Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead

message: Hello, you made this edit to the Hezbollah article, claiming that it was more neutral that way. I see that in the old version, H. was described as a "Islamist group" that is "regarded" "as a legitimate resistance movement" "by many in the Arab and Muslim world" but as "a terrorist organization" "by the United States and some other Governments". In your version, this became "a national resistance movement" "perceived as a" "Islamist group" "by many Zionist and neo-conservative analysts". I would argue that this is a strong introduction of POV, and by no means an introduction of more neutrality, as "resistance" clearly is a positive view upon what Hezbollah does, and the claim that all who oppose its methods or ideology were zionists or neocons is plain nonsense. To find some sort of compromise, I have changed the article, so that it now claims that Hezbollah as a "militant group", regarded by those and those as such and such, etc.-- 790 07:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If HezbAllah is not an Islamist org, then what is? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: @ H. sapiens: Well personally I would agree that Hezbollah is an Islamist group, but it should be clear that some people may regard this label as POV, so I wrote that it is a "militant" group - no question on that - that some call "islamist" and others call a "resistance group". Wouldn't you agree on that? -- 790 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: @ Fares S: I pointed out that I think your definition is completely inacceptable, and you won't make it more acceptable by jsut reverting to it. -- 790 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We cannot please everyone, but need to reflect NPOV. In this case, it its safe to call them Islamist. We may say that according to scholar A, they are X; organization B designated them as Y, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, well... that is just what I suggested, isn't it, just that I would abstain from refering to it as "being" islamist and rather say that many "regard" them as islamist, while many muslims reject that designation. That passage could be changed insofar that "many" regard them as islamist, not only the US and some other governements. Cheers -- 790 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. I can live with the last version of 790/Tamams Fares S 08:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Humus and Moshe here. "Islamist" has a recognised meaning, while militant is close to meaningless and getting closer every time it is used as a code-word for terrorist. I've put Islamist back in the first line, but in any case I've expanded on Hezbollah's ideology, the link with Iran, and a little more info on the terrorist thing. If people don't like the term "Islamist", and I know a lot of people don't for perfectly valid reasons, maybe the best place to point that out is on the page about Islamism (or else, can we say fundamentalist instead?)? I suppose saying an "Islamic" movement would be an OK alternative. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Isarig that their alliance with secular groups is irrelevant. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party; that doesn't make them communists, nor does it stop the LCP being communists. They're also allied with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party - does that mean that the SSNP are no longer a secular Syrian nationalist party? The structures of Lebanese politics mean that parties are always allying with those they disagree with. That doesn't mean they have given up on their ideology. I would ask those demanding to remove "Islamist" two questions: 1. Would "Islamic" be an acceptable alternative?; 2. If we can't say "Islamist", how should we describe HA's political outlook? Just calling it a resistance organization misses a lot of the point, and fails to distinguish it from the LCP, OCA, SSNP, etc, which surely we can all agree are quite ideologically distinct from HA despite all being involved in the resistance. Palmiro | Talk 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree with Palmiro, however I think "Islamic" doesn't really capture the point,  especially in a situation like Lebanon where politics are pretty much only divided between Christian, Druze, and Islamic. When seeing the designation of "Islamic" a reader might be left with the impression that it is onlt saying that most of their support comes from Muslims, if we use "Islamist" it really shows underscores the fact that being Muslim is central to their organization's identity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that as a big problem (and don't forget that in Lebanon, Druze are a Muslim group!); it's quite common to refer to the Murabitoun and other secular groups as largely "Muslim", they are rarely called Islamic, while on the other hand groups such as the Islamist nuts in Tripoli that Arafat cosied up to in 1982 as well as the Hizbullah are often termed "Islamic". Nevertheless, my preference too is for "Islamist". By the way, "scientific transliteration" is common terminology, and many linguists not to mention Arabists of my acquaintance could get quite annoyed by your taking issue with it;). Palmiro | Talk 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying transliteration isn't a difficult and important subject, but when I think of science I think of people using the scientific method- that is they come of with a hypothesis to answer a question then set about proving it. To transliterate someone just has to have a suffcient command of both languages, then figure out how to phonetically write a word of one language with the characters of the other.  Also even if Druze are classified as Islamic, they are still usually in groups by themselves.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I'm restoring the introduction to the more balanced version that was there previously. The current second sentence is not by any means suitable. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. We've discussed this before when you trried to make that change a couple of minth ago, and you did no thave consensus for thta change then, and you don't have it now. Isarig 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to that discussion? As far as I can see the insertion of what I just deleted was made without any discussion. You were right to put "Islamist" back in instead of "militant" though - that was an oversight on my part. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was refering to the discussion above, under the heading NPOV Introduciton - but my main objection was the use of "resistance" instead of Islamist, which you seem to agree with. I have no problem with the rest of your changes.Isarig 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV introduction

message: Just looking again at the intro, which I think I more or less wrote in its current form and was happy enough with at the time, it strikes me that it gives a somewhat misleading impression in bluntly stating that HA wishes to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon. It is quite an important point that HA has since the mid-80s accepted that this canonly come about through the consensus of the Lebanese people - which of course relegates it to a purely idealistic level as various commentators have pointed out, since there's little prospect of the Lebanese people as a whole agreeing to such a development in the foreseeable future.  Palmiro | Talk 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology and goals

message: This introduction needs to be cleaned up. It is too long, there are a number of incorrect citations, there are too many citations, and its simply confusing and poorly written. --Infernallek 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro is a Mess 

message: I started a section on social services provided by Hezbollah, moved the commentary in the intro to the new section and linked from the intro to the new section, but these edits were reverted. The intro is way too long and is used by both supporters and critics of Hezbollah for POV pushing. I feel the social services provided by Hezbollah are important enough to have their own section. Can we discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, nobody seems to want to discuss! Does anyone have any objections to me creating a social services section with the information from the intro? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No objections. I think it is a valid addition. Mceder 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's such a section now, but I didn't add it! It appeared overnight ... I just fixed up some of the punctuation and citations. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social services in intro 

message: I believe "introduction" is very brief and suitable description to introduce Hezbollah and it shouldn't be omitted.--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a normal publishing world, where one of us could spend a week writing a proper article that would be rarely changed, I would be in better agreement with Banzai, although I would retain a very short introduction that explained the structure of the article as much as anything else. In this world, where we have instances of vandalism and POV pushing every 5 minutes, I agree with Sa.vakilian. The old introduction was useful ... all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there, and it would be reverted by the other side very quickly. I'll confess, I never edited even the most egregious garbage in the intro ... I've only got one life to live! This new format hasn't been in existence long, but it does seem to me that the POV pushing has been smeared all over the page, making it more a nuisance. Bottom line? I say keep the intro until Hezbollah's out of the headlines for a few days, just as a 'pressure release valve'. Maybe we can start it off by getting Sa.vakilian and Labenah to write alternate sentences! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (lol!) I like that proposal. Maybe you’re right.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We should semiprotect of the page If there is vandalism every 5 minutes. like what is done in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. So far I've just been checking the diff's for blatant POV. A "honeypot" would make this easier, for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I add a brief version of introduction.--Sa.vakilian 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shortened the introduction before noticing this talk. Sorry about that. But I really think that the question about whether Hizbullah is terrorist or not does not need to be repeated 3 times in the article, especially since it is the focus of a huge amount of edits. If this bothers anyone, we can merge the entire introduction with the "mini introduction" in the beginning of the article.  Marokwitz 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. -- Szvest 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Trying to clean up the reference a bit again.. 
"though it also opposes, at least ideologically, Israel’s existence at all." This ending line of the intro is backed by 4 references. Including this one:
:# I suggest we remove this reference based on the fact that it requires registration. The info without registration is about two lines worth of nothing. The three other references are good enough. Mceder 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's plenty of references for that one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing reference

message: On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization' 
: I think this should be removed from the introduction because those that would rather list the nations that don't list H as a terrorist organization instead will keep changing it, and there will never be consensus on this. One could say that while some nations designate H as a terrorist org, others do not. This is already discussed extensively in the article.
Hezbollah was formed primarily to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[18],[19] Hezbollah initially aimed to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic, though it has since abandoned this goal in favor of a more inclusive platform.[6] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto.
: This paragraph is in three sections. The article is too long, why not limit it to only one or even two?
- The civilian activities introduction could be merged with the social services sub-section, since they largely say the same thing. Coolintro 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I'd do this myself, but I am still learning how to edit. Coolintro 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section labeled "intro" is repetitive and could be deleted in my opinion.  Elizmr 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We have made introduction to prevent a long lead. If you look at here, you'll find the reason. Also we put a paragraph which should be written in the lead to acheive consensus about it. There is written . Also look at here .--Sa.vakilian 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on how to make the article better/limiting the size 

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: 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: ===Putting Hezbollah goals in the lead===
Some of Hezbollah goal has changed during these years. "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" does not pursuit at present. You can find their new viewpoint in many sites for example:. So I think they believe in all of them but they try to adapt themselves with the reality. It means they may ally even with Marrunites.--Sa.vakilian 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I believe that as well. Is it ok with you to state the founding goals and to state how they have changed?  Elizmr 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add it in the introduction because the lead should be short.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead IS short and the founding goals are basic.  Please leave it.  Elizmr 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is some sites which say Hezbollah does not pursuit "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" for example BBC and  and . The second and third ones based this claim on the quotations of Hezbollah members.--Sa.vakilian 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In English "has received" is in the past tense (describes something happening in the past--not now).  There is no comment on current funding using "has recieved".  Honestly.  Please take my word for it.  Elizmr 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind if it is removed.  Elizmr 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They wish to realize the Goals of Islamic revolution and take Iran as an example. Their goal was, and still is to mimic the Iranian example of a Islamic Republic of Lebanon through referendum, not force. Such a Islamic Revolution movement can also be found in Iraq like the movement of high ranking personage Al Hakeem. "Spreading Islam by the sword" etc. is trying to make Hezbollah come across as some form of crazy extremist group wich is deliberately POV. Respectfully i suggest you reading some sources on early hezbollah.--Paradoxic 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the "by the sword" comment was in an edit summary, not in the article and referred to Hezbollah's eraly violent history.  If you are an expert, then maybe you could tell me some things that Hezbollah did to change Lebanon "by referendum" in the early years.  Elizmr 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: Some of Hezbollah goal has changed during these years. "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" does not pursuit at present. You can find their new viewpoint in many sites for example:. So I think they believe in all of them but they try to adapt themselves with the reality. It means they may ally even with Marrunites.--Sa.vakilian 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I believe that as well. Is it ok with you to state the founding goals and to state how they have changed?  Elizmr 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add it in the introduction because the lead should be short.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead IS short and the founding goals are basic.  Please leave it.  Elizmr 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is some sites which say Hezbollah does not pursuit "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" for example BBC and  and . The second and third ones based this claim on the quotations of Hezbollah members.--Sa.vakilian 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting Hezbollah goals in the lead

message: Using has received is not correct. Iran may help them with soldiers at the beginning but it doesn't continua up to now.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In English "has received" is in the past tense (describes something happening in the past--not now).  There is no comment on current funding using "has recieved".  Honestly.  Please take my word for it.  Elizmr 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What has received from Iran

message: "Hezbollah currently controls Southern Lebanon " This sentence isn't clear enough.
My English is not very good. Does this sentence means Hezbollah challenges the sovereignty of Lebanon government.In the past years during 80s and 90s SLA controled the South of Litani but it was Israel alliance and it challenges the sovereignty of Lebanon government. --Sa.vakilian 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if it is removed.  Elizmr 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Control south of Lebanon

message: I'm not sure who said that the orig goal of the org was to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state "by referendum", but respectfully suggest reading some sources on early Hezbollah.  Elizmr 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They wish to realize the Goals of Islamic revolution and take Iran as an example. Their goal was, and still is to mimic the Iranian example of a Islamic Republic of Lebanon through referendum, not force. Such a Islamic Revolution movement can also be found in Iraq like the movement of high ranking personage Al Hakeem. "Spreading Islam by the sword" etc. is trying to make Hezbollah come across as some form of crazy extremist group wich is deliberately POV. Respectfully i suggest you reading some sources on early hezbollah.--Paradoxic 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the "by the sword" comment was in an edit summary, not in the article and referred to Hezbollah's eraly violent history.  If you are an expert, then maybe you could tell me some things that Hezbollah did to change Lebanon "by referendum" in the early years.  Elizmr 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: by "referendum" or "by the sword"

message: ===Historical or Non-Historical approach===
Elizmr:I think there is disagreement between us about the approach we should use to describe Hezbollah. I believe this article especially introduction doesn't want to say what was Hezbollah at first and how it has changed, but it wants to introduce Hezbollah as it is. So I want to revert some of your editions in introduction because of its historical approach. but I wait until you tell me your idea. --Sa.vakilian 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the historical approach, so people can get a full understanding, but I"m sure we can write something that will do both.  Why don't you write a version and put it here and then we can discuss?  Elizmr 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a strong proponent of the historical approach.  I understand that we differ on this.  The historical approach allows people to get a better understanding of the organization and how it has evolved and then appreicate where it has ended up.  Do you have a good reason for favoring the other approach?  If Wikipedia were Hezbolla's Web site it show Hezbollah as it wants to be shown, but it is an encyclopedia and needs to go beyond that to take a more three dimensional view.  Elizmr 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: could you put notes here instead of in the text commented out?  It is difficult to find them there.  Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sa.va I consider your edit to be very POV.  First off, you have no rationale for removing the fact that Sheba farms was captured from Syria and was not Lebanese in the first place.  We need to state this.  Israel and the UN considered Israel withdrawn and had a legitimate basis for this.  Please don't remove any evidence of that from the article.   Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't remove it. I propose removing but if you disagree with me I don't insist on it. But I prefer to move this part to position on Israel.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, sorry.  But you commented it out, and it wasn't visible in the article.  That is what I meant.  Sorry if I insulted you.  Thanks for agreeing that it can stay in.  Elizmr 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Secondly, the discussion in the paragraph is about how Hezbollah (NOT Israel) is percieved.  For this reason it is important to state what they have done so that it can then be discussed. That is why the sentence about the murders, kidnappings, etc refers to Hezbollah and not to mutual violence between Israel and Hezbollah.  (The articles cited in any case are describing Hezbollah acts).  I now realize it is important to characterize Hezbollah violence as answering Israeli agression to portray Hezbollah acts in accordance with Islamic law, but this is already achieved because Israel invaded Beruit. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. Becouse this article about hezbollah we should write what they do and what has done against them. I mean when you want to introduce a person fairly you shouldn't focused on what he/she has done but also you should mention what others has done against him/her.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I totally agree and that's why I feel it is essential to have the point of view about Hezbollah being legit. resistance.  But we have to put the acts out there, and then say how they are percieved.  The piece is not about Israel's retialiation or agression, and does certainly say that Israel committed agression by coming into Lebanon, doesn' it?  Elizmr 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thirdly, I added why Israel invaded Beruit because I realized that point of history is no where in this article.  I'll come back and add the cites soon.  Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence "Hezbollah is credited with the "invention" of suicide bombing " is claimed by U.S. and Israel. So you shouldn't write it as a fact which everybody agree with. You can write "U.S. and Israel claim ..."--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought that it was established that the US embassy bombing in 83 was the first suicide bombing that we know of.  I need to find the cite anyway to see where this comes from.  I don't know if it is accurate to say that the US and Israel claim... anyway, let's put this on hold and I'll look.  Elizmr 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fourthly, no one has excused Hezbollah from disarming.  They are in violation of UN resolution.  The text should not say they are "allowed" to keep their arms.  What do others think?   Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what BBC and Siniore have said. So we can add it in the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you put the exact quote here so we can discuss?  Elizmr 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: According to BBC "1991 - The National Assembly orders the dissolution of all militias by 30 April but Hezbollah is allowed to remain active and the South Lebanon Army (SLA) refuses to disband." and according to Siniore "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms" and also read this .--Sa.vakilian 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see your point. We could say that Lebanon has been in favor of the continued armament of Hezbollah since x year but the UN resolution continues to call for disarmament.  I think that would be an improvement, and closer to the truth.  What do you think?
 Elizmr 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current debates about intoduction

message: Elizmr:I think there is disagreement between us about the approach we should use to describe Hezbollah. I believe this article especially introduction doesn't want to say what was Hezbollah at first and how it has changed, but it wants to introduce Hezbollah as it is. So I want to revert some of your editions in introduction because of its historical approach. but I wait until you tell me your idea. --Sa.vakilian 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the historical approach, so people can get a full understanding, but I"m sure we can write something that will do both.  Why don't you write a version and put it here and then we can discuss?  Elizmr 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a strong proponent of the historical approach.  I understand that we differ on this.  The historical approach allows people to get a better understanding of the organization and how it has evolved and then appreicate where it has ended up.  Do you have a good reason for favoring the other approach?  If Wikipedia were Hezbolla's Web site it show Hezbollah as it wants to be shown, but it is an encyclopedia and needs to go beyond that to take a more three dimensional view.  Elizmr 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical or Non-Historical approach

message: I try to edit this part on the basis of BBCNews in order to make it more neutral. Also I put some notes there for moving and removing some part if introduction and shorten it.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: could you put notes here instead of in the text commented out?  It is difficult to find them there.  Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sa.va I consider your edit to be very POV.  First off, you have no rationale for removing the fact that Sheba farms was captured from Syria and was not Lebanese in the first place.  We need to state this.  Israel and the UN considered Israel withdrawn and had a legitimate basis for this.  Please don't remove any evidence of that from the article.   Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't remove it. I propose removing but if you disagree with me I don't insist on it. But I prefer to move this part to position on Israel.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, sorry.  But you commented it out, and it wasn't visible in the article.  That is what I meant.  Sorry if I insulted you.  Thanks for agreeing that it can stay in.  Elizmr 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Secondly, the discussion in the paragraph is about how Hezbollah (NOT Israel) is percieved.  For this reason it is important to state what they have done so that it can then be discussed. That is why the sentence about the murders, kidnappings, etc refers to Hezbollah and not to mutual violence between Israel and Hezbollah.  (The articles cited in any case are describing Hezbollah acts).  I now realize it is important to characterize Hezbollah violence as answering Israeli agression to portray Hezbollah acts in accordance with Islamic law, but this is already achieved because Israel invaded Beruit. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. Becouse this article about hezbollah we should write what they do and what has done against them. I mean when you want to introduce a person fairly you shouldn't focused on what he/she has done but also you should mention what others has done against him/her.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I totally agree and that's why I feel it is essential to have the point of view about Hezbollah being legit. resistance.  But we have to put the acts out there, and then say how they are percieved.  The piece is not about Israel's retialiation or agression, and does certainly say that Israel committed agression by coming into Lebanon, doesn' it?  Elizmr 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thirdly, I added why Israel invaded Beruit because I realized that point of history is no where in this article.  I'll come back and add the cites soon.  Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence "Hezbollah is credited with the "invention" of suicide bombing " is claimed by U.S. and Israel. So you shouldn't write it as a fact which everybody agree with. You can write "U.S. and Israel claim ..."--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought that it was established that the US embassy bombing in 83 was the first suicide bombing that we know of.  I need to find the cite anyway to see where this comes from.  I don't know if it is accurate to say that the US and Israel claim... anyway, let's put this on hold and I'll look.  Elizmr 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fourthly, no one has excused Hezbollah from disarming.  They are in violation of UN resolution.  The text should not say they are "allowed" to keep their arms.  What do others think?   Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what BBC and Siniore have said. So we can add it in the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you put the exact quote here so we can discuss?  Elizmr 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: According to BBC "1991 - The National Assembly orders the dissolution of all militias by 30 April but Hezbollah is allowed to remain active and the South Lebanon Army (SLA) refuses to disband." and according to Siniore "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms" and also read this .--Sa.vakilian 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see your point. We could say that Lebanon has been in favor of the continued armament of Hezbollah since x year but the UN resolution continues to call for disarmament.  I think that would be an improvement, and closer to the truth.  What do you think?
 Elizmr 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: editing Introduction

message: I did some work on the intro to make it flow a bit better and to shorten by reducing repitition.  I added a few quotes from that BBC article that Sa.va keeps bringing up.  :=).  I kept in the sentence that says clearly that Israel did violence too and tried to tease out the bit about "reisisting all of Palestine" for an unfamiliar reader.  I added a little background on the political situation in Lebanon in the early 80s that will help the article make a little more sense.  I took some repitition out of the lead as well.  Sorry for so many small edits.  I had firefox browser and it would not let me do the previews.  Elizmr 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Israel had become militarily involved in Lebanon in combat with the Palestine Liberation Organization who moved into Southern Lebanon after being ousted from Jordan. The PLO was attacking Israel from Southern Lebanon in the lead up to the 1982 Lebanon War, and Israel had invaded and occupied Lebanon to protect its Northern border." isn't appropriate for the introduction of Hezbollah article. I agree with the importance of this sentence but it is a background. Look at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Background and also we need a background about situation and position of Shiites in Lebabnon including  and  because some of Hezbollah leaders like Nasrallah was the islamist branch of Amal Movement. I make another part and move it.--Sa.vakilian 06:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree.  It is important to have this background for those who won't read another article.  People don't know why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. There is even some speculation that they are there to expand their own territory which is ridiculous.  Could you go along with putting it back as necessary background?  I worked a bit hard on the two little sentences.  Elizmr 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose moving this part "Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as legitimate resistance and some others regard them as Jihad. Supporters of Hezbollah justify Hezbollah's attacks against Israel for the following reasons. Firstly, Hezbollah supporters cite the occupation of Lebanese land. Many of these attacks took place while Israel occupied the southern part of Lebanon and held it as a security zone in spite of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. Although Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and their complete withdrawl was verified by the United Nations, Lebanon considers the Shebaa farms, captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war and considered by the UN to be disputed territory between Syria and Israel, to be Lebanese territory. Additionally, Israel holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails for crimes against Israel. Finally, Hezbollah and some of the Muslim world consider Israel an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many in the Arab world consider violent acts performed by the organization against Israel to be justified as acts of Jihad.[26] Although some Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah's actions saying vaguely that they harm Arab interests,[27] throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds Hezbollah is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement, aiming to create an Islamic state encompasing the whole geographic region of Palestine, including what is currently the State of Israel.[8]" to "Position on Israel" and "Outside views of Hezbollah ".--Sa.vakilian 07:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  One of the most important issues about Hezbollah is that people disagree about whether the violence has been called for or not.  This paragraph really discusses that and shows both sides.  Could we leave it?   It is a crux crux issue, not just a "position on israel" or and "outside view".  What do you think?  Elizmr 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sa.vakilian. It should be moved into an appropriate part.--Hossein.ir 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Elizmr: Introduction is one of the most controvercial part of this article and there have been too many debates about it which you may have not seen them. There is some discussions You'd better read in Lead/Introduction Archives especially this part []. Then we can speak about this part again.--Sa.vakilian 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sa.va, I have read the debates on this, but I don't think that anyone has said why it is inappropriate to raise this essential issue clearly in the introduction deliniating both sides of the argument using neutral language.  It is only inappropriate if anything which may put Hezbollah in a negative light is inappropriate.  That is ok if you are writing for a blog or Hezbollah-sponsored media source or a government-sponsored media source, but NOT ok on Wikipedia.  Please refer to WP:NPOV to review wikipedia policy on showing all sides before arguing that this stuff needs to come out again.  We have actually been through this multiple times and the language here is comprimise wording.  It is time for you to defend your objections rationally.  Elizmr 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why you insist on putting everything like background in the intro. Introduction is for introducing Hezbollah and it's not appropriate for something else like the reason of invasion of Israel in 1982. You can add background in the history and refer to it in the intro. I think this make the article neutral too.--Sa.vakilian 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with you about the necessity of what you say but I mean your method is wrong. We shouldn't add every necessity idea in the intro. We can add it in the body and refer to it.--Sa.vakilian 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What purpose do you see the intro accomplishing?  72.72.113.203 01:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to avove, I agree the BBC article is unrefed and weak; I added some quotes from it to the lead becuase others were also quoting it in the lead.  Elizmr 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The founding objectives of the organization belong in the lead becuase they are a fundamental aspect of the organization.   Sa.va felt that to have them in the lead, the intro, and the ideology section was too much, so we removed them from the intro.  If you are going to remove them from the lead, please discuss first on talk stating an argument for doing so.  Elizmr 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding objectives

message: "Hezbollah currently has grown into a Shia Islamist political party with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, a militia, and extensive front programs for social development. "
The manifesto shows it has been "Shia Islamist political party" from the beginning. So why there is written has grown. --Sa.vakilian 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, why not change it to "Hezbollah comprises a .... or "Hezbollah is currently a...???Elizmr 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the lead. --Sa.vakilian 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: I believe we've been trapped in a loop. Please look at this:"Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG20Ak02.html The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation. 
http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/07/20/ap2893194.htmlHezbollah's Role in Lebanon's Government, NPR Even 74 percent of Lebanese Christians viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization.http://www.globalcomment.com/current_affairs/article_108.asp 
Because that the organization initiates attacks against civilians and ideologically supports such attacks by other organizations, the United States, Britain and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. 
The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization",http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/lebanon/intro/ but does list Imad Mugniyah as such. 
In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2005, the MEPs urged the EU Council to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organization. However, the Council has so far been reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks.http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005325.php 
European legislators branded the radical Lebanese Hezbollah group a terrorist organization and urged EU governments to place the group on their terrorist blacklists, as the bloc did with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2003. 
“EU Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The EU Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them," legislators said in a non-binding resolution adopted during a session in Strasburg, France. "
There was similiar text in the lead. Somebody moved it to intro then somebody else came and put it in the the lead. And this cycle has continued by now. We should decide what is suitable for lead and intro and what is not. Before writing your idea here look at Lead/Introduction discussions please.--Sa.vakilian 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The sections are both now in a bit of a mess.  Elizmr 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't be bothered starting a new section for this, but the claim in the intro that HA has "abandoned" the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic Republic is simply not true. It has certainly accepted that this is not a possible outcome in the short to medium term, but it remains its fundamental goal. This shows the danger on relying on journalistic (the BBC, in this case) rather than scholarly sources; granted that the former are more up to date and for many readers easier to access, they are likely to be more simplistic or even inaccurate. Palmiro | Talk 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have brought up this point previously.  Elizmr 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah beleive in Islamic Republic as a idealogy but as Nasrollah has said its not a practical goal in Lebanon society.--Sa.vakilian 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but the point is the BBC article just states the thing without giving evidence to back up their claim.  Elizmr 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: Writing too many details in the lead is inappropriate so I moved some part of it to intro. This part is about recognition Hezbollah as Legitimate or terrorist organization. I could maintain an abstract about this issue in the lead, but my exprience in this article show if we put one sentence about this issue in the other wikipedian put all of this information there even it would be NPOV. Also we should merge this part with intro because some issues are repeated. Please read the Lead/Introduction archive before answer to me or edit the article.--Sa.vakilian 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  According to Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to summarize the article.  Maybe it should say a word or two about terrorism, but I agree completely that what was there before was too much.  I think some things about politics, etc are repeated in the first part of the lead and the last part of the lead and the lead could be edited to remove the second mention.  Maybe there are other parts of the article that could get a quick mention in the lead as well to make it a better summary of the whole article.  I will try to do this.  Elizmr 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many details in the lead

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: I think we don't need to write everything in the lead. Thus I move Hezbollah's goals to the ideology and leave a summary in the lead.--Sa.vakilian 07:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrorism is not as prominant as it should be in the lead.  If Hezbollah was only a political party, it would not be in the news that much.  Terrorists should be in the first paragraph.Reapor2 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that such a change would equate to redeveloping a POV-pushing war within the article. --Kukini 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long lead

message: I've attempted to reorganize the lead and give the sentences some order. --BoogaLouie 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of lead