Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 11

message: Hezbollahian? Hezzbollahese? It came up in discussion at Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#New_name. -- Kendrick7talk 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hezbollah is translated as something like "party of God" in English I think... I have no idea how you would translate "partiers of God" to Arabic though. :) Seriously though, maybe there is some Arabic term to use (such as Jihadi for Jihadists)? — George Saliba [talk] 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I'd check back. No one home but us chickens? -- Kendrick7talk 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: بق بق — George Saliba [talk] 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective form? 

message: I think we shouldn't carry around sections that have 2 or 3 lines in it. Ex. View towards women... We could expand that... I know we can. Hezbollah has many high ranking women in their radio station, tv network, and one on board of directors. Ahmad Husseini 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody has removed extra information because he/she thought it's not important but you can find more information in Ideology of Hezbollah#Women’s rights. Please add your proposal here before insert it in the article. Then we'll discuss about it and add it when we reach consensus.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXPAND 

message: I moved what FrancescoMazzucotelli added in this section to Hezbollah foreign relations because we've agreed on moving all of the commentators and journalists' ideas to the sub-article:Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 9#Shortening the article--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment sounds very reasonable and I agree on that. Nevertheless, I think that the sentence "But United States intelligence officials speculate there has been contact between Hezbollah and low-level al-Qaeda figures who fled Afghanistan for Lebanon" in the main entry about Hezbollah should be expanded with "although this hypothesis has been questioned (footnote with reference to Hersh)". Is this a valid solution? Thank you again and keep up your amazing work. FrancescoMazzucotelli 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  how do you say that when Hezbollah stands against everything al-Qaeda stands for. Hezbollah is anti-Wahabi, you should keep that in mind. adding speculations that were made to worsen the public opinion in the states isn't relevant information. If al-Qaeda members went to lebanon they didn't go under  the wing of Hezbollah. In fact, al-Qaeda has bombed and attempted to bomb in key Shiite areas in Beirut, and it blasted(al-zarqawi, and al-zawahiri) the Hezb for not letting sunni fighters from abroad fire Katyushas at Israel, and al-Zawahiri said during the lebanese war this summer, Sunni fighters should attack israel so the attention goes off Hezbollah. the statement was made up by the states just like they made up Saddam-alQaeda links, they lied about Saddam, so your gonna believe em now??? Ahmad Husseini 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  here's al-Zawahiri during the war: Al Qaeda calls on Muslims to fight Israel read the whole article especially the end section. Ahmad Husseini 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  while browsing I found this, maybe Sav you can add something from it:Minister: Hezbollah doesn't need al-Qaeda's help fighting Israel in Lebanon pretty mush summed up:"Hezbollah does not need non-Lebanese fighters — certainly not any al-Qaeda fighters to join the lines," Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish said. He is one of two Hezbollah members who are in the Lebanese parliament. "Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are two different groups," Fneish said in an interview in his office in the Energy Ministry in Lebanon's capital. "Al-Qaeda believes in killing innocents. Hezbollah is involved in a legitimate resistance (against Israel). "Hezbollah, he said, never would have launched anything like the Sept. 11 attacks on the USA."-Minister of energy, and Hezbollah member Mohammad Fneish Sav? anythhing? I guess we can put the speculations to sleep now can't we? Ahmad Husseini 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  how about this little sweet heart? again read the whole thing... Al-Zarqawi lashes out at Shiites in tape Ahmad Husseini 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh completely disagree with putting the quote on, it's made up, its one man's point of view, and it's more of a guess with no clear view, and recently, like today, Wa3ad has posted articles about al-Qaeda arrests in Lebanon, and they publicly say they don't like al-Qaeda, and condem their actions, so no, take it off. Ahmad Husseini 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations

message: CRS Report for Congress - Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress: "Hizballah has continued to conduct surveillance of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and its personnel, according to recent Patterns reports, but no major terrorist attacks have been attributed to it since 1994". " Hizballah’s 15 year military campaign against Israeli and Israeli surrogate forces in southern Lebanon – activity that is not technically considered terrorism by the U.S. State Department – often included rocket attacks on Israeli civilians." So... a terrorit entity not involved in terrorist activity... hmm... intersting.... what do you guys think? Can we state that they were not involved since 1994, along with the sentance at the bottom of the terrorist designation page which reads: "In a 2004 article, Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy under the first Bush and Clinton administrations, was cited as saying that Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli occupation, unlike its past activities aimed at Western targets, is not terrorism and that the US included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups for Hezbollah's past activities, not for its ongoing resistance to Israel"  Ahmad Husseini 23:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and the name of the friend is: Geoffrey Marsan. Ahmad Husseini 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has written clearly In a 2004 article, Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy under the first Bush and Clinton administrations, was cited as saying that Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli occupation, unlike its past activities aimed at Western targets, is not terrorism and that the US included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups for Hezbollah's past activities, not for its ongoing resistance to Israel.[121]. You mean we should add something more?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, how about stating the truth? Saying in the body somewhere that they have not been involved in anything since 1994? Sav? Ahmad Husseini 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please write it here clearly then I can tell you my idea. However they have not been involved in anything since 1994 is not acceptable. In fact, they have not been involved in anything against Americans since 1994 or they have not been involved in anything which the U.S. has defined as terrorism since 1994.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No man I didn't mean write exactly "they have not been involved with anything" I meant that we should state in a body paragraph that they have not committed terrorist attacks against anyone since 1994. Ahmad Husseini 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting things said by my friend whose name escapes me at this moment in a previous post... 

message: Under official websites... Can I change Wa3ad.org as an official web-site, because to me it does seem like one, they have Official news, videos, info, music, statements, speeches, official Hezbollah charity numbers, adn it is displayed in an official way. George, Sav you guys speak arabic go check out the arabic website Wa3ad, it has political etiquettes (banners) like  the red and green 'we' of the opposition: We want a clean governemt  : نحن It broadcasts al-Manar, and al-Noor. Pretty official in my opinion. Guys? Ahmad Husseini 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the history of the disputed tags:Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 5#Official Web Site / Media Outlets. I think Hezbollah has more than one official website and we can remove that tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't speak Arabic, so I can't help much here. — George Saliba [talk] 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't speak arabic, arn't you Lebanese? Have you ever been (to Lebanon)? It's ok man, but if you did you'd agree with me. Site's pretty official. Ahmad Husseini 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hold American and Lebanese citizenships, but have only been to Lebanon 4 or 5 times, so I never learned Arabic. Luckily we have plenty of good editors who do speak Arabic, like Sa.vakilian. :) — George Saliba [talk] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mhm, yea and other languages too. Yea, Sav probably learnt it in school in Iran. I left Lebanon when I was 10, so I'm ok on arabic. you? Ahmad Husseini 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check the English webpage of that site.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not as good, the english webpage doesn't have anything. the arabic one has streaming al-manar, and al-noor, and official statements, and speeches, and videos, and news... I'm guessing they opened this new web page after the war, as their official website, because moqawama.org has outdated articles, and pretty much looks bad as an attempt for a web site, not too modern. Ahmad Husseini 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Removing disputed tag

message: Where did you get the 140 civilians killed in Lebanese war? I'm pretty sure figures were at 40. Have you guys checked it? George I know you've been involved with the recent Lebanese war page, can you enlighten us? Ahmad Husseini 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this figure is wrong. 43 civilians were killed on the Israeli side, and 119 Israelis were killed total (including military deaths, 2 of which occured after the ceasefire). Fixed this in the article. — George Saliba [talk] 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx George. Ahmad Husseini 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait George... According to the BBC which got its figures from the Israeli Police and the IDF. 116 soldiers died, and 43 civilians, not 119 total. Middle East crisis: Facts and figures —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmadhusseini (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact figure ranges from 116 to 120. However, the Israeli MFA website, which is the best, official site with figures we have, 117 died during the conflict, with 2 more dying in fighting that occured after the initial ceasefire (before the withdrawal I believe), thus 119. — George Saliba [talk] 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was just one big run-on sentence. Hopefully you get the point though. :) — George Saliba [talk] 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I propose moving this part (During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired thousands of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel, killing 43 Israeli civilians, more than half of whom were Israeli Arabs.) to the sub-article:Hezbollah military activities--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Ahmad Husseini 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be moved from "Stance on what is a legitimate military target" to "Armed strength." --GHcool 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually wouldn't put it in armed strength unless you write something like, "throught the recent Lebanese-Israeli, Hezbollah fired (x amount of rockets) into Northern Israel, killing 43 civilians" something like that, you know? What do you guys think? Ahmad Husseini 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  --GHcool 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then Sav and George, comment, and i'll work on it. Ahmad Husseini 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. — George Saliba [talk] 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are better sources for this issue: Hizballah has a similar red line: if the IDF or the SLA attack civilians in the south, then Hizballah would feel justified to retaliate by striking at civilian targets inside Israel. and Hizballah political leaders have consistently and publicly asserted that the guerrillas have a right to retaliate militarily against Israeli civilians in reprisal for Lebanese civilian deaths caused by Israeli military forces.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are definitely better sources. They seem to all apply to the 1996/1997 timeframe. Is it really relevant to the topic of the section though? Is Hezbollah saying that civilians in Israel are legitimate military targets? Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sa.vakilin's sources seem decent, though the timeframe is off. The wording that was in the article was a miscitation of a speech by Nasrallah from during the recent war I think. He had mentioned something along the lines that if Israel hit Beirut, Hezbollah would hit Haifa or Tel Aviv, and made references to the "Israeli war machine" and "Zionist soldiers", but I don't think he ever explicitly stated civilians. — George Saliba [talk] 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  George, we gotta somehow develop psychic powers, so we don't comment at the same time. :) I found a newer and different source, something of the name: Amnesty International?, I don't know why you guys didn't look there first? but oh well, quote by Sayyed Hassan, here it is: Amnesty International "As long as the enemy undertakes its aggression without limits or red lines, we will also respond without limits or red lines." Hasan Nasrallah, Hizbullah’s Secretary General, 16 July 2006 Ahmad Husseini 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea George, that's not the quote you want, that one was said near the end, "If Israel hits Beirut, Hezbollah will hit Tel Aviv" They were wise and didn't hit Beirut. Ahmad Husseini 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stance on targets... 

message: I think this article will reach good article criteria as soon as we verify Hezbollah#Outside views of Hezbollah. Do you agree with me?Sa.vakilian(t-c)--17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally verification of the facts and refreshing the sources ended. Now we can nominate it as Good article after a long and hard attempt to reach Good article criteria. 
*1- It is well written.
*2- It is factually accurate and verifiable. 
*3- It is broad in its coverage.
*4- It follows the neutral point of view policy. 
*5- It is stable.
*6- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  ;) --GHcool 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is a good article yet, as I haven't had the time to review it in depth, but I know it's made leaps and strides of quality thanks to Sa.vakilian and other editors. I think it's a good idea to nominate the article. At the very least we can get some feedback on points to look at further. — George Saliba [talk] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree. There has been massive improvements since its last GA run, especially in regards to the stable part... mceder (u t c) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ambiguous phrase in background section: "Even before this summer’s war". Summer of which year? NH summer or SH summer? -- Jesselong 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What the?! Son of a! Oh well, back to work.  All kidding aside, I agree with the above suggestions and thank BongHitzMusa for his/her attention.  --GHcool 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't found such pictures which can be used in wikipedia and it's not necessary to do so.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks GHcool for your attempts. I added some more information and references and I believe "History" becomes GA as well as other parts.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for relisting it, Orderinchaos.  I actually think the history section is better now anyway.  --GHcool 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article candidacy

message: This fails on the 'broad coverage' issue. It requires more than a link to the 'History of Hezbollah' article. Summarise the history article (content forking) with an even spread addressing he period 1982-present. Commendable coverage of the media operations and social services arms of the organisations. Good to see 'funding sources'included. General preparation and referencing of this article otherwise tremendous. For images I'd request a picture showing a Hezbollah member 'in action' (military, social welfare, TV/communications, parliamentary or other ..  apart from the talking head of Nasrullah. BongHitz4Musa 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the?! Son of a! Oh well, back to work.  All kidding aside, I agree with the above suggestions and thank BongHitzMusa for his/her attention.  --GHcool 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't found such pictures which can be used in wikipedia and it's not necessary to do so.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks GHcool for your attempts. I added some more information and references and I believe "History" becomes GA as well as other parts.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review - fail

message: The GA reviewer above was the sock of a blocked user DavidYork71. While their views may well be worth taking into account for improvement of the article, they have a history of disruption of articles related to Islam. As such, I have relisted the article without prejudice on GAC. Orderinchaos 08:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for relisting it, Orderinchaos.  I actually think the history section is better now anyway.  --GHcool 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisted

message: Somebody has changed party of God to party of Allah and . As I know we discussed about this issue and there was consensus to use "Party of God". Please check the archive and write your idea .--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your problem with the current version? --Rayis 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with current version. This is the history of the debate: Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 9#God or Allah. And this is my idea I advise to use this form:God--Sa.vakilian 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Party of God in my opinion. Since Allah is the Arabic language word for "God" why only translate one word of the phrase? This is the English Wikipedia after all. Either Party of God or the whole phrase in Arabic. mceder (u t c) 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and to clarify further, I agree with linking the word God to the article on Allah, a nifty solution. mceder (u t c) 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *God, for the reason above. Linking to Allah would be fine. — George Saliba [talk] 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone is trying to differentiate between God and Allah, this isn't the place to do it. Arab-Christians worship Allah, arabic buddhist (hypothetically speeking worship Buddha which is their Illah (god)), So I go with Party of God. Ahmad Husseini 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *God seems most consistent, and the link to Allah should neutralise any concerns. TewfikTalk 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Party of Allah or God

message: The daily star, has sent me this e-mail about my concern, and questions on the topic of Badih Chayban:
Thanks for your interest in the Daily Star, However I regret to inform you that we don't respond to such questions. 
Best regards 
Hanna Anbar
Associate Publisher
POBOX 11-987, Gemmayzeh
Beirut, Lebanon
Tel  (office) 961-1-587277
Cell  961-3-567604
Fax  961-1-561333
Email: hanna.anbar@dailystar.com.lb Ahmad Husseini 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the questions I laid out in my e-mail: "My questions are:
-Was this quote an accurate one, and was it in fact what Hezbollah's secretary-general said word for word?
-Was the reliability or truthfullness of the reporter ever questioned before or after the article was published?
-Did the reporter in fact conduct an interview with the secretary-general of Hezbollah?
-Was this reporter ever questioned on his truthfullness in past articles that he has written for The Daily Star?" Ahmad Husseini 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily star response... 

message: You can find former discussions easily by using this index:Talk:Hezbollah/Archive index --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Index

message: I have reviewed the article and think that it meets GA standards on all but a few things. I have therefore placed the article on hold and will explain things that I think need addressing to reach GA. On the whole though let me say that given the nature of the topic this was overall a neutral and well balanced article. Previous concerns as well have been addressed and article is stable.
* The references in the article were on a whole excellent and theres no shortage. However the following needs a reference as it is a siginificant claim, or possibly more than one:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 called for the disarmament of militia with the Taif agreement at the end of the Lebanese civil war. Hezbollah denounced and protested against the resolution. The 2006 military conflict with Israel has increased the controversy. Failure to disarm remains a violation of the resolution and agreement, but a significant minority of Lebanese consider Hezbollah's weaponry a necessary and justified element of resistance.
and earlier in the article:
Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was the primary focus of Hezbollah's early activities - please reference
* Status of the image Katyushalebanon.jpg? Fair use? Criteria states Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. This image is nominated for deletion and fair use is not explained. Suggest removal from article. Other images are fine.
* Please rewrite the following statement, adding a reference and whats with the 10s of, tens...
Hezbollah's financial support is a matter of controversy. Critics argue it is, or has been, massively supported with 10s of millions of dollars annually from the Islamic Republic of Iran
* Other things that I would recommend is expand the following statement, though not for GA but just to improve, i.e. give a few examples:
Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad Al Binna') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon. 
Thanks LordHarris 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great comments.  I'll get started as soon as I can.  --GHcool 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these problems has solved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: GA approved. Good work on responding so fast! I'm afraid I cant really suggest things to improve, as the references and the breadth of the article are fine. If you consider to nominate for an FAC, I suggest asking for a peer review beforehand. This will be a good way to identify things to improve on. Anyway good work! LordHarris 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Should we put anything about their bases. I really say this after reading a news report on MSN ( I added to the external links area) about Hezbollah building a SO. AMerican Base. We could this as well as info about known bases in the Middle East and Africa or Asia. Felix 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know where to find that kind of information, but if you can find it, I'd support its inclusion in the article.  --GHcool 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Cuckoo! Cuckoo! --GHcool 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not about to get into an argument with you, Mr. Unregistered.  That's not what Wikipedia talk pages are for.  If you would like a rebuttal, feel free to read some of the rebuttals I've given to other uninformed POV-pushers User:GHcool#Other_accusations_and_responses, or, alternatively, read a book, newspaper, or even Wikipedia articles on the subjects you are pontificating about.  --GHcool 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok guys, this will go nowhere. How Hezbollah got on the T list is not something that concerns us. I usually call against GHcool on Hezbollah, but he's right this time, this page isn't a place to call American corruption, or if and how AIPAC is deep in bed with the Gov't, and we will not include anything that says how Hezbollah got onto the T list. Frankly it doesn't matter, the placement on the T list doesn't blemish its reputation among its supporters... so frankly I could care less what AIPAC had to do to get Hezbollah on there, if they did it, and I could careless of what the Americans think of Hezbollah, or AIPAC. I would also suggest that you register, so that way you can edit effectively on this page Ahmad Husseini 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bases

message: New sentence: 
While Hezbollah denies it, the organization is generally considered responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops. (source: Pape, Robert A., Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism , Random House, 2005 p.129)
The source I'm quoting is a scholarly, carefully researched book that is actually a little sympathetic to hezbollah --BoogaLouie 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked this sentence to better reflect the wording in the main article. — George [talk] 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[1983 Beirut barracks bombing]]