Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 4

message: What exactly is a "legitimate resistance movement", especially in an un-occupied country ? When was the last time you saw a resistance movement carry out rocket attacks to foreign soil ?
I'm REALLY not getting a good sense of what's going on with Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Israel from reading this.  I know current events are moving quickly (duh), but even the background stuff here seems hopelessly out of date.  Any chance of getting this page reorganized?  Thanks.  Jay.ricketts 15:52, 31 July 2006, EDT
: I'm not sure what you want ... This page is supposed to be about the organization Hezbollah. Maybe in another month or so there'll be another heading 'Destruction of Hezbollah' or '2006 Triumph of Hezbollah' or 'Continued Conflicts with Israel after the 2006 Conflict' ... depends on what happens. The 'Current Events' are covered in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. What is it that you are expecting to find that isn't here? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am hoping for the heading of Hezbollah and IDF lay down arms for joint potluck picnics - all are welcome(no pork) .... :D Mceder 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good Christ, that is unfortunate. :-(  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarity 

message: Starting at Entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist and down, quoting long pieces that are already sourced, it can be replaced with something much shorter - I propose doing so since I do not believe it will take away from the article.
Something like this can replace it, obviously with sources intact:
Hezbollah has been labeled a terrorist organization, either in full or part by the following countries:
: United States (In full)
: Canada (In full)
: Israel (In full)
: United Kingdom (Lists only the Hezballah External Security Organisation)
: Netherlands (Lists only the Hezballah External Security Organisation)
: European Union (Lists only Hezbollah's senior intelligence officer - IMad Mugniyah
Mceder 13:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The History section is the longest, thus the most convenient for shortening. It's common use with many WP entries to replace it by a summary and move to its own article. --tickle me 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I have created History of Hezbollah. What do you think about shortening down the entries on the terrorist claims? Mceder 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with removing the quotations from the Entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist section, along the lines of Mceder's suggestion. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah it was a quick piece I put together. I do have the source for a table using Wikitable with all the references and Australia as well. I can put this in when I get home this evening. And I agree with you on your observation. It is a very long section to point out that 6 countries consider them or part of them as a terrorist organisation. Mceder 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. I also removed the reference to Russia not listing them, since starting that list would be quite the task(currently all countries except for the 6). In essence, an omission from the list currently listing them as terrorist should be enough. I am concerned that there may be some reverts, or I missed a point in the contents I removed so please look it over and revert or update as needed. Mceder 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi there! If you are going to revert, please don't revert to a version that defines Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization and political party which uses attacks aimed at civilians to achieve it's goals". That is the current article that you reverted it to. Since I don't do the revert back and forth thing, I will leave it to someone else to revert back to it's proper version. I appreciate your feedback on the changes. Perhaps you can add the things you requested? The article is a bit bloated so we are just trying to simplify things, that's all. Cheers - Mceder 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the guy who copied the snippet about Russia from "Background" to the new section, so you know where I stand! I agree that we don't really want to make a list of every sovereign nation that doesn't list H as T, but Russia's an influential player (or at least a wannabe) with ties to the region ... and they did have a list and they didn't put H on it. So I vote "Yes" to Russia. Great looking table, by the way! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are absolutely right. What I did was move that statement into the opening phrase; such as this: Six countries have designated part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a label vehemently disputed by some other countries. A notable omission of Hezbollah in it's list of terrorist groups is Russia, who released the list in the midst of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. - Since we are introing with the six who designated them as terrorists, lets also include the one who must of specifically omitted it (since it was released Friday(!!)) to balance it out. Mceder 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  That sounds good to me and my apologies for the earlier mistake. Deuterium 05:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problems at all! Mceder 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do the EU really list list only Hezbollah's senior intelligence officer - IMad Mugniyah as a terrorist organisation? That is, they call 1 guy an organisation?? That seems pretty strange. 203.206.24.90 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Im curious as to why westerners can't see this as well. Perhaps we are a bunch of zionist-loving fools whos government is RUN by pro-zionist factions? Perhaps we feel ashamed of the holocaust and are allowing israel to exact some sort of revenge. Reverse-genocide? Is that even a term? It seems it should be considering the conflict that is now ongoing in the sovereign nation of Lebanon. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Jeremy D. 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to shorten the article size a bit

message: I removed this quotation: "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."Nasrallah's Nonsense, The New York Sun Staff Editorial, March 11, 2005. Please have a look at the source, its an editorail in the New York Sun and it is really unclear where the statement is from. If someone can come up with a precise reference for the quotation, feel free to add it again. Bertilvidet 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at that quotation as well, though not in the same way. It seems to me that the entire issue (Hezbollah & Israel/Zionists/Jews) could be dealt with very briefly ... something like "Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel (lots of references). Its views have been criticized as genocidal (lots of references)." It seems to me that there's more detail in this section than is appropriate for such a short summary (with perhaps a wikiLink to Arab-Israeli conflict), given the inherent problems of POV in selecting the material to be highlighted. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that now we have too many sources basically stressing the same point. However, I am not sure the ideology of Hezbollah can be described that easy. The article needs to describe the change in hezbollah's rethoric, which has become far more moderate since Israels withdrawal from (the vast majority of) Southern Lebanon. I heard recently in the radio that Nasrallah has been quoted for saying that Hezbollah will not have any issue with Israel, if they withdraw from the Shebba Farms and return the remaining Lebanese prioserns in Israeli prisons. I have so far not been able to find the reference for that quotation, but please add it if anyone comes across it. Bertilvidet 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not relevantimi2 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I told before in "POV debate" I doubt "all" means "Jews" ,including anti-zionist jews. The first part of his quatation shows he meant "Zionists"  including Jews and Christian Zionists.  --Sa.vakilian 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you put the links of his quotations and not the U.S. newspapers' interpretations, I'll accept. --Sa.vakilian 04:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of dubious quotation 

message: (added to make quotations from the article easier to follow) JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying."
As I told before this is clear distortion and he's never told such a thing on 22 October 2002.--Sa.vakilian 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References!

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: :Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg should be redrawn. All the words are smudged. If you can't make a good SVG, just use a PNG. WP 07:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd fire up Illustrator and do it myself, but none of the corporate logo databases seem to include an EPS of Hezbollah's emblem. Damn.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag should be remade 

message: The second paragraph of this article states that there is debate in the Western world and even in Israel as to whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. There is no citation or support for that. The one provided [4] does not make the above statement. Furthermore, it is widely known that the US, Canada, Netherlands, and Israel deem Hezbollah a terrorist organization. (This information was obtained from this article regarding "Outside Views of Hezbollah." Also, remember a UN resolution was passed to disarm Hezbollah. So this topic is not debatable.
:"not debatable"? So you suppose this decision by the four countries you mention (out of 192 UN members) was somehow reached without any debate? dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version of the lead is very controversial .
Although Hezbollah has been blamed in a number of 'terrorist' acts, there is disagreement in the international political community—even among Israel and its traditional Western allies—about whether it merits designation as a terrorist organization in full, in part, or not at all.[4][5][6] Within Lebanon and the Muslim world, Hezbollah’s armed operations are widely regarded as legitimate resistance against Israel.[4][7]
The first sentence induces there is terrorist asct which is officially proved. It's against NPOV policy.--Sa.vakilian 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Per this discussion I changed it to a bit more balanced / unbiased wording, take a look and let me know what you think Marokwitz 08:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: There is quite a lot of vandalism on this page, and we end up spending more time reverting than actually improving and adding. I believe it would be a good idea to request a semi-protection. Any objections? Bertilvidet 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Szvest 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK by me. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection ? 

message: Jaffe have a list of weaponry which they give for Hezbollah's military capabilities, is it worth including some brief details from their report in this article in table form?  RandomGalen 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand from this that the Jaffe Institute for Strategic Studies is affilliated with Tel Aviv University, so it has some claim to credibility. I would welcome brief estimates of strength, but am a bit nervous about the idea of a table. What do you have in mind? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jaffe Institute

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: This article is well-researched and informative, however, I think it does not yet meet criteron 5 at WP:WIAGA. A glance at the edit history reveals numerous content disputes, with over 50 edits in the past 24 hours. I think that the POV tag at the top of the article supports this assessment.
Despite what appears to be a substantial amount of disagreement, I think the editors involved have put together an exceptional article. I learned a lot about Hezbollah from this entry, and I look forward to supporting a GA nomination once disputes are resolved. —ptk✰fgs 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely.--Sa.vakilian 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: As I told frequently this sentence is based on a newspaper interpretaton
Nasrallah has a history of making anti-Semitic statements (most infamously “if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
And the issue of that speech is "Christian Zionism". So it isn't an evidence for Anti-semitism.--Sa.vakilian 14:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  The topic is "Christian Zionism" and N. looks at both sides of this issue in terms of pros and cons for Hezhollah.  First, the "anti"....  Then the "pro" side: it will save H. (presumably H. since he says "us") the energy needed to seek Jews out outside of Israel, presumably to "eliminate" them.  Whatever the topic of the article, this is a flagrantly anti-Jewish statement.  He has not come out in words or in deeds to say that he didn't mean it.  There is no other way to slice it, except if one wants to do an apologetic whitewash.  I'm not saying the guy is all bad--of course he's not--but he is certainly an anti-Jewish person   Elizmr 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A doubtful sentence