Talk:Hezbollah/Archive POV

message: After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron
Generally considered?  I dispute that strongly.  This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed.  What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  category:Islamic terrorist organizations 

message: This structure of this article is very difficult to follow. It also says very little about Hezbollah. It does say much about other issues, this is presumably included under other entries?
Could this article please be restructured?
:Possibly, but please don't delete relevant information.  Also, "militant" is the accepted NPOV word here; both "guerilla" and "terrorist" imply a POV. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The former, which is why you shouldn't be trying to bias the article by using POV words and deleting negative links. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: If your issue was only the links, then you should have at least left an edit comment while removing them.  However, you made other deletions as well, and made POV changes besides, which is why I reverted.  I've removed the links since they are not particularly encyclopedic; however, what is odd is to use the word "guerilla" or "militant" to describe what just about everyone on the Western world (including the U.S., Canada, E.U., etc.) describes as a "terrorist".  Should we change the description to "terrorist" to reflect that opinion?  And by the way, "guerillas" are people who are fighting either a government or foreign troops in their own country; exactly which "geurilla" war are the Hezbollah militants involved in, a fight against the government of Lebanon? Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just referring to your last point - those regarding Hezbollah as a guerilla (including myself), claim so because Hezbollah has mostly fought against the IDF during its occupation of the Security Zone in southern Lebanon. Although there have been Hezbollah attacks targeting Israeli communities in northern Israel, they were an exception, most of their attacks were against Israeli military outposts in Lebanon. There were probably attacks targeting civilians in every war in history, but surely you can't call everyone a terrorist, so I think that in general, calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is wrong. This is in stark contrast to the tactics of Hamas and the likes, who attack civilians almost exclusively. Since the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's pretext for continuing the war is the Shabaa Farms issue, which is perhaps a slim excuse, but on the other hand there have been very few attacks against Israel, nearly all against military targets. I think "guerilla" describes Hezbollah perfectly during the Israeli occupation. Since the withdrawal, Hezbollah is just a militant group trying to keep its power after losing its purpose. The fact that it is labeled as "terrorist" by politicians does not make it so. Given the facts listed in the article, it is not clear at all that Hezbollah ought to be labeled "terrorist".--Doron 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points are well taken.  As I have been saying from the start, I think, given the current state of affairs, that the term "militant" is a reasonable compromise between "guerilla" (a function it certainly does not perform any more, if it ever did), and "terrorist" (a function it has definitely performed in the past, and the designation of most western nations).  By the way, lobbing mortars and missiles at Israeli civilian towns isn't a military action, and that's still going on. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "militant" is the way to go, I just thought for a moment that you were contemplating to change it to "terrorist". As for Hezbollah's actions since the withdrawal, I can't remember any attack against Israeli civilians (though I may be wrong). Assuming this list is exhaustive, there is only one attack (the infiltration near Shlomi) that I'd consider "terrorist", and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for that attack, so even since the withdrawal, Hizbollah generally seems to stick to military targets. On the other hand, there are some claims of Hezbollah support and involvement in Palestinian terrorist activity.--Doron 18:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: I modified the sentence about this a bit to make it NPOV. I think that to denote it as a terrorist act is very POV. I deleted the sentence that it is widely regarded as the start of modern terrorism. I think that that claim should be sourced. Count Iblis 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked your change. According to the referenced 1983 Beirut barracks bombing article, it is thought to be one of the first instances of suicide bombing, but the article provides no citation to support that argument. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of counter-examples if I tried! As far as being terrorism ... well, the American judge called it terrorism, http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/ , so while we can argue POV, at least we can argue authoritative POV! JiHymas@himivest.com 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! The ruling of the judge could be included in the reference list. Saying that a US judge ruled it to be a terror attack is not POV because then any possible POV refers not to the actual event (the bombings) but to the judge making his ruling... Count Iblis 00:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine barracks  bombing 

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

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

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

message: 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 "Operational History" section should be removed - it merely duplicates what is already in the "History" article and some of the operations referred to are really old. Is there any consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support: The whole purpose for a History of Hezbollah is to put it there and leave a lead to it here. Mceder 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well.. this is the article about Hezbollah right. So I am sure Israel has it's own operational history section, and that information fits there. This information fits here. Mceder 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Dear User:SkyEarth.. Please chill. All I did was move the Operational History to the History of Hezbollah section. Which you agreed to yourself. And please, everyone make note of my comments - perhaps soon I will get my jewish decoder ring. Mceder 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Dear 82.35.35.4.. The decoder ring is a joke. If my comments were harsh, I apologize. But please do not assume bad faith, or that everyone has a hidden agenda with every edit. A lot of us are just trying to make this article better. I have worked on several things to shorten it down. It is way too long. It needs to be written more in summary style, with broken off articles. This is not POV, just standard Wikipedia practice when an article gets too big. Mceder 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did this go?  This needs to be summarized or the article is very POV.  Elizmr 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Elizmr, everything is saved at Talk:History of Hezbollah. You guys feel free to put it back wherever you deem it to go. My suggestion is as I state on that talk page, information already not in the History article should be worked into it - and a summary written for the History section on this page. Mceder 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * I believe we have consensus that this be removed from the main article. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "Operational History"

message: I think this part "and started again on July 12, 2006 after Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers and killing of eight others in a cross-border raid into Northern Israel...Hezbollah's cross-border raid prompted Israel to bomb Hezbollah targets within Lebanon, in response Hezbollah has persisted at firing hundreds of Ketusha rockets each day at northern Israel. Israel has responded by waging a ground and air war against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including dropping depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs. " shouldn't be written in lead. Of course it should be moved to History of Hezbollah. But Shamir has insisted on remaining it. I want to know the other ideas.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur completely with Sa.vakilian. The lead should very briefly sum up what the organization stands for and its history. The focus of this article has to be the organization of Hizbullah, not the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which has its own article. Bertilvidet 08:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sa.vakilian as well, for what it's worth. The disputed section is gone now. But maybe it will back! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we use this definition then we should say the government of U.S. and Israel are terrorist too.--Sa.vakilian 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the emphasis here is on targeting civilians which neither US nor Israel do in my opinion. But this article is not about mine or your opinion. So lets better not start a political discussion here. Also I wasn't trying to suggest here to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the lead. It's just that the mentioning of US, Canada and Isreal makes it look like these are all countries. It would be interesting to see if/what other countries officialy recognize Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Does anyone have any information (with source) on this? --Splette  Talk 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: JiHymas  you just deleted some well thought out and well edit sumaried work I did on the introduction and your edit summary refers to the history section.  You have been very attacking on the talk page, accusing me of not looking for consensus, etc.  I am working hard on the article to get the NPOV tag off it.  I think your repeated reversions of my edits are a little bit personally motivated at this point.  Could you try to look at my work on its own merit?  I am a good editor, and trying to be fair.  Elizmr 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are the person responsible for the POV tag, "working hard on the article to get the NPOV tag off it" is disingenuous to say the least. Get consensus, if you can, and then make the changes. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hardly disingenuous.  I felt the article was/is slanted.  That is why I put the tag on.  I explained why (and I know you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, but many articles are tagged with much less discussion).  I am working making edits to add some balance to the article so that we can take it off.  Why is that disingenuous?  Elizmr 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Request for mediation made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21_Hezbollah JiHymas@himivest.com 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JiHymas reversions

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: Because this page become too long I propose to move it to archives. Also I propose rearrange archives on the basis of topics. I think a historically archives cause the last debates missed. So we can make POV Discussions, Structure Discussions and so on. I can help you with it if you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcedar's just moved a lot of material into another archive - beating me to it! I had been planning, on August 22, to move every heading that had no entries dated later than August 15; he appears to have taken a more subjective approach. I think that it's appropriate to leave headings up for at least a week to allow all editors a chance to weigh in. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean if there is a debate in the next year about POV of the article, new editors can't find the last debates in this issue easily. Please pay attention to this problem --Sa.vakilian 03:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with re-arranging the archives by topic. Sounds like an enormous task, but if you want to do it, go ahead! I suspect that it would be much easier and just as useful to create an index to the archives, so they were arranged (at least approximately!) by date, but accessible by topic. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea Sa.vakilian.  Thanks for it.  Elizmr 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Make new page and rearrenge the archives

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: 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