Talk:Hezbollah

Archives

Chronological Archive: May 2003 - June 2006 July 2006 – July 2006 Inactive as of August 7, 2006 Inactive as of August 12, 2006 Inactive as of August 20, 2006 Inactive as of August 31, 2006 Inactive as of September 30, 2006 Inactive as of October 30, 2006 Inactive as of December 30, 2006 Inactive as of March 30, 2007 Topical archive: POV-Disputed-Controvercial discussions Terrorist allegations structure Lead/Introduction discussions Good article Archive index

Adjective form?

Hezbollahian? Hezzbollahese? It came up in discussion at Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#New_name. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thought I'd check back. No one home but us chickens? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

بق بق — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Partiers of God cannot be translated to arabic, and no, jihadist is another story, totally different. Hezbollahian/Hezbollahese seems a bit silly to me, as it has no equivalent in arabic, Hezbollah is actually constitued of two words, Hezb (party) Allah (God). Why not just use Hezbollah's partisan? 41.224.230.194 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

EXPAND

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)

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)

Edits by Rm uk

Why are you adding this? Other countries do not maintain lists of terrorist organizations, so it is incorrect to say that they do not consider them terrorist. Clintonesque 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should all endeavour not to be biased in one way or another. Whilst it must be acknowledged that Hezbollah is a controversial armed movement, there is no justification for putting an emphasis on American viewpoints on the matter, as it has not been backed by a fairly large number of countries/organizations. Wikipedia should not be the battlefield for pro-Zionists and pro-Islamists, please try to keep it out of your personal feelings.

Also, do not always exagerate Hezbollah's ties to Syria. As a reminder, look at what happened during the Civil War, when Syria stormed into Hezb's headquarters, look at Hezbollah's regular conflict with Syrian authorities, and do not forget that historically Syria has backed Amal when Iran has been the main supporter of Hezbollah. Here is a page on which the issue is raised. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3412. Finally, as nobody is able to grasp Hezbollah because of its opacity, we should be extra careful when making such statements as calling it a terrorist group or saying it is a Syrian watchdog. Hezbollah is a complex and plural political organization in which there are different mainstreams that sometimes oppose each other. Despite its ascertained Iranian funding, Hezbollah has three main "wings", a pro-Syrian, a pro-Iranian, and a nationalist stream. For this reason, France, for instance, and Lebanon itself have tried not to ostracize Hezbollah for it would not serve the more independent branches of the organization. But like I said, in this issue, everything is a matter of viewpoint, and this is why we should keep it fairly humble and sober so that we do not get into edit conflicts forever...

Geoffrey Marsan

This sentence isn't acceptable While most countries (e.g. France, Russia, Germany) do not explicitly link it to terrorism because Russia and EU have published list of people and organizations which they've recognized as terrorists.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

hezbollah are not on Russian or EU terrorist lists so what he said is correct Rm uk 08:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What additional information is added by changing this? "Six countries" says the exact same thing, in fewer words. We could just as well list the 200 countries that don't list them as a terrorist organization, but we don't because it adds no value to the content, only increasing article length. — George Saliba ^[talk] 08:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

it gives too much prominence to one view that is why. you make excuses about article length but it is lies, you just wish to push your own views. the fact is the vast majority of countries do not link hezbollah with terrorism and this should be stated rather than ambiguously implied. i suggest you go to the united states army or cia articles and add the way more than 6 countries that consider these organisations terrorist if you have such strong faith in lists. you are dishonestly warping contentRm uk 09:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're rambling about the CIA and U.S. Army articles, but as far as I can tell the meaning of both versions is almost exactly the same; effectively the difference between the cup being half full and the cup being half empty. The only difference I can see is that one is more concise and easy to read, while the other is longer and more difficult to read. — George Saliba ^[talk] 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the fact your not sure about my points about the cia and US army illustrates why you cannot comprehend why the edit is necessary.Rm uk 09:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I should be more careful. The sentence might not clear enough. I reverted the sentence but we can write it in different way. Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization.[19] While other countries have not recognized it as a terrorist organization. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I still see no point in using a redundant statement (Bob has 6 friends. Everyone else on Earth is not Bob's friend), but improved readability, at the very least, is welcome. — George Saliba ^[talk] 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I usually call the slanted shots against the Hezb, but this isn't one of them, I agree with George, Its not biased to say 6 countries, that leaves the other countries neutral, which is cool with me, you don't have to make a point than explain it, or counter it to make it fair. George, Sav change it back, "Six countries" is enough, It says SIX COUNTRIES ALONE DESIGNAT IT AS A TERRORIST ENTITY, the countries that have not made a specific stance are therefore neutral. thats it. end of story. Ahmad Husseini 22:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating a very very small minority opinion of countries in the INTRODUCTION of an article is absolutely bias. It is quite literally a FRINGE opinion. This is just editorialising; leaving the majority opinion ambiguous and the minority explicit. Rm uk 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can find a lot of information if you notice to the sub-article. We wanted to put a summary in the main article. Therefor I moved all of the correspondents and media negotiations and claims and just left the major points: The cooperation or any relationship between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda has been questioned.[143] Hezbollah's leaders denies links to al-Qaeda, present or past.[143][144] Also some of the al-Qaeda's leaders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[145] and Wahhabists clerics consider Hezbollah to be apostate.[146][147] But United States intelligence officials speculate there has been contact between Hezbollah and low-level al-Qaeda figures who fled Afghanistan for Lebanon.[143][148][149] Therefor I disagree on adding Hersh's opinion too. Now one editor has proposed adding although this hypothesis has been questionedat the end of the paragraph. Please tell us clearly do you agree or not?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Interesting things said by my friend whose name escapes me at this moment in a previous post...

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)

and the name of the friend is: Geoffrey Marsan. Ahmad Husseini 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request: Removing disputed tag

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)

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)

Sorry, I don't speak Arabic, so I can't help much here. — George Saliba ^[talk] 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You can check the English webpage of that site.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

As I see ghaliboun.net and promise both of them are official website. So I'll remove disputed tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stance on targets...

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)

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)

Thanx George. Ahmad Husseini 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Wow, that was just one big run-on sentence. Hopefully you get the point though. :) — George Saliba ^[talk] 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, off course, the 43 civilians is still the same though. Better than putting 250 civilians, and make us look like a bunch of fools. Ahmad Husseini 11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree. Ahmad Husseini 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sounds good to me. --GHcool 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All right then Sav and George, comment, and i'll work on it. Ahmad Husseini 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. — George Saliba ^[talk] 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following insertion:

Hezbollah have stated that if Israel attacks civilians they would retaliate by targeting Israeli civilians. (source: Wärn, Mats: Staying the Course: the "Lebanonization" of Hizbollah, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, section 4.10 Getting along...)

It's some sort of poorly-worded original research that (unsurprisingly) prejudicially misquotes its source, which does not talk about Israel "attacking civilians". It's also referring to some sort of tacit agreement made under specific circumstances in 1996, and in any event is not reliably sourced; unpublished master's theses do not qualify as reliable sources according to Wikipedia. Finally, it's not even about military targets, which is the subject of the section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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.[1] 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.[2]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good article candidacy

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)

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)

Sounds good to me.  ;) --GHcool 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

I nominated it there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I removed it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - fail

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)

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)

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)

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)

Relisted

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)

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

Party of Allah or God

Somebody has changed party of God to party of Allah[3] and [4]. 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)

What is your problem with the current version? --Rayis 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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) But Tarc and Palmiro didn't accept it. Apparently there wasn't consensus so let we build a consensus at this time. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• God, for the reason above. Linking to Allah would be fine. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• God seems most consistent, and the link to Allah should neutralise any concerns. Tewfik^Talk 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Result:party of [[Allah|God]] --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Daily star response...

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)

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)

"Capture" vs. "Kidnap"

One can only "capture" Israeli soldiers if one is lawfully empowered to do so; does Hezbollah have the legal authority to "capture" Israeli soldiers in Israel? If so, who granted it and how? Are they then put on trial for some sort of crimes, or are they then ransomed, like every other kidnap victim? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to say it was a kidknaping? do you know all the detail? Sorry bud. Verb: To take control of.

To remove or take control of from the opponent in a game (e.g., chess, go, checkers) He captured his opponent's queen on the 15th move. (intransitive) To remove or take control of an opponent's piece in a game (e.g., chess, go, checkers.) My pawn was captured. Ahmad Husseini 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The source says they were taken from inside Israel, and used for ransom. That's kidnapping. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Says who? you? I don't think so buddy, keep your POV outta this. Ahmad Husseini 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual side of the capture is disputed, and they didn't want a ransome as in money, they wanted the release of "captured" Lebanese, who were "captured" in Lebanon, it goes both ways friend, so you want to push your POV on Hezbollah, we'll push our POV on Israel, but I don't want to start an edit war with you, and the group who has been editing this article, has built an NPOV agreement for this page, we call it capture, it'll stay that way. Ahmad Husseini 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual site of the kidnapping is not disputed in any reliable sources, and you have to edit within policy on all articles. Kidnap is the correct English to describe abducting someone against their will for ransom, and it was used in this article until yesterday. Please don't threaten to violate Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair compromise: In the 2000s ( <<< gotta change that, not the best way to say it), Hezbollah relied less on suicide attacks and more on repeated attempts at kidnapping Israeli soldiers, to be used as bargaining chips for kidnapped Lebanese. Ahmad Husseini 22:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not what the sources say; rather, they say "Hezbollah has warned it will kidnap more Israelis to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners, if necessary." You have to go with the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING!!! I just checked the source, and it comes from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Relations, and here I thought I should work on a compromise with you... THAT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE, Wikipedia policies: What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors Ahmad Husseini 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a partisan source, off course they're gonna say it's "kidnapping" Ahmad Husseini 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the source was the BBC: [5]. Care to re-think your comments? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the source comes after the statement:Hezbollah relied less on suicide attacks and more on repeated attempts at kidnapping Israeli soldiersIsraelis Held by the Hizbullah - Oct 2000-Jan 2004 In the 2000s, Hezbollah relied less on suicide attacks and more on repeated attempts at kidnapping Israeli soldiers[91] <<<< referance 91. Care to "re-think yours"? Ahmad Husseini 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because the quote "Hezbollah has warned it will kidnap more Israelis to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners, if necessary." came from the BBC article, not the IDF one. That's what you were responding to. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source:"Rice asked Sinora to exercise what influence his government has to secure the freedom of the soldiers captured on Wednesday. She also spoke with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni twice, and with Olmert and Annan. CNN

"In Beirut, Hizbullah announced that it had captured the three soldiers, saying they dedicated the act to Mohammed Aldura, the 12-year-old Gaza boy whose death in IDF-Palestinian crossfire was broadcast live around the world. Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said yesterday he would use the three captured IDF soldiers to secure the release of Arab prisoners detained in Israel"Jerusalem Post both of these reliable sources refrain from using quotes " " around the word captured. Ahmad Husseini 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And many sources use the term "kidnapped" as well; I've added several. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea ok its going to stay as captured for two reasons: Different wikipedia articles use it, and it is a more NPOV. Ahmad Husseini 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd like it to stay as "captured", but I think it's actually going to stay as "kidnapped" for accuracy reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sources use "kidnap" and some sources use "capture", sounds like a POV issue. By the way, was Mustafa Dirani kidnapped or captured?--Doron 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Was he held for ransom? Was that the reason he was captured? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were lonely and needed some company, so they kidnapped Dirani. As you said: It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of a person or people against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom. Ahmad Husseini 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

matter of fact he was, "Mustafa Dirani was a member and in the position of "the head of security" in Amal. In 1987 he started contacts with Pro-Iran sources, and eventually a rift was created between him and the rest of the leadership of Amal. He was expelled from Amal and he established his own organization, the Believing Resistance. Captured by Israeli commandos in 1994, he was held in administrative detention as a bargaining chip in exchange for Israeli servicemen held by Hezbollah." this article says captured, so its ok to say it that way? he was captured in Lebanon, against his will. Ahmad Husseini 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's your BBC on Dirani: "Sheikh Obeid, a Hezbollah leader, was kidnapped by Israeli commandos from his home in southern Lebanon in 1989. Mustafa Dirani, a Shi'a Muslim leader, was kidnapped in 1994." [6] Everything's a kidnapping to them. Ahmad Husseini 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok whatever, I'm not gonna revert anymore, but we'll get this straightened out once George and Sav take a look at it. Ahmad Husseini 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "captured" is better as it exactly described what happened, I.e. whatever the legality of the Hezbollah action, the Israeli soldiers were overpowered and fell into the hands of Hezollah. So, they were physically captured. To say that this is kidnap, a terrorist action or that it was actually entirely legal so they are POWs is all POV. Of course some particular POV can be much more closer to the truth than others, but that's something that the reader should decide by reading all the facts from e.g. this wiki article and other articles. Count Iblis 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man, Ahmad Husseini 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in here late, but I got the impression, from the RS's I've seen, that Mustafa Dirani was at home drinking tea when Israel took possession of him. He also seems to have been retired from Amal at the time. That's close to the opposite extreme of being armed, in uniform, on military patrol along an international border. But I'm not sure how to vote, as per the source below, I have no idea who Abd-al-Karim Ubayd is or any of the details of his capture. Is there a redir missing? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Abd-al-Karim Ubayd is one of high ranking member of Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

sigh yes, I too can read. If that's all we know though, including terminology about him in the debate just muddles things. Was he a colonel or a pollster? James Carville is high ranking member of the Democratic Party too; if Israel snuck into Washington and hauled him away one day, I don't think we'd use the word captured.... -- Kendrick7^talk 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building

Because both groups has participated in similar operations against each other we should choose capture or kidnap for both cases. Which one do you prefer?

• Hezbollah kidnapped/captured/abducted Israeli soldiers.[7]
• Israel kidnapped/captured/abducted Hezbollah members.[8]

Pleas write your idea here:--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Capture

• Ahmad Husseini
• Kendrick7^talk
• Doron (talk · contribs)
• Count Iblis 13:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• GHcool 18:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sa.vakilian --02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kidnap

Agree with Abduct

Why don't we go with what the majority of people would understand the words to mean instead of what those who report it want us to think?

• Soldiers are captured.
• Civilians are kidnapped. Wayne 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wayne. Soldiers are always considered "captured", while civilians are consider "kidnapped"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbytime (talk • contribs)

I don't agree with this distinction, there's nothing in the definition of these words that indicates that one should be applied to one kind of victims and the other to another kind. Both civilians and combatants can be captured or kidnapped. Anyway, in the Middle East the distinction between civilians and combatabts is often vague, so this would be another opening for POV-pushing.--Doron 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me expand then.

Soldiers in uniform are captured. Soldiers in civilian clothes are kidnapped. Civilians are kidnapped. Civilians being legally arrested are captured. Civilians taking part in offensive actions are captured. We need some kind of standard to use not influenced by the media. It is the only way to avoid POV.

It is undeniable that the majority of the worlds media is biased to some degree when reporting on the Middle East no matter how reliable they are on other matters so it is difficult to trust them for this particular definition. Wayne 14:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Still I think both verbs can be applied to both civilians and combatants. The verb "capture" is neutral, as it does not imply anything besides simply being taken by force, while "kidnap" has a negative connotation, and it is often associated with illegitimate purposes, which is a matter of POV.--Doron 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well I we'd hate to imply that sending your soldiers into another country to whisk its civilians off to a prison somewhere should have any negative connotation. Perish the thought! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) NPOV shouldn't be confused with see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...

I'm sure the readers are intelligent enough to decide for themselves what they would consider negative without us telling them.--Doron 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If we just eliminate all words with negative implications from the wikipedia, we might as be writing in newspeak, and I don't think WP:NPOV requires that. But hey, if grandma needs a new kidney, I guess I have a legitimate reason to go kidnap capture the neighbor's 8 year old, and hold her for ransom a pre-emptive collateral loan. Just to be neutral about it.... -- Kendrick7^talk 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can always find the clear cut cases, but the gray area is always prone to POV-pushing. We may regard the capture of innocent civilians as a negative thing and call it kidnapping, but what about not-so-innocent civilians? What about civilians that are retired militants? What about retired-but-still-partially-involved civilians? What if they're not doing anything at the moment, but are planning to do something in the future? What if they're not really planning to do anything but the capturing/kidnapping party suspects they're up to something, or it's just a good excuse to seize them? And what about those soldiers, is it always legitimate to capture them? What if they are on leave? What if they're not involved in combat? What if they're retired/reserve? Should we treat soldiers and militia as the same, or is one inherently illegitimate? What if they're UN peacekeepers, or involved in humanitarian work? Or perhaps they're just pretending to be neutral, but are actually lackeys of the enemy? And why should it make any difference whether they're in uniform or not? Who's going to decide which are "captured" and which are "kidnapped"? You? Me?--Doron 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It think this much is clear cut -- when one military takes members of another military prisoner on a field of battle, is it always "capture", regardless of whether regular or irregular soldiers are involved. Everyone has guns and its a fair fight. Dunrani I believe, OTOH, was abducted. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does the battlefield begin and where does it end? What's a "fair" fight? Lot's of POV involved here.--Doron 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with Doron, there is no way you justify calling some cases as captures, and some as kidnappings. We should just make a decision from our poll. Like Doron said, Elchanan Tannenbaum was a retired colonel, was he captured or kidnapped? Adolf Eichmann was an ex-Nazi head, was he captured or kidnapped? (BTW on his page it says captured) Mustafa Dirani ex-Amal Security official was he captured or kidnapped? All these men were captured/kidnapped when they were considered civilians, what makes it legal to kidnap and call it capture? What gives entities the right to take someone against his/her will? What makes Hezbollah's actions illegal, but makes the exact same actions conducted by Israel legal? I don't think we should take a side here and we should just take the results of the vote. Ahmad Husseini 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Eichmann was at least under indictment; Tannenbaum was a drug dealer, so "arrested" might even apply there, though this was apparently vigilante justice. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, so Tannenbaum was arrested by Lebanese policemen for drug charges? And I suppose Eichmann was arrested by the Argentine police and extradited to Israel, wasn't he? Who knows, perhaps Dirani was arrested by the IDF commandos for jaywalking?--Doron 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crying any tears for characters like Eichmann and Tannenbaum. Dirani was taken by the IDF so Israel would have someone that would make a confession under torture to support the Israel government's unfounded belief that Ron Arad was still alive and somewhere in Iran. Not exactly something to make light about.... -- Kendrick7^talk 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's after they knew that he had been kicked out of Amal. If he knew so much, why did they give him back? So, was he kidnapped or captured? Those Israeli soldiers knew patrolling routines, and combat tactics (If that's the way you would like to put it), I guess Hezbollah can use that as an excuse for calling it capture. What do you think? 50+ CIA agents have been indicted by European gov'ts, why havn't they taken action? (I think its because kidnapping is against int'l law) And I presume that "Hassan Nasrallah" and four of his family members were also captured by IDF commandos in Baalbek. Ahmad Husseini 02:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would consider reserving the word "kidnap" to children, and perhaps defenseless women. Thus, calling it a kidnapping in my estimation belittles the soldiers involved and makes Israel look like a bunch of belligerant wackos, i.e. who started a war that killed and injured thousands of people cause two people got kidnapped. Thank God they don't run the FBI; I wouldn't leave my house. The word abduction has been generally applied to the CIA cases. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea thank God, eh Kendrick, Up here in Canada, They'd probably send me to Syria. Ahmad Husseini 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont blame me; I voted for my senator! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fool me once.... shame on.... you.....Fool me twice.... you fool me once, can't get fooled again. Yea man, at least you voted, frankly I don't know who I woulda voted for, both don't bring the anything to the table, but back to kidnapping/capturing, I guess any further argument is useless, It is captured, we all agreed, the edit warriors didn't even vote Ahmad Husseini 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't speak too soon; some involved editors are undoubtledly observing the Sabbath. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea we got all week. Hopefully we don't let the poll sit that long. Quick question: We all voted capture, why were we arguing? and why were you going the other way?? Ahmad Husseini 03:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea your edits stay because AIPAC is away. Ahmad Husseini 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd weigh in, though I think consensus has already been achieved. When referring to Israel taking control of Hezbollah members during the conflict, we should use capture. When referring to the initial two Israeli soldiers that Hezbollah took, I support capture, too. The word kidnap has a connotation of "child-stealing" literally, while abduct is more often used when referring to the kidnapping of women, or alien abduction. First, Hezbollah is a large group, and kidnap is more commonly used when the party performing the kidnapping is an individual or small group. Second, Hezbollah crossed an international border to do take the soldiers, in an open assault that included diversionary rocket attacks (i.e., they didn't sneak into someone's house at night). Third, this incident set off a war. Fourth, and most importantly, as already mentioned, those who were taken were soldiers, not civilians. They would most likely have been armed, and at some point they had to have been surrounded, or thrown down their weapons, or been caught offguard, which definitely sounds more like being captured than kidnapped. — George Saliba ^[talk] 10:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Result: Capture instead of kidnap --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mega-Bomb

A- there is no such thing
B- it said they are currently working on it, but quotes a 2002 source
C- if they indeed did have a "mega-bomb", I would have used it in the war. Ahmad Husseini 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This source is a Primary source. According to WP:OR primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them.

It was published by The New Yorker so we can recognize it as a reliable source. But in the case of Mega-Bomb there is uncertainty in the article. A main focus today appears to be the training of specifically anti-Israel militants in the science of constructing so-called “mega-bombs,” devices that can bring down office towers and other large structures. The explosion of a mega-bomb is the sort of event that could lead to a major Middle East war.

I prefer not to use this part in the article because it was reported in 2002 as if Hezbollah would have wanted to use it as soon as possible. But Hezbollah has never used such a weapon even during war of 2006. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive Index

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

Fair use rational

About the new picture that was added, did you guys wanna take out the other one? Kinda looks crowded. Ahmad Husseini 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks ok. --GHcool 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this Image:Lebanese Hezbollah recruts being sworn in.jpg? Unfortunately it hasn't fair use rational. Please compare it with picture of Nasrallah to find what should be added. I'll hide it until the problem has been solved. If not, please remove it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's another one below == Military activities ==. I removed one of them--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two images in this article which have fair use rational.

• Image:Lebanese Hezbollah recruts being sworn in.jpg
• Image:Nasrallah on al-Manar television.jpg

I'll ask a knowledgble wikipedian to find out whether we can use them in this article or not?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Per {{Db-badfairuse}} the pertinent talk page so far is [[9]]. --tickle me 10:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete Image:Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg? It complies fully with WP:COPYRIGHT#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements by form and content, a detailed rationale was given. --tickle me 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because the image had a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it was an image that failed some part of the fair use criteria and the uploader had been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after 13 July 2006) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fair use tag was valid, neither you nor anybody else gave a sensible reasoning. Stating that it was "clearly" invalid doesn't make it a sound argument. The image didn't fail any part of the fair use criteria.

This is the rationale given:

Fair use claimed for the History of Hezbollah, Hezbollah military activities and Hezbollah#Armed_strength articles because the Roman Salute, unknown to Ottoman and Arab armies, had been introduced both to Arab armies and paramilitaries by German instructors who fled after WWII, together with the adherent ideology. The picture thus illustrates the unison of religious affiliation and military discipline, which is Hezbollah's distinguishing mark.

Fair use claimed for Roman Salute, as Hezbollah is one of the few examples in modern time using that salute, elsewhere shunned for its historical implications, as it has been widely used by 20th century European fascism.

this is what was contested:

There isn't fair use rational like what you can find in Image:Nasrallah on al-Manar television.jpg. There is written I couldn't find copyright free depictions of such ceremonies on flickr or similar sources. This is not a good rational.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that but it is being used in 3 articles, which is a violation of fair use. Khorshid 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I answered that on the images' talk page in due time. What is pertinent about these arguments? --tickle me 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The images' talk page got deleted due to some fancy shenanigans I could not hinder. However, the rationale given is comprehensive and hopefully self explanatory. --tickle me 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

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)

Great comments. I'll get started as soon as I can. --GHcool 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these problems has solved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Awards According to this table [10] I'll give a branster to whom has most participation in this article comprising JiHymas@himivest.com, Elizmr and GHcool with more than 200 edits. Furthermore I intend to give award to Mceder and George.Saliba who have helped us to reach good article criteria. I appreciate others especially Reddi, Banzai!, Bertilvidet and Doug Danner who have editted this article more than 100 times. God bless all of you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Armed strength...

I just read the armed strength, can we expand that a bit, by adding a list of weapons that they are known to have? like you have the MILAN for anti-tank, how about stuff they actually used, like the Sagger? they used that more during the recent war. Ahmad Husseini 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can find it in the sub-article. This article is 90 kb and I disagree on adding detailed information.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of sub-articles? In today's Lazy Society, people would want as much info as possible on one page. That's not my main point, but the info i added sheds some light on that area. Plus, we agreed to move the civilian toll to Armed strength, so the stuff I added is in support of it. We need the whole Syria thing, so People know that fact, and can get it in this article. Ahmad Husseini 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on man, that sub is kind of pathetic, plus there is no mention of the quotes in there, and the one by Hassan Khalil is recent. Ahmad Husseini 03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tommorow (at 5 pm eastern time), I will be running a check on Armed Strength, will remove poorly sourced info, or outdated or updated info, will make sure sentences flow like the mississippi, and will check grammar and syntax. All agree? leave a post. And I would like to take this as a first step to improve the sentence structures, which I would ask Sav, George, and GHcool to help (checking the writing style, not the content). Ahmad Husseini 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SIZE before further discussion.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose" Yes but...How the Internet has lengthened our attention spanAhmad Husseini 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, the MOS doesn't quite jive with that. The solution would be to improve the subs rather than lengthen the main entry. Tewfik^Talk 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Sav, your changes state that the group hasn't been involved in terrorist attacks since the Israeli withdrawl, that's 2000, I have US governement sources that say the date they stopped was 1994. Ahmad Husseini 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack" depends on the definitions therefor there is written "suicide attacks".--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction among the sources

There are at least 3 reliable sources and with different information about Hezbollah's rocket arsenal. [11], [12] and [13]. I think the last one is more careful.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For example we can find different information about BM-21 (Katusha-122) and Zelzal:

• A typical example is the Soviet BM-21 Grad missile, which was first deployed in 1963 and has a maximum range of about 25km...ome analysts believe that Hezbollah also has the more potent Zelzal-2 which has a claimed range of 200-400km and can be fitted with a 600kg high-explosive warhead. Its solid fuel system means that it can be more easily transported and prepared for firing. Most analysts believe a more realistic range to be about 100km, but this would still bring much of Tel Aviv[14]
• Hezbollah possessed the Katyusha-122 rocket, which has a range of 29 kilometres (18 miles) and carries a 15 kilo (33 pound) warhead...the Zelsal-1 with an estimated 150-kilometre range, which includes Tel Aviv.[15]
• 122mm Katyushas with a range of 12 miles (20 km)...The Zelzal-2, in any case, is not a missile, but a 610mm heavy artillery rocket with a 1323 lb (600 kg) payload and range of 130 miles (210 km). [16]

Bases

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)

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)

Hezbollah's inclusion on the terrorist list ( the T list ) seems to have some history of its own. It appears that Steve Rosen, a director for AIPAC, recently is quoted as saying that AIPAC "owns the T list". It appears, per Mr Rosen, that a little well placed dollar bills can get any group on the T list. Citation - Counterpunch April 2007. AIPAC gives my representatives $100,000 each year ( or at least last year ) just for being "you". I think they give every congressman and senator the same amount - just a gift - not counting the extra they give really "good" friends. Interesting group. If Hezbollah wants to get off the T list I figure they have to plunk down ( 545*$100,000= )$54,500,000, a good hunk of change. Of course then plus what ever the extra is -$?000,000,000 ). I guess they probably get to stay on the list as long as AIPAC wants, per Mr Rosen. 159.105.80.141 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Since they appear to be using quite old weaponry or at least not heavy stuff, how were they able to fight the entire Israeli army to a stand-still. Is their manpower vastly more motivated - their equipment certainly isn't their strenght. They seem to get a big bang for the buck, AIPAC should start kissing up to them - bribes that is for you political science types.159.105.80.141 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Besides their military bang for the buck, they also seem to get a lot of social work done with limited resources. Are there any studies explaining their effectiveness - my local government could use the pointers. I suspect it is due to lack of corruption and focused effort but it may be due to some technical method.159.105.80.141 11:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hezbollah cracked the code; IDF radio systems

Just read that Hezbollah managed to crack the code and penetrate the IDF radio communications and therefore had advantage of it during the last summer war. Maybe this should be included in their military capabilites? Link: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wocode184896831sep18,0,3091818.story - Abe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.165.206 (talk • contribs)

This makes sense as to how they were able to do so well. Of course I would rather ( if I was Israel ) think that Hezbollah "cheated" instead of whipped me. Interesting to see how this pans out.159.105.80.141 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheated, maybe, alteast Hezbollah used all their capabilites at max which is great though. Perhaps this should be added to their military capabilities? - Abe

I thank you both for this post, we have it covered vaguely in the Intelligence Capabilities section. If you guys want to expand on this subject, write your ideas here, and we can all work towards a brief but effective statement that would provide that bit of information. Ahmad Husseini 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll figures

The bit on the ABC/ Washington Post poll on responsibility for the civilian casualties in Lebanon does not make it clear who was polled. I'm presuming from the result it was Americans or Israelis. The same is true for the CNN poll.

It is not appropriate in an international issue to simply refer to "overwhelming majority of the people polled" without giving the nationality of the polled group. The difference between American, International and local opinion must be made clear.

80.7.151.7 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)N77

This poll figures were very badly skewed by whoever added them to this article. I've reworded them based on the source itself. — George ^[talk] 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, George, but they were fine before. I took some of your suggestions and rewrote it so that its more of a compromise. The polls do not say that Americans were polled, so we cannot cite the statistics to Americans. I agree with you that it is likely that the ABC News, Washington Post, and USA Today were statistics reflecting an American view of Hezbollah, but we cannot make that assumption in the article. The sources are clearly cited and whoever wants to make that assumption is welcome to. I have no trouble believing that the CNN poll was international ... any one with any common sense and knowledge of history would agree that Hezbollah is hostile toward the United States. Even Hassan Nasrallah himself would (and does) admit to that!

If it pleases everybody here, I am willing to rewrite this paragraphin an extremely wordy, almost incomprehensible way, but it will be more accurate than it currently is. For example, the sentence that currently reads, " A July 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority of the 1,005 people polled blame Hezbollah for the 2006 Lebanon War" could be made more accurate, but less comprehensible, by wording it thusly:

"A July 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 83% of the 1,005 people polled blame Hezbollah for the 2006 Lebanon War at least some degree: 53% blamed Hezbollah a great deal, 23% blamed them a moderate amount, and 7% didn't place very much blame, but still placed some of the blame on them. 12% of the people polled were not sure how much blame Hezbollah deserved."

Needless to say, I do not think we should take this step and I think summarizing the poll accurately with words like "overwhelming majority" is a good balance between a strict interpretation of WP:NPOV and ease in readability. --GHcool 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that it would be contentious, but sure, I'm open to discussing the statements in the article here.

• A poll in August 2006 by ABC News and the Washington Post found that 68% of the 1,002 people polled blamed Hezbollah more than Israel "for the civilian casualties in Lebanon" during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (10% of which also placed some of the blame on Israel).

1. You changed "American" back to "people". The source specifically states "nationwide", and the website tagline states "An independent, nonpartisan resource on trends in American public opinion". This should be changed back to "Americans", or, at the very least, "people in America".
2. Your changing this to 68% instead of 58% makes the remainder of the statement false. It is incorrect to state, based on the source, that "68% blamed Hezbollah more than Israel", and then include a secondary note that this includes 10% who blame them equally. Either change it back to 58%, or change the word "more".

My proposal for a compromise version would be: "A poll in August 2006 by ABC News and the Washington Post found that 68% of the 1,002 Americans polled blamed Hezbollah, at least in part, for the civilian casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 Lebanon war, compared to 31% who blamed Israel to some degree."

• Another August 2006 poll by CNN shows that an overwhelming majority of the 1,047 people polled believe that Hezbollah is hostile toward the United States.

1. Same point regarding people versus Americans.
2. I disapprove of the repeated use of "overwhelming", as it has no numerical definition, and is a weasel word. I would approve of changing this to "majority", which has a factual basis in meaning "greater than 50%", or you can change it to the exact figure of 69%, which is shorter and more accurate.
3. Regarding the previous point, the term "hostile" is incorrect also. Unfriendly does not denote the same meaning of "possibly offensive to us" that hostile does. In fact "enemy" may not mean the same thing as hostile. If my neighbor is unfriendly, that means we don't talk - it doesn't mean he's hostile towards me (though he could be, as I play my music way too loud).

My proposal for a compromise version would be: "Another August 2006 poll by CNN shows that a 69% of the 1,047 Americans polled believe that Hezbollah is unfriendly towards, or an enemy of, the United States."

• A July 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority of the 1,005 people polled blame Hezbollah for the 2006 Lebanon War and 76% "disapprove of the military action Hezbollah has taken in Israel."

1. Again, same issue with people versus American from a "nationwide" poll.
2. Again, same issue with the weasel word "overwhelming".
3. My bigger concern with this sentence is neutrality. I changed this to reflect the "other side" interpretation of the poll results cited, as the previous two statements very much favor one side's interpretation. I'm aware that this is an article on Hezbollah, but I still believe this data shouldn't be taken out of context, in the interest of neutrality. We can, of course, merge the two to maintain neutrality.

This leads me to my suggested compromise for this statement: "A July 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 83% of the 1,005 Americans polled blamed Hezbollah, at least in part, for the 2006 Lebanon War, compared to 66% who blamed Israel to some degree. Additionally, 76% disapproved of the military action Hezbollah took in Israel, compared to 38% who disapproved of Israel's military action in Lebanon."

Yes, it's longer and more numerical, but that may be the only way to avoid the POV implications of the current version. Thoughts? — George ^[talk] 06:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I accept all three compromises and have just changed the article accordingly. Well done, George. This was by far the fairest, smartest, and most cool-headed dispute I have ever had on Wikipedia. Good luck with your future editing. --GHcool 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being open to compromise, and helping to keep a very controversial article neutral. :) Cheers! — George ^[talk] 18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

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)

I've tweaked this sentence to better reflect the wording in the main article. — George ^[talk] 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Too long article

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)

I agree. I'll start working on it little by little. --GHcool 07:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yes, this isn't a very long entry at all, and the sections mentioned are of normal length - a fork would only have 3-4 short paragraphs. Tewfik^Talk 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of 44 is... most of 44

We have a source which says that "most" of the "44 deaths" are attributed to anti-tank guided missiles. It is now being used to support the claim that a "significant number" of "119 deaths" are attributed to them. You can't use one source to prove an entirely new point not supported by it. Please find a proper source, or remove the claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems fairly evident that "most" of "44 deaths" means the same thing as "greater than or equal to 22 deaths". Would you rather we reword it to say "at least 22 of the 119 deaths" are attributed to them? I'm fine with that. — George ^[talk] 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's original research. You could put something about them causing casualties in the early parts of the war, which is supported by the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Per What is not original research?:

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.

This seems to me to fully fit this scenario. Most of 44 means 22 or more. I've changed the statement to say 22 or more... — George ^[talk] 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has become a particularly pointless statement. The number could be anywhere between 22 and 118; saying "22 or more" just misleads the reader. It would be better to avoid these kinds of calculations based on interim numbers altogether. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We could manually add up the numbers from the Israeli MFA website if you think that's better. I figured that to be more likely to be classified as OR than going with a lower bound from a source from before the fighting ended. Maybe not. Also, a lot of the deaths listed identify the cause as "anti-tank missile", but do not state whether or not those killed were in Merkava tanks... does being killed by an anti-tank missile imply that you were inside a tank? For what it's worth, I'd estimate that there are 30-40 deaths listed on their site as having been killed by "anti-tank missiles", so the "at least 22" figure may not be far off from the total tally. — George ^[talk] 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg, 22 or more is somewhat of an empty statement, and doesn't say much. Besides, 22 or more is an unexact number between 22-118, a number which is not supported by the source. What is supported by the source is that most of the 44 killed in the first days of fighting were killed by... Yonatan ^talk 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The source states that "most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles", so it would be inaccurate to attach the "first days" to the statement. We can use the phrase used in the source, something like "most of the 44 soldiers killed in the first four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles", but we need to weigh that against the reader misinterpretting this as accounting for the full length of the war (the war wasn't even 5 weeks long), and from misinterpretting this as stating that 44 soldiers died total (when approximately 119 died). To avoid misrepresenting these facts, we can state "Of the 119 Israeli soldiers killed during the 34-day war, most of the first 44 in the first four weeks were hit by anti-tank missiles". This is accurate, but sounds like garbage from a readability standpoint. If you have suggestions on how to improve its readability while keeping the facts clear, I'm open to that too. If we had a more accurate figure than the unexact 22 to 118 range, I would say use it obviously, but I haven't found any more recent source. — George ^[talk] 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should do away with the sentence altogether, any phrasing would still be a bit ambiguous if not misleading, when not being OR. Yonatan ^talk 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Another option, whcih I hinted at before, would be to add up the numbers listed on the Israeli MFA website as having been killed by anti-tank missiles. The total number was more than 30 or 40 I think. Though I'm also okay with removing the sentence altogether. — George ^[talk] 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to state this, using the existing citation, and added a citation regarding the number of total Israeli soldiers killed, as requested. — George ^[talk] 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

I changed the sentence: "The United States and others have accused elements that would later become Hezbollah of being responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing"

The two sources I quote don't accuse "elements that would later become Hezbollah" of the bombing, they accuse Hezbollah. And the sources are not frontpagemag, but a scholarly terrorism expert often quoted by terrorism doves (Pape) and the same Asia Times article quoted to say "Most of the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement." So please do not water the sentence down again. --BoogaLouie 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And how do you propose we account for the allegation of responsibility for the bombing taking place 2 years before Hezbollah was officially founded? If you're unhappy with the wording "elements that would later become Hezbollah", what do you propose as an alternative? We could follow it up by a sentence stating that it was 2 years before Hezbollah was officially founded, if you prefer. — George ^[talk] 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Basically, it boils down to the fact that some sources define Hezbollah differently than we do in this article. If we make clear what we are talking about when we write "Hezbollah", and if that's not how some sources define Hezbollah, then we cannot always literally copy statements from these sources to this article. Count Iblis 13:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A good many sources I think. But to answer the first question, we might "account for the allegation of responsibility for the bombing taking place 2 years before Hezbollah was officially founded" by considering the possibility an organization can be very much in existance despite not officially proclaiming that fact. e.g. Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker:

Using various names, including the Islamic Jihad Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah remained underground until 1985, when it published a manifesto condemning the West, and proclaiming, “.... Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies.”

Even Adam Shatz, whose article is cited several times in the article, talks about the embassy and barracks bombing being committed by "a precursor to Hezbollah, which did not yet officially exist". Obviously if you are going to kill hundreds of citizens of a superpower there is good incentive to put some distance between yourself and the killings, perhaps by delaying your "official" unveiling, though your organization might be very much alive.

So since the first two books I looked at (Looming Tower and Dying to Win) mention Hezbollah as being responsible for the bombings without any qualification, I propose that unless someone can find a Hezbollah scholar saying something to the effect that: "contrary to popular opinion Hezbollah had not yet been organized when these bombings occurred, and so could not possibly be responsible for them", we leave the mention as is. --BoogaLouie 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't really need a "Hezbollah scholar" (if such a thing even exists), as Hezbollah officially denies responsibility for the bombing: "[Responsibility was] claimed by Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group believed made up of Shiites loyal to Iran's late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was generally thought to be the military arm of Hezbollah. Hezbollah leaders deny it."[17] — George ^[talk] 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah were accused of war-crimes

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[18], 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)

Cleanup of lead

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

Let's not mention public opinion in the lead

On the Hamas talk page I argued basically the same thing. There the discussion is if we should mention that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings in the lead. I made the point that it was far better to mention in the lead that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings as that is an undeniable hard fact, stead of giving a vague fact about an opinion about Hamas. My suggestion has not (yet) been implemented, though.

In case of Hezbollah, the terrorist nature of the organization is much more controversial. And to make that clear there comes a sentence afterward saying that in the Arab world the perception is different. I don't think that such vague unclear statements belong in the lead. They just express the fact that many people have strong opinions about this organization. However, a good wikipedia article should be written in such a way that a reader can make up his own opinion based on the facts given in the article. Of course, the fact that Hezbollah is widely considered to be a terrorist organization (I gues that's the case in the West, Israel and Australia) should be mentioned too in the article, but the facts about Hezbollah itself should be presented more prominently.

If a widely held public opinion is considered to be so important that one would like to mention it in the lead, then one has to consider mentioning the facts on which that opinion is based on. Because that would then be even more important to mention. In some cases, however, these facts are contested and then it is a widely held belief that cannot be proven to be correct. It is then wrong to mention the opinion in the lead.

If we don't edit articles on wikipedia in this way, we'll get very nasty POV disputes. Editors who don't like Bush and want to say that he lied about WMD could edit the article on Bush saying that "Bush is best known for lying about WMD" and give a big list of citatons that show that this is indeed a widely held opinion. Also many people hold some not so poitive opinions on Israel. I don't think we should mention such opinions in the lead about Israel, because they don't really define that country.

Count Iblis 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is that the version that contained phrases like "radical, anti-Western" and "widely considered a terrorist organization and a proxy of the Iranian and Syrian governments" right in the lead was a serious POV piece in the same vein that "best known for suicide bombings" was from debate over at Talk:Hamas. I'm only sorry I didn't see it sooner to snip it out. What it comes down to is that we should be asserting the facts of the opinion, not assert that opinion itself as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)

Re: Count Iblis ... I think the way it is written now is a pretty good balance between accuracy and NPOV; too much "accuracy" would be either confusing or POV-pushing. Its not a perfect situation, but I think it is the best we can hope for. It has been stable for many months now and we've worked very hard to make it that way.

Re: Tarc ... Hezbollah is certainly anti-Western and radical. These are empiracle facts that even Nasrallah himself would agree with. They are against any kind of a Western presence in the Middle East (especially in Lebanon) and their words and actions attest to their dislike of the United States (and, to a lesser degree, to France). Hezbollah is not a right wing group or party within Lebanon the way that, for example, the Republican Party is a right wing group or party in the United States. Hezbollah is much more radically right wing than a "right of center" group. --GHcool 06:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they may be "radical, anti-Western", I'm not saying that that is false. What I am saying is that that is not defining of Hezbollah, and should not be presented as such in the lead sentence. Tarc 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is ok. I just had problems with the version I reverted yesterday. Count Iblis 20:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Military activities"

This is by far the more proper section title. The section deals with Hezbollah's military organizations and activities in regards to combating the IDF. It is in no way analogous to Hamas now that I look closely; that articles section details bombings against civilian targets which would seem to justify a section title of "Militant activities and terrorism". This does not, so please stop the inaccurate POV insertions, Mr. Harrison. Tarc 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse neutrality with one's own point of view, which is a mistake I think you may be making. It is perfectly correct to mention terrorism in the appropriate section title, and follow that with a discussion. As a more general principle, I can understand how one might, after extensive good work in a subject area, get the idea that one has responsibility for an article, and so must exercise a veto over changes. This is of course not the case. Everyone has to work collaboratively toward wording that has consensus support. That is a bit easier to do if we all use edit summaries that simply describe our edits rather than comment personally on other editors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean distorting reality and ignoring policies and guidelines on what is to be avoided when writing articles. Tarc 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)