Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 5

message: I'd like to add this to this article. See [Hamas] for a comparison. 
Let me know what you think, and for what to add under Members, International affiliation and Headquarters(Beirut?) Mceder 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be written Hezbollah is a  social, political and military  Lebanese organisition.--Sa.vakilian 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shi'a is a branch of islam and it isn't a political ideology. So we can write religion:Shi'a Islam --Sa.vakilian 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The website: Because of war they use different sites but I'll ask it "en sha allah".--Sa.vakilian 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sa.vakilian brings up an interesting point - that of religion, which has been glossed over in the article so far. There have been numerous references to H's support amongst non-Shia Lebanese, but what about actual membership and influence? I'm sure that any branch of H will be willing to take my money if I offer it, but could I get a job as janitor in one of their hospitals? Could I become Janitor Supervisor? Director of Maintenance? How about the military wing? Are non-Shia recruited for the military wing? Do any hold positions of influence? All this should really be addressed and I certainly don't know the answer. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should at nationality and religion to this box.--Sa.vakilian 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I went ahead and made a new template called Infobox Social Political and made some changes according to the comments above. It is now applied to the main article. Cheers - Mceder 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, aren't there Christians and Sunni Islamic folks in Lebanon too?  Elizmr 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I realized that right after I wrote the note but didn't want to delete.  Sorry.  Elizmr 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use the Infobox: Political Party template?

message: I have twice added to the lead that a vast majority of the Lebanese, alon with some Muslim states, regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organization, but have immediately been reverted. This information is elaborated and well sourced (87%) in the article. I believe it is a crucial point in order to understand the organization and its role in Lebanon. Please raise objection here. Bertilvidet 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm responsible for at least one of those reversions, so apologies for that. (I was looking at the reference linked directly after that claim, which makes no such statement, rather than scanning the rest of the article.) However, the "87%" figure for support of Hezbollah’s arms is very recent, described as "a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February." It’s misleading to use that figure to claim that "a vast majority of Lebanese [civilians]" regard Hezbollah as a legitimate armed resistance against Israel. At least, not without explaining it further, which I'll attempt now. Write back with what you think of my forthcoming changes to the lead-in.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine for me as it is now (Within Lebanon and the Muslim world, Hezbollah’s armed operations are widely regarded as legitimate resistance against Israel). Bertilvidet 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the vast majority of the muslim world does not recognize Israel's right to exist since it is part of the Waqf.  Isn't this true?   Elizmr 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No idea - how about finding a source supporting it? And what is the relation between recognizing Israel's right to exist and considering Hezbullah as a legitimate resistance movement??? Bertilvidet 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vast majority 

message: This article becomes too long(more than 80 kb). So I propose to move "Foreign and domestic relations" to a new article.--Sa.vakilian 13:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I delete "Suicide attacks" because it was copied from History of Hezbollah compeletly. But this isn't enough to shorten this article.--Sa.vakilian 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do read the whole of the talk page, where there is a discussion on the length of the article just a few sections up. - brenneman {L} 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I confess! The actual sequence of events was that first "Suicide Attacks" occurred in this article and I copied it to History. Because ... it is history! The paragraph did not belong here. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea of removing foreign and domestic relations to another article.  The link with Iran is a crucially important one, historically and currently.  Also, some mention of suicide bombing should be made here given the prominence of the attacks that H. is assumed to have made.  Elizmr 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the long section. I agree with Sa.vakilian's suggestion. We must shorten this article down. Just because we move it to a Hezbollah's foreign and domestic relations article does not mean the link with Iran gets covered up. Someone, perhaps you? :) , needs to write a good, short intro for this section, that SHOULD include the Iran connection. Mceder 00:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long

message: The "other links" section starts with a video-link portraying a military operation: "Video of Hezbollah Military Operation". This should certainly not be the first link. It carries mostly emotional or propaganda value. 
I suggest putting the short BBC article "Who are Hezbollah" as first external link.
I also do not see why the "United States Department of State" should have it's own separate heading in this Wikipedia article. The link within that should belong with the rest of the links.
84.48.108.156 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - reorganization needed 

message: At least three different spellings of Shia are used in the opening few sections of this article. Can they be standardised to a single spelling at least within this one article? I don't know enough about the differences relating to context (if any?) to do it myself. —Pengo  talk · contribs 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling aside, Shiite is an adjective, I think.  Elizmr 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article linked by the introduction redirects to Shi'a Islam, so I think it's safe to consider that the official WP standard. Also, it differentiates between the I and A syllables, making it easier for native speakers of European languages like English to figure out how to pronounce it from the spelling. I think it's standard to separate sequential vowels with apostrophes, when transcribing semitic languages. - LeaHazel 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia, Shi'a, Shiite 

message: It is an interesting fact and worth of encyclopedic mentioning...
Hezbollah members show a salute that strikingly resembles the nazi salute, with the right hand raised in the air. (see in video).
--TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would one possibly edit it into NPOV? Either they're definitely copying Nazis, which would be worth mentioning, or it's a coincidence, in which case the inclusion of this section is seemingly just an attempt to associate them with Nazis. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's a definite link, that's cool, put the section back in. The problem I have is that without a source other than a video, it's hard to ascertain whether saying they are using Nazi salutes (or a derivative) is a neutral statement. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of people around the world saluting the same way including G.W.Bush. Does that mean they are Nazis or compared to them? The question arised many times in WP and it was removed for the same reason i am stating.-- Szvest 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree 100%. No original research allowed and dubious source (at the moment!).. This is worth hunting down a good source for since it is a fascinating link, and much worthy to be noted in the article. Mceder 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * this is nonsense. raising your hand does not make you a Nazi. Try making attempts to portray them as bogeymen less transparent. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * REMINDER: We also really need to update the articles on Buddhism to reflect their Nazi ties. Mceder 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US pledge of allegiance is NOT done with the salute under discussion (ie, what Hitler made famous in WW2 as a Nazi salute), but with the right hand over the heart.  Elizmr 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bellamy salute JiHymas@himivest.com 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I applaud Hezbollah for having sufficient personal integrity to disdain having their ceremonial choices circumscribed by the antics of a pack of thugs. I would think better of the US had they shown similar moral fibre in 1942. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but if you were a little jewish kid in school wouldn't you be terrified if all your classmates and teachers were standing around you doing what you had seen the Nazis (who you knew were hunting and systematically killing all european jews) in many newsreels??  I, personally, would find this pretty scary and intimidating.  The swastica, too, is a beautiful symbol used in many traditions like native american, indian, tibetan, etc, but it too on too much baggage in WW2 to be anything but a symbol of a fascist genocidal anti-semetic organization.  Elizmr 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: From the date, I suspect the American decision had a lot more to do with their declaration of war than with any concerns over anti-semitism ... if it had been the latter, they would have made the change after Krystallnacht with the first few influxes of Jewish refugees. However, I'm glad you see my point. I have not only driven through the town of Swastika, Ontario, but was once employed by a firm that had a branch there (the federal government wanted to change the name during the second war, but the locals refused, saying "We had it first!"). I've also enjoyed Wagner's Ring Cycle without, I hope, being corrupted by insidious murderous impulses. At any rate, if there is any actual evidence that Hezbollah (and the others mentioned under salute) adopted the gesture by reference to Nazi ceremonial, then this becomes worthy of mention. If it was adopted by reference to any other tradition (how does the IRGC salute?) than that's also worthy of mention. But emphasizing the hypothesis that the salute implies Nazi sympathies without any evidence isn't just bad science, it's silly. Naziism is revered today only by anti-social losers and in any event, the next group of genocidal clowns, whoever they might be, to have a direct impact on the western world will not only be different from the Nazis but will probably affect disdain for them. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * I will get working right away on The Hezbollah-Nazi connection.......Mceder 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about salute 

message: The opening sentence in this section now reads: 
: The strength of Hezbollah's forces are disputed, and has been variously estimated as "several thousand"[67] and several thousand supporters and a few hundred devotee operatives.[68] 
This is a change from what I have reverted it to several times, a direct quote from the cited document (68) which said: 
: Strength
: Several thousand supporters and a few hundred terrorist operatives
I prefer the direct quote, but it appears there are some editors allergic to the word "terrorist", who have changed it to other wordings (sometimes while maintaining the quotes). I want the sentence to be a direct quote from the cited document - I consider such citations better than paraphrases. Obviously, there are some who disagree, but can we form a consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  seem to be having some success at explaining the rationale behind delicate phrasing, at least in the leader. Maybe it would help here too.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will certainly put an in-line comment (perhaps I could say "LOOK AT THE QUOTATION MARKS" in capital letters?) if I do revert, but I would like some consensus before this happens. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about something like "(sic)" after terrorist if people don't agree with the characterization?  Elizmr 19:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the first time I removed quotation marks and substitued "terrorist" with "devotee operatives" because only 6 countries called them terrorist. But I did not reverted it and it shows there are some editors who oppose this quotation. Also you can look at debates about using "terrorist" at the above of this page.--Sa.vakilian 07:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be no dispute whatsoever that the quotation from the document cited contains the word "terrorist". Quite frankly, Sa.v, the substitution of "terrorist" with "devotee operatives", is a deliberate POV distortion. However, I will not revert to the actual quotation without a clear mandate. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Note: Although I suspect that Banzai & Elizmr support a reversion, I am not comfortable that this is stated clearly enough to constitute agreement with the proposed change. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Note: I've looked at the "debates about using 'terrorist' at the above of this page" several times now, Sa.vakilian. I see that you've made numerous assertions within the heading, but not only do I not see any consensus being reached on anything, I find it rather difficult to see that there has even been a debate. Help me out here. What is it in the referenced section that you feel should be used as a guideline in this particular case, and why do you feel it is applicable? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-re-re-re-reversions in "Armed Strength"

message: The flag image is gone. What do you guys think of this one? It appears to be under a CC license. —ptk✰fgs 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I think it'd be nice to have some text explaining the various symbols on the flag. --NeuronExMachina 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, something weird happened with the SVG image. It's not showing up in the deletion log anywhere that I can find. A *lot* of pages link to that file; does anyone know where it went? Or why? —ptk✰ fgs 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont know why it's gone, but there cant be any copyrights-questions about it. Like it sayshere flags are generally public domain... so no copyright problems imi2 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag image gone 

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

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

message: It would be nice if somebody could add some explanation of the symbols on the Hezbollah flag. There certainly seems to be quite a few symbols packed onto the flag, but preliminary googling hasn't turned up any elaborating information. --NeuronExMachina 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That says a little bit, but it'd be nice if it said more. Maybe later I'll just try adding some cursory material to the article, and hope that somebody tries to make it better. --NeuronExMachina 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Explanation of symbols on flag? 

message: I was just wondering how to spell the name of this organization. I've seen it some places as Hizbullah,(like Newsweek) or as Hezbollah. (on the news) Any help would be kndly accepted. Thank you. 65.43.225.138 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a transliteration from Arabic. According to the first note "Other transliterations include Hizbullah, Hizbollah, Hezballah, Hizballah, Hisbollah, and Hizb Allah." JiHymas@himivest.com 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah is the Persian pronunciation and Hizbullah is the Arabic one.--Sa.vakilian 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hizbullah or Hezbollah?

message: Somebody should add an IPA pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article (right after the Arabic transliteration), especially because every newscaster has his own opinion on the matter. --Leapfrog314 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the footnotes, Leapfrog314. There's no IPA, but the information is pretty comprehensive. - Noetica 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronunciation 

message: This article failed to show Hizbullah in its real image. Hizbullah is a 100% Lebanese party that works on defending against Israeli invasion. Its a Lebanese party working for Lebanon benefit.
Ahmad Damen
:Well, we already have a NPOV tag on the article, but we can always use a few more. You are, of course, very welcome to get an account and start editing. If you don't want to get an account, just post your suggested changes on this page and we can look at and consider them for inclusion. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if there is a tag to put up top indicating this article has too many tags? Mceder 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A faliure 

message: I created 2 sections Social Activites and Political Activities to match Military Activities and moved subtopics from idealogy to the appropriate one.Carbonate 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganised 

message: For ther person asking what the symbols on the flag means from top to bottom:
1. At the top there is a verse from the Holly Quran saying: "It is only the party of god who wins"
2. A symbol of a gun
3. A symbol of the globe
4.The name "Hezbollah" which means the "party of god"
5.A sentence in Arabic saying "The islamic defenders of Lebanon"
: Thanks. I'll try integrating that into the article. --NeuronExMachina 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, do you if the thing that looks like a man/monkey lying on the ground is intentional? --NeuronExMachina 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the symbols on Flag means 

message: I fixed a few footnotes that were before punctuation; ref tags should be after periods and commas. I also noticed a few places where a bunch of footnotes are together. This looks bad and can lead to strange line breaking. Just a suggestion, but it might be better to combine them into one note as a bulleted list, even if that means the reference "name" won't be used in that one instance. Also, a number of the templated citations appear to be broken, mostly due to a missing title. Thought someone should know. Gimmetrow 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wow.. I had these pretty cleaned up the other day...... Mceder 17:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, people are probably copy-pasting them from the diff window. Gimmetrow 17:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes again 

message: The section on the flag is in the center of the article and seems choppy there.  Let's put it at the top after the introduction since it is emblematic of the org, or at the very bottom rather than in the center or sections which are more related to each other.  Elizmr 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong view. I think this information should all be in the "Flag" article, but have no objections to NeuronExMachina putting it in, or strong views as to its placement. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Flag

message: There are too many endless debates in this page. --Sa.vakilian 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but in order to stop debate one has to bend a little bit from a rigid point of view.  Elizmr 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment of yours is a bit over the top in its rudeness.  Elizmr 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endless Debates

message: In the Flag section?  This was reverted.  Elizmr 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to caps.  If anyone feels really strongly about this not being in caps it is ok with me to put it back.  It just seems respectful of various sensibilities to use caps for this.  Elizmr 01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could God have caps??