Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 2

message: Congratulations to all those who have been mangling this page over the last while, either in pursuit of political positions or just out of plain incompetence. For those who have been making coherent contributions, my sympathies.
Perhaps the 'current event' template should be modified to read, 'This article documents a current event. It will remain instable and probably unreadable until further notice.' Palmiro | Talk 13:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: While reading through the article, I noticed it claimed two different areas, 28 km² and 10 km². I went to the Shebaa Farms article and calculated its area using my adept skills in math (2.5*14). I assumed the page on the Shebaa Farms was the most accurate. Does anyone know the actual correct area? I will try to find a  source later today if I remember. RyanEberhart 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I found http://www.shebaafarms.org/briefhistory.html states that the farms are 25km². Can anyone find anything else to confirm? RyanEberhart 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of the Shebaa Farms 

message: A lot of the article seems to be original research and alot of the statements lack citations. Perhaps this should be an ongoing task.
--Cerejota 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Point on Original Research

message: This is getting waaay too long and detailed for something that has a reference link to a much-trafficked page of its own at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis.  Needs a major re-edit, down to a few highlight of the main events, not minutiae of the naval attacks, for example. Tarc 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until that time comes around I have deleted it, pointing at the main article, and keeping the link to international reactions.--Cerejota 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2006 Conflict 

message: This important article is extremely bloated and lacks a coherent structure. I'm going to 'wikify' tag it. Any objections please follow up below. Nick Fraser 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: It's rather NPOV on both sides of the dispute to recognize at least that, rightly or wrongly, the Hezbollah is firing Katyusha rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
My question is merely an honest logistical one, and I HOPE it can be answered without descending into a shouting match.
The essential question is this: Who is it that is supplying the Hezbollah with these missiles? Syria is an obvious candidate for two reasons: it both supports the Hezbollah, and as well, it geographically borders Lebanon, making the delivery of these missiles easy enough. Yet missiles are expensives, and Syria is not the richest of countries. Iran, on the other hand, also a supporter of the Hezbollah, is oil rich, and is considered by most to be the main supplier of military equipment to the Hezbollah.
There's only one problem, Iran doesn't border Syria or Lebanon. The only land route from Iran to these two countries is either through Iraq or Turkey.
Now Iraq is crawling with US troops, and it would be reasonable to assume that those shipping arms from Iran to Lebanon would avoid this route at all costs. However Turkey is also a strong ally of both the US and Israel, and going that route wouldn't seem completely safe either. Are the arms airlifted in? Are they brought by sea? How does Iran supply the Hezbollah with arms? Loomis 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Question Regarding Logistics 

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: A couple of days ago the article had Hezb'Allah as an alternative (lit party of God). Could someone knowledgable about the subject explain why this is incorrect in usage or inappropriate etc.? Thank you. Also what pronunciation in English is preferred? Chomsky seems to use "Hezb'Allah".... - Abscissa 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always gone with Hizballah or Hezballah, simply because the name means "Party of God" and the Arabic word/name for God is "Allah".  Therefore "-ullah" and "-ollah" don't make much sense to me.  However, I realize that Arabic is a rather nuanced language, so perhaps someone more familiar than me could clarify. --JD79 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word Hizbullah is actually correct. After the b there is a "dhamma" (euivalent to an "o" vowel). If they were written separate, your statement would be true. But the word Hizbollah is what we call in Arabic an "esmun murakkab" (composite name). The o or u attaches the first word to the second word, deleting (id-gham) the "a" of allah in the process. So the  transliteration of either Hizbullah or Hizbollah (or Hezbollah, Hezbullah) is correct. Same reasoning goes for Sheikh Hasan "Nasrullah".--Zereshk 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zereshk, thanks for the clarification on the spelling of Hizbullah, Hizbollah. However, I think it would also be helpful to know how to pronounce the word. It has been pronounced variously in the broadcast media: HIZ-bol-ah, HEZ-bol-ah, hiz-BOL-ah, hez-BOL-ah, hiz-bol-AH, hez-bol-AH, HIZ-bol-AH, HEZ-bol-AH (where capital letters represent a stressed or accented syllable). Drhaas 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezb'Allah 

message: "On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated through German mediators Israel agreed on an exchange of prisoners. " from Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal section doesn't make any grammatical sense. Editing when I figure out what it's supposed to mean. 65.115.38.32 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar correction 

message: Hezbollah is the strongest force in Lebanon, and they are trying to destroy Israel.  Israel's counter-attack on Lebanon is therefore not an attack on the original Lebanese people, but is with the Hezbollah terrorists that have taken over Lebanon.
 
Funny  way to  try to  destroy a State.   Kidnapping  a   couple of  soldiers  for a  prisoner exchange, then   firing rockets  as  part  of   a military  esculation  from  both  sides  in  which    civilians are   effectively  targeted. If Hezbullah   want to destroy Israel,  then  they have a long  way to  go  befoe they are in a position to  make a serious  attempt. - Anton (210.185.17.92 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah 

message: This article has reference both in link format and cite.php (ref) format. I find these mixed pages hard to read, and would like to convert all to one style, cite.php. I thought I was done but apparently a large section had been missing, with 30+ more links. Does anybody mind having them all converted to cite.php form? In the process of going through them, I checked a couple links. Some of the references don't seem to me to support the statements they supposedly reference. One is a reference at the end (#52 currently) about UK saying this is a terrorist organization, but the link is an EU page that had no obvious reference to UK in it. Also, references are supposed to be after punctuation per MOS. Gimmetrow 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cite.php form sounds good to me. With so much change and vandalism, it's not surprising that some of the references should, at best, have become confused. Ref #52 [currently] is about the front/cover/alternate/sub-group names (Section 6, first paragraph) and includes the phrase "Using cover names such as 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance', with the blessings of its religious leaders, Hizbullah has ... ". It seems all right to me ... are we talking about the same thing? JiHymas@himivest.com 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the part at the end giving countries listing it as a terrorist organization, it was the reference given for UK, currently #87.  All current refs should now be cite.php form, and it becomes clearer that some of the refs are identical, eg #9/#13, #36/#37 and #50/#51 jump out. Gimmetrow 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with respect to the UK reference and have changed the sentence. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Cite.php 

message: * 1.3.2Continued activities against Israel after 2000
* 1.4 Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal
Does it really make sense to maintain the two following headings? Shouldn't these be combined? JiHymas@himivest.com 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated Headings? 

message: This article is full of terribly written text, a rewrite is needed (I don't want to, I just want to gripe about it).  Example:
"Iran funded Hizbullah in order to offset the funding of Israel by the USA. When the USA began to arm Israel with F16 Warplanes and advanced bombs. Which are being used to kill civilians in Lebanon. Iran decided that it was time to give the Hizbullah some wepons too. Both the USA and Iran accuse each other of having a hand in the conflict."  J Shultz 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" edited by high school and first-year college students. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's fairly clear that a lot of editors (and vandals!) on the page are from the Middle East. I really appreciate their knowledge of good citations ... and even more appreciate the even-handedness they bring to the article in ensuring that more than one side of the story gets told. I'm sure the article will improve when the current excitement dies down and there are less than whatever-it-is vandalizations per day. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Writing 

message: This article has been given this tag. Would the person that did so please state why, or else I see no reason for it to be there. RyanEberhart 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracy 

message: The intro to section 6 currently states : "The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.[82] [83]", providing two references. The first reference, to the Forbes article, does not support the statement: in fact, it contradicts it: "Saniora told the paper that "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," the statement said." Are there any actual citations supporting the referenced statement? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitude of Lebanese Government 

message: There is an article about this separately in wikipedia. I suggest that we cut down this section severely and simply refer readers to the separate page. Any objections? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, it is quite lenghty. But the text in Hezbollah in regards to R1559 is in sections better sourced then the R1559 article itself, so lets make sure we don't end up removing good sourced contents, but rather incorporate that into the R1559 article itself! Mceder 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Resolution 1559]] 

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: Bottom line;
This group and the radical groups terrorising ther own and the world have only the same goal, the same goal Hitler had in mind of any non Gremanic peoples GENOCIDE . All that are diffrent from them ,all muust die that is a world plan of eradication of all persons not of thier belief.
look deep at the core motavation of hate and mass murder, see what Hitler did and mutlpy it with the cloak of religon.
dh (Unsigned contribution by 68.231.81.110
:I moved this frm the very top of the page down here.  While it is ob obvious little value to the discussion of this wiki entry, I an unclear on if reverting talk page vandalism is an actual thing one can do.  Otherwise, I would've chosen to revert. Tarc 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing upon the soapbox 

message: Why did somebody put this tag:
: You got me. User 87.74.34.16 put it there as a replacement for:
I'll revert it. JiHymas@himivest.com 08:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: relevance tag?

message: The Netherlands stays in line with EU policy and doesn't declare Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. See this document of the Department of Foreign Affairs (in Dutch). Bontenbal 09:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until/unless the EU Council itself acts on the resolution, it is really of no relevance. Tarc 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands

message: I yesterday made all the references short links, so that they would not be displayed as urls. The next step, which I had planned to do today, was to start going through the references and add the titles of the articles to the refs. However, User:Gimmetrow has gone through and removed all the links again, in the name of "link transparency". Personally I think the references look terrible with the urls like this, but I won't start fixing them up again if my efforts will just be reverted again. jaco♫plane 11:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I changed them. We may be working to the same goal through different methods. I have no objection to changing links from a URL to a "short link" with a title, but you can do that as you add the titles. If there is no title text and the links are not visible, it's not clear when two refs are really the same. Gimmetrow 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I like seeing the URL in the notes section ... makes it a bit easier to tell who published the reference. But I'm not a fanatic about it. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem that it causes is when the URL is mega long. I am on a 800x600 display and the Notes section looks horrid, with one column of URL running straight into the column next to it. If we do this properly, each reference should state the source as a description of the link. I agree that making http://cnn.com/blah into [1] is a bit pointless. Mceder 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read on a small display too, but I view these articles transitional. For now, the full url helps identify when a source is used more than once - for instance one of the NPR links is used 4 times in the article. When they were [23] [24] [45] and [68], that wasn't evident. Ultimately yes, every URL should be replaced by a descriptive link giving source, date, etc. I still fail to see why how changing them all to numbers first helps - you still have to go back to add the titles/dates. And judging by the severely messed up reference section that I just fixed, most people aren't reading them anyway. (There was a ref tag put inside another reference, causing note #3 to be a few pages long.) Gimmetrow 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hear you and I am working on replacing all refs in this article with the appropriate cite template,mainly cite web. At the least it will display the publisher/author, date and title. Going through each one, I am finding many 404 Errors and replacing those refs with the citation needed template. Hope this goes along with da goal. Mceder 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: The current text states...
: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.
then in the next line says...
:The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization",[14] but does list Imad Mugniyah,[15]
: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.
I am removing the first reference to britain here as it is strictly speaking untrue. Britain does not officially consider Hezbolah a terrorist organisation, even the BBC has recently ceased to call it so, in response to the complaints of its listeners. DavidP 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking Britain has proscribed Hizbollah's "External Security Organisation - see  and Terrorism Act 2000. --AndrewRT 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've clarified the statement of the UK position in the relevant section. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction here 

message: In the revision "18:12, 24 July 2006 Ladlergo" the link to
: http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-Q-Subs-Q13.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=5&rnd=639.5361785261955 Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization?], ProCon.org
has been deleted as "linkspam". This doesn't look like spam to me ... the site presents both viewpoints (as presented by senior officials of various governments and organizations) and contains links to further materials. Why is it deemed "linkspam"? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, but perhaps there is something to this we don't know that the person deleting it does? I took a peak, and the information appears well sourced - in fact, it may be worth it to look up those sources, and quote them in this article in a similar fashion (obviously not just copy and pasting, but it is a good idea, and supplies sources as a start point!). The site is runned by http://www.amarkfoundation.org/, but I don't have much information on them either. A wiki style table with a Pro and Con side to the question of Is Hezbollah a Terrorist Organization seems balanced to me. Mceder 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procon.org linkspam? 

message: Most of the world doesn't. I'm changing that to "Some consider it to be a terrorist organisation". --82.183.224.40 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many consider it to be a terrorist organisation" 

message: With regards to - 
"Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[65] and has co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal."
I feel the source given for such a direct statement is too old, especially as it was from a time when Israel were occupying Lebanon. I couldn't find a newer source for this other than opinion.
Unless a newer source can be provided maybe something like...
"Hezbollah leaders have, in the past, suggested that the destruction of Israel is the only way peace can be obtained in the Middle East and have co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas"
I think this matches the actual quote in the source a lot better as well.
No doubt someone can write it better than me but what does anyone think?
Cheers, Andy
:I haven't found anything too definitive yet on Hezbollah's official policy towards Israel. The Hezbollah documents I have found simply talk of "resistance to" rather than "destruction of". It seems to be an article of faith among many that its charter calls for Israel's destruction (as does that of Hamas) but ... at this point I'm not even sure if Hezbollah actually has a formal charter! I'll keep digging ... JiHymas@himivest.com 23:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology section 

message: Is it still a national liberation organization? Psychomelodic  22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National liberation movements"? 

message: Not going to revert anything since this has been put in several times today, alternatively with a mention about the Republican Party, which has been reverted 2 or 3 times already.. So; Why do
we need a link to other uses of Party of God in this article? I have read the first footnote and understand what Hezbollah means, but who would type in Hezbollah when they really was looking for Party of God - which has a disambig page with two links; This article and one for Hizbullah (Mauritius), and how would that help? I suggest we remove it on the basis off not making sense, but perhaps it is just me? Thoughts? Mceder 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care much either way, as long as it's just a straight link to somebody's disambiguation page. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference to Party of God (Disambig) 

message: I suggest that this would be better stated as: "Hezbollah during the unoccupied period", or "From the 2000 Withdrawal to the 2006 Invasion" or something like that. Discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change sub-heading "Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal" ? 

message: It seems to me that the first part of this section, dealing with Hezbollah's popularity, would be better placed in the Political Activities section. Are there any objections to me moving it? Also, I had thought that the sentence "Their popularity is seen to be lower among Evangelical Christians, however." referred to the poll cited in the previous sentence and that the fact tag was just a nuisance. Having searched the cited document for "Evangelical" unsuccessfully, I've come to the conclusion that this sentence was put in as a joke (referring to American Evangelical Christians). Are there any objections to my removing this? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No . My dear friend that sentence was there before the above part was added. Somebody has written it without any reference. If you want to save it find a reference for it.--Sa.vakilian 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued activities against Israel after 2000

message: The "dispute" tag was added by user 217.37.203.130 in the revision 18:24, 30 July 2006. This user has not yet seen fit to let us in on the secret of which fact he disputes. I will remove the tag 24 hours from insertion unless there is some discussion. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to wait 24 hrs. As there is no dispute I have been bold and removed the tag. If anyone wants to dispute the factual accuracy, please do so - and then reinsert the tag. Bertilvidet 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Tag 

message: 24/07/2006 Hezbollah's Official Webpage Sites Achmenijahd calling Israel to Leave the Middle East 
It's an AFP article...Bertilvidet 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but what is the point concerning the wikipedia article? Bertilvidet 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Connection 

message: Please lokk at this text which is written in idealogy part:
:...before us lies an exceptional and historic chance to exterminate this complete Zionist project which has been threatening our nation and region for over fifty years now. We as a nation must not waste this great chance... The continuation of the combating Palestinian resistance deprives the Zionists of security, or even the reason for their existence on this land... Their only correct choice, or in other words their only inescapable destiny is to pack their baggage, leave Palestine, and go back to where they came from."[68] 
As you know idealogy doesn't reffer to the definite time, place or event. But this text reffers to difinite event.--Sa.vakilian 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort-of agree with you! But ideology influences what one would think of such an event and it is clear that Nasrullah thinks that this would be a very good idea. From what I've read, I've received the definite impression that while Hezbollah recognizes that they can (to phrase things most diplomatically) only be a guerrilla nuisance to Israel as things currently stand, they would love to be able to 'exterminate this complete Zionist project'. I suggest the quotation be kept until such time as a more definite statement can be found directly from Hezbollah in words confirmed by deeds. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to lose the citation so I'll store it here: . What do others think of this question? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: strategy not idealogy

message: I have just clarified the position of the UK, Australia and The Netherlands with regard to the status of Hezbollah as a terrorist org.
It seems that it is easy to label anything terrorist these days, and one should be careful in doing so. 
Thinking it strange that the UK was listed as a country that 'branded' Hezbollah as terrorist, yet a few lines later was one of the nations reluctant for the EU to do the same - so I decided to read the citations.
These three countries have made a distinction between Hezbollah proper and its external security organisation (ESO). furthermore the UK has only banned the ESO from operating in the UK. This distinction may be a fine one, but it is what enables the UK to recognise the legitimate elected lebanese Hezbollah MPs and exert pressure on the EU not to label Hezbollah as terrorist.
To state that there is some kind of blanket condemnation on the part of these countries, wether true or not, should only be made with some direct evidence. simply generalising the situation to give a false impression really doesn't help anybody to understand the complexity of the issues. DavidP 03:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific references to Hez as Terrorist 

message: The Dr. Alon Ben-Meir Part 2 interview on the Daily Show, today, suggested that Hezbollah was trying to reestablish something (it says this about 45 seconds into the video clip).  Unfortunately, I can't quite make out the word.  They're trying to reestablish the calibat?  The talibat?  Neither seem to return many relavent hits on Google.  Any ideas? TerraFrost 09:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caliphate? Danny 10:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That asides, why the Daily Show is even... nevermind. __earth (Talk) 10:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah are Shiite and they believe in velayate faghih like Iran so they don't want to make Caliphate like Ottoman. Although they don't want to make religious government in Lebanon because Lebanon is formed from some different religious minority.--Sa.vakilian 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the daily show's interview with Dr. Alon Ben-Meir 

message: http://seattlepi.com/national/1103AP_Russia_Terrorist_Organizations.html - Hezbollah not on Russia's terrorist list.
What's more: Lavrov said that Russia's support for a Hezbollah role in decision-making in the Mideast crisis was shared by European countries and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. -G3, 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian viewpoint 

message: Because the article becomes too long, I proposed to move the history part.--Sa.vakilian 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with moving the "History" section, but I think the section on "Origins" should be maintained in the main "Hezbollah" article. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This sounds logical. Agree with JiHymas as well on the Origins. Created History of Hezbollah. I think a nicely written summary is needed on it, as well as a new write for the History section on this page. Mceder 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I am impatient and went ahead and did it. Feel free to revert if it is not correct, but the article sure looks better now... The history article sure could use a bit more work, but everything is at least there. The references were corrected where broken. Mceder 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's great! Thanks! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move History section