Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 14

message: Shamir1 removed
with the edit summary "misrep of source, in addition the editorial cites a source which cites a source which cites Christopher Ross responsible for that position". But the source  says,
And in a footnote to that statement,
So what gives?? <eleland/talkedits> 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Here is the article by Prof. Sami G. Hajjar of the U.S. Army War College." (pdf) (hosted on a .mil no less!), saying "Likewise, Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross stated that Hizballah’s resistance to Israeli occupation is not terrorism, but that past acts of terrorism that the party engaged in is why it is included on the U.S. terrorism list. He noted the important social activities of the party in several regions of Lebanon. See “Ross: The Resistance of Hizballah Is Not Terrorism,” Beirut As Safir (Arabic Internet Edition), March 23, 2002." Who is Christopher Ross, and what was Shamir talking about!? <eleland/talkedits> 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (moved from Eleland's talk)
Regarding your revert of the Hezbollah article, besides the fact that I am already skeptical of a tertiary source that is an editorial and does not use quotations, the cited source cites this source. And that source cites this, which says that Christopher Ross made those comments. :::--Shamir1 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, where to begin here? The NYBooks piece cites Hajjar, who cites "Beirut As Safir"'s Arabic web-page. The fact that some random, non-reliable "ArabicNews.com" says something kind of similar but not the same is totally irrelevant, and it's very difficult to take that objection as being meant seriously. Hajjar, an expert on the subject, cited as-Safir. Some other site put up a garbled version of the story, and that means that the as-Safir citation must be wrong!?  This objection is so strange and tenuous that it's difficult to believe it is meant seriously. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I get a clarification? I understand you're skeptical, and I too would like to see the original source. But I'd like us to agree that this is no basis for removing the information, since it is being cited by a credible source - a director of Mideast studies at the US Army War College. <eleland/talkedits> 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.  I'd like to get somebody to read and verify that the Hajjar source accurately quotes the as-Safir source.  I don't have more to say than that.  --GHcool 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I understand you there. I just wanted to be sure that nobody is going to remove this information again saying that the source is insufficient, or something. The information should be improved, not removed. <eleland/talkedits> 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Dennis Ross text for strange reason 

message: Please consider WP:SIZE. It's not an absolute rule, but perhaps some material should be split into separate articles. In addition to being more attractive to more readers, a more concise article reduces the amount of discussion needed to achieve consensus, especially on controversial topics as this one is. Unimaginative Username 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: It looks like we need to go through all references again, and replace links with the Cite templates. This is a potential FA failure point under criteria 2c. mceder (u t c) 13:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should replace online source with print one wherever possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations, again 

message: In attempting to copy-edit this article, have noticed various spellings of the organization. It's often difficult to transliterate other alphabets (Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Cyrillic, etc.) into English, but if the article is entitled, "Hezbollah", then for consistency, it should be spelled that way throughout. Please keep this in mind when making edits! Thank you, Unimaginative Username 06:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick application of the "Hated Google Test" gives 7.7 million to Hezbollah and 1.4 million to Hizbollah, so there's pretty much consensus of the spelling in the English language. PRtalk 07:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use Hezbollah(the title of the article) throughout this, but we should bring up the other spellings in the intro. The Osama Bin Laden article does that, and I do believe we should do that here. Cheers!--SJP 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay:) I will soon. Cheers!--SJP 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please spell "Hezbollah" consistently 

message: Copy-edit is complete. The only other content issue I noted (besides the above) was that there is still a tag (challenge) in the section on Russia's position on Hezbollah. Would suggest that a consensus be reached there before FAR. Good luck with FA! Unimaginative Username 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose we delete this sentence since it doesn't really serve any purpose and is borderline original research.  ---- GHcool (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I second the deletion. It is not very clear, and I am not quite sure what the piece is trying to say anymore. I am sure there was a point in there somewhere, sometime. mceder (u t c) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of Russian Federation 

message: In copy-editing this article, I've become rather interested in it and in its progress to FA. I'm at WP only intermittently, but if you feel that I could be of any further assistance in this area, please feel free to place a message on my talk page. Will respond when able. Peace, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you're interested in this article. I suggest you help us with it before nominating for FA. This let you improve other articles. You see, due to the fact that it's not a calm article and now and then we have editorial war, it cause wiki-stress. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For further copy-edit assistance... 

message: Well, hello again. Didn't intend to become involved in content issues, but in reviewing, saw this statement: " But until such a settlement is reached, he said that he would continue to encourage Palestinian suicide bombers."  I read the article that is cited as a source for this statement, a 2003 interview with Nasrallah. There is no such quote. The interviewer says of Nasrallah, "In his speeches to the faithful, his language is laced with ... rationalizations for suicide bombings. ". "Rationalization" is not quite the same degree as actively "encouraging". I didn't see anything in this interview in which Nasrallah encourages suicide bombings until there is a Palestinian state; the other parts of this section indicates that he feels such a settlement is a Palestinian matter. Unless someone sees something else in the interview that I missed, or has other sources, it seems that this statement should be removed, as misrepresenting Nasrallah's position. Perhaps changed to, "However, Nasrallah has rationalized suicide bombing attacks." That is the most NPOV way that I could describe what was in this 2003 interview. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your careful attention. Please correct the article whenever you find such a mistake.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article is the subject of so much controversy, I would prefer to wait a few days to see if anyone posts an objection here. If not, then I or anyone else can change it as suggested. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have revised the first three sentences of this paragraph to conform to the material in the two articles that are cited as sources. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasrallah quote about suicide bombers 

message: This discussion started briefly during the Peer Review, but I moved it here the PR was nearly at its end.
First, I am opposed to the "Background" section in the article. In its current state, it's vague, poorly written and with no clear goal to what this section precisely describes. Does it mean "Background to Hezbollah"? A rather odd terminology since we're not talking about an event or a war. "Background" might mean "Origins of Hezbollah", but if it was true it would've belonged to a "History" section. Maybe it provides some insights to better understand Hezbollah
(?), but I don't see how Hezbollah is so complex so a reader won't understand it. Anywyay, I don't understand the need for this section, unless you clearly define its objective.
Second, why there is no "History" section like any article on an entity or organization? You are claiming that the article is too complex, but it's not a valid objection. This article fails to present in a concise, clear and easy-to-find way a summary of the history of Hezbollah, a piece of information any reader doing a research will need. If you're saying that the article is too long, the problem comes from the other sections or the whole organization of the article. If you're saying that it's too complex and controversial, there exist many good summaries about Hezbollah (check CrisisGroup, and see the last Lebanon report). Finally, a "History" section is a standard in all Wikipedia article, and I don't see why should this article should be treated differently.
Anyway, as I said, this article is remarkably written in a neutral way and it deserves to reach FA status. CG (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can write history instead of background and move some part of it to the lead. But please scan this archive. The section was called "Introduction" last year, when we made that archive. You may find the answer of your questions here. Also there is an index for the former debates of this article. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Great index! Cool bot! OK, I'll check past discussions before I argue more :-) But, I might be busy these following weeks, so please excuse my late responses. CG (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Background" and "History" section 

message: I realize that a great amount of time has been spent debating and working on this article to reach a consensus, most of which I have not read, I see a problem in the language of at least the lead. Namely: 
"Hezbollah's three main goals" ... "Hezbollah has realized that the goal of ..." "Hezbollah wishes for the destruction of Israel,..." 
We don't know what Hezbollah's goals or wishes are. What we know what Hezbollah has said, and what some claim it has done. This is not at all a minor point since in at least one country (USA), Hezbollah is considered the #2 terrorist enemy (in terms of civilians and off-duty soliders of that country killed) next to al-Qaeda.  It is very common for books that mention Hezbollah (at least ones published in the USA) to describe it as the perpetrator of the bombings of both the US embassies and of Multinational Peacekeeping Force barracks, without any caveat, i.e. they state it as a fact on which there is no debate worth mentioning. Yet Hezbollah denies the charge. So i put it to you that it is important to use wording in the article consistant with what is known. We should change the wording on this lead and probably in the rest of the story to reflect that.
Proposed change:
:HezbollahOther transliterations include Hizbullah, Hizbollah, Hezballah, Hizballah, Hisbollah, and Hizb Allah. ( ,In English the stress is most commonly placed on the final syllable, as suggested in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (this is in accord with the Persian pronunciation, of Iran); in the Arabic of Hezbollah's theatre of operations it is most commonly placed on the second syllable. Hizb (party) is the Modern Standard Arabic pronunciation, and hezb is closer to Persian and Lebanese dialect. The name is derived from a Qur’anic ayat (verse) referring to those who belong to and follow the "party of God" .
literally "party of God") is a Shi'a Islamic political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon. It follows an Islamist Shi'a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran."FRONTLINE/WORLD . Lebanon - Party of God . Bullets to Ballot Box: A Story of Hezbollah . 1983" PBS. May 2003.  2 November 2007.
Rubenstein, Colin. "Australia is right to ban Hezbollah. Here's why." The Age. 2 June 2003. 24 February 2007."National Geographic News Photo Gallery: Hezbollah, Igniting Conflict." National Geographic News. 24 February 2006.
:Hezbollah first emerged during the Lebanese Civil War as a militia of Shia followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, trained, organized and funded by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards. in its manifesto Hezbollah lists its three main goals as the eradicattion of Western colonialism in Lebanon, the bringing to justice of those who committed atrocities during the war (specifically the Phalangists), and the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon.Kashi, Roei.  "The Stanford Review - January 12, 2007." The Stanford Review.  12 January 2007.  1 November 2007.Stalinsky, Steven.  "An Islamic Republic Is Hezbollah's Aim." The New York Sun.  2 August 2006.  1 November 2007. Since then Hezbollah has temporarily abandoned the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic state as impractical at this time. Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they describe as an unlawful "entity".
:Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization, though its designation as such is not unanimous among world powers (perhaps most notably, the European Union).
 Most in the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement.
:Hezbollah has popular support in Shi'a Lebanese societyBriefing: Lebanese Public Opinion and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands."Huge Beirut protest backs Syria." BBC News. 8 March 2005. 7 February 2007.Stack, Megan K. Lebanon boils as Hezbollah leads protest Chicago Tribune news. 24 January 2007. 7 February 2007. In addition, Hezbollah receives arms, training, and financial support from Iran
Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah and has "operated with Syria's blessing" since the end of the Civil War. Hezbollah, which started with only a militia, has grown to an organization with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio- and a satellite television-station, and programs for social development.	
 Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. 
In addition the lead should say that Hezbollah is now the only armed non-governmental group in Lebanon.
--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not prevent this proposed change from being adopted.  --GHcool (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pay attention to the former discussion about the lead:Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead. I think the lead has emphasized on the original goal of Hezbollah while it has changed to some extent. There is several books which discuss about this transformation like "The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology: Religious Ideology, Political Ideology". --Seyyed(t-c) 03:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic language in lead

message: I made a change here . This was what the first source says. The second one was about Iran's admission of helping Hezbollah from an Israeli newspaper, so I added a note that a third perspective source(like UN) or an Iranian source is required for this. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Since multiple editors are edit warring, I have protected the page.  Please consider resolving disputes by seeking consensus here instead. --slakr\ talk / 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed per request from .  If reactivation of protection is needed, please contact requests for page protection.  Cheers. :) --slakr\ talk / 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: GHcool, about your edit here, I read the article you referenced and I didn't find anything that says that "Hezbollah abducted and later murdered 3 Israeli soldiers", please point me out to any information I have missed. (Imad marie (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  The article mentions the abductions, the dates, the people involved, and the exchange of the bodies, but they don't explicitly mention the killing (although it is heavily implied by the fact that Hezbollah had the bodies and were able to exchange with them).  Here are sources that are more explicit about the killing that I plan to add to the article once it is unlocked: , ,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added reference