Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead

A few comments

• The section "American involvement" seems to be disconnected from the rest of the article to the extent that its relevance is unclear. It is also written in a sort of cheerleading style. It should be replaced or deleted (I would vote for deletion).
• That Hezbollah has an Islamic state as one of its aims is supported by their own web page: http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm . Clicking "Introduction" we get a summary that states this quite explicitly.

-- zero 12:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I clicked on the URL that you gave, and then read the entire Introduction section. There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind .... I read the whole seciotn. I found this:

....

Today, Hezbollah is one of the most prominent Lebanese political parties that has its presence in the parliament with 8 MPs.

Hezbollah today also commands respect politically after it proved its strength with its presence by respecting the values of others in the field.

Hezbollah also sees itself committed in introducing the true picture of Islam, the Islam that is logical. Committed to introduce the civilized Islam to humanity.

...

Hezbollah does not wish to implement Islam forcibly but in a peaceful and political manner, that gives the chance to the majority to either accept or refuse. If Islam becomes the choice of the majority only then will it be implemented. If not it will then continue to co-exist with others on the basis of mutual understanding using peaceful methods to reach peaceful solutions. And that is how the case should be to the non-Islamists as well.

Were you smoking weed or drinking something when you read that section?

Ahhh ... I just checked your "contributions" .... all of them to Jewish or Israeli-related issues .... wow, what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate !

As a matter of fact, the Shiites in Lebanon are not even the second largest group, demographically. They are the thrid or the fourth. Lebanese Constitution requires that the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Primse Minister, a Sunni Muslim, and Speaker of the Parliament, a Shia Muslim (not necessarily from the Hizollah).

Removed quote

I removed the below quote from the introduction. While it is well sourced it is from an inherently biased source and one who is a not a specialist in the region. It could go in the paragraph on western views of Hezbolah, but the quote does not even accurately reflect American policy in the region. The New Yorker used the quote in 2002 to state that "Hezbollah ... may soon find themselves targeted in the Bush Administration's war on terror," something which has largely not come to pass. The best place for the quote might be in Wikiquote. - SimonP 05:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Hezbollah the "A-team" of terrorism and Al Qaeda the "B-team." [1]

NPOV introduction

Hello, you made this edit to the Hezbollah article, claiming that it was more neutral that way. I see that in the old version, H. was described as a "Islamist group" that is "regarded" "as a legitimate resistance movement" "by many in the Arab and Muslim world" but as "a terrorist organization" "by the United States and some other Governments". In your version, this became "a national resistance movement" "perceived as a" "Islamist group" "by many Zionist and neo-conservative analysts". I would argue that this is a strong introduction of POV, and by no means an introduction of more neutrality, as "resistance" clearly is a positive view upon what Hezbollah does, and the claim that all who oppose its methods or ideology were zionists or neocons is plain nonsense. To find some sort of compromise, I have changed the article, so that it now claims that Hezbollah as a "militant group", regarded by those and those as such and such, etc.-- 790 07:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If HezbAllah is not an Islamist org, then what is? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

@ H. sapiens: Well personally I would agree that Hezbollah is an Islamist group, but it should be clear that some people may regard this label as POV, so I wrote that it is a "militant" group - no question on that - that some call "islamist" and others call a "resistance group". Wouldn't you agree on that? -- 790 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

@ Fares S: I pointed out that I think your definition is completely inacceptable, and you won't make it more acceptable by jsut reverting to it. -- 790 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot please everyone, but need to reflect NPOV. In this case, it its safe to call them Islamist. We may say that according to scholar A, they are X; organization B designated them as Y, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, well... that is just what I suggested, isn't it, just that I would abstain from refering to it as "being" islamist and rather say that many "regard" them as islamist, while many muslims reject that designation. That passage could be changed insofar that "many" regard them as islamist, not only the US and some other governements. Cheers -- 790 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with the last version of 790/Tamams Fares S 08:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we don't refer to them as being islamist because some people reject the term then we wouldn't be able to refer to any organization as Islamist. I would agree with Humus and present them as an Islamist organization but adding an Addendum saying some reject that term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Humus and Moshe here. "Islamist" has a recognised meaning, while militant is close to meaningless and getting closer every time it is used as a code-word for terrorist. I've put Islamist back in the first line, but in any case I've expanded on Hezbollah's ideology, the link with Iran, and a little more info on the terrorist thing. If people don't like the term "Islamist", and I know a lot of people don't for perfectly valid reasons, maybe the best place to point that out is on the page about Islamism (or else, can we say fundamentalist instead?)? I suppose saying an "Islamic" movement would be an OK alternative. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig that their alliance with secular groups is irrelevant. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party; that doesn't make them communists, nor does it stop the LCP being communists. They're also allied with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party - does that mean that the SSNP are no longer a secular Syrian nationalist party? The structures of Lebanese politics mean that parties are always allying with those they disagree with. That doesn't mean they have given up on their ideology. I would ask those demanding to remove "Islamist" two questions: 1. Would "Islamic" be an acceptable alternative?; 2. If we can't say "Islamist", how should we describe HA's political outlook? Just calling it a resistance organization misses a lot of the point, and fails to distinguish it from the LCP, OCA, SSNP, etc, which surely we can all agree are quite ideologically distinct from HA despite all being involved in the resistance. Palmiro | Talk 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Palmiro, however I think "Islamic" doesn't really capture the point, especially in a situation like Lebanon where politics are pretty much only divided between Christian, Druze, and Islamic. When seeing the designation of "Islamic" a reader might be left with the impression that it is onlt saying that most of their support comes from Muslims, if we use "Islamist" it really shows underscores the fact that being Muslim is central to their organization's identity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as a big problem (and don't forget that in Lebanon, Druze are a Muslim group!); it's quite common to refer to the Murabitoun and other secular groups as largely "Muslim", they are rarely called Islamic, while on the other hand groups such as the Islamist nuts in Tripoli that Arafat cosied up to in 1982 as well as the Hizbullah are often termed "Islamic". Nevertheless, my preference too is for "Islamist". By the way, "scientific transliteration" is common terminology, and many linguists not to mention Arabists of my acquaintance could get quite annoyed by your taking issue with it;). Palmiro | Talk 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying transliteration isn't a difficult and important subject, but when I think of science I think of people using the scientific method- that is they come of with a hypothesis to answer a question then set about proving it. To transliterate someone just has to have a suffcient command of both languages, then figure out how to phonetically write a word of one language with the characters of the other. Also even if Druze are classified as Islamic, they are still usually in groups by themselves.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Also, I'm restoring the introduction to the more balanced version that was there previously. The current second sentence is not by any means suitable. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. We've discussed this before when you trried to make that change a couple of minth ago, and you did no thave consensus for thta change then, and you don't have it now. Isarig 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to that discussion? As far as I can see the insertion of what I just deleted was made without any discussion. You were right to put "Islamist" back in instead of "militant" though - that was an oversight on my part. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the discussion above, under the heading NPOV Introduciton - but my main objection was the use of "resistance" instead of Islamist, which you seem to agree with. I have no problem with the rest of your changes.Isarig 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and goals

Just looking again at the intro, which I think I more or less wrote in its current form and was happy enough with at the time, it strikes me that it gives a somewhat misleading impression in bluntly stating that HA wishes to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon. It is quite an important point that HA has since the mid-80s accepted that this canonly come about through the consensus of the Lebanese people - which of course relegates it to a purely idealistic level as various commentators have pointed out, since there's little prospect of the Lebanese people as a whole agreeing to such a development in the foreseeable future. Palmiro | Talk 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro is a Mess

This introduction needs to be cleaned up. It is too long, there are a number of incorrect citations, there are too many citations, and its simply confusing and poorly written. --Infernallek 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)infernallek

Social services in intro

I started a section on social services provided by Hezbollah, moved the commentary in the intro to the new section and linked from the intro to the new section, but these edits were reverted. The intro is way too long and is used by both supporters and critics of Hezbollah for POV pushing. I feel the social services provided by Hezbollah are important enough to have their own section. Can we discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, nobody seems to want to discuss! Does anyone have any objections to me creating a social services section with the information from the intro? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No objections. I think it is a valid addition. Mceder 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's such a section now, but I didn't add it! It appeared overnight ... I just fixed up some of the punctuation and citations. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

references in intro

Any good arguments for overloading the intro with references to undisputed facts, that all are dealt with in greater detail in the article, such as it is a party and that Israel withdraw from (most of) southern Lebanon in 2000? Bertilvidet 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro's been used for POV-pushing all along. I don't know of any good reasons for any extensive introduction. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, can we keep the intro trimmed down as much as possible? It seems as the addition of anything to the intro starts reverting fun that spirals out of control. Mceder 18:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What should it read? Hezbollah: Definition: Hezbollah? There is no way of defining them without bias. They claim to be a legitimate resistance against Israel and call for a Global Jihad. Others (especially Hezbollah's enemies) consider it a terror organization. How would you like the introduction to read? Labaneh 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine now. All the POV pushing has moved into "Background". JiHymas@himivest.com 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree its fine "now", as in: Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite political party[2], with a military arm and a civilian arm [3]. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[4] that lasted until 2000[5]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.

However, I still do not see any reason for having all those disturbing footnotes confirming undisputed facts. Bertilvidet 20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the footnotes ... they don't take up much space and it's better than the usual unsupported 'As everybody knows, Hezbollah is .... '! If we have to have one extreme or the other (and I think we do), I'll go for over-citation. It would be nice if the references were put inside 'ref' tags. I haven't done it because that section changes so rapidly anyway. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone else agree that Israeli Occupation is a loaded term? Occupation implies a colony like British occupying Palestine or India. Most Israelis do not see "Lebanon" of the 80s as an occupation.Labaneh 04:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My agreement or opinion matters not, but it does seem some credible sources out there seem to at least refer to it as an occupation, or more commonly together as the invasion and occupation. Two brief examples below. Mceder 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Israeli invasion and occupation

Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Credible sources call Hezbollah a terrorist organization, we're not going solely by sources here, we're going for NPOV, and for the record, many view BBC as a news outlet as having a virulent Anti-Israel bias. Labaneh 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupation does not imply colony. Occupation implies a military force "occupying" territory - like the US occupying Japan after WW2, or the Germans occupying France during it. I have no problems with "Israeli Occupation" as a NPOV statement of fact. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I believe "introduction" is very brief and suitable description to introduce Hezbollah and it shouldn't be omitted.--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This part is formed to move unnecessary part from lead to body of article and if we omit this part, the lead will become long again.--Sa.vakilian 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know... it seems to me like the "Introduction" was better split up into its relevant sections. This way, you could get a good overview of the organization by reading the stuff under the top-level heading on each section, and you also wouldn't have to reread content that would have to be duplicated under both the introduction and the relevant section. Thoughts?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I guess my guiding philosophy is that each section (Military, Civilian activities, Foreign relations, etc.) has its own introduction, making a comprehensive introduction unnecessary, as long as the lead is doing its job.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• But I would agree that the introduction to each section has to be pruned, if this is going to be workable, by relegating more content to subsections.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there weren't a big problem.I'm almost sure if we omit this part, then most of editors add such sentences in the lead. please look at this:[6](background=introduction).If you pay attention to history of this article, you'll find this part worked as a stack for moving some part of lead and shorten it. So I just want to prevent a loop.--Sa.vakilian 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In a normal publishing world, where one of us could spend a week writing a proper article that would be rarely changed, I would be in better agreement with Banzai, although I would retain a very short introduction that explained the structure of the article as much as anything else. In this world, where we have instances of vandalism and POV pushing every 5 minutes, I agree with Sa.vakilian. The old introduction was useful ... all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there, and it would be reverted by the other side very quickly. I'll confess, I never edited even the most egregious garbage in the intro ... I've only got one life to live! This new format hasn't been in existence long, but it does seem to me that the POV pushing has been smeared all over the page, making it more a nuisance. Bottom line? I say keep the intro until Hezbollah's out of the headlines for a few days, just as a 'pressure release valve'. Maybe we can start it off by getting Sa.vakilian and Labenah to write alternate sentences! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(lol!) I like that proposal. Maybe you’re right.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on my idea about Introduction. So please do what you find right.--Sa.vakilian 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We should semiprotect of the page If there is vandalism every 5 minutes. like what is done in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I try to make introduction NPOV but it's impossible.So I prefer to have a POV introduction instead of a POV lead. As I told before I agree with Banzai, But I'm almost sure the lead attracts the POV-pushers like bees to honey because this issue is very controversial.Then all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there. If you doubt, Please pay attention to history.--Sa.vakilian 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. What I've been doing so far is looking at the "diff" between the current revision and when I last looked at it, which is sort of a pain, but tells you everything that's changed so you can look for blatant POV-ness throughout the article, not just in any one section. A "honeypot" would make this easier for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. So far I've just been checking the diff's for blatant POV. A "honeypot" would make this easier, for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So I add a brief version of introduction.--Sa.vakilian 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the introduction before noticing this talk. Sorry about that. But I really think that the question about whether Hizbullah is terrorist or not does not need to be repeated 3 times in the article, especially since it is the focus of a huge amount of edits. If this bothers anyone, we can merge the entire introduction with the "mini introduction" in the beginning of the article. Marokwitz 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Szvest 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Removing reference

Trying to clean up the reference a bit again.. "though it also opposes, at least ideologically, Israel’s existence at all." This ending line of the intro is backed by 4 references. Including this one:

MSN Encarta. "Hezbollah (Full article requires registration)".

1. I suggest we remove this reference based on the fact that it requires registration. The info without registration is about two lines worth of nothing. The three other references are good enough. Mceder 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's plenty of references for that one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

use of the word "terrorist"

--Rm uk

"Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts..." complete bull! someone mark this statment. what terrorist acts? the Israelis have killed ten times more than Hezbollah in this conflict why don't they get a terrorist mention in their wiki page.

"Despite the fact that Hezbollah was not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this particular bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement."

the word terrorist derives from an opinion. governments have a history of callin their enemies terrorists. If the word terrorist is applied to hezbollah then the article is bias because terrorist is a moral judgement

The definition of Terrorism since 9/11 has changed from "spreading terror," to any military act against civilians by a non governmental organization. If this were the 20's, yes what Israel is doing would be considered a terrorist act, just as the bombing of the King David Hotel by Lechi or Irgun (I can't remember which) was a terrorist act. But in this day and age, Hezbollah is an aggressor and does not wholly repesent a sovereign government. It's attacks are stated as being against civilians, with the stated intent of killing them. Israeli attacks are stated as being against infrastructure to end the killing of civilians, as well as to kill active members of Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah hides among civilians, is what has caused the death of so many Lebanese civilians in this conflict. And by the way, official counts on the Lebanese side show only twice as many killed or injured, not ten times as many.

I also agree, I mean many of the things we consider as terrorist acts, such as bombing civilian infrastructure, spread fear and terror to force people into complying with them; the State of Israel does on a regular basis. Why aren't they called terrorists, when they bomb a flat killing 58 civilian? Oh but when Hezbollah fires a rocket and kills 2 Israelis, oh then the world wakes up and scorns Hezbollah for such "provocative" actions. Until we come to a conclusion about the true stance and nature of Hezbollah, you should really refrain from using the world terrorist, unless it's in relation to certain attacks they carried out and so on. I mean Israel are no big humanitarians themselves, they've killed more civilians than Hezbollah could hope to murder in several lifetimes, yet there's probably one mention of the word "terrorist" on their page.

Israel has a apologise profusely for the bombing in Qana. If they were bombing indiscriminately would they not be carpet bombing neighbourhoods like the Russians in Chechnya? Has Hezbollah apologised for the loss of one civilian on either side? It says a lot really as to intention. It is a terrorist act to target civilians and definitely if no remore or apologies are indicated. Qana looks more and more to have been an exaggeration by the day. 58 civilians can no longer be qualified. Please back this up. Kaltik

Please don't suddenly slap labels over this article unless it is really necessary.

The labels need to be there. You amongst others are showing a complete lack of balance and excusing terrorism in the extreme. Kaltik

58.178.120.62 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)ap89

Why are we discussing the Israeli article on this page? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts, there is disagreement in the international political community"

This is a terrible sentence which Isarig insists on it. If there isn't consensus in the social communities and just few countries have recognized it as a terrorist organisation, then how can you say "terrorist acts"? This is your POV. I propose to write "military" instead of "terrorist".--Sa.vakilian 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No one in their right mind disputes that the bombing of a civilian community center is an act of terrorism. WP policy is not to label entire groups as terrorist, and so Hizbollah is not labeled as such (though it has been designated as such by many countries) - but that does not mean we can whitewash allegations that it is linked to terrorism by calling those acts "military". Just as the 9/11 events are rightly described as "a series of coordinated suicide terrorist attacks" on that WP article, the bombing of the Jewsih Community center in Argentina is rightly described as "the largest single incident of terrorism against Jews" - and Hezbollah has been linked to it. Why you would want to whitewash this heinous crime is beyond me. Isarig

Look at "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts". Is it neutral? It induces a blame as a fact. Do you agree with writing this sentence in the lead of Israel:"Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..."--Sa.vakilian 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts" is both neutral and factual. I again refer you to AMIA Bombing which clearly states "In 1999 an arrest warrant was issued against Hezbollah member Imad Mugniyah, in connection with the attack." Isarig 13:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So you agree with adding "Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..." in the lead of Israel because of Sabra and Shatila Massacre, 1996 shelling of Qana and many other genocides which Israel is blamed for them by some countries.--Sa.vakilian 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No neutral person or historian has ever linked the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla to anything remotely bordering on genocide. It completely defies its meaning and detracts from Hezbollah's targeting of innocent people inside Israel or using their own people as human shields Kaltik

Please read Definition of terrorism. Over a 100 definitions have been used for this word. It makes it very difficult to use, because it means so many different things.

Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts...

What terrorist acts? Could we define this instead of using a sentence that only reveals one 'fact'? Could we then perhaps remove the loaded term 'terrorist act? I think if we do, the POV, seen from either the Hezbollah-is-a-satanic-terrorist-organisation camp or the Hezbollah-loves-Israeli-babies camp, should go away, no?

Perhaps defining it all as it is, with references backing up the statements:

Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.

Heck, even better:

Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.

Main article: List of Hezbollah attacks

Mceder 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly: can we please stop discussing Israel? I don't give a #@%@! about Israel. I have presumed throughout that H is an organization run by adults. Adults take responsibility for their own actions. 'He did it first!' is an excuse only amongst 12-year-olds.

Secondly: The "terrorist" label has been applied by influential players and has a great deal of practical effect. Anyone who disagrees can set up a donation box outside the White House and see what happens. An article which does not mention this is a bad article.

Thirdly: With respect to what I think is the issue being debated, there is no harm being absolutely specific: "Hezbollah has been linked by the US to several attacks considered terrorist. Several nations have followed the US lead in deeming the organization to be terrorist, in whole or in part."

JiHymas@himivest.com 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

firstly:I speak about Israel because I want to show to every wikipedians that saying such a thing and blaming the others is too easy, so try to respect others and not to blame them.

Secondly if "there is disagreement in the international political community" why don't we write "Although some countries recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate organization, some others blame Hezbollah for several attacks and recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization."--Sa.vakilian 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I support Sa.vakilian's phrasing (to be loaded down with references, of course) JiHymas@himivest.com 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this sentence:

"Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below) considered by some to be terrorist attacks, but has not claimed responsibility for any of these acts. It is viewed by many Muslim countries, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist, as an organization of legitimate resistance against Israel. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization."

Hezbollah and its supporters accept its responsibility for military attacks to Israeli armies and civilians but there is disagreement about what should we called this. Somebody called it legitimate resistance, retaliate attacks, fighting with Israel as a illegal and illegitimate state or terrorist acts.

So this sentence isn't suitable. The first sentence is fault and the second one too. Who do not recognize Israel's right to exist called Hezbollah attacks "Jihad" and who are opposo to occupation of Lebanon by Israel called it legitimate resistance.--Sa.vakilian 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. To dispute this is to apply moral relativity to an absurd extreme. Whatever applicability you want to apply to the maxim "one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter" does not diminish the fact that the actions of Hezbollah toward Israel (and others) subjects them to feelings of fear and TERROR ...

on Israel

The israel section has statements that aren't well supported by the cites supplied. The 2003 CNN interview, see above, doesn't identify the disputed territory and doesn't say anything about prisoners being the only problem. The other quotes are about Israel-Palestine relations and Hez involvement. They do not support the statement that Hez does not want to destroy Israel and doe snot have capibility. Please supply some that do and please don't remove the tag until you do. Elizmr 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied in #Apologetics.

You've replied, thanks, but you still haven't supplied an acceptable and clear citation for the sentence that appears in the Wikipedia article. Elizmr 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm prepared to recognize your compromise settlement, and I will not sabotage what is finally a pretty good idea.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I gues you were temporarily prepared to recognize, until you wereen't and rephrased it. Really Banzai, you are inserting what is essentially a whitewash that you can't back up with citations in the lead of an encyclopedia article. I understand you think you've supported it, but you haven't. The statement should not be in the lead at all but I am willing to leave a weakneded version. Please don't keep reverting without a better cite. Elizmr 00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your edit, that is, pointing out that interviewers of Hezbollah's leadership suggest that its calls to destroy Israel are rhetorical. I disagreed with the grammatical errors and clumsy wording. I'm with you that none of this belongs in the lead, but people used to keep editing it to include "Hezbollah also plans to kill every Israeli" or some other such nonsense, and those of us editing the article at the time thought it necessary to clarify the reality of the situation.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from intro: "Calls continue for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel),[7] another founding objective,[4] but several journalists who claim to have interviewed some of Hezbollah’s supposed leadership may or may not have suggested that this serves, nowadays, only rhetorical purposes, though this could be uncertain, and some have, purportedly, further disputed the uncertainty itself." I believe you mean "several purported journalists" JiHymas@himivest.com 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally a good background to Hezbollah. However, it vastly underplays the extent to which they've become an Iranian pawn in Iran's quest to further it's own aims in the region (even though there are few innocent parties in the existing conflict).

"it originally sought also to bring Islamic Revolution to Lebanon,[4] but soon abandoned this goal for a more moderate, inclusive platform of democratic change".

I think even hardened Hezbollah supporters have might have trouble supporting this one.

The citations for the statement, "...which extended to a desire for the elimination of “the Zionist entity.." from the first para. on "POSITION ON ISRAEL" are quite dubious in terms of neutrality. establishing an account of these positions should be done through citation of hezbollah sources, not terrorist organization listings from western countries.--jc: unregistrered user. 17 August 2006.

The first citation is their founding document; the third is a little dubious since it's just a student newspaper, but by and large I think they're OK. Western governments are an authoritative source; if they have justified their positions by such and such a summary, the summary is a good reference. Additionally, the statement is consistent with numerous direct quotes published by authoritative sources. If you have anything that would contradict anything in the article, we'd love to see it! JiHymas@himivest.com 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to make the article better/limiting the size

On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'

I think this should be removed from the introduction because those that would rather list the nations that don't list H as a terrorist organization instead will keep changing it, and there will never be consensus on this. One could say that while some nations designate H as a terrorist org, others do not. This is already discussed extensively in the article.

Hezbollah was formed primarily to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[18],[19] Hezbollah initially aimed to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic, though it has since abandoned this goal in favor of a more inclusive platform.[6] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto.

This paragraph is in three sections. The article is too long, why not limit it to only one or even two?

- The civilian activities introduction could be merged with the social services sub-section, since they largely say the same thing. Coolintro 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd do this myself, but I am still learning how to edit. Coolintro 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The section labeled "intro" is repetitive and could be deleted in my opinion. Elizmr 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'

This should be removed; If you put Israel on the list you need to also put all the opinions of the Muslim countries too. Or again it becomes a POV. --SkyEarth 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We have made introduction to prevent a long lead. If you look at here, you'll find the reason. Also we put a paragraph which should be written in the lead to acheive consensus about it. There is written <!--following part is moved here until we acheive consensus about it.-->. Also look at here .--Sa.vakilian 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is suitable for Lead

Related threads have been gathered here. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I think this part "and started again on July 12, 2006 after Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers and killing of eight others in a cross-border raid into Northern Israel...Hezbollah's cross-border raid prompted Israel to bomb Hezbollah targets within Lebanon, in response Hezbollah has persisted at firing hundreds of Ketusha rockets each day at northern Israel. Israel has responded by waging a ground and air war against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including dropping depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs. " shouldn't be written in lead. Of course it should be moved to History of Hezbollah. But Shamir has insisted on remaining it. I want to know the other ideas.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with Sa.vakilian. The lead should very briefly sum up what the organization stands for and its history. The focus of this article has to be the organization of Hizbullah, not the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which has its own article. Bertilvidet 08:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian as well, for what it's worth. The disputed section is gone now. But maybe it will back! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears POV is creeping back into the lead. The statement

It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada[7]

seems unnecessary, since there is a section in the body about which entities designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Also, the sources referenced by this statement

. But other countries don't agree with them. The Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against occupation[8][9].

Don't substantiate the claims that the Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against the occupation.

Jonexsyd 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence One of Hezbollah's principal declared aims is to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon that lasted from 1982 through 2000 and again starting in July of 2006 due to attacks inflicted on Israel by Hezbollah and the continuous occupation of the Shebaa Farms. is starting to sound non-sensical. Tense of "aims is" is wrong given than the 1982-2000 conflict is in the past.

Will make an edit that fixes the tense issue and removes POV statements. Jonexsyd 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the phrase "It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada." in the lead. It gives the impression that only those countries consider it a terrorist organization. Should we add something like "many western countries"? Or is that too unspecific and POV as well? What do you think? Any ideas? --Splette ^Talk 12:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't just use the international definition of terrorism, which is the intentional targeting of civilians for advancing political agenda and be done with it.Labaneh 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we use this definition then we should say the government of U.S. and Israel are terrorist too.--Sa.vakilian 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the emphasis here is on targeting civilians which neither US nor Israel do in my opinion. But this article is not about mine or your opinion. So lets better not start a political discussion here. Also I wasn't trying to suggest here to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the lead. It's just that the mentioning of US, Canada and Isreal makes it look like these are all countries. It would be interesting to see if/what other countries officialy recognize Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Does anyone have any information (with source) on this? --Splette ^Talk 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the lead - what justification has been given for putting the terrorist designation ahead of the resistance movement designation in the lead? In other words: who decides whether the less negative or more negative characterisation of an entity should lead? Do negative characterisations always take precedence? If not, why so in this case?

Jonexsyd 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

POV lead

I put POV tag and put description here[7]. --Sa.vakilian 13:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A tag is mostly meant to stimulate discussion, and there is quite a bit already ongoing. I'd propoe that we remove it. - brenneman ^{L} 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the debates. It shows neutrality of the lead is disputed.--Sa.vakilian 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is not neutral in the lead? Elizmr 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian, the lead is clearly POV as of 03:35, 13 August 2006. Compare it with the lead of 21:19, 8 August 2006, which was fine.

• The Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh,[2] meaning Party of God) is a Shi’a Islamic organization and political party in Lebanon, comprising a military and a civilian arm, whose primary stated goal is to defend Southern Lebanon against present or future Israeli occupation.[3][4][5][6] The current Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has held the office since 1992.

• The United States, Canada, and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but the European Union and the United Nations have no official position on the matter.[7][8] The vast majority of Lebanese and some Muslim states regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against present or future Israeli occupation.[9]

See also here, where the issue was raised, discussed and ignored. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Current discussion

The lead is wrong.Please look at this sentence: "Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below) considered by some to be terrorist attacks, but has not claimed responsibility for any of these acts. It is viewed by many Muslim countries, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist, as an organization of legitimate resistance against Israel. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization."

Hezbollah and its supporters accept its responsibility for military attacks to Israeli armies and civilians in Lebanon and Israel but there is disagreement about what it should be called . It's called legitimate resistance, retaliate attacks, fighting with Israel as a illegal and illegitimate state or terrorist acts.

So this sentence isn't suitable. The first sentence is fault and the second one too. Who do not recognize Israel's right to exist called Hezbollah attacks "Jihad" and who are opposo to occupation of Lebanon by Israel called it legitimate resistance.

Please look at to [8] too.--Sa.vakilian 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Sa.vakilian 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see your point. Let's figure out how to make this work. I'll write something and please let me know what you think. By the way--I did not take out the tag. Elizmr 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that is glossed over in this article is the internal power struggle in the early '90's, when Hezbollah was under pressure from Syria to become a political party and Secretary-General Tufayli was ousted (later discredited, then outlawed with H's tacit agreement, then disappeared (unknown whether exile or death). It seems to me that Hezbollah under Musawi and Nasrullah is a very different group from the one that (maybe) executed the spectacular attacks in the '80's and that (maybe) the Argentine bombings were the last gasp of the more radical elements. It is very clear from sources already quoted in the article (e.g. http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/norton.html) that there has been a change - perhaps big, perhaps small, perhaps not enough - since the early days. I suggest that any discussion of the major attacks should note who was Sec-Gen at the time. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved some part of lead to the introduction .

Hezbollah is widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings (see "Operational History", below). The characterization of these attacks varies widely. They are viewed by many Muslim countries, who for the most part do not recognize Israel's statehood, as legitimate acts of resistance, or Jihad, against Israel. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when most of these attacks took place and is still considered by Hezbollah, but not the UN, to occupy a small piece of land. Others consider these attacks to be "terrorist" acts.

Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Other countries, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Israel consider Hezbollah to be -completely or partly- a terrorist organization''.

I'd rather to achive a consensus then move this part to lead again.--Sa.vakilian 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This lead is 100% POV and should be deleted.

"widely believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings" Who "widely believed" this statement, you? You cannont use "widely". And which incidents are you refering to? "Multiple kidnappings, murders, hijackings, and bombings" name them and show proof.

"They are viewed by many Muslim countries, who for the most part do not recognize Israel's statehood, as legitimate acts of resistance, or Jihad, against Israel"

Are you joking? This is trash. Who are the "many Muslim countries"? MOST MUSLIM COUNTRIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE SHI'ITE MUSLIMS, BECAUSE 90% OF MUSLIME ARE SUNNI NOT SHI'ITE!! Here is just one artile proving this http://www.nysun.com/article/36373

SO YOU ARE 100% WRONG THAT THEY HAVE THIS SUPPORT! Only Iran and Syria support Hezbollah because Iran is the only almost 100% shi'ite muslim country on earth.

I could go on and on about your dumb posting. Delete it.

SkyEarth --SkyEarth 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and we can have a rational discussion and - hopefully - come to a consensus on this issue which you feel deserves the pressing of your caps lock key. ~ clearthought 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clearthought, I am 100% calm. I am not Jewish or Arab/Muslim but I am tired of all the mistakes making it through as "facts". Can't we learn that there are several "strands" of Islam like Christianity (protestans vs. Catholics). The Sunnis are the "Kings" of Islam. 90% of muslims worldwide are Sunni. The only country that is 88%+ Shi'ite is Iran. Therefore, it is only natural they are so supportive of Hezbollah, i.e. a Shi'ite movement. The rest of the Arab world hates shi'ites and are extreamly suspicious Shi'ites due to the fact that it come from Iran which is NEITHER ARAB NOR SUNNI. So, most Arab govt' are deeply worried about Hezbollah gaining influcence and therefore issue fatwas against Hezbollah (http://www.nysun.com/article/36373).

And the Syrians only support it because they are still at war with Israel and it is a marriage of conveinence.

So it is really is a lot more complex than most people think. Thank you for your attention. --SkyEarth 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, that is only one Saudi Sheik. Many Sunnis have supported - to a certain extent - there Shia 'adversaries', but nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, all under the US's grip (to a certain extent), have partially condoned Hezbollah. This Slate feature might be helpful to all trying to understand the situation. This BBC News page (and linked pages) may also be of use. ~ clearthought 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clearthough, Agree with above. The problem is that they (the Arabs) are foes of both Iran and Israel. The Shi'ite Persians on one hand and the Jewish Israelis on the other. They are Sunni Arab and are caught between which ones they "hate" and "fear" the least. And, right now I would say that they hate and fear Isreal less than Iran. I think because of the Shi'ite/sunni fight in Iraq this has caused them to tip more in favour or hating Israel less than Iran. But, nevertheless, most sunni arab muslims in power fear the shi'ite rise. So therefore, Hezbollah is both loved and hated. --SkyEarth 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can't beleive the guy who tried to talk us into that most of the Muslim world is against Hezbolla, the only logical explanation is that he comes from another galaxy, the (fatwa) he quoted from the saudi sheikh was condemned by all muslims (especially sunnis), by now muslims know that the alleged saudi sheikh's fatwa was a dirty trick, Americans order their puppets in KSA to pressure the resistence in lebanon, who in turn give orders to their puppets to issue such statements. Yes sunnis & shiaa have their differences, but by no means do one side prefer Israel to the other, Republicans & democrats hate the guts of each other, but i don't think democrats would prefer taliban to republicans. So yes, ALL muslims are backing Hezbolla 101%, & i mean muslim people, so don't quote from a government official or an arab president, cause we consider them our enemies same like israel. Arabs & muslims regard hezbolla as heros & as their only hope, don't ever say that hezbolla is hated or feared in the Muslim world, & don't ommit the feelings of 1.3 billion muslims because some good for nothing saudi sheikh was trying to comply with what his prince asked him to say.

I think something about the "operational history" should be in the lead. I worded the above to underline that there is a widely disparate view of these attacks. Could we discuss and come to consensus about what we could say that we could all be happy with? Elizmr 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I try to make this part neutral, NPOV and fair. Of course my English isn't very well thus I may make some mistakes. Please look at following text and write your idea.

Hezbollah and Israel have participated in too many military clashes against each other sience 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. Also both of them have attacked on civilians and assassinated or captured each other.

There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be called. Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement because Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when most of these attacks took place and is still considered by Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms also Israel has held some Lebanese in the jail. The muslims who recognize Israel as an illigitimate state called it Jihad. Russia , the European Union, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia among others do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The United States, Canada, and Israel consider Hezbollah a full terrorist organization while the Australians and Dutch only view Hezbollah's external Security Organization as a terrorist Group. UN do not considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.(ref. Designation as a 'terrorist' organization)"--Sa.vakilian 08:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Everyone, I still do not agree that they have wide support in the muslim world. Please read Clearthough's and SkyEarth's comment's above. Everyone can agree that is has always been popular with the shi'ites but it has not always been popular with the sunni's until recently.--82.35.35.4 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sa.vakilian. Here's my edit. I think we should focus on Hezbollah's acts here, rather than Israels (because this article is about Hezbollah), but say CLEARLY and strongly why Hezbollah feels they are justified becuas that is important. Is that general idea ok? Also, I think we should say that not all of the Arab Muslim world feels this way because of the comment above. What do you think? Below, the first part is background to the second part.

Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings , murders , hijackings, and bombings (note: for Israeli attacks on Hezbollah please see x). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization (see section x below).

Elizmr 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to the above discussion (not an expert or even very well-informed - in fact I came to read the article so I would be better informed) but here are a few thoughts (hopefully helpful):

(1) The article is indeed really long and should be split into side articles

(2) The level of writing ability for large parts of the article seems low, especially compared to other articles of this level/type. I mean no offense by this (as I wish I could read/write/speak another language) but it reads as though it was written by mostly non-native writers.

(3) Whoever spent all the time finding/citing sources is to be commended - been there/done that and it's a LOT of effort.

(4) Large parts of the article do tend to come across as POV, from both for and against sides though it reads to me as being largely written by pro-Hezbollah writers. (Note that I'm sure there's some bias in me too, as a typical American) Sources are helpful and add legitimacy, but when opinions are cited as fact, it still violates the NPOV principle.

I hope that helps, just a neutral wikipedian's thoughts. David Schroder 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the whole article until some balance can be achieved. Elizmr 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed due to insufficient rationale. If you wish to tag the article, go ahead, but if there is no specific reason given, with a current wording and a suggested wording that we can look at and vote on, it will be removed again. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting my paragraph (see above) in the lead. I'm assuming this is ok with others since no one has made comments. Elizmr 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved a long paragraph to here because it was very long and not suitable for lead.

"Another founding objective of the organization was elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel), and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings , murders , hijackings, and bombings . (note: Israel's retialitory attacks not discussed here). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization. "

Please discuss here to acheive consensus about what ara proposed.--Sa.vakilian 02:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian: I have discussed with you and incorporated your points and others to the best of my abilities. You keep deleting this but have not said anything specifically about what you disagree with. This is highly relevant well sourced information about HEzbollah which describes a crux issue. It is competely acceptable for the lead. Please stop taking it out. Instead, please tell me exactly what you feel is wrong with it, OK? Elizmr 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Elimer's comment review. 1- "violent acts" should be changed to "acts" otherwise it is POV. "violent acts" is not neutral. "violent" has a strong and negative meaning 2- "Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state." This is false; Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/01/international/i131823D79.DTL), Turkey, Mauritania, Azerbijan (http://www.azembassy.com/archive/2002/media/cjn29apr02.htm) and more HAVE ESTABLISHED REALTIONS WITH ISRAEL; 3- Do no use "jihad" only; Use resistance (Jihad); Jihad has a negative meaning in English. 4- REMOVE "violent" to acts of "resistance" 5- Finish with some states consider hezbollah a "resistance" movement and other consider it a "terroist" organ.

You are expressing a POV wheater you like it or not. --SkyEarth 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel's actions against Hezbollah MUST be expressed here. Or it is POV. It is an organization that is centered around fighting Israel so the battles need to be chronicled; You also cannot use "kidnap" http://www.answers.com/topic/kidnap ; This is not a neutral word. Kidnapping is a crime. Therefore by using it you are suggesting this is a crime. But not everyone will agree with this. Some people will see it as a crime. Others will see it as a strategy to get their own people released that were supposidly "kidnapped"; YOU MUST USE THE WORD "CAPTURE"; Capturing civilian/soldiers to use as bargining tools....

Re SkyEarth's precepts:

• It is perfectly acceptable to refer to "violent acts", to differentiate them from "non-violent acts"
• The quotation is not false, but it could certainly be made more precise. But why bother? This isn't an article about the Arab and Muslim world, it's an article about Hezbollah. Only H's views (and outside analysis of H's views) need to be reported.
• Jihad is perfectly acceptable; Hezbollah has used it to characterize its actions.
• "resistance" is how H describes its violent actions; others describe their violent actions using other terms. Care should be taken to maintain the integrity of paraphrased statements.
• Finish however you like.

JiHymas@himivest.com 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am tagging the article as POV because

1)all the content about hezbollah's violent methodologies in history, etc, has been removed to new articles without being summarized in this one 2)crux issues about history of the organization re: elimination of Israel, history of violence, how this is regarded in the Jihad sense and in the terrorist sense--acknowledging both viewpoints has been repeatedly repeatedly deleted by various editors 3)a un-biased Wikipedian above noted the article had a proHezbollah point of view I would really appreciate it if this tag were not removed dismissively. Elizmr 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian:Length was not an issue that you mentioned before. A lot of the length is due to adding stuff to reflect many viewpoints. Hez is an organization that is based on resistance against Israel. Isn't this true? The issue of views and goals re: Israel belongs in the lead, as does something about where these views come from, what methods have been used to achieve the goals, and viewpoints about the methods. What do you suggest we cut out? I would be willing to do a one or two sentence summary of my paragraph for the lead and then place the whole paragraph in the intro, but you keep deleting it entirely. I just can't find this acceptable. Elizmr 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose this one:"Hezbollah and Israel have participated in many military clashes against each other since 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. The conflicts have been the cause or the result of various kidnappings and assassinations.There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be defined as. 6 or 7 countries recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization the others (mostly muslims) recognized them as a legitimate resistance"

I think it's NPOV and short. We don't need too much details in the lead. If we put the name of one country then we should write the name of other countris too. so we can refer to Outside views of Hezbollah.--Sa.vakilian 03:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of various countries and their characterization is less important than a summary of what the org stands for and what it has done. If we kept what is in the lead short, are you willing to expand somewhat along the lines of what I had written:

Calls continue for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. The State of Israel), a founding objective of the organization. and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been violent and characterized by casualities on both sides. Hezbollah is believed to be responsible for multiple kidnappings , murders , hijackings, and bombings . (note: Israel's retialitory attacks not discussed here). There is a wide disagreement about how these violent acts should be characterized. Israel occupied part of Lebanon during a time when many of these attacks took place, and although Israel considers itself to have ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000, it is still considered by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but not the UN, to occupy Sheba Farms, and holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Additionally, Hezbollah and much of the Arab and Muslim world characterize Israel as an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many consider violent acts performed by the organization to be Jihad, and regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. Other's regard these acts to be terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is considered by some states, but not others, to be a "terrorist" organization. "

in the intro?

I would really appreciate it if this tag were not removed dismissively. Elizmr 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tag might have a better chance of standing up if you are more specific about your complaints and if you attempt in good faith to form a consensus prior to slapping a NPOV tag on the entire article. My memory's getting a little poor in my old age, but I can only recall one debate in which you joined that had to do with specific contentious issue with which you were involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Widened_or_Abandoned. In that topic heading you made three contributions: two were mere assertions that you were right and the third advised that you'd gone ahead and made the change you desired unilaterally. (How you and Sa.vikalian can speak with such certainty as to what is and is not the subject of nods and winks at high-level Hezbollah meetings is quite beyond me. Half the time, I can't even figure out if my girlfriend wants me to stay or go.)

• Your claim that "'1)all the content about hezbollah's violent methodologies in history, etc, has been removed to new articles without being summarized in this one'" is without foundation. There are plenty of direct references in "Stance on the use of 'terrorist' tactics", "Position on Israel", "Relationship to Hamas and Palestinian national movement" and "Assistance from abroad".
• With respect to "History" specifically, this was discussed and consensus reached under the heading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hezbollah#Remove_.22Operational_History.22 . You received no support for your somewhat unspecific position; in fact, your contributions were unspecific complaints and a novel definition of the word "consensus"
• Your remaining claims are too general to warrant retaining the tag.

I vote: Remove Tag. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, it looks like you screwed up the references... And, this sentence Hezbollah attempts to maintain websites to run recruitment videos and post bank account numbers where supporters can donate funds.[72] These websites are also considered "an inseparable part of the psychological war"[73] and are tracked by other groups with a view to their closure.[74] seems made up. The links have nothing to do with that sentence. Coolintro 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All references were garbled by the extra ref tag in this revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=69941351&oldid=69941078 I've fixed it. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up the refs. It was not intentional. Consensus means everyone's opinions are considered and listened to. What is novel about that? In the middle of a Hazbollah-provoked war, three people decided to bury the operational history of Hezbollah on a separate page due to the length of the article, while overlooking much repetitive prose and devoting great swaths to social programs, etc. This effectively whitewashes the organization. I will take the tag off the article when, for a start, the article acknowledges Hezbollah's violent methods (I was going to say "past methods" but recent kidnapping and murders did not really allow me to do this) and future plans rather than putting the ortanization forth as a benign public service organization committed to supporting the development of a pluralistic society in Lebanon. It is ok to say anything positive anyone wants about Hezbollah. Given the facts and the cites, I will even write it. But to refuse to air the other side is not Wikipedian. I haven't been able to devote much productive work to this because every time I add a few well-refed sentences they are immediately deleted. Previously, I argued that an analysis from a short BBC piece which did not quote any other literature was not a sufficient cite to support a claim of what Hezbollah's goals are in the lead of the article. I did not say my opinion was "right" or "wrong", I just said I thought the evidence was not sufficient. Finally, when you quote (?me) saying the following: How you and Sa.vikalian can speak with such certainty as to what is and is not the subject of nods and winks at high-level Hezbollah meetings is quite beyond me. Half the time, I can't even figure out if my girlfriend wants me to stay or go. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your comment that my claims are too general to support the tag are your own value judgement. It looks like you are a new editor on Wikipedia and you are doing a nice job, but I think it is important to remember that you are not the "supervising" editor on this article and everything on Wikipedia is a group project. Elizmr 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: What do you mean from "three people decided to bury the operational history of Hezbollah on a separate page due to the length of the article". I proposed it and I defend my work. This article is too long. Also The history of Hezbollah is not only the the Hezbollah's operation against Israel but it includes the assassinations, bombings and kidnapings which has done by Israel against Hezbollah[9]. You always blame as if Hezbollah is terrorist and Israel only defends on itself and it does some retality attacks. You forget Israel runover Lebanon in 1982. You forget Israel assassinated Hezbollah last Secretary-General and his family. You forget what happened in Qana in 1996. You forget Israel has held some Lebanese for more than 20 years and you forget many other things. Please read this.

I beleive the wikipedians can't judge which one is self defence and which one is terror by themselves.

So I propose this sentence for the lead:"Hezbollah and Israel have participated in many military clashes against each other since 1982, which result in casualties on both sides. The conflicts have been the cause or the result of various kidnappings and assassinations against each other.[10],

[11]There is a wide disagreement about what Hezbollah should be defined as. 6 or 7 countries recognized it-completely or partly- as a terrorist organization the others recognized them as a legitimate resistance" --Sa.vakilian 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian, I think that your pov that the violence is all mutual with hostilities going equally in both directions is competely and totally valid and should be aired here. There are other povs too which need to be aired if the article is to be balanced. The sentence you have written does not do justice to all points of view. Elizmr 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV. I think Israel occupied Lebanon and killed innocent people and Hezbollah tried to withdraw them. I just propose this sentence help to acheive consensus. If you think there is another NPOV sentence, Please write it and don't blame me.--Sa.vakilian 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When we say that Hezbollah's violent acts are legitimate acts of Jihad and explain all the background--Israeli occupation, Sheba farms, etc--your point of view is aired, isn't it? I tried to write that sentence to express this explicitly. The other point of view, that the violent acts are terrorist also needs to be aired. The best intro sentence just outlines the attacks under discussion. The intro sentence does not need to say anything about WHY, because that comes in the next two bits. With this section in place as it currently stands, I think we are moving towards NPOV. Elizmr 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Please look at this paragraph: "Hezbollah is currently one of the two main organizations representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc, but the only militant one.[28] It is also a recognised political party in Lebanon,[29] currently taking just over 10% of the seats (14 out of 128) in the Parliament of Lebanon. The bloc it forms with others, the Resistance and Development Bloc, 27.3% (see Lebanese general election, 2005). Hezbollah also organises an extensive social development programme which runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad al-Bina') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon.[30]"

This paragraph is a seprate part of the introduction but Elizmr has put it after the debates about "what Hezbollah is called with different countries" and also joins this two issue with this sentence "One argument against labeling Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization is their wider mission and spectrum of activities as a religious, political, and social group."

Elizmr, you'll find this two issue completely seprate if look at the history and I beleive they should be seperate.--Sa.vakilian 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I was trying to condense the section but I certainly see your point. Do you want to put it back or should I? Elizmr 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheba farms in the Intro

I removed this bit of text from the intro: Sheba farms...."which Syria has no intention of ceding to Lebanon; is used as a pretext by Hezbollah to justify "resistance." I see the point that Hezbollah may be using this as a pretext, but this sentence was making the point of why Hezbollah considers their violent acts to be Jihad and it makes that less clear. Also, if this idea (pretext) is going to be in the article, we need a cite. Could we work the idea in elsewhere? Elizmr 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article that references the Hezbollah and should be added to the reference section.

• "Qassem meets U.S. delegation of women," Lebanon Daily Star, November 11, 2005

The lead

Putting Hezbollah goals in the lead

Some of Hezbollah goal has changed during these years. "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" does not pursuit at present. You can find their new viewpoint in many sites for example:[12]. So I think they believe in all of them but they try to adapt themselves with the reality. It means they may ally even with Marrunites.--Sa.vakilian 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, I believe that as well. Is it ok with you to state the founding goals and to state how they have changed? Elizmr 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We can add it in the introduction because the lead should be short.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead IS short and the founding goals are basic. Please leave it. Elizmr 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some sites which say Hezbollah does not pursuit "the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into a Islamic state" for example BBC and [13] and [14]. The second and third ones based this claim on the quotations of Hezbollah members.--Sa.vakilian 05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the section now. That is clearly listed as a founding aim which is clearly stated as being abandoned. The lead needs to give a sense of the history of the org and current status to summarize the article overall. Elizmr 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What has received from Iran

Using has received is not correct. Iran may help them with soldiers at the beginning but it doesn't continua up to now.--Sa.vakilian 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In English "has received" is in the past tense (describes something happening in the past--not now). There is no comment on current funding using "has recieved". Honestly. Please take my word for it. Elizmr 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) NOTE: if one were to say, "receives" or "is receiving" or "continues to receive" that would indicate that current aid is being given. Elizmr 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Control south of Lebanon

"Hezbollah currently controls Southern Lebanon " This sentence isn't clear enough. My English is not very good. Does this sentence means Hezbollah challenges the sovereignty of Lebanon government.In the past years during 80s and 90s SLA controled the South of Litani but it was Israel alliance and it challenges the sovereignty of Lebanon government. --Sa.vakilian 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if it is removed. Elizmr 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

by "referendum" or "by the sword"

I'm not sure who said that the orig goal of the org was to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state "by referendum", but respectfully suggest reading some sources on early Hezbollah. Elizmr 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They wish to realize the Goals of Islamic revolution and take Iran as an example. Their goal was, and still is to mimic the Iranian example of a Islamic Republic of Lebanon through referendum, not force. Such a Islamic Revolution movement can also be found in Iraq like the movement of high ranking personage Al Hakeem. "Spreading Islam by the sword" etc. is trying to make Hezbollah come across as some form of crazy extremist group wich is deliberately POV. Respectfully i suggest you reading some sources on early hezbollah.--Paradoxic 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the "by the sword" comment was in an edit summary, not in the article and referred to Hezbollah's eraly violent history. If you are an expert, then maybe you could tell me some things that Hezbollah did to change Lebanon "by referendum" in the early years. Elizmr 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Current debates about intoduction

Historical or Non-Historical approach

Elizmr:I think there is disagreement between us about the approach we should use to describe Hezbollah. I believe this article especially introduction doesn't want to say what was Hezbollah at first and how it has changed, but it wants to introduce Hezbollah as it is. So I want to revert some of your editions in introduction because of its historical approach. but I wait until you tell me your idea. --Sa.vakilian 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do like the historical approach, so people can get a full understanding, but I"m sure we can write something that will do both. Why don't you write a version and put it here and then we can discuss? Elizmr 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a strong proponent of the historical approach. I understand that we differ on this. The historical approach allows people to get a better understanding of the organization and how it has evolved and then appreicate where it has ended up. Do you have a good reason for favoring the other approach? If Wikipedia were Hezbolla's Web site it show Hezbollah as it wants to be shown, but it is an encyclopedia and needs to go beyond that to take a more three dimensional view. Elizmr 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

editing Introduction

I try to edit this part on the basis of BBCNews in order to make it more neutral. Also I put some notes there for moving and removing some part if introduction and shorten it.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

could you put notes here instead of in the text commented out? It is difficult to find them there. Elizmr 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sa.va I consider your edit to be very POV. First off, you have no rationale for removing the fact that Sheba farms was captured from Syria and was not Lebanese in the first place. We need to state this. Israel and the UN considered Israel withdrawn and had a legitimate basis for this. Please don't remove any evidence of that from the article. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But I don't remove it. I propose removing but if you disagree with me I don't insist on it. But I prefer to move this part to position on Israel.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. But you commented it out, and it wasn't visible in the article. That is what I meant. Sorry if I insulted you. Thanks for agreeing that it can stay in. Elizmr 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the discussion in the paragraph is about how Hezbollah (NOT Israel) is percieved. For this reason it is important to state what they have done so that it can then be discussed. That is why the sentence about the murders, kidnappings, etc refers to Hezbollah and not to mutual violence between Israel and Hezbollah. (The articles cited in any case are describing Hezbollah acts). I now realize it is important to characterize Hezbollah violence as answering Israeli agression to portray Hezbollah acts in accordance with Islamic law, but this is already achieved because Israel invaded Beruit. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Becouse this article about hezbollah we should write what they do and what has done against them. I mean when you want to introduce a person fairly you shouldn't focused on what he/she has done but also you should mention what others has done against him/her.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree and that's why I feel it is essential to have the point of view about Hezbollah being legit. resistance. But we have to put the acts out there, and then say how they are percieved. The piece is not about Israel's retialiation or agression, and does certainly say that Israel committed agression by coming into Lebanon, doesn' it? Elizmr 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, I added why Israel invaded Beruit because I realized that point of history is no where in this article. I'll come back and add the cites soon. Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence "Hezbollah is credited with the "invention" of suicide bombing " is claimed by U.S. and Israel. So you shouldn't write it as a fact which everybody agree with. You can write "U.S. and Israel claim ..."--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that it was established that the US embassy bombing in 83 was the first suicide bombing that we know of. I need to find the cite anyway to see where this comes from. I don't know if it is accurate to say that the US and Israel claim... anyway, let's put this on hold and I'll look. Elizmr 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourthly, no one has excused Hezbollah from disarming. They are in violation of UN resolution. The text should not say they are "allowed" to keep their arms. What do others think? Elizmr 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what BBC and Siniore have said. So we can add it in the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you put the exact quote here so we can discuss? Elizmr 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Even the more recent UN resolution said that the prior resolution had to be upheld and accomplished. Elizmr 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I"m also confused. It isn't just up to Lebanon, is it, but up to the UN as well? Elizmr 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

According to BBC "1991 - The National Assembly orders the dissolution of all militias by 30 April but Hezbollah is allowed to remain active and the South Lebanon Army (SLA) refuses to disband."[15] and according to Siniore "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms"[16] and also read this [17].--Sa.vakilian 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see your point. We could say that Lebanon has been in favor of the continued armament of Hezbollah since x year but the UN resolution continues to call for disarmament. I think that would be an improvement, and closer to the truth. What do you think?

Elizmr 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I did some work on the intro to make it flow a bit better and to shorten by reducing repitition. I added a few quotes from that BBC article that Sa.va keeps bringing up.  :=). I kept in the sentence that says clearly that Israel did violence too and tried to tease out the bit about "reisisting all of Palestine" for an unfamiliar reader. I added a little background on the political situation in Lebanon in the early 80s that will help the article make a little more sense. I took some repitition out of the lead as well. Sorry for so many small edits. I had firefox browser and it would not let me do the previews. Elizmr 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Israel had become militarily involved in Lebanon in combat with the Palestine Liberation Organization who moved into Southern Lebanon after being ousted from Jordan. The PLO was attacking Israel from Southern Lebanon in the lead up to the 1982 Lebanon War, and Israel had invaded and occupied Lebanon to protect its Northern border." isn't appropriate for the introduction of Hezbollah article. I agree with the importance of this sentence but it is a background. Look at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Background and also we need a background about situation and position of Shiites in Lebabnon including [18] and [19] because some of Hezbollah leaders like Nasrallah was the islamist branch of Amal Movement. I make another part and move it.--Sa.vakilian 06:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It is important to have this background for those who won't read another article. People don't know why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. There is even some speculation that they are there to expand their own territory which is ridiculous. Could you go along with putting it back as necessary background? I worked a bit hard on the two little sentences. Elizmr 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose moving this part "Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as legitimate resistance and some others regard them as Jihad. Supporters of Hezbollah justify Hezbollah's attacks against Israel for the following reasons. Firstly, Hezbollah supporters cite the occupation of Lebanese land. Many of these attacks took place while Israel occupied the southern part of Lebanon and held it as a security zone in spite of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. Although Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and their complete withdrawl was verified by the United Nations, Lebanon considers the Shebaa farms, captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war and considered by the UN to be disputed territory between Syria and Israel, to be Lebanese territory. Additionally, Israel holds some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails for crimes against Israel. Finally, Hezbollah and some of the Muslim world consider Israel an illegitimate state. For these reasons, many in the Arab world consider violent acts performed by the organization against Israel to be justified as acts of Jihad.[26] Although some Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah's actions saying vaguely that they harm Arab interests,[27] throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds Hezbollah is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement, aiming to create an Islamic state encompasing the whole geographic region of Palestine, including what is currently the State of Israel.[8]" to "Position on Israel" and "Outside views of Hezbollah ".--Sa.vakilian 07:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the most important issues about Hezbollah is that people disagree about whether the violence has been called for or not. This paragraph really discusses that and shows both sides. Could we leave it? It is a crux crux issue, not just a "position on israel" or and "outside view". What do you think? Elizmr 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian. It should be moved into an appropriate part.--Hossein.ir 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but could you say why this part is inappropriate? Elizmr 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: Introduction is one of the most controvercial part of this article and there have been too many debates about it which you may have not seen them. There is some discussions You'd better read in Lead/Introduction Archives especially this part [[20]]. Then we can speak about this part again.--Sa.vakilian 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.va, I have read the debates on this, but I don't think that anyone has said why it is inappropriate to raise this essential issue clearly in the introduction deliniating both sides of the argument using neutral language. It is only inappropriate if anything which may put Hezbollah in a negative light is inappropriate. That is ok if you are writing for a blog or Hezbollah-sponsored media source or a government-sponsored media source, but NOT ok on Wikipedia. Please refer to WP:NPOV to review wikipedia policy on showing all sides before arguing that this stuff needs to come out again. We have actually been through this multiple times and the language here is comprimise wording. It is time for you to defend your objections rationally. Elizmr 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on putting everything like background in the intro. Introduction is for introducing Hezbollah and it's not appropriate for something else like the reason of invasion of Israel in 1982. You can add background in the history and refer to it in the intro. I think this make the article neutral too.--Sa.vakilian 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Hezbollah's whole reason for being is to get Israel out of Lebanon, and their being there justifies everything this organization has done, then how can you say it is irrelevant to say why Israel was there in the first place??? This doesn't make sense to me. It is basic introductory material and important for understanding the whole picture. Elizmr 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the necessity of what you say but I mean your method is wrong. We shouldn't add every necessity idea in the intro. We can add it in the body and refer to it.--Sa.vakilian 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What purpose do you see the intro accomplishing? 72.72.113.203 01:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This intro fails me:

Hezbollah has abandoned the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic republic [6],

Refering to a non-referenced BBC article is pointless. Readers of this article likely want undisputed facts.

but continues to call for the elimination of “the Zionist entity” (i.e. Israel).[7]

the word "zionist" does not appear in the article at all, making the reference misleading. Further, the article itself does not appear to be a good reference point, but rather it appears to have been drawn from what would be good references.

Hezbollah has received arms, soliders, and financial support from Iran and has
"operated with Syria's blessing."[6]

The quote is misquoted. Also, see my first objection

I make these comments to garner reaction before I edit myself.

NOTE: above written but unsigned NOT BY ME.

In reply to avove, I agree the BBC article is unrefed and weak; I added some quotes from it to the lead becuase others were also quoting it in the lead. Elizmr 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Founding objectives

The founding objectives of the organization belong in the lead becuase they are a fundamental aspect of the organization. Sa.va felt that to have them in the lead, the intro, and the ideology section was too much, so we removed them from the intro. If you are going to remove them from the lead, please discuss first on talk stating an argument for doing so. Elizmr 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead

"Hezbollah currently has grown into a Shia Islamist political party with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, a militia, and extensive front programs for social development. "

The manifesto shows it has been "Shia Islamist political party" from the beginning. So why there is written has grown. --Sa.vakilian 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, why not change it to "Hezbollah comprises a .... or "Hezbollah is currently a...???Elizmr 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead. --Sa.vakilian 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead

I believe we've been trapped in a loop. Please look at this:"Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement. The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation. Even 74 percent of Lebanese Christians viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization. Because that the organization initiates attacks against civilians and ideologically supports such attacks by other organizations, the United States, Britain and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization", but does list Imad Mugniyah as such. In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2005, the MEPs urged the EU Council to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organization. However, the Council has so far been reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks. European legislators branded the radical Lebanese Hezbollah group a terrorist organization and urged EU governments to place the group on their terrorist blacklists, as the bloc did with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2003. “EU Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The EU Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them," legislators said in a non-binding resolution adopted during a session in Strasburg, France. "

There was similiar text in the lead. Somebody moved it to intro then somebody else came and put it in the the lead. And this cycle has continued by now. We should decide what is suitable for lead and intro and what is not. Before writing your idea here look at Lead/Introduction discussions please.--Sa.vakilian 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The sections are both now in a bit of a mess. Elizmr 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered starting a new section for this, but the claim in the intro that HA has "abandoned" the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic Republic is simply not true. It has certainly accepted that this is not a possible outcome in the short to medium term, but it remains its fundamental goal. This shows the danger on relying on journalistic (the BBC, in this case) rather than scholarly sources; granted that the former are more up to date and for many readers easier to access, they are likely to be more simplistic or even inaccurate. Palmiro | Talk 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have brought up this point previously. Elizmr 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah beleive in Islamic Republic as a idealogy but as Nasrollah has said its not a practical goal in Lebanon society.--Sa.vakilian 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the point is the BBC article just states the thing without giving evidence to back up their claim. Elizmr 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many details in the lead

Writing too many details in the lead is inappropriate so I moved some part of it to intro. This part is about recognition Hezbollah as Legitimate or terrorist organization. I could maintain an abstract about this issue in the lead, but my exprience in this article show if we put one sentence about this issue in the other wikipedian put all of this information there even it would be NPOV. Also we should merge this part with intro because some issues are repeated. Please read the Lead/Introduction archive before answer to me or edit the article.--Sa.vakilian 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. According to Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Maybe it should say a word or two about terrorism, but I agree completely that what was there before was too much. I think some things about politics, etc are repeated in the first part of the lead and the last part of the lead and the lead could be edited to remove the second mention. Maybe there are other parts of the article that could get a quick mention in the lead as well to make it a better summary of the whole article. I will try to do this. Elizmr 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I reworked the intro as follows:

• paragraph one: historial background on origins
• paragraph two: state the controversy, list violent acts and positions on these acts
• paragraph three: state the postion: it is jihad and resistance
• paragraph four: state the position: it is terrorism
• paragraph five: controversy of maintence of arms after end of civil war and currently

I removed stuff that was well covered elsewhere about politics, ideology etc and just focused the intro on the above. There were a few places where the same info was repeated a few times. I eliminated this redundancy. NOthing was removed completely.

I changed the name of the section to "intro and background" Elizmr 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro is going to become a new article. I want to edit lead and intro as soon as possible, but I'm too busy these days.--Sa.vakilian 06:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with intro becoming a new article. Please discuss and get consensus before you do this, ok? Happy Ramadan. Elizmr 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. My English is not well. I mean it becomes a new article by too many unnecessary stuff and I want to shorten it by moving some part of it body.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I misunderstood. What is unnecessary? I agree it should be shortened. Elizmr 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Long lead

I think we don't need to write everything in the lead. Thus I move Hezbollah's goals to the ideology and leave a summary in the lead.--Sa.vakilian 07:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is not as prominant as it should be in the lead. If Hezbollah was only a political party, it would not be in the news that much. Terrorists should be in the first paragraph.Reapor2 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that such a change would equate to redeveloping a POV-pushing war within the article. --Kukini 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe by not mentioning terrorist in the lead would be deleveloping a POV. Most of the world outside of the Middle East knows Hezbollah for it's terrorist acts. The way the lead is written it make them sound like another political party.65.96.132.149 21:30, 4 February 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)

Eliminating "public opinion" in the lead

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 .. (from Tarc)

What does Hezbollah say about the West, or at least the United States? Its manifesto says: `We combat abomination and tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S.` I put it to you that deleting the two-word phrase describing Hezbollah as "anti-Western" from the lead is not so much POV as deletion of fact.

Everyone wants the article to be stable, but when descriptions are watered down to "often referred to as a radical Islamic group," the article's usefulness comes in question. --BoogaLouie 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article's usefulness should be judged based on the accuracy of the facts it gives about Hezbollah. We should certainly not make this article a battleground where people with different views fight there propaganda battles. Subjective statements should be avoided in the lead where we describe Hezbollah.

Bad wiki articles and in particular bad leading paragraphs leave negative impressions on people searching wikipedia for information. You have to appreciate the fact that someone who would actually visit this page to read information would probably do so, not to find inspiration to write propaganda, but to find information with the supporting references.

A statement with a citation suggests that the statement is accurate and supported by the ref. If, however, upon reading that ref, it transpires that the ref does not support the veracity of the statement, merely suggesting that it may be true, then the reader will feel deceived. Count Iblis 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to feel decieved if an article describes an organization as anti-Western (or at least anti-American) when that organization declares `We combat abomination and tear out its very roots, its primary roots, which are the U.S.` ? --BoogaLouie 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What you can find in a statement may not be an accurate description of how they behave in reality. Suppose that someone tries to find information on the internet about "radical anti-western" organizations in the Mid East. That person may be planning a trip to the Mid East, but he wants to avoid those organizations that he feels are dangerous. Now, Hezbollah is not an organization that you would have to avoid like Al Qa'ida or the Taleban. They have a public relations office in Beirut that anyone can visit.

If wiki's Hezbollah article comes up somewhere on top of a google search then, because this person may know that this is a false positive, he will then refine his google search by excluding all wiki-pages from the search result. Count Iblis 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps the silliest hypothetical situation I've ever heard on Wikipedia as an argument the basis for an argument. Should we be as concerned for a Middle East traveler who tries to find out about radical anti-western organizations for the purposes of joining one? I propose that we should educate such a person so that he/she knows that Hezbollah is a viable option! LOL! --GHcool 02:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I just gave one example of how wiki articles that exaggerate things can lead to people not trusting wikipedia at all for any information. You can think of many other hypothetical internet searches. The bottom line is that there are real world facts about which there are wikipedia articles. Google scans articles and will associate the title of articles to certain words mentioned in the article, in particular the lead. If the lead for Hezbollah is too similar to the lead of Al Qa'ida, then there will be many google searches that will yield the Hezbollah wiki page near the Al Qa'ida wiki page.

If the searcher tries to find information about organizations that are dangerous (those that behead people), constantly gets the Hezbollah page on top, then he will be annoyed. A simple solution is then to go to advanced search options and block all wikipedia results. Next time the same searcher wants to search for someting else, he may block wikipedia again, just to be sure that his search results are reliable, thereby missing a very good wikipedia article that you or I put a lot of energy in.

So, this is a generic effect that hurts wikipedia. Most people who search the internet usually do not feel strongly about the things that turn up on their google search. They just want accurate information and relevant search results. It is thus wrong not to mention that Hezbollah is considered as a terrorist organization by many countries or to downplay that too much. Similarly, it should be clear from the lead that Hezbollah is not Al Qa'ida. Count Iblis 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Count Iblis's concern for people who want to search for "radical, anti-western" organizations, but do not want their search results to bring up Hezbollah despite the fact that they are clearly a radical, anti-western organization. If I were as concerned about this hypothetical situation as Count Iblis seems to be, I would recommend the Hezbollah article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so that this situation could never possibly occur. I encourage Count Iblis to take this course of action instead of disturbing the Hezbollah talk page further with silly arguments. --GHcool 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You should know that AFD is not for articles suffering from (even very severe) POV problems, and the things we are discussing here are rather trivial. Also, unlike Tarc, I did not say that qualifications like "radical" or "anti-western" cannot be mentioned at all. This section is about "eliminating public opinion from the lead" and not about "eliminating facts" from the lead.

The first sentence of the third paragraph says:

"Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.[10][11][12][13][14][15]"

I think that this is a very bad statement for the lead, because it expresses an opinion. I would have no problems with mentioning that Hezbollah is a radical Islamic group , of course, provided that the citations can be found to back this up. Note that the internal link given for "radical islam" currently redirects to "Islamism" and that the adjective "Islamist", already mentioned in the second sentence, also redirects to that page. So, it looks like we don't need to mention "radical Islamic group" at all. But if the intended meaning of "radical Islamic" is different, then that should be clarified. Count Iblis 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I accept Count Iblis's proposal to change the first sentence of the second paragraph from "Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group." to "Hezbollah is a radical Islamic group." --GHcool 06:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually in western press Hezbollah is considered as rafdical Islamic group. Therefor this statement in not correct:Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.. Therefor I move to the talk page until we reach consensus.

Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group. It has been accused of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops, a charge that it denies.

About three mouths ago there were another sentence which neutralize it. These labels are controversial, as most of the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement. You see, according to [21] somebody has changed the lead to emphasize on one viewpoint. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to the lead

(I cut and pasted this section down so it would not be forgotten. This is my latest rewiriting. Does Tarc or others still have objections? --BoogaLouie 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله ḥizbu-llāh, [2] literally "party of God") is a Shi'a Islamic paramilitary group, political party, and social service organization based in Lebanon. Hezbollah first emerged during the Lebanese Civil War as a militia of Shia followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, funded by Iran and trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.[8] It continues to receive arms, training, and financial support from Iran[20][21] and has "operated with Syria's blessing" since the end of the Civil War.[22][23]

Hezbollah follows an Islamist Shi'a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran,[3] [4][5] [6] [7] based on the principle of pan-Islamism rather than nation-state or national soveriegnty. Hezbollah recognizes the Supreme ruler of Iran rather than any Lebonese official as its head. [ny review of books article ][Hizb' Allah in Lebanon: The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis by Magnus Ranstorp ]

As stated in its 1985 manifesto, Hezbollah's three main publicly-stated goals were to: Eradicate what it viewed as Western colonialism in Lebanon, bring to a trial those (specifically the Phalangists) it believes perpetrated crimes during the Lebanese Civil War, and establish an Islamic government in Lebanon.[9] It also seeks to eliminate the state of Israel. ][Hizb' Allah in Lebanon: The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis by Magnus Ranstorp ]

Hezbollah has been accused of several major lethal attacks and multiple hostage takings [10][11][12][13][14][15] including the 1983 Beirut marine barracks and US embassy bombings that killed over 300 Americans and French.[16][3] It has denied these charges but also applauding the attacks. Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization.

In the Arab and Muslim world it is widely admired for expelling both the United States and Israel from Arab soil [Hizb' Allah in Lebanon: The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis by Magnus Ranstorp p.40] and regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.[3] In Shi'a Lebanese society Hezbollah has strong popular support [17] and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands. [11][18][19] [24]

Starting as a militia, Hezbollah has grown to an organization which has seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, and programs for social development. Since 1992 the organization has been headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. --BoogaLouie 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Made some more changes in the proposed lead --BoogaLouie 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty good to me. The only thing that needs work is the next to last paragraph. The first sentence "Hezbollah has been accused of several terrorist attacks and multiple hostage takings [10][11][12][13][14][15]" is ok. But then the example of the "Beirut barracks bombing" is i.m.o. not so good, because it was a military target (I know that the US does consider this to be a terror attack). Perhaps the attack on the French embassy is a better example to mention right after the opening sentence.

The case against the 1983 bombing was that the US marines were a peacekeeping force. In any case at least a few of Hezbollah's bombings have been of military targets. Those have not been denied by it. --BoogaLouie 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Beirut Barracks bombing is a notable event that should also be mentioned in the lead, but we should not just give the impression that all the militant actions by Hezollah are illegal acts under international law. The Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces in South Lebanon and the missile attacks on Israeli towns should also be mentioned. Count Iblis 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a concise intro to the subject matter, not a laundry list of every major Hezbollah bombing target and accused bombing target.

I've only used one sentence and listed 3. There are a great many more bombings. --BoogaLouie 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Pick one...probably the Beirut bombing as that us the best known...and leave the rest for the body of the article. And the "...while applauding the attacks" phrase is a bit of a weaselish and backhanded attempt to undercut their denial of responsibility. Excise that, and it will read fine. Tarc 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"weaselish"? Here's one quote: "... at a rally in Baalbeck [core Hezbollah territory] exactly a week after the bombings. Sheikh Mohammed Yazbeck, the main speaker, raised the slogan `Death to America` and told the audience, `We are determined to carry it out.` The Muslim leader praised the attacks as `a noble action because it shook America's throne and Frances's might. Let America, Israel and the world know that we have a lust for martyrdom and our motto is being translated into reality ... America's fleet will not frighten us. We shall teach it a lesson it will never forget by our faith and our strength.`" (Wright, Robin, Sacred Rage, Simon and Schuster, (2001), p.99) --BoogaLouie 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. If its legit, go slap that into Mohammed Yazbeck's page. It has no place here. Tarc 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also Hussein Musawi, the founder of Islamic Amal which merged with Hezbollah, who had this to say about the MNF bombing: "I salute this good act, and I consider it a good deed and a legitimate right, and I bow to the spirits of the martyrs who carried out this operation." [Musawi in Baalbeck, ABC Close-up `War and Power: The Rise of Syria`, June 14, 1984. (quoted in Wright, Sacred Rage, (2001) p.83

And the Hezbollah scholar Ranstorp quotes (unnamed) Hezbollah speaker thusly: "two martyr mujahidin set out to inflict upon the U.S. Administration an utter defeat not experienced since Vietnam ..." Ranstorp, Magnus, Hizb'allah in Lebanon : The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis, New York, St. Martins Press, 1997, p.38

Do you still have doubts about the line: "applauding the attacks"? --BoogaLouie 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)