suggest somewhere between 3 and 12 prisoners.  Elizmr 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But apparantly most of them aren't Hezbollah's members.--Sa.vakilian 03:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was just looking at numbers not H vs. non-H.  I think the edit war was about the numbers.  Someone kept saying that there were thousands or prisioners or something like that.  Is the H vs non-H status important?  Elizmr 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers of Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli prisoners edit war 

message: The last revert by Count Iblis is a good example of maintaining a NPOV. The section is relevant and encyclopaedic. Which is not encyclopeadic is to say that Hizbollah is a terrorist org at the lead. See wikipedia link above re this matter. -- Szvest 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it may be unpalatable, that is the stated goal of Hezbollah. One could argue that it is more consistent with propaganda to leave it out than it is to keep it in.  I think we need to be very black and white about this.  The organization considers Israel and illeg state and to be in occupation of the whole of Palestine.  Some think this is justified; some think this is not.  THAT's where the discussion is.   Elizmr 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Elizmr that Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism explains everything. We are only allowed to list who says X is terrorist. A possible discussion would be relevant in a discussion forum but not in Wikipedia where everything is documented under policies and guidelines. My comment is related to my first comment of this section and not to the rest-- Szvest 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused.  What does this have to do with terrorism?  I am not a proponent of the use of the word here.  The revert was about the goal of annihilation of Israel (at least I thought it was, please excuse me if I was mistaken). Elizmr 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for the inconvenience. I already explained that as a small note above. -- Szvest 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  It has to be explained what is meant by "annihilation of Israel". In the lead section there is no room to do that. If I'm not mistaken Nasrallah has made some comments about this recently. If one just says "annihilation of Israel" then that has very negative associations which Hezbollah (as understand it) does not support.  Count Iblis 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they consider all of Israel to be on Islamic land and want to get rid of it and are working towards that.  I know that has negative connotations to some, but it should be aired.  Elizmr 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I understand that, but "annihilation of Israel" is ambiguous because it suggests that they want to "annihilate the Jews" as well. Count Iblis 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last revert by Count Iblis

message: It prints out these garish;
Chairperson 	
Spokesperson 	
lines in the middle of the box, which I don't see in the article source.  I really don't know enough about infoboxes to fix it.  Anyone else here that does? Tarc 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly, a lot of templates used a class "hiddenstructure", which was recently disabled because (among other reasons) it doesn't work with some browsers and hearing-access software. (IE, some people were hearing what you saw.) Template has been rewritten so these fields are optional without using hiddenstructure. Gimmetrow 02:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the infobox? 

message: Surely the phrase "Elimination of Israel" is propaganda, a case of the Zionists taking advantage of the vagaries of translation? An NPOV version would be "regime change", under which the "right of return" legislation and supposedly apartheid nature of Israel is dismantled.
I'm not denying that many residents of Israel might feel very threatened by the overthrow of their existing government, and large numbers might go back to America. However, it's wrong of us to speak of "elimination of Israel" when a change of regime would probably see Israel grow. Likely expand to include Gaza and the West Bank. PalestineRemembered 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the term "regime change" as long as we keep in mind what that entails: replacing a secular/Jewish state with an Islamic one.  As far as "the Zionists taking advantage of the vagaries of translation" is concerned, I direct you to Nasrallah statement that "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel." and from the Associated Press, a moment from the same speech, "Nasrallah said as supporters interrupted his speech with chants of 'God is Greatest' and 'Death to Israel.'" And of course, there are much more ... Did nearly every independent source get the translations wrong? --GHcool 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not propaganda, it is an aim of the organization.  They want to see the whole of Israel proper, which they consider occupied, under Islamic rule.  They are not just asking for right of return.  Elizmr 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that what Nasrallah  means by "Zionist" is the same as what Israelis mean by that word. Compare e.g. Zionist to Jihadist :). The Neo-Cons say that all Jihadists should be killed...  Count Iblis 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're in agreement - I object to the translation being "the wiping out of Israel". You say that "Regime change" is not necessarily benign (and I agree wholeheartedly). I'm only asking we do away with this POV translation. Let's use the same terminology as we'd use if torturers smashed their way into Iraq in order to collapse the regime of Saddam Hussein. We're hardly being overly kind and considerate to the Iranians, prospective destroyers of the regime in Israel, by linking the results of their actions to what's happening in Baghdad right now. PalestineRemembered 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elimination of the state of Israel

message: Carbonate 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok... --64.75.187.201 07:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the judges decsion..!? 

message: I've put the article Policide on AFD, it is written in an entirely anti-Arab POV. It's like an article on the Atomic bomb that starts with the sentence: " An Atomic bomb is a very powerful weapon that Arabs are trying to obtain to wipe Israel off the map". While the topic itself may be encyclopedic, it isn't the current form and rewriting it would defeate the purpose for which it was created by the POV pusher.  Count Iblis 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Count, this is a highly inappropriate note to put on this page.  This page is for disussing the Hezbollah page, not to alert editors to other issues.   Elizmr 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The creation of that article has a lot to do with this article, the Hamas article and perhaps some other articles on the Mid East. Fortunately it has been rewritten to make it more NPOV. Count Iblis 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Count, with all due respect that is only your opinion.  Elizmr 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it would be best to stick to talking about this article on this talk page because that's what talk pages are for.   Elizmr 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on [[Policide]] 

message: Perhaps everyone should list their reasons why the article is too POV at this moment and what should be done to address that. Note that as long as the POV tag is there, someone searching the internet and reading this article will see that too. So, this article will then be of limited value as an objective source of information. If we don't work toward removing the POV tag and try to push in controversial edits then we would only be writing for ourselves.
At this time I'm for removal of the POV tag because the terrorism issue in the lead paragraph seems to have been resolved.  Count Iblis 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with removing the POV tag as well and have been for a long time.  I did not want to take the first step because I feared that not all Wikipedians felt the same way I did.  Count Iblis and I do not agree on a lot of things reguarding Hezbollah, so if its ok with him and ok with me to remove the POV tag, I would assume its ok with most moderate Wikipedia editors.  --GHcool 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's work toward removal of the ugly POV tag 

message: I moved some part of intro to the body and tried to shorten it.--Sa.vakilian 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro