Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: JiHymas reversions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 --Sa.vakilian 03:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent idea Sa.vakilian.  Thanks for it.  Elizmr 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Make new page and rearrenge the archives

message: 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)
thread_title: Sheba farms in the Intro

message: Would the Hezbollah article fit under this category ? LindaWarheads 07:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[:Category:Islam and anti-Semitism]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Topical archive

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: * Oh! But I did add the sprotected template after verifying this is still sprotected! Yay me! Mceder 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me. This was my mistake. So I removed one of them.--Sa.vakilian 03:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate text and locked article 

message: Hi, could we add tags like these "" (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)
replies: text: I know. And I added  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)
replies: text: It seems better to leave them anyway unless they are completely outrageous.  The little  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)
thread_title: what to do when cites needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Designation as terror-ist section, silly # of ref?