Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 12

message: This article has reached 98kb. Please summarize some parts like Hezbollah#Position on Israel, Hezbollah#Position on Jews and Judaism and Hezbollah#Armed strength and move details to the sub-articles. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'll start working on it little by little.  --GHcool 07:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While its probably still needed, note that the actual prose(what should be counted) which excludes lists, links, see also, references etc is only around 42kb. mceder (u t c) 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long article

message: In many articles, a few words of criticism of Israel are followed by dozens of words from the supporters of Israel defending it's actions. But in this article, the opposite situation applies. For some reason, 18 words "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians." are followed by 299 words in defense of what Hezbollah was doing. Whatever our personal views about Hezbollah, we let ourselves down. Those 299 words could be much more usefully filled with clips from Amnesty/HRW expressing (in an NPOV fashion) their criticisms. No defense is called for. The fact that the supporters of Israel behave in this biased fashion is no excuse for us doing so. PalestineRemembered 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah were accused of war-crimes 

message: I've attempted to reorganize the lead and give the sentences some order. --BoogaLouie 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of lead

message: About the phrase:
"Hezbollah has been subject to assassination and abduction by Israel as well.[32] Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as a resistance movement engaged in defensive Jihad."
Well, since we are balanced and non-biased, it should be stressed that we must consider the following phrase for inclusion in the article Nazism:
"Nazis have been subject to assassination and abduction by the Allies as well. Nazi violent acts were characterized by some countries as crimes against humanity; while others regarded them as a resistance movement engaged in creating Lebensraum."
It is extremely unreasonable that such term as defensive jihad, supposedly "as opposed to" terrorism, finds any place in any article in any encyclopedia written after 1945. A.R. 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't shout. And please note that while Nazis are almost universally condemned, Hezbollah is in fact regarded as a heroic resistance organization by the majority of Lebanese, probably the majority of Arabs, and maybe the majority of the world. You are correct to note that this nebulous "some people say, other people say" formulation is weasely and should be replaced with specific attribution, such as, "According to the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, 'Israelis universally revile Hezbollah for its indiscriminate rocket attacks and anti-semitic designs'[1], while an the Daily Star in Lebanon praised Hezbollah for its 'inspiring and effective resistance to the Israeli juggernaut'[2]". I've fabricated these quotes but I'm sure you can find something similar in the actual sources. Eleland 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the sentence doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I must remind Eleland that the Nazis were not universally condemned when they were practicing their crimes against humanity.  Furthermore, a "majority of the world" certainly do not regard Hezbollah "as a heroic resistance organization." The Nazis had much more world-wide support in 1939 than Hezbollah in 2006.  --GHcool 00:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue with the sentences, putting aside the whole Hezbollah-Nazi comparison for a moment, is that they're bad from the standpoint of Wikipedia inclusion, and should likely be heavily cleaned up. Both sentences are rife with words to avoid, such as the "as well" in the first sentence; the "some countries", "while others", and "defensive Jihad" in the second. If the first statement is true, it should list out the specific people who were assassinated or abducted, or at least give some sourced figures, and sources for who took them (less the underhanded "as well"). The second sentence would be better rewritten like the sentence in the lead, which is properly sourced at least: "Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization. Most in the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement." Just my opinion. ← George [talk] 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Unreasonableness