Talk:Hassan Nasrallah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article was full of nonsense. Please don't revert back to it, we can discuss it here. --Doron 08:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

in the second paragraph of [Leadership of Hezbollah] the author forgot to mention that the two dozen Israelis killed per annum are soldiers. I simply wrote in the term 'soldiers'. Mundane, but alas - was misleading.

There's a war edition here. It's not NPOV at all. May I remind that Wikipedia is NOT a political tribune?--equitor 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I reckon it constitutes vandalism by now. While "murder" may be POV, linking to a non-existant Israel Occupation Forces is really counterproductive.--Doron 23:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

rather biased. there isnt a concensus regarding iran's "radicalism." Also, iran isnt the "main supporter" of hezbollah. It started it. hezbolla = iran. this is a given fact.

I agree. This whole article reads like propaganda. Nasrallah oversees the 'complex' exchange of soldiers, but not any other militant activities? This is largely a waste of space and damages Wikipedia's good name...

Remember there will always be multiple versions of facts regarding an individual, even more so when the individual is involved in fanaticism. Always note that any other encyclopedic source should incure more bias due to less people being involved in the desiscion making process of weeding out truths. You can always change the article, after which others will futher edit your writing, hence is the wonder of Wikipedia.

--rboyer 11:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"weeding out truths. "?? Perhaps weeding out hidden bias would be better?

Here's something interesting: most of this article was ripped off from Al-Jazeera. Good thing Wikipedia stands up for the highest standards, not to mention impartiality, right? Because everyone knows al-Jazeera is impartial, right? Way to slip in the plagiarism, whoever 'done it. http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/people_full_story.asp?service_id=6849

I don't see how that fact is relevant "the kill rate". I've never seen that on any wiki page for any leader, please put the kill rate for the Israelie leaders as well, if your so inclined.

Signifigant paragraph deleted!

On August 19, the following entry was deleted from the article:

Views on Jews:
The scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb quotes Nasrallah describing his view of Jews: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli".

This is not insignificant. Rather than delete it, it would be preferable to retain the entry while changing the title to: "Racist views against Jews".

The entry says that Nasrallah failed to hit Tel-Aviv although he threatened to do so, but the truth is that he threatened to strike Tel-Aviv only if the IDF hit Beirut Proper, which was not hit, therefore Nasrallah did not try to attack Tel Aviv. "Beirut Proper" means the central city of Beitut, not the suburbs of Beirut (which were heavily bombarded). If Nasrallah wanted to hit Tel-Aviv he could, if not with rockets then by suicide bombings which Hezbollah are very capable of doing but did not do during the subject conflict, probably because it would have caused instant political defeat for Hezbollah. Suicide bombings deep into Israel is probably something that Hezbollah would resort to only as a last resort, if all their other weapons were destroyed for example, but that would require numerous escalations. I am a newbie, so bear with me.

Lappin, Elena, "The Enemy Within", The New York Times, 2004-05-23. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. ^ Staff Editorial. "Nasrallah's Nonsense", New York Sun, 2005-03-11. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. ^ Eradication First - Before Diplomacy by Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute, July 17, 2006

These are cited references. This gives an utmost certainty of the article being biased. Hassan Nasrallah is still alive and respected by millions of individuals throughout the Muslim world. We cannot yet call him genocidal and compare him with Adolf Hitler. It is the western label of him as a terrorist. He is a legitimate political force in Lebanon. He is not intent on ruling the world. He is intent on protecting the Lebanese borders (see www.memritv.org)

I am labeling this site as biased. ~Wishinspanish, august 2006

Nasrallah was born and raised in Burj Hammoud, the armenian quarter of bairuth and not in the southern part. Wikipedia needs to correct this part in his biography.

Views on Jews

This section of the article reads " During another appearance on Al-Manar on February 23, Nasrallah praised a leading European Holocaust denier, David Irving, for having “denied the existence of gas chambers.” " <-- This is simply untrue. Nasrallah was NOT "praising" Irving. That speech was given on the heels of the publications of the Danish newspaper cartoons that insulted the Prophet Mohammad and infact, right after the Samarrah bombing incident in Iraq. Nasrallah's point was that Irving, who published what he did with regard to the holocaust was not afforded full "freedom of speech" and was jailed despite having retracted his comments during the course of his trial because he denied aspects of the holocaust, where as the publisher and cartoonist and editor of the newspapers that published those cartoons which Muslims worldwide took offense to, enjoyed "freedom of speech" and used that as their excuse to insult the Prophet of Islam. Nasrallah was NOT praising Irving at all, and infact his comments have nothing to do with his "views on Jews" but rather his views on the hypocrisy of the Western world and the concept of "freedom of speech."

Furthermore, this section also states " "Jews invented the legend of the Holocaust," said Nasrallah on April 9, 2000. " This section is miquoted (or mistranslated to be more precise). Here is an accurate translation of that entire section of Nasrallah's speech:

"The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities. It is clear that the numbers they talk about are greatly exaggerated. They can speak of fabricated or exaggerated massacres that occurred during the Second World War, but we must forget the massacres that they committed against us and the peoples of the region which are documented and proven..."

First of all, Nasrallah never used the term "holocaust" (or its Arabic equivilant hareeqah rather). Second of all, his continuation clarifies the context of his comments. He was NOT denying the actuall happening of the holocaust but rather saying that certian aspects of its severity or magnitude are "greatly exaggerated" and contrasting this with the proven and documented atrocities and massacres that are taking place in the Arab world. Again, this has very little to do with his personal "views on Jews" and rather has to do with what he sees as hypocrisy and double standards towards certian aspects of relatice similtude when you are dealing with a Westerner or a Jew on one hand compared with a Muslim or an Arab on the other.

As for the citation that is used, it is undeniable that the opinionated, heavily biased, and innacurate nature of Steven Stalinsky's articles do not in any may meet Wikipedia's standards for authentic and credible citations on which facts are supported. Stalinsky has made a career out of his pro-Zionist writing, and here he is commenting (or rather spreading innacuracies and lies) about the head of an anti-Zionist movement.

In addition, I would also like to bring into question the section where Amal Saad-Ghorayeb supposedly quotes Nasrallah. This "quote" is taken from her book Hizbullah: Politics and Religion. The supposed "quote" appears on page 170 of her book and if you follow the footnotes, she writes that it is this quote is taken from Mohammad Fneish who allegedly "heard" Nasrallah saying so, and related this to her. So basically, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb never heard Nasrallah say any such thing, and infact Mohammad Fneish himself has vehemenantly denied hearing or relating any such thing from Nasrallah to Amal Saad-Ghorayeb. This basically dissolves Ghorayeb's claims of any authenticity or reliability, and this type of citation does not in any way meet wikipedia's standards. Thus, I think that it is quite clear that this section of the article is clearly biased, innacurate, and needs to be removed. ~~Mirsad, 15 August, 2006.

Drsmoo 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)The holocaust is as proven as proven can be buddy.

Open war

On July 14th, 2006 Hassan Nasrallah stated:

"We are ready for it -- war, war on every level,"[1]

He did not make an open declaration of war against Israel. He only alluded to the fact that it's Israel's decision on where this situation is going end.Ddahlberg 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo

..."prisoners being freed and bodies of returned to"...

 Bodies of what?

The EU and the listing of terrorist organizations

According to the ynetnews source provided, the European parliament vote cited was a non-binding resolution; it did not compel or move the EU to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Unless someone has a newer source that this has been reversed. Tarc 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that the United Nations called on all Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) to disband. "Six countries abstained: Algeria, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Russia." ... Hezaballah supporters in the UN are the Arabs, communists and the socialist South Americans. Oh, and the United States list Hezbollah and Nasrallah as terrorists. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"the United States list Hezbollah and Nasrallah as terrorists." Means nothing. The US still use torture on enemy combatants easilyforgotten 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, BUSH IS A TERRORIST DICTATOR !

help support

Lenin,

Stalin,

Mao,

Pol Pot,

Ayatollah,

Jiang Zemin,

Kim Jong-il,

Arafat,

Assad,

Saddam,

against, uh, terrorism... Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, if we can avoid the Bush-bashing and get back to the actual section topic, please. The way that the article was written;

"a group classified as a terrorist organization by several governments, including the United States and the European Parliament "

is misleading. The European Parliament is the legislative body of the EU' it is not on the same level as a "government" as the US is. This would be the equivalent of saying that a resolution passed by the US Senate it on par with a law signed in by Tony Blair. At this point, I am not even sure if this information is even relevant until the EU itself acts on the resolution. Tarc 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

this is imposible ..! Bush defend of the terrorists! Bush, nab a terrorists not support the terrorists.. Your thought is incorrect !!

Really quick, you can't support Ayatullah, since that's not a person, just a title. It's like saying "Help support Tony Blair, President, and Ehud Olmert bomb small children!" Also, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Arafat, Pol Pot, etc... are most certainly dead.

Atomsprengja 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just add Bush to that short list [and has anyone else noticed that more than few of those names are there either as a result of US actions or because they were directly put in power by the US?]. And since you are so concerned about terrorism then surely you must be deeply troubled about the terrorists living in comfortable retirement in Miami - such as Orlando Bosch ("unrepentant terrorist." - Attorney General Dick Thornburgh) and Luis Posada Carriles to name only two - whom the US refuses to hand over to the proper authorities to face justice. LamontCranston 04:37, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah does not live in South Beirut anymore

Hi.

Nasrallah does NOT lives in South Beirut anymore and the house does not exists anymore.

this happend in the past few days.

Obviously, but it's not the crucial point in this present crisis where H. N. lives or what is his current address. If you do know this please add it to the article, otherwise any comments are unuseful. IMRE 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adding his current address would be most useful - maxim

---

You seem to be sure that he does NOT live in his previous address anymore and I wonder what makes you so sure. Therefore, that "credible" source you have must possess the information on his current whereabouts. One question though, what would his current address be most useful for? unless it was for certain purposes which I think is irrelevant to this article or probably would serve some personal interest of the "person" or group/organisation who posted this message.

Mak

Clarification on UNSCR 1559

Paragraph four under "Leadership of Hezbollah" states that "UN Resolution 1559, calls for the withdrawal of non-Lebanese forces (i.e. Syria), which some say does not apply to Hezbollah because it is a legitimate political party in Lebanon holding 23 seats." This suggests that the entire resolution may be inapplicable to Hezbollah, which is patently false. UNSCR 1559 also calls for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." This includes Hezbollah as well as the remaining Palestinian militias that operate both in and outside of the major Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. UNSCR 1559 also refers, albeit obliquely, to Hezbollah in calling for "the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." Hezbollah maintains de facto control over much of south Lebanon, where the group boasts a supportive political constituency and maintains an armed presence.

Suggest changing sentence one of paragraph four of this section to:

UN Resolution 1559 calls for the "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" and "the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." This refers directly to Hezbollah whose military wing, as an armed force not controlled by the Lebanese government, constitutes a militia. Hezbollah also maintains de facto control over parts of south Lebanon, preventing the government and from exercising a monopoly of force within the country and asserting its control over Lebanon's southern border with Israel.

This article appears to be strongly biased - at the very least this sentence needs to be changed. I have never heard anyone argue before that UNSCR 1559 does not apply to Hezbollah. If one were to claim that it does not because Hezbollah holds 23 seats in the Lebanese government, that would imply that Hezbollah constitutes an official army of Lebanon or the Lebanese government. However, no one, not even the Lebanese government takes this position, as Lebanon has frequently requested a cease-fire in the ongoing conflict with the claim that it does not in any way control Hezbollah and is therefore not responsible for its attacks on Israel. --LostInTranslation 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed, tried to edit, but it appears protected. -- Le Centre, Centrerion Canadian Politics - centrerion.blogspot.com

The Lebanese government has said that Hezbollah is a national resistance movement and not a militia (direct quote from prime minister) and so 1559 does not apply to hezbollah.

Photo of Nasrallah

Can we please find a photo of Nasrallah? Using a photo of a billboard is inappropriate for a few reasons, including 1) it is a photo of a painting, and therefore it's accuracy is suspect. and 2) the painting used is a glorification billboard commonly seen in the middle-east and to use it as Wikipedia's sole representation of the man violates the article's neutral POV.

If there was a normal photo of the man at the top with a caption of his name, and then lower down there was an image of this billboard explaining about where the billboard was and about these forms of propaganda - that would be fine.

--Drewson99 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is far beyond neutral.

I've never seen Wikipedia praise a terrorist so much in my life. This article needs to be re-written with sources of info other than al-bawaba and the Washington post. The Washington post which has been proven to be biased by giving known terrorists op/ed space and one of its columnists calling Israel a "mistake" and urging them to to lay down and take attacks and hope the attacks eventually end. Whether you agree with their stance or not, you must admit, this article is NOT objective and NOT neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

This article must be re-written or I will personally expose wikipedia for its terrorist supporting. At very least, allow other people access to the article so they contest it with POV tags.

• • • Firstly, how do you define terrorism? Ask yourself that simple question when you apply it to others. Secondly, I agree the article needs some critical debate- you however, do not seem quite up for this. What you count as "objectivity" basically means name-calling and broad-brushing. I think "neutral" for you, is if Wikipedia was written by Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post editors. Thirdly, get this "Israel is the nobel light in the Arab darkness" BS out of your head- Israel has done far worse to the Arabs than the Arabs have done back.

--Jason

Wow Jason, you're an idiot. "Israel has done far worse to the Arabs than the Arabs have done back". Lets have a quick review of middle-eastern history since 48. 1948: Israel declares independence in the areas specificed by the UN partition resolution. Result: Arab states and people attack the nascent jewish state in order to "push every jew into the sea" (comment from the grand mufti of jerusalem). 1956: Egpyt blockades Israeli ports and fires on civilian ships flying israeli flag. result: Britain France and Israel put the Egyptians back in their place and restore modicum of stability to the region. 1967: Arab states yet again attempt to destroy the jewish state and are really caught with their pants down. A complete routing of Egpyt, Syria and Jordan (not to mention the other arab states which contributed soldiers). UN resolution 242, basically outlines land for peace deal (which arabs reject outright in their 3 No's speech, no recognition, no negotiation and NO PEACE). 1973, Arabs yet again try to destroy israel by attacking on the holiest day of the jewish year (need i point out what would have happened had the jews attacked a symbol of islam? where is the outrage here?) The jewish state nearly looses, but eventually turns the tide and wins again. 1982, PLO using lebanon (lebanese civilians always seem to get screwed by their so called "heroes") bombard northern israel. Israel makes it to Beirut in 6 days. That does if for open wars... now lets turn to the arabs next tactic: terrorism and deliberate targeting of civilians (i guess they realized that fighting fair and legally meant enduring loss after loss) Suicide bombing violates every tenet of international law and humanity. It deliberately targets innocents, and its success is measured by how many women and children it kills. Moving along to more current events, kidnapping and rockets/shelling... Hezbollah violates even the precepts of the geneva convention (of which i assure you they were never meant to be protect under) by deliberatly shelling civilian areas and making no effort to distinguish themselves from lebanese civilians... in fact they deliberatly hid amongst civilians guaranteeing that they would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation. Let me boil it down for you Jason.... If arab terrorists and militias lay down their weapons and made it clear that they would not attack israel, israel would not retaliate and the violence would stop. Now, if the Israelis laid down their weapons and made it clear they would make no effort to defend themselves, it would be open season on israel (civilians first, military second based on history). Israel will rightly continue to defend itself against the very real existential threat posed to it by islam and its arab neighbours. Only negotiation can achieve a just settlement for the palestinians. As for lebanon, the UN already agrees that Israel is not occupying any lebanese territory, anyone who believes otherwise is buying into islamist propoganda. As for syria, makea peace deal and watch how fast you get the golan back. Land for Peace... its been the standing offer since 67.... signed AlexiKobayashi

Like any wiki article, there is always room for improvement. But as it is now, it is an objective description of a man's life. The Wikipedia is not here to pass judgement, or to suit your own POV desires. And please, sign your name to posts with a simple ~~~~. Tarc 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As Tarc said, "alway room for improvement". Can you be more specific about which paragraphs/sections of the article you object to and why? Nick Fraser 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur w/ Tarc and Nick. By the way, before stating that we are "praising a terrorist", how do you consider the subject as a terrorist? -- Szvest 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article does not praise Nasrallah. In fact, I belive that Israel is being praised as correct in going after him. The reason I believe that Nasrallah is not a terrorist is because he is merely fighting for the land that belonged to his people before the advent of Israel. The land was Arabic and should be controlled by the people originally in the region. Btw, I am not Arabic, Middle-eastern, or Muslim. I have no affiliations that influence my view. -- Arjun 16:13, 22 July 2006

One problem. The land belongs to Syria and not "his people" (Lebanonese people? Syrian people? Iranian people? Muslims? Hezbollah activists?) and that is a UN decision. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far from neutral. Nowhere in the article was it mentioned that Nasrallah has created dozens of hospitals, orphanages and schools in Lebanon. I believe that humanitatian aspect of his work should be included in the page. The United States does not get to call a group "terrorists" because they dissagree with their views. I also feel the need to point out the Nassrallah condems Bin-Ladin and the Sep. 11 attaks on America. Isreal invaded this man's country, it is appropriate and correct that he defend it from those seeking expansion.

Hitler had also a very effecient social programe, somehow this programe also were marginalized compared to the Nazipartis crimes, the same with Hizbollah, it doesnt help you do one thing good, when the outcome is the goal to destroy Israel and attack cross-border, despite Israel had not occupied any lebanese land.

Comparing Hitler to Nasrallah is absurd. In the case of Nasrallah "his good actions" overpass his "bad actions", of course, relatively. Nasrallah has not started a war which costed 60 million lives nor started an ethnical cleansing campaing, in fact his intentions are not even inspired by ethnical hatred. It's very easy to immediately compare Israel's arab enemies to Hitler in order to defend a pro-Israeli point of view and justofy Israel's actions but is far from accurate, appropiate or pertinent not to mention real. Some people can call someone "antisemitic" just if that person says "I don't agree with what Israel is doing", specially within Jewish communities. I'm of Jewish descent myself (I do not practice the religion), nearly 20 members of my family live in Israel. I have heard lots of people within Jewish communities say that arabs should be exterminated... doesn't that remind of something done betqeen 1933 and 1945?. I do not support Nasrallah, but I think it is categorically wrong to compare him with Hitler and his movement to an antisemitic one. Also don't forget that Israel did invade Lebanon in 1981-82, if i'm not mistaken, during operation "Peace for Galilee" and that Hezbollah's origin is found within Israel's strikes to Lebeanon. Denying Israel's "culpaibility" on the issue is as well wrong. The greatest portion of mass-media is focused on portraying Israel as a martyr-heoric state while it also commits attrocities, which, given Israel's military power, affect even a larger number of people that the actions perpetrated by the arabs. Due to this I find it necesary that both sides of the story are taken into account and that, not only because Nasrallah attacks the "favourite" one is his image or the image of Hezbollah distorted in order to favour or justify Israel's actions. - ZealotKommunizma

Fist: someone who's deliberately targeting civilians in a military conflict is, and should be considered as, a terrorist. Second: Nasrallah has called to extermination of Jews, so comparing him to Nazi has valid grounds. Third: Yes Israel invaded Lebanon. But after attacs on Israeli territory from Lebanon. The history didn't begin in 1982, please do some research before lecturing others. -- maxim

I would thank if you could give me a realiable link to an archive citating Nasrallah on calling to exterminate all the Jews. I fail to find a realiable non biased source on this so I would appreciate if you could provide me with any reference proving Nasrallah's antisemitism. As far as I have seen and researched Nassrallah is not anitsemitic, for example he apologized to one family for having killed their children on a rocket attack. I don't see this of course as enough good-willing neither does it absolve him of having commited an incorrect action, nonetheless, that's not the kind of attitude I would expect from an antisemitic charachter. If he wants all Jews exterminated then he would have celebrated publicly such assesination. Antisemits do not apologize for killing jews they're proud of it. And, one thing is to want Israel exterminated and other to want all Jews exterminated, it's two different things, I hope you're not confusing them. Jews have coexisted peacefully with the arabs until the downfall of the Otoman empire. If Arabs have assumed such an Anti-Israel posture is because the creation of the State of Israel implied expelling lots of Palestinians from the territories in which they were dwelling, and this of course repercutes in the Lebannon-Israel conflict since lots of Palestinians fled to Lebannon. Aside from the problems derived from tens of thousands of people being displaced out of their country, this massive forced emigration caused that lots of the displaced Palestinians to use Lebanon as their base-operation to attack Israel making the latter intervent in Lebanese territory and thus leading to Israeli attacks and ocuppation of Lebanon which derived in the creation of the resistance movement Nasrallah is leader of. - Zealot Kommunizma

Whether or not Hitler had a social program, or Bush as part of the US federal government helps build schools is a moot point in deciding to include social aspects of Nasrallah and Hizbollah. I have a personal opinion that labels Nasrallah as a terrorist and as someone to be condemned but the point of this page is to provide encyclopedia information about the man. As a result, if you have supporting evidence to back up a personal connection between Nasrallah and charitable/social acts, they should be included to provide a better understanding of an important contemporary political figure. It doesn't matter whether you love him or hate him, this is for educational purposes and all sides need to be represented as well as objective information. Attempting to censor this article for or against Nasrallah is shameful. Y.Pestis 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest video ???

Sorry if I'm doing the wrong thing, this is my first edit of wikipedia pages... What is this thing about 'latest video' of nasrallah redirecting to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VqPE9gJwV8 This is nowhere near his latest video and I think it is unethical for wikipedia (and I'm sure it's against wikipedia's rules) to have such a false/joke link in one of its articles. I think someone with editing capabilities of that page should fix that. KaKaRoTo 21:15, July 20, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it! btw, there is a nicer video of Nasrallah at this page : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4idczY-fE KaKaRoTo

picture

am i the only one who thought that was a photograph until i read the caption?

• I wear glasses btw—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.6 (talk • contribs) 29:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - we need a real photo - NOT THIS image of PROPAGANDA. It has no place in a neutral reference site such as Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.5.51 (talk • contribs) 02:23, July 21, 2006 (UTC)

Unless the billboard image misrepresents what the man looks like, then I really do not see your point. If that is indeed what he looks like, then the source is irrelevant. A screen capture of Hitler from one of Goebbel's propaganda Nazi films is still justa picture, for example. Tarc 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, this image might be taken from a propaganda poster, but it isn't a propaganda picture, it represents Nasrallah as he looks like and it IS neutral. So I don't see why it should change. But if you look for a real image, here's one : http://www.manartv.com/NewsSite/PicturesFolder/sayyed%202.jpg KaKaRoTo

Sorry, I don't agree. This image is perfect, yes, look at the bottom left of the image, you can see the Hezbolla's emblem. I propose to modify the picture so that we can enlarge the emblem to show the world the true nature of this organization... a machine gun.

Also, if you think that this Wiki English version is propaganda, you should read the French version. I would bet that the admins are fanatics. Joe

Invalid links

To whoever can edit Nasrallah's page, please note that the 2 links at the bottom of the page contain commas at the end, which causes thw "page not found" message when they are clicked.

Cheers, Aimable

Fixed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Controversy

There's no controversy.

1. The US considers hisballah a terrorist organization, while the EC does not.
2. EC are a bunch of pussies, led by the French.
3. How else would you call an organization that murders civillians for political causes?

Fenrir2000 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. Tarc 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur w/ Tarc. I may add WP:POV.

A specific answer/question to your 3rd question: How else would you call a country that murders civillians for political and ideological causes? Do you mean Israel kills bats?! Do you watch TV? -- Szvest 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment starts here. Concerning whether or not people think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in order to satisfy both sides of the debate can we do the following (I'm new to making Wiki comments so I hope this comes across as neutral but please let me know if you disagree): 1. List the kinds of attacks carried out by Hezbollah (attacks against Israeli soldiers, attacks against non-Israeli/Jewish targets, attacks against Israeli civilians, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina that killed 95 people). 2. Explain who considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization and why. 3. Present the Hezbollah defense for its attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, western targets, and the Jewish community center bombing. (Note I strongly condemn attacks against civilians, but Hezbollah supporters should be allowed to state their case as long as it is based on facts - e.g., referencing the Israeli draft, etc. As long as the Hezbollah defense doesn't indulge in anti-semitic conspiracy theory then I think in order to satisfy both sides of the debate Hezbollah's defense should be allowed). --LostInTranslation 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"The calculated use of violence, primarily against civilians, to coerce and intimidate civilian populations or governments through instilling fear." Well that is the United States own definition of terrorism, seems pretty clear and reasonable to me, problems arise however when you apply it to the US itself and allied nations. -- LamontCranston 04:46, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL Fenrir's from Israel, what a suprise that is!!!.... you wanna talk about murdering civilians for political causes let talk about the IDF, the 2006 Conflict. Bombing the heavily civlian populated southern area of Lebanon in so called "precision strikes" on Hezbollah targets? Yeah fkn right.

Please don't be so hypocritical next time. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, so's the IDF simple as that. The things Israel does to it's enemies is no better than what Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or watever terrorist organisation you want to mention, do to further their causes. Only difference is Israel does it with the support of America and claims it is very sorry for the unintentional attacks on civlian targets.

{ bad language removed }

Difference between Killing and Murder is intent

Killing is not the same as murder.

Murder is typically pre-meditated and malicious in intent. The intention of an act causing the death of another is what separates killing from murder from negligence. The government AND people of Israel have repeated time and again that Israel will discontinue their operations in Lebanon when Hezbollah stands down as the Hezbollah is a clear and present threat to Israeli citizens. Here testimony to Hezbollah's intent:

(Click Link to View Video Clip ) Here's the intent of Hezbollah:

• 5/15/2004 Nasrallah / Hezbollah Crowd: Death to America

• 2/18/2005 Nasrallah Speach to tens of thousands: Death to Israel... Death to America (Crowd) Death to America! Death to America!

• 2/23/2006 Nasrallah Speech Inciting crowd of thousands America America You are the Great Satan! Death to America!

• 7/16/2006 Nasrallah: We are waging the battle of the Islamic nation, whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not.

Labaneh 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Every time Israel bombs a village of city the intent is clearly Murder.. and they always succeed.

8/22/06 This is all bull roar. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Get used to it. The Israel civilian kill ratio is so much higher than Hizb' Allah that it boggles the imagination. Min Yee 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Min Yee

You Murder. They Kill. We Eliminate. And it does not matter who "we" are. It as all a question of which POV you are pushing. Abu ali 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

intro

Contracting "Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite organization and political party" (1) to "Lebanese political party Hezbollah" cuts it too short. "Islamist Shiite" is a qualifier for party too, arguably a meaningful one. "organization" and "political" is redundant - all parties are political organizations, besides "Islamist" covers that. Shiite Islamists are a Islamist variant, so:

Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah

is IMO correct. --tickle me 01:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention current war??

Hey-- even in the face of all the vandalism and POV-flinging this article needs some mention of the current war, which will definitely make or break Nasrallah as a leader. Anyone care to propose a sentence here? JDG 05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an article on Nasrallah, the person, not about the war, for which an article already exists. Although Nasrallah makes morale boosting appearances on Al Manar, I don't think there is much public information about his role in the current war. I therefore do not see what can be said about the topic in a Hassan Nasrallah article other than "He led Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" -- not a very useful statement. --Asbl 05:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has obliged with your request, but as I wrote above, the sentence is essentially void of much useful information. --Asbl 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal life, cleanup-date, July 30, 2006

Too much taken verbatim from aljazeera.com, too many {{fact}} tags. --tickle me 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Views section

Are the only views Nasrallah have related to hating Israel? This section consists of a bunch of out of context quotations and some analysis, much of it from Neocon types. It strikes me as pretty blatantly POV. Obviously a discussion of Nasrallah's views should include a discussion of his views on Israel, but the current section is clearly designed to advance a partisan POV rather than to actually inform. john k 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are out of context and incorrectly translated from Arabic. Thus these quotes are simply wrong.

These may violate Wiki's NPOV due to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. In any case I added some of his recent speeches in full such that the reader may decide what to concentrate in, "straight from the horse's mouth"... ApuNahasaminajustApu 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The views section (Nasrallah views on Israel) is laced with lies and out-of-context quotes. I urge the writer to supply us with primary documentation instead of propaganda sheets for the new-cons.

Is it typical to include hearsay, such as, "According to Joe Schmoe, Hassan Nasrallah said xyz"? I haven't noticed this in any other Wikipedia article, but several times in this one. 24.35.66.225 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sayyed (or Sayyid?) debate

First off, the wiki page spells it Sayyid, so is that perhaps how it should be written if it is to be kept? Second, the Sayyid page states that a Western equivalent to the term would be "Sir" or "Lord". I looked up a few of the latter-day people granted knighthood by the UK (e.g. Ian McKellen, Elton John, and on their wiki pages they are listed as "Sir".

So, if that is to remain, then my opinion would be that Sayyid is equally acceptable. Opinions? Tarc 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's fine. Muslims don't even consider it a title that is similar to "Sir" or "Lord" but just take it to mean that he is a descendant of the Prophet. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid vs. Sayyed. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One might also suggest that an extremely uncivil anonymous (the above comment came from 84.94.3.9, which traces back to an Israeli ISP) person has little to contribute to the discussion. Tarc 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Israeli (no, not the one above) I am disgusted to see the "Lord" Nasrallah and would prefer a neutral name, with no prefixes. I am also in doubt that every Sayyid is a descendant of the Prophet; it seems to me that it is not a proven fact, but just a funny title that people use to honor this terrorist. But since it is used for the Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar and also some other Islamist leaders, maybe Nasrallah should regrettably be honored as well. --Gabi S. 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The true terrorists in this war are the Zionists, but thats quite unrelated. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether we prefer or not. I believe "Sayyid" should be mentioned as it the way he's being called in Lebanon. You may add a note explaining why he's called so. -- Szvest 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabi, terrorist or not got nothing to do w/ this section. I respect your patriotism but it is irrelevant here. -- Szvest 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabi and Bhai: talk pages are not battlegrounds. Please discuss the article, not the subject of the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing the article. I said that the Sayyid prefix should be there, just like Khalifa bin Harub of Zanzibar. Wasn't it clear? Too bad BhaiSaab can't find a way to leave the terrorism section there. It's an important part of the article and it was unfortunately deleted. Maybe it's unrelated. --Gabi S. 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never deleted any terrorism section. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A little trivia, Sayyed or Husainites is reserved for descendant of the prophet thru the grandson Husain and Sharif or Hassanie Hashemite for descent thru his elder brother the grandsom Hassan. For Shia, they are respectively the 3rd and 2nds Imams. Best Wishes.Will314159 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sayyed is more accurate then Sayyid. by the way Sayyid means Mister, not lord/sir.

      - I disagree.  Every transliteration standard I've seen recently categorically excludes the use of the letter "e", along with "c", "o", and "p".  I do, however, agree with your second point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.140.116 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC) 

I suppose we should use whatever the reliable sources use. If the title/honorific is disputed, maybe we should discuss that. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not bound by the Manual of Style; we are. It is certainly acceptable to mention that some call him Sayyid, and why.

Re the anonymous claim above, Sayyed and Sayyid are merely different transcriptions of the same Arabic word; Arabic draws no distinction between i and e, or between u and o.Proabivouac 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick search shows his name appearing without any honorific, with 'Sayyed', and with 'Sheikh'. I don't have a strong preference. We might use it once with a footnote, and after that just use his name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Paul McCartney, Ian McKellen, Elton John all use "Sir" in the bolded first mention, but I'm not sure I like it there, either.Proabivouac 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, what kind of "quick search" did you do? I googled for Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and come up with 64,000 hits. Less than the 800,000 of just Hassan Nasrallah but certainly not an insignificant number. Perhaps it does not need to appear in the quantity that it does currently, but it should certainly remain in the lead and in image captions. Tarc 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a Lexis/Nexis search of major newspapers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Would it be acceptable to mention it in the limited fashion I suggested above? Tarc 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which, 'Sayyed' or 'Sheikh' or both? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sayyed. Tarc 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why that instead of 'Sheikh'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to be more proper in respects to his status than a simple "respected old man" (i.e. sheik) would be. I now see that it was quite overused throughout the article, so one mention in the lead plus an image caption would be an aceptable compromise, don't you think? Tarc 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do it and see what people think. I don't have a strong preference at this point, though I note that some sources say 'Sheik' instead, and I wonder what basis we are using to decide. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The prefix "Sayyed" or "Sayyid" (however spelled) should be included, not to honor or gratify him, but to clarify that he is a descendant of Hussein, the third Imam in Shiite Islam, and grandson of the Prphet Mohammad, (should I have left out the prefix "Prophet" when referring to Mohammad?) This distinction is important in identifying his lineage, his social status in the muslim nation. Maybe we should also mention that he wears a black turban rather than a white one because of his lineage to Hussein, which makes him a so-called "Sayyed" or "Sayyid" whether we like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.15.189 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

In the article, the section titled 2006 "Israel-Lebanon" conflict should get a new title..."Israel-Hizb'Allah" conflict. With very few exceptions, Israel's bombing campaign targeted Hizb'Allah targets--not "Lebanese" military targets. I know Hizb'Allah is part of the government, but it would still be more accurate to describe the conflict as one between Israel and Hizb'Allah (Lebanon as a whole was largely caught in the crossfire). (CSSELL)

That section makes it look as if his part in the conflict was just getting his home and office hit, as though he's an innocent spectator. Also, the quote again makes it appear as though he's just defending against Israeli aggression, which is, again, untrue. okedem 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You state your opinion as though it were fact. There are other points of view, and the article should not take sides. 69.214.180.253 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what I just said was fact - his role in this was not just getting his house hit, just as Olmert's role in this wasn't just sitting by his desk, watching the news.

Also, Hezbollah did initiate the current aggressions, as recognized by most of the world. okedem 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view is that Israel itself violated Lebanese sovereignty on a continuous basis, then used an isolated border incursion as a pretext to destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon and to kill over 1000 Lebanese civilians. You do not have to agree with this, but a compelling case can be made, and both views should be reflected in the entry. I do agree that the section on the 2006 war is much too brief and should include the Israeli view, but I do not believe that this view should be presented alone or as fact.69.212.215.248 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First off - if you want to indent your comment, use colons (":"), like I do now.

If you can find a reliable source that makes that case, it can be presented here. However, one would also have to be clear on the fact that Israel withdrew to an internationally recognized border, and that Hezbollah attacked Israel afterwards, by kidnapping 3 Israeli soldiers in 2000, by firing at Israeli towns, and by this current attack. The case for Israel violating sovereignty would be that Israeli aircrafts flew over Lebanons airspace (since Israel did not enter lebanon on the ground).

BTW, the claims about Israel destoying the infrastructure of Lebanon are quite unbased. For example, Israel did attack Beirut's airport, but did the minimal possible damage - bombed a runway intersection, and the fuel tanks. It did not bomb the terminal, the hangars, the control tower. It did the minimal damage that would prevent the use of the airport. Also, if Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, why did Lebanon continue to have electricity?

But I digress - the point is - the current section gives a completely false picture of events. okedem 07:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view is that Hezbollah violated Lebanese sovereignity by attacking Israel and then hiding in Lebanon. Likewise Syria has certainly violated Lebanese sovereignity. No country can tolerate rockets being fired into its schools from nearby towns. Sept 1, 2006

You talk like if Hezbollah was a strange body in South Lebanon saying "They hide in Lebanon", wake up brother, Hezbollah is the people of the freed(2000) south Lebanon, they live there ,they grew there, this is their soilAhage4x4 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

moved all the headers up to the top, and comments below. I shouldn't have lost any comments. Although a lot them seemed to be argumentative and not really wikipedia edit type comments. Best Wishes. Will314159 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

External links: CAMERA article

It seems that some quotes have been attributed to Nasrallah, quotes which are not by him at all. See Charles Glass in London Review of Books. Note the quote from the lebanese Daily Star (by Badih Chayban) in October 2002/10/23 ('If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide') ..it has been used extensively (especially by neo-cons)..but there is no proof that this is a "real" quote at all (It has also been denied by Hizbolla spokesmen). The CAMERA article: "Hassan Nasrallah: In His Own Words" (where it is quoted) is therefore at least partly based on what I would call false propaganda; (it is not his own word at all): I will therefore remove it.

(This whole thing remindes me very much of the Ouze Merham "quotes" of Ariel Sharon ...perhaps there also should be an article about false quotes attributed to Nasrallah? ..with listing them where they first appear, and where they were refuted?) Regards, Huldra 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jurisprudence of the Guardians and Khomeini View of Ashura Ritual

I listened to a streaming video lecture by Professor juan Cole who explained the above topic. Nasralah subscribes to Khomeinis views and is his disciple. Amal suscribes to Fadallah who is close to Ayatollah Sistani of Irak. In the Khomeini view the clerics have the last word. Sistani and Fadallah's view is minimum interference. Even though Nasrallah is prominent politicaly in Lebanon, theologically he is much junior to Ayotollah Fadallah. On Ashura (Arabic for 10 which follows 10 days after first of year 1 Muharram similar to Yom Kippur about 10 days after Rosh Shannah) some Shiites self flagellate in memory of the martrydom of the 3rd Imam Husain at Karbala. The Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the practice. If I am right, then Amal would do the bloody ritual on Ashura while Hezbollah members would not. I have to get a source for this before i incorporate this in article. If any lebanese Shia are reading this- would appreciate any insight. Best Wishes Will314159 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

anti-semitism and semitism run amok

the flip side of anti-semitism is semitism run amok. Anti-semitism is strongly condemmed wherever it appears. At the same time semitism run amok is the flip side. WP is an encyclopedia for everybody and all these negative comments about Nasrallah are bull. The PLO was delcared a terrorist organization. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. gets called on the carpet for meeting with the PLO. Sharon starts a war to expel the PLO from Lebanon. Then guess what? Israel invites the PLO to the West Bank, and Yasser Arafat is a frequent guest at the White House. But then he won't roll over and then he's a terrorist again and becomes a prisoner at Ramallah. The Israelis can get any opponents of theirs declared "terrorists" by the U.S. Congress and then undeclared as it suits their purposes. This is a biography article of living person and there are guidelines. There is no call or excuse for calling the subject a "little shxt" as one so called "Editor" did above. It is just disgusting. But it is like this in every article having to do with the Mid-East in WP. There are very few Arab English speaking editors and are grossly outnumbered and out-articulated. The editors that are proponents of the other side are overwhelming in their numbers, with notable exceptions and those people are heroes, are not exercising balance and fair play. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't blow themselves up with hundreds of people around them the US Congress wouldn't declare them to be terrorist's. It's not rocket science man.

Then, shall we give the IDF credit for 'terrorising' a whole country killing a thousand of their people? The US can put anyone on their terrorists list, who cares Nasrallah is seen as a Freedom fighter for millions of Arabs, he is certainly much more respected statistically then the "strongest" man on earth, Mr Bush Ahage4x4 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave the term "Terrorist" out of the debate? Terrorism has become a highly subjective and stigmatized word since 9/11/2001. Where one person sees a "terrorist", another sees a "freedom fighter". US Congress and their declarations have no place in WP, and neither do the opinions of those at the other end of the political debate. Lets just stick to the facts, folks, and leave the subjectivity out of it ok? Nageeb 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sure. let's use the "objective" opinions of these people about the word "terrorist".. webster discussions

Wow, you know what would have been nice? If they actually cited a source of that definition (the definition kept expanding as the interview went on, incidentally). Simply claiming that Webster's Dictionary says something without actually showing it or citing an edition is useless. (Side note: There is no one "Webster's Dictionary", there are indeed many editions and versions, each having a different use and purpose.) What kind of garbage talkshow was that? Also, the Egyptian guy in the horrible shirt was a wanker. Nageeb 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

webster reality check: [2]

btw, what negative comment about nasrallah is bull exactly? Jaakobou 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NB: It is "antisemitism" without a hyphen -- check out the IHRA definition -- and the other spelling variety seen frequently, "anti-Semitism" is a result of MS Word spell-check which nobody bothers to correct. The second thing is that there is *no such thing* as "semitism". Dori1951 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

National Compact with Michel Aoun

Many observors write this has kept lebanon from civil war. From the Xtian side it calls for the the 1)disarmament of HA upon return of the three remaining Leb prisoners in Israeli jails (yes back then it was 3 prisoners!!) 2) return of Shebaa Farms and 3) the repatriation of SLA refugees (South Lebanon Army) from Israel with pardons. From the HA side it calls for reform of the Taif electoral law perhaps with one man one vote. The speculation is tha the Sunni would then pad the vote by extending the franchise to Palestinian refugee descentants and the Xtians would try to gain numbers by extending the vote to overseas Lebanese. The compact is a signicant achievment for Nasrallah and Aoun because it has kept the country stable and unified even under the total war waged recently on the civilian infrastructure. When I get the citations lined up I" try to incorporate some of this in the article as well as the jurisprudence of the guardians material. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You should also be aware that Future Movement leader, Saad Hariri, is very supportive and would like to allow the Lebanese diaspora to have voting rights from abroad, now keep in mind that 80% or so of the multi million Lebanese diaspora is Christian.

--Eternalsleeper 05:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Syria Iran Hezbollah support

He actually used the words "everybody knows it"? I'm sorry, but that is the single most hilarious thing that I have ever heard. VolatileChemical 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy cities

The question of whether Najaf and/or Qom are "holy" cities is not topical to this article. However, if for some reason we were to include it, it would have to be attributed and cited, e.g., "which Shi'a Muslims consider holy (reference)." It's not up to us to decide what is or isn't holy.Proabivouac 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All Shia Muslims consider the Cities of Karbala, Najaf, and Qom, Holy, what makes them holy is the burials of the 11 Imams, in these cities and more, its not up to you to decide, it's up to every Shi'ite Muslim to know that those Cities are holy.Ahmad Husseini 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go man. Here's an explanation of why Najaf is a Holy City: [3]

Who's running this joint?

How do you know that the "If all the Jews..." quote is not a fabrication, since its editors of the newspaper have questioned the reliability of the translations, and honesty of the reporter? Ahmad Husseini 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not know this to be the case, since our only source is a random third party claiming this in a letter to an editor of another journal.Proabivouac 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, your second source doesn't mention the quote. This isn't the place to be comparing Hezbollah to the Nazis (your source, is a blatant attack, otherwise it would have fit in), and I don't find that taking quotes from neo-con(respectively) websites is considered accurate.Ahmad Husseini 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

This section of the article makes no mention of the fact that Israel initiated its bombing campaign in response to a Hezbollah attack on its army patrol. An attack of which Nasrallah was aware, because he later made the statement along the lines of (if I recall correctly) "I would not have allowed the attack to go ahead if I had known that these would be the consequences."

Will you provide a reliable resource for that please? If you can then it may be added.--SJP 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nasrallah in songs

I've added one song by Alaa Zalzali to the list, however there is no article about that artist or song. I may get to work on that. Andurz 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

درود بر سید حسن نصراله و رزمندگان مقاوت از طرف حمید رضا

Taif Section

How reliable are those sources? They seem to be heavily biased blogs. And i'm not sure about the translation offered there. Just suggesting better sources. Andurz (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

References need cleaning up.

Reference #2, #9, and #11 ("Profile: Sayid Hasan Nasrallah")are redundant as they all point to, the same link, which no longer works and cannot be found via a search on that site. At the moment it also lists it as an Al Jazeera article, which is incorrect as aljazeera.com is a British magazine, not the same as the well-known media outlet of the same name. I'll fix that in a moment.
It seems though that this may have been the same profile that is also cited as reference #10, from the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, it can simply be subbed in for the three mentioned earlier, but it should be checked first that that CFR link covers or mentions what is being referenced by aljazeera.com before swapping.
Also, question regarding the PDF link in reference #7; can anyone else open this? It comes up as "unsupported/damaged" by Adobe. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference for this :

"There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel," said Nasrallah.

and this :

"I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel.' I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.".

are broken. Kromsson (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Sayyid

The using in this honorific title in the personal life section is improper. It opens this section with out any explanation while wikipedia rules forbid this kind of glorifications. It is equal to open the Jhon Do persoanl life section in this manner: Ph.D/M.D/DR Jhon Do was born...--Gilisa (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I find no specific WP policies forbidding this, and furthermore the link itself serves as explanation. Mnmazur (talk)

I agree with Gilisa's statement. Even Queen Elizabeth's page only refers to "Elizabeth II". I am going to edit this article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.163.245 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation of Israeli sources

I've noticed that many of the citations on the section regarding Nasrallah's views on international events are from CAMERA and other pro-Israel organizations. Why is it that it is frowned upon to cite Al-Manar or similar sources on articles, but it's okay to quote blatantly Zionist and pro-Israel organizations and sources in articles, especially articles condemning someone for being anti-semetic? I'd like these citations removed and, where they were indeed valid, replaced with references that are not biased. Mnmazur (talk)

I don't see the problem. CAMERA was cited four times in the article, and three of those four times it was explicitly stated that it was from CAMERA (I changed the fourth instance to reflect this as well). As long as the source is explicitly mentioned for the claims, Al-Manar can likely be used too. ← George ^[talk] 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

On the September 11, 2001 attacks and the United States

The second paragraph of this section does not talk about Hizballah's stance on the September 11 attack itself but rather talks about the conflict with the US in general. In the mentioned quote, Nasrallah did not express his point of view of this attack but rather mentioned it as a historical inciden . Hence I suggest that it must be removed from this section.--Atmleb (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA links

The links for CAMERA point to camera(disambiguation). I have changed the links that I can find to point directly to the wikipedia page of that specific organisation that is titled "Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America". Any future links should be done in the same way Example: CAMERA.

--Atmleb (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I don't speak Arabic/Farsi/Persian, whatever, but today's revert war without edit summaries, doesn't give me much confidence. Accordingly, I have protected this article until and unless the parties provide acceptable translations for their edits. This is the English language Wikipedia, and if there is going to be unresolved conflict about the natural language version of this person's name, it will just be deleted as unnecessary and the article will have to endure continued protection. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

'terrorist'

Picking up on one of the points made in the 'anti-semitism and semitism run amok' discussion above, I think it is a clear breach of NPOV to open this article with the term 'terrorist' to describe Hezbollah. Using such an extreme value term is bad enough in an article, but especially so if it's done in the opening line and with no explanation. As you will see on Hezbollah's own article, there is much debate over the use of the term, and only three countries consider the group to be an outright terrorist one. Instead, I propose that it's called 'a political and paramilitary organization' and let readers navigate to the Hezbollah article for a full discussion on who considers them to be terrorists etc. Zackery the Fence (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is entirely inappropriate to put in the lead of the article, and it is unnecessary POV. Readers can look at the Hezbollah article for more information.

Imagine if, on the article for George W. Bush, it said, "The United States in its entirety is considered a terrorist government by Nicaragua, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine." Is this acceptable? InverseHypercube 05:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or imagine if, on the article for Hitler it said that Hitler was "commonly associated with the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust." Silly civilized people. They think their position is the "neutral" position. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Those are things he actually did. Putting in information about who considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the main paragraph of an article about a Hezbollah leader is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. "Terrorist" is a contentious and emotionally charged label, which has no clear definition. It is not Wikipedia's job to take sides, which this article is clearly doing. If you want to include this, then per WP:Balance also include viewpoints that contradict the claim of Hezbollah being a terrorist organization, which are certainly prominent.

I'm not taking a position on the claim, as you have accused me of doing, I'm simply trying to maintain neutrality. InverseHypercube 07:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean you, I was being rhetorical. The analogy to Hitler was to point out that there isn't necessary an "other side" that has to be given proper weight if proper weight is not given by reliable sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The need to be refered to as resistence then. 2A0D:6FC0:81D:F00:ADDB:388:CF1:C13 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

national pact and not national compact

the national pact and not compact (!) with Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun....should read the section title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.172.7 (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sayyed Hassan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sayyed Hassan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014

insert this image as the main portrait http://hadialakhras.deviantart.com/art/Sayed-Hasan-Nasrallah-362573250 because it more accurate and it looks more formal. Thank you

Ahalawi (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Images found on the web are usually copyrighted, and cannot be used on wikipedia, which uses free content where possible (see WP:NONFREE. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just For Laughs

In Russian his name "Насралла" sounds very unpleasant. About as "give a shit" in feminine gender. :)) Алессия (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

Addition to sub-topic "views attributed to Nasrallah" - Condemns Charlie Hebdo attack http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-hezbollah-idUSKBN0KI1OM20150109

- But also condemns Mohammed cartoon by Charlie Hebdo in their "survival" issue after the attack http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-hezbollah-idUSKBN0KI1OM20150109

213.35.153.122 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Firefox crash problem

For about an hour this morning attempts to open this page crashed Firefox. Other Wikipedia pages tested did not. Seems to be working now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.238.73 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 13:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah → Hassan Nasrallah – "sayyed" is an honorific, which should not be used in article names (per WP:HONORIFIC). The article was recently renamed without consensus to include the honorific, with an unsupported claim that 'sayyed' is actually part of his name, and not an honorific, a claim which is contradicted in the lead. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. GregKaye 06:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hassan Nasrallah/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article uses unreliable sources in describing Nasrallah views on Israel. Many of the sources are dubious and we do not see any primary evidence provided.

Substituted at 05:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hassan Nasrallah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/20/international/i111336S28.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nna-leb.gov.lb/newsDetail.aspx?Id=386839

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Add some information

I want to add these informations to the article but it needs a consensus.Anyway i place it here for comments:

breif history

His complete name is Hasan Abdolkarim Nasrollah.He was born on August 31,1960 in a very poor area of east Beirut ,called Al Sharshabouk quarter near al khodr Mosque and the karantina. Sharshabouk is a quarter in which best house is ruin and whose inhabitants were a mixture of Shiites ,maslakh Arabs, Armenias and Kurds. He lived there with his family until 1974.

• On the thirteenth anniversary of Ayatollah khomeini’s death,Nasrollah presented a lecture. His speech is couched in overwhelmingly nationalist terms. He points to khomeini’s revolution as having suffered in the past in the same way the resistance factions in Lebanon are nowadays suffering and have suffered in the past. He adds that it is similar to the suffering the intifada and resistance in Palestine are going through at that time. Accordingly Nasrollah seems to invoke knomeini as more of a tactician to be admired and imitated particularly in terms of his steadfastness and intelligence. According to nasrollah Imam Khomeini and his movement was not a political one severed from its roots. Also nor was it Jihadi revival movement disconnected from its ideological background but the movement of Khomeini rested on very solid theoretical,intellectual,scientific and doctrinal basis. He also believes that the problem of imam Khomeini with Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was not only domestic and internal problem but Also Imam Khomeini know shah as an instrument of repression and agent of the united states. Therefore the first conflict between imam and shah was the fact that the regime of Pahlavi was an American agent.

I suggest you put draft version here on talk for review by other editors, once reviewed and okayed it can be placed in article at appropriate place.-m,sharaf (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

expat?

Is Hassan Nasrallah currently either a Lebanese expatriot or in Iran. Because both would need to be true for that category to be used. nableezy - 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Reliable sources back up the fact that he moved to Qom for studies and remained there for some time. I added just two of these sources. No one talked about him being there right now; we're talking about 1989.
Furthermore, "Expatriate in X" categories on Wikipedia are literally everywhere used for those who have spent time in another country, for, e.g., studies, work, and/or soccer. Whether in the past, or in the present. So, I also don't understand where you got the notion from that someone needs to be an expat "currently", in order to be labeled with such category. In fact, this article also needs the category Category:Lebanese expatriates in Iraq, for he studied there as well for some time. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

He isnt in Iran, he is in Lebanon. Whats there to huh about? An expatriate, definitionally, is somebody who lives outside of their home country. Lives, present tense. nableezy - 04:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Who told that he's in Iran right now? These categories may be added for anyone that lived at one time in a different nation, but did not hold its citizenship. It seems as if you are making this "rule" up by yourself, namely that someone "needs" to be living in the country in question, right now, in order for the category to be added. And that seemingly just because you define the word "expatriates" as being only able to refer to the present tense, which is wrong, especially in the way such categories are used on Wikipedia. Oh, no, wait, I guess Alexander Onassis is actually currently in Monaco, while George Best is actually currently living in Hong Kong, South Africa, and Australia -- even though both individuals died numerous years ago.
With all due respect, but unless you're able to cite a WP that backs up your claim (that such categories can only be added for people who are in the countries in question in the present time) or some sort of earlier established consensus, your arguments don't have any ground to stand on. Nasrallah was an expat in Iran in the late 80s, and he was an expat in Iraq prior to that, and this is simply verifiable by the reliable sources. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not defining the word, the dictionary does that for me. An expatriate is someone living in a country that he or she is not a citizen of. Living is the present tense of to live. Are you able to city any sort of consensus? Or is that a requirement only for me? With all due respect, WP:OSE isn't an argument needing a response. nableezy - 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links & Speeches and interviews

These sites "The Multilingual Website of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah"Archive; Interview on 11 August 2007; Interview with Al-Jazeera on 20 July 2006; Interview with Al-Jazeera; The Beirut File: An Interview with Hassan Nasrallah by Mahir Tan dont open.

These links Video Clip of Victory Speech on 22 September 2006; Nasrallah's Sun Video; Speech given on 26 May 2008; Speech on 3 August 2006; Speech on 31 July 2006; Speech on 14 July 2006; Speech on 8 March 2005 does not open correctly.--Samral (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

tenor vs tenure

In the first section, there is a simple linguistic error, which can be rectified by the replacement of a single word. Noting here so the next edit by a confirmed editor can correct it:

Under his tenor,

should read:

Under his tenure,

Feel free to remove this section from talk page after this has been done.

54.240.196.186 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you are absolutely correct. Changed now, thanks for letting us know! Huldra (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yemen war

He has made some remarks in interviews about the Yemen war. I will not cite any particular singular source but instead simply point this out. Some of the comments could be included in the main article, since it is fairly recent ~2 years old only. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah by khamenei.ir 01(2005) 01.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah by khamenei.ir 01(2005) 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hassan Nasrallah .jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

early life and education

I recommend correcting this sentence: "But there was no sources mentioned about his mother's name" with something like: " No references found for his mother's name".

Naming consistency - I recommend checking for consistency in the names Abbas al-Musawi (mentioned once as Abbas Musawi),and Sadr (mentioned at the end of this section without the full name Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr, and missing the hyperlink ) Elimarcus (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV?

Making Russia the only named ally of Hezbollah in the lede is garbage, conceived to tar the latter with the whipped-up frenzy over Putin (and Trump). Why no mention of Iran, who has certainly been a longer and more trusted ally of the Hezbollah movement? If you can't answer this, you should just go add it now. 174.115.100.93 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

Hi dear admin. i request for permissions to edit just the religion of hasan nasr-allah in the article. you can do it yourself, if i'm not qualified to have such access. thanks in advance. best regards.Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

hi again. i only want to add his religion in the infobox. i would be grateful if you do that, by adding the following characters in the infobox. thanks.@Jonesey95:Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

| blank1 = Religion | data1 = shia Islam

We don't put religion in infoboxes. As far as I can tell, this person's religion is mentioned at least ten times in the article, which is probably sufficient. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

I uploaded these few photos with a license. Please add it to the article. Thanks

File:Hassan Nasrallah's speech in May 2000 (2).png · File:Hassan Nasrallah's speech in May 2000 (1).png · File:Hassan Nasrallah's speech in May 2000 (3).png · File:Hassan Nasrallah's speech in May 2000 (4).png

– Hoseina051311 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Hoseina051311: Images are to help the readers understanding of an article, if you could note where the images should be placed in the article and a caption for the images. See WP:GALLERY & MOS:IRELEV for more. Thanks Terasail^[✉] 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Terasail: I actually explained in the description of Wikimedia Commons... He speaks after the end of the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) and I suggest you put this in "Consequently, Nasrallah is credited in Lebanon and the Arab world for ending the Israeli occupation of the South...." thanks --Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The images are blurry and the article already contains multiple high-quality images of Hassan Nasrallah. Since MOS:Images#Image quality states that blurry images should only be added when "absolutely necessary". They have not been added at this time. Terasail^[✉] 14:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Death

Hassan Nasrallah died today 19 Jan 2021 in an explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2300:9D1:807F:1B6:D868:D0EB (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Zero evidence of such an extraordinary event exists. As such, this is currently Twitter chatter and not credible by any standard of wikipedia. 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

He died 2.101.189.137 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Image

I created a paragraph about his image in lead, and it needs expanding and cover more things. Therer is some ideas and sources in my sandbox. It has to be general, then we can add a "Public image"/"Legacy" § later. -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

'Hassan Nasrallah (Arabic: حسن نصر الله [ħasan nasˤrɑɫɫɑh]; born 31 August 1960),born 27 September 2024) is a Lebanese cleric and leader who serves as the 3rd secretary-general of political terrorist organization Hezbollah since his predecessor, Abbas al-Musawi Mayonnaise2001 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Dated

This article is extremely dated, possibly because it has been ptrotected. The last facts mentioned belong to 2013.--Reciprocist (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Nasrallah is described as a "national hero" and "icon" in Lebanon"

This is not true at all and portrays a false picture of Nasrallah. For a large part of the Lebanese population, Nasrallah is a terrorist and very bad person. He is assumed responsible, along with other leaders, for the large explosion in Beirut port on August 4th, 2020. He is accused of having his supporters attack protesters' camps in Beirut city during the October revolution. And just recently, his followers attacked several places in Beirut, killing 8.

He is regarded as a hero in the Hezbollah and Amal-run areas of Beirut, in the southern part of Lebanon and in the Bekaa Valley. But for the rest of the population, he is a nightmare. Please remove this information or phrase it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulschlag (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

not an icon, a terrorist

"Narallah is described as a "national hero" and "icon" in Lebanon and throughout the Arab and Muslim world" this is a sentence that I extracted from the article, this is not true. the truth is that hassan nasrallah is considered a terrorist in lebanon and the arab and muslim world. and a leader of a terrorist organization

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/3/hezbollahs-nasrallah-accuses-saudi-arabia-of-terrorism https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-designates-son-of-hezbollah-leader-sayyed-hassan-nasrallah-a-terrorist-1946977 https://www.dw.com/en/australia-to-list-hezbollah-as-terrorist-organization/a-59914150 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/27/saudi-arabia-hezbollah-lebanon-al-qard-al-hassan-terrorists

and there is many many other articles that you can find

 Not done for now: Can you please sign your name and put the changes in a change x to y format please. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done period, NYT supports the icon in the Arab world phrasing. The sources provided are about Saudi Arabis designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. nableezy - 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

His birth day: November 28 He is celebrating it today and many Lebanese television programs are celebrating too 91.240.82.50 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Hassan Nasrallah is a named terrorist and militia leader along being a cleric leader in the Shiia community. 81.105.105.34 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Caption for photo "Nasrallah in 2005" typo

Under 2006 Israel–Lebanon conflict, photo has caption with typo "Nashrallah in 2005", which is a misspelling of the name (Nasrallah). Avigl (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Views on homosexuals

I think we should add his views on homosexuals which aren't pretty like his views on Israel or Jews RickyBlair668 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede

I made a lousy attempt at summarizing the lede; as the body isn't comprehensive. It needs some further work still. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

In the personal life section it says On 5 July 2024, Hezbollah media stated that Nasrallah's mother, Hajja Umm Hassan, had passed away. and this is the citation Mother of Hezbollah chief passes away" Tehran Times 25 May 2024 Farrafiq (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

lacking information about Nassrallah's involvement in terrorist activity

In the Image section, I believe you should also considering his negative view in different country as an active terrorist group leader. Ajrdcth (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

you can't call a spade a spade 2A04:4A43:4D0F:FB61:0:0:17D8:5625 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

What was his net worth?

Does anyone have reliable references regarding his wealth, and who is set to inherit his assets? 120.18.67.177 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Pro-Zionist Biases

Are we sure, that this page is not filled with Pro-IDF biases? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you give an example of one in the page currently? TheBooker66 (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Alarabiya Arabic news confirms his death

I am tuned in to multiple news channels at the moment and they have officially confirmed his death, according to the Israeli military (IDF). No written sources yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werkwer (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

https://x.com/Israel/status/1839939956854132917 122.150.211.181 (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Death

Are we all updating information before verification? NyctoReveric (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The page now laughably says that that the IDF (lol) "confirmed" that he was killed. And the reference is to some random Twitter user. 86.164.94.167 (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

that "random" twitter user is the IDF. https://x.com/IDF/status/1839937408587968917 CViB (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassan_Nasrallah&diff=prev&oldid=1248214785 86.164.94.167 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

...it's the IDF. Not Hezbollah. Wait until Hezbollah makes an official statement regarding this.

The link also just says that Nasrallah won't "no longer be able to terrorize the world". This is the actual link to the IDF's official statement: https://idfanc.activetrail.biz/ANC2809202419827556, and this is the press briefing for the bombing. Jebotiacimmater (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah confirmed the death of Hassan Nasrallah. Jebotiacimmater (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is or was

'Is or was' is in no way an academic or scholarly definition of the state of an individual's being, at the most with regard to a military leader. It should be mentioned hereon out that it is unclear at the present moment that reports of Israeli assassination are verifiable or not, but until it is proven with due regard to the standards of sources that Wikipedia uses, 'is' should be the sole used word. Based47 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to "is" because having both is absurd. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit violates WP:NPOV - we have reliable sources reporting a significant view (the Israeli military's) stating that he is dead, but your version claims otherwise.

Just a comment, we do not have reliable sources confirming Nasrallah's death. It is only hearsay at the moment and no evidence has been presented by either sides. Hezbollah and Iran's proxies are completely contradicting Israel's statement, while the IDF reported that Nasrallah is dead. It is best to wait for the dust to settle and for more information to pop up as this case evolves. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Twistedaxe: Please do not break up other editors' comments by inserting your own. Also note that I wrote reliable sources reporting a significant view [...] stating that he is dead, not reliable sources confirming Nasrallah's death.

As for Hezbollah and Iran's proxies are completely contradicting Israel's statement, which sources are you referring to exactly? If you meant the September 27 Reuters article that is currently cited in the article for the sentences A source linked to Hezbollah initially stated to Reuters that Nasrallah was alive, while the Iranian Tasnim News Agency reported that he was safe. and A senior Iranian security official also noted to Reuters that Iran was in the process of verifying his condition: These actually predate Israel's confirming statement. Are there more recent dementis from Hezbollah or Iran? Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the breakup of replies, it was not intended. Also, so far, no, there are no more recent sources for this. According to the Guardian [4], Hezbollah has yet to reply to this statement made by Israel. TwistedAxe [contact] 10:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what this talk about an academic or scholarly definition or at the most with regard to a military leader is about. "X or Y" is a standard way in the English language to express that one of two statements is true. If it doesn't match your stylistic preferences, feel free suggest an alternative wording. But informing our readers accurately and in line with Wikipedia policy has to take precedence over editors' personal aesthetic predilections. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)