Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 7

message: (Goofyfoot2001 = Goofyfoot)
I am really amazed that people actually think Hezbola is NOT a terrorist organization.  I thought people were smarter than that.  Not changing the text of this article basically says that Wikipedia is worth the pixels it's printed on.  I checked the rules and as far as I can see this piece is just that a piece.
Thanks for starting this, I'm with you that this is sorely needed. I'll try my hand at it here when I have time a little later.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically do you like about the structure of that section? It seems so big and sprawling, I'm inclined to think it's the one section that could benefit the most from refactoring. Not just the "terrorist" section, but also Hezbollah's relationship to other guerilla groups deserves an article of its own, IMO. Both would be much more manageable than the present situation, and probably encourage more useful contributions. Then, as you say, we could summarize them here in a subsection. What do you think of these changes to the outline?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with spinning out the relationships to other groups rather than incorporating them in the main article. The structure as currently proposed looks fine with one exception: funding. If you want to understand an organization, follow the money! Perhaps "Funding" should go in the "Structure and Activities" section? Ideally, however, it would get its own full section - I consider it that important. JiHymas@himivest.com 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, I have another quibble: the proposed structure has a "History" section with three subsections. We have already spun-off history ... shouldn't this section just be a brief summary and wikiLink? JiHymas@himivest.com 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's reasonable, I think. I'm not familiar with the "Funding" section and I've got no idea what to do with it, anyone else?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, "Funding" is now called "Assistance from Abroad". Also, note that the dates are wrong in the proposed History Section (most of which should be a reference to the "History of Hezbollah" article): 1982-90 was the civil war, 1990-2000 was the Israeli Occupation. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "2006" section from "history" as it's not, err, historic. I alos added some subsections to make i easier to edit. - brenneman {L} 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree JiHymas@himivest.com 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (24 hrs later) I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so this will have to wait for the weekend, unless someone else wants to take on the refactoring in the meantime. I've got my fingers crossed... :-)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just reverted to version "Revision as of 23:22, 20 August 2006". Structural changes should be discussed here prior to entry. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: [This heading was originally stand-alone: I have moved it to become a subheading of "structure" JiHymas@himivest.com 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs a sep article and is central here.  Let's just try to do it in a concise way that everyone can be happy with.  Elizmr 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should maintain something like what is exist at the end of this article, but I agree to make a new article because I almost sure there are many things which wikipedians want to add in this issue and it will result in many dispute here. --Sa.vakilian 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article to avoid bloat and POW 

message: I propose we order the sections as above.  The military activities chronologically first and it seems weird to place them last.  Elizmr 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it up in the discussion of "Structure" on this page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is a bit old now.  Why don't we discuss it here?  Elizmr 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose that order because the military activities came first in their evolution as an organization.  Elizmr 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else have any opinions on changing the order.  JiHymas, what do you think since you were the one who reverted the change I made.  I will change it in a few hours if no one is opposed to the change.Elizmr 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I put my comment here.--Sa.vakilian 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of sections:  Military: Political: Social

message: It seems strange that this is under "social services".  Arguably as a propaganda organ, this is a military functionality.  Let's put the media operation as a separate section.  Elizmr 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. There is some dispute as to whether Al-Manar television is a "military functionality" - the bombing has been condemned by all media associations except the Israeli one. See the article. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you disagree.  I hear you.  I meant to say that it serves as a propaganda function, along with other functions.  This is why I think media ops should have its own section.  Calling it "social service" is a bit of a misnomer since it is too narrow a descriptor.  Elizmr 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this in its own section.  This is crucial to move this article towards NPOV.  No one else expressed an opinion and JiHymas did not explain explicitly why Al Manar is explicitly as "social activity" only.  Elizmr 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Get consensus to change the structure and then change the structure to reflect consensus. The structure has been reviewed in earlier discussions (including the current one, which you are ignoring) and passed muster. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to get consensus for every edit I do to the article.  You should defend why Al Manar TV is soely a "social service" if you want to put it there.  Elizmr 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for leaving it where it now is, JiHymas, in its own section.  This is an important aspect of moving the article towards NPOV.  Elizmr 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Manar TV

message: Elizmr, Why do you insist on putting ths part before political activity? As I know although Hezbollah initially was a military organization but now it becomes a political party and I think its political identity has dominated its military one. --Sa.vakilian 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I would argue that the military came first, so should be first in the discussion and is still prominent.  If Hezbollah were to disarm, for example, I would say put the military lower down but as it is it is still a/the major focus.  If Hezbollah were to want to negotiate with Israel I would say put military lower down, because political activities goes with diplomatic activities.  But I don't see that happening.  At the core, H is a military organization with military goals.  Do you disagree?  Elizmr 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I saw that you went ahead and changed this.  Here's a suggestion.  How about if we put military first, given the chronologic and other issues above, but expand explicit dicussion in the article (more than is there now) about the evolution of the organization and what they are doing to work politically?  This way the point you want to make implicitly with the structure can be made explicitly with the text instead.  Elizmr 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And also please pay attenion to this:"Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament. "--Sa.vakilian 16:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The negotiation stuff is beside the point--I apologize for clouding the issue with that.  When Hezbollah disarms, it can be considred a political org first.  It adamantly refuses to do so.   It started as a paramiltary group and still is one.  It only later became active politically.  The military stuff should come first.  Also, I have read the BBC quote and the thin little article it came from.  Although many would disagree, the  BBC is not the word of God.  Elizmr 00:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC article isn't pro-Hezbollah one. How can we acheive agreement?--Sa.vakilian 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really arguing whether the BBC thing is pro-Hezbollah or anti-Hezbollah--one would hope it would be neither.  My  problem with letting a whole Wikipdia article stand on the BBC article is that it doesn't contain any in-depth analysis to support the strong statement it makes.  I also do not in any way dispute that Hezbollah is a political party.  Of course it is!  But it started as a armed organization and in becomming a political party it has not laid down arms.  I think the Wikipedia article should be true to this and place military activities first and work chronologically through the activities of the organization.  I understand that Hezbollah may want to be seen now as primarily a political party or social service org, and some have argued that the structure of the article should follow how Hezbollah wants to be percieved right now.  This would be totally ok if Wikipedia were Hezbollah's Web site, however it is not.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a NPOV source of information.  We need to convey what Hezbollah actually is, not how it wants to be seen.  Could you live with moving chronolocially through and adding more text about the evolution of the org in the "political activities" section as I suggested above?  Elizmr 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Chronologically approach is suitable for History part. Also it's before activities and you acheive what you want. But how do you judge that Hezbollah is basically military organization at present. I look at some of the references. Those who call Hezbollah a terrorist organization focused on its military activities but others do not for example. --Sa.vakilian 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying "basically" military at present.  But since it started as miliatary and is still military now it seems most reasonable to put that first.  If Hezbollah were to disarm I would say put military last, but that hasn't happened.  Elizmr 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Carbonate,  I totally hear you, but could you defend the position of putting military last (ie-say why you want it that way?_Elizmr 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military activities

message: I think that "Web" is a proper noun, short for "World Wide Web" and should thus be capitalized.  Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Web vs. web

message: Why the change from "Islamism" to "Shia extremism"?  Not sure I get the fine points of this.  Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Islamism is more familiar for people.--Sa.vakilian 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'm not sure we would need to get into the fine points of Shia vs. Sunni here in the ideology section, but maybe I"m missing the fine points.  I'm willing to be educated if I am totally wrong.  Elizmr 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of fighting against Israel there isn't any difference between them. But in other cases may be some differences. --Sa.vakilian 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the differences relevant to Hezbollah?  Elizmr 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed Shiite-Sunni conflict because not only it was controvecial but also doesn't relate to Idealogy.--Sa.vakilian 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get a chance to read it before you removed it, but agree it doesn't relate to ideology.  If it is relevant to geopolitics, however, and well refed and someone put it in, shouldn't we move it rather than deleting it?  Elizmr 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was based on one weak reference and it needs too more works.--Sa.vakilian 05:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology section:Islamism

message: This part is written on the basis of one reference and point out one POV. There is another viewpoint among Sunnis too.You can find it in these sites:Qaradawi urges Muslims to support Hezbollah, Hamas, Hezbollah Legitimate for Jordanians, http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/26/10055044.html and many other sites.--Sa.vakilian 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shiite-Sunni conflict

message: Do we need the part about women's rights in there?  It doesn't seem like central ideology like the rest.  I think the section is too long and it could go.  Elizmr 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to make a new article and move this part and maintian a summary.--Sa.vakilian 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's leave it for now.  I think we need to work on the article proper before moving more stuff and making more summaries.  The summaries we have, such as the history one, is not a summary at all.  But don't you think it is a side issue, about the women?  Elizmr 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology section

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: There is some parts which is repeated frequently:
1-"The organization officially declared itself on 16 February 1985 in a manifesto declaring goals of bringing Islamic revolution to Lebanon, expelling Western influences from Lebanon, and eliminating Israel. Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon"
This part is written in the lead, introduction and the body of the article.We should remove at least one of them.--Sa.vakilian 06:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) true.  I think it should be in the lead, because the lead summarizes the article.  I think it should be in ideology, because it is closer to that topic.  How about that?  Elizmr 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 2) I have to insist on leaving all of the refs.  They do not add much length to the article.  Is ther another reason you'd like to take them out?  We can trim length elsewhere.  I will work with you to do that.  Elizmr 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, by the way, I took this out of the introduction in response to your good point.  Elizmr 13:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated parts

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: "Although Hezbollah believes in one-person-one-vote system and disagree with multi-confessional but it do not intend to force a one-person-one-vote system onto the country’s Christians."
Suggested syntax cleanup:
"Although Hezbollah believes in one-person-one-vote and disagrees with the Lebanese confessional franchise, it [has stated that it] does not intend to force a one-person-one-vote system on the country’s Christians."
The phrase in square brackets is for verifiability. Lebanese Christians may mistrust Hezbollah's intentions on this.
And why "Christians"? The Druze are another significant non-Muslim group.
James Wimberley (unregistered user)
:James--why don't you register and change the syntax yourself?  Elizmr 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax cleanup 

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: A lot of references here do not say what it is purported to support. E.g. the line that "Hezbollah has allowed to maintain its weapon against Israel occupation by Lebanon government" had after it two references; but give a look; not one word in these references about this.
:Please read the text carefully. 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" 
Another line "Lebanon goverment and Hezbollah have denounced United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 that calls for the disarmament of all militia". The reference given clearly says that it was Hezbollah who renounced; it was Hezbollah who protested; it was Hezbollah who bussed in hundreds of thousands of people from Beirut's slum southern suburbs. There isn't a word there that Lebanon renounced the resolution; to the contrary, UN Resolution 1559 came to suppport the Taif agreement which was a creation of Lebanon.
The point is; we now have 203 references, and a good many of them are misrepresentations of what they are; some not even discussing the subject; and some, outright contradict what they purport to support. Itzse 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the references is a very good idea but who have enough time to check them?--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but if we're going to have a NPOV article; then at the minimum all the references need to support what it purports to; otherwise anybody can say anything and even fabricate references. Itzse 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for a start, no one should cite anyting they haven't read.  Elizmr 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The references don't necessarily say what it purports to 

message: Does anyone think the cleanup banner still needs to be up on this page? --GHcool 04:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jewish Virtual Library is well written and well referenced.  I would vote that it is an outstanding source.  Elizmr 18:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. We debated on this issue before you become active in this article and I showed there is some defects in its information.  At least we should use it with caution.--Sa.vakilian 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read what you wrote and can't follow your point there.  Could you explain some more?  Most of the pages on that Web site are very well sourced.  Elizmr 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read what you wrote and can't follow your point.  Could you explain again?  Elizmr 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've shown some faults and also contradictions between what this site has writen about Hezbollah and more valid sources. Of course, I don't speak about most of the pages on that Web site but I speak about the contents relate to Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I don't follow the specific faults and contraindications you are mentioning.  Could you say more specifically what the problem is.  Elizmr 09:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sa.va: if the article doesn't mention "in part" the default meaning is "in full".  It doesn't have to state "in full" to have that meaning.  Elizmr 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Banner 

message: AI released a report today accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. I added it to the external links, and a brief mention near the end of the article. I had a bizarre edit conflict with myself, which mucked up all the references, but I think I cleaned it up properly. Crockspot 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amnesty International report 

message: due to vandalism from anon ip addressesElizmr 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please discuss on talk before unprotecting.  Elizmr 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I dunno if you are an admin Elizmr but protection and semi-protection is done by admins. Tagging the article is not sufficient and the protect button should be used. The article was unprotected since sept.12 and that's why new unregistered users could edit. -- Szvest 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for both protection, semi-protection and unprotection requests. There's no need for a request now. I had already semi-protected it a while ago.-- Szvest 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  I will save that link to use in future (altho hoping it will not be necessary).  Elizmr 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semiprotecting 

message: Somebody has removed Netherland from List of entities officially designating Hezbollah as "terrorist". I think we should debate about it.--Sa.vakilian 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherland position

message: This article The "hiding among civilians" myth - Salon News (requires subscription) may be interesting to quote or refute. --Error 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I know it's about Israel-Lebanon conflict. I think it doesn't related to this article directly unless there is written something about "hiding among civilians" as a tactic of Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding among civilians

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: Why somebody has put POV tag on this article.--Sa.vakilian 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: someone said above that they did it beause of the disporp attention to terrorism in the lead.  Elizmr 23:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag