![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This article has reached 98kb. Please summarize some parts like Hezbollah#Position on Israel, Hezbollah#Position on Jews and Judaism and Hezbollah#Armed strength and move details to the sub-articles. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't a very long entry at all, and the sections mentioned are of normal length - a fork would only have 3-4 short paragraphs. Tewfik Talk 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a source which says that "most" of the "44 deaths" are attributed to anti-tank guided missiles. It is now being used to support the claim that a "significant number" of "119 deaths" are attributed to them. You can't use one source to prove an entirely new point not supported by it. Please find a proper source, or remove the claim. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.
I changed the sentence: "The United States and others have accused elements that would later become Hezbollah of being responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing"
The two sources I quote don't accuse "elements that would later become Hezbollah" of the bombing, they accuse Hezbollah. And the sources are not frontpagemag, but a scholarly terrorism expert often quoted by terrorism doves (Pape) and the same Asia Times article quoted to say "Most of the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement." So please do not water the sentence down again. -- BoogaLouie 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Using various names, including the Islamic Jihad Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah remained underground until 1985, when it published a manifesto condemning the West, and proclaiming, “.... Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies.” [1]
In many articles, a few words of criticism of Israel are followed by dozens of words from the supporters of Israel defending it's actions. But in this article [2], the opposite situation applies. For some reason, 18 words "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians." are followed by 299 words in defense of what Hezbollah was doing. Whatever our personal views about Hezbollah, we let ourselves down. Those 299 words could be much more usefully filled with clips from Amnesty/HRW expressing (in an NPOV fashion) their criticisms. No defense is called for. The fact that the supporters of Israel behave in this biased fashion is no excuse for us doing so. PalestineRemembered 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to reorganize the lead and give the sentences some order. -- BoogaLouie 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This is by far the more proper section title. The section deals with Hezbollah's military organizations and activities in regards to combating the IDF. It is in no way analogous to Hamas now that I look closely; that articles section details bombings against civilian targets which would seem to justify a section title of "Militant activities and terrorism". This does not, so please stop the inaccurate POV insertions, Mr. Harrison. Tarc 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the title to "Accusations of...". I think that an important point here is that it is not universally accepted that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for these attacks, except for the missile attacks. Whether or not particular actions are terrorist actions or not is not so important. For some actions that's pretty clear, e.g. the bombings in Argentina. For other actions like the attack on US marines this is disputed. Such disputes are not really the subject of this section. Count Iblis 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
which is far stronger statement than "Hezbolah has been accused of...".
"Hezbollah is responsible for...", even if Hezbollah denies those facts. Count Iblis 13:15, 21 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 .. (from Tarc)
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)
"Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.[10][11][12][13][14][15]"
Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] It has been accused of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops, [9] [10] a charge that it denies.
So editors have been revert warring between two versions of this text:
However, Charles Glass writes in the The London Review of Books that this "quote" is in all likelihood a fabrication. "The Star's managing editor writes of Chayban's article on Nasrallah, that 'I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].' The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was 'a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.' The account of Nasrallah's speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments."
...and...
However, Charles Glass has challenged the accuracy of this quotation in the The London Review of Books.
The first of these is likely too long and could use some English cleanup, while the second is likely too short, and generally paves over the statement that Glass was making. Hopefully we can discuss options here rather than revert warring. Thoughts? ← George [ talk 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
However, Charles Glass wrote in the The London Review of Books that the quote attributed to Nasrallah is likely a fabrication. He cited both the Star's managing editor as questioning the accuracy of the translation and "agenda of the translator", and the editor-in-chief and publisher as stating that Chayban "did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else." He also pointed to the account of Nasrallah's speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir on the same day as having no reference to the anti-semitic comment.
However, Charles Glass, an American author, journalist, and broadcaster specializing in the Middle East, wrote that the quote attributed to Nasrallah was likely a fabrication. He cited other published accounts of the speech that had no reference to the anti-semitic comment, and statements by the Star's editor-in-chief and publisher, as well as the managing editor, that questioned the translation and the "agenda of the translator."
About the phrase: "Hezbollah has been subject to assassination and abduction by Israel as well.[32] Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as a resistance movement engaged in defensive Jihad."
Well, since we are balanced and non-biased, it should be stressed that we must consider the following phrase for inclusion in the article Nazism: "Nazis have been subject to assassination and abduction by the Allies as well. Nazi violent acts were characterized by some countries as crimes against humanity; while others regarded them as a resistance movement engaged in creating Lebensraum."
It is extremely unreasonable that such term as defensive jihad, supposedly "as opposed to" terrorism, finds any place in any article in any encyclopedia written after 1945. A.R. 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the Nazis did kill 6 million Jews in concentration camps, so whether or not some Nazis were assassinated doesn't change this fact. In case of Hezbollah, there isn't a single terror attack for which there is proof that Hezbollah was behind it. Note that the US regarded Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces occupying South Lebanbon as terror attacks. Basically the US and Israel claim to have an exclusive licence to wage war. Whatever they do is always justified, whatever their enemies do is always terrorism. Count Iblis 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
(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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Accessed=
ignored (
help)
HG20Ak02
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This article has reached 98kb. Please summarize some parts like Hezbollah#Position on Israel, Hezbollah#Position on Jews and Judaism and Hezbollah#Armed strength and move details to the sub-articles. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't a very long entry at all, and the sections mentioned are of normal length - a fork would only have 3-4 short paragraphs. Tewfik Talk 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a source which says that "most" of the "44 deaths" are attributed to anti-tank guided missiles. It is now being used to support the claim that a "significant number" of "119 deaths" are attributed to them. You can't use one source to prove an entirely new point not supported by it. Please find a proper source, or remove the claim. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.
I changed the sentence: "The United States and others have accused elements that would later become Hezbollah of being responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing"
The two sources I quote don't accuse "elements that would later become Hezbollah" of the bombing, they accuse Hezbollah. And the sources are not frontpagemag, but a scholarly terrorism expert often quoted by terrorism doves (Pape) and the same Asia Times article quoted to say "Most of the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement." So please do not water the sentence down again. -- BoogaLouie 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Using various names, including the Islamic Jihad Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah remained underground until 1985, when it published a manifesto condemning the West, and proclaiming, “.... Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies.” [1]
In many articles, a few words of criticism of Israel are followed by dozens of words from the supporters of Israel defending it's actions. But in this article [2], the opposite situation applies. For some reason, 18 words "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians." are followed by 299 words in defense of what Hezbollah was doing. Whatever our personal views about Hezbollah, we let ourselves down. Those 299 words could be much more usefully filled with clips from Amnesty/HRW expressing (in an NPOV fashion) their criticisms. No defense is called for. The fact that the supporters of Israel behave in this biased fashion is no excuse for us doing so. PalestineRemembered 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to reorganize the lead and give the sentences some order. -- BoogaLouie 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This is by far the more proper section title. The section deals with Hezbollah's military organizations and activities in regards to combating the IDF. It is in no way analogous to Hamas now that I look closely; that articles section details bombings against civilian targets which would seem to justify a section title of "Militant activities and terrorism". This does not, so please stop the inaccurate POV insertions, Mr. Harrison. Tarc 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the title to "Accusations of...". I think that an important point here is that it is not universally accepted that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for these attacks, except for the missile attacks. Whether or not particular actions are terrorist actions or not is not so important. For some actions that's pretty clear, e.g. the bombings in Argentina. For other actions like the attack on US marines this is disputed. Such disputes are not really the subject of this section. Count Iblis 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
which is far stronger statement than "Hezbolah has been accused of...".
"Hezbollah is responsible for...", even if Hezbollah denies those facts. Count Iblis 13:15, 21 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 .. (from Tarc)
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)
"Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group.[10][11][12][13][14][15]"
Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] It has been accused of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops, [9] [10] a charge that it denies.
So editors have been revert warring between two versions of this text:
However, Charles Glass writes in the The London Review of Books that this "quote" is in all likelihood a fabrication. "The Star's managing editor writes of Chayban's article on Nasrallah, that 'I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].' The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was 'a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.' The account of Nasrallah's speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments."
...and...
However, Charles Glass has challenged the accuracy of this quotation in the The London Review of Books.
The first of these is likely too long and could use some English cleanup, while the second is likely too short, and generally paves over the statement that Glass was making. Hopefully we can discuss options here rather than revert warring. Thoughts? ← George [ talk 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
However, Charles Glass wrote in the The London Review of Books that the quote attributed to Nasrallah is likely a fabrication. He cited both the Star's managing editor as questioning the accuracy of the translation and "agenda of the translator", and the editor-in-chief and publisher as stating that Chayban "did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else." He also pointed to the account of Nasrallah's speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir on the same day as having no reference to the anti-semitic comment.
However, Charles Glass, an American author, journalist, and broadcaster specializing in the Middle East, wrote that the quote attributed to Nasrallah was likely a fabrication. He cited other published accounts of the speech that had no reference to the anti-semitic comment, and statements by the Star's editor-in-chief and publisher, as well as the managing editor, that questioned the translation and the "agenda of the translator."
About the phrase: "Hezbollah has been subject to assassination and abduction by Israel as well.[32] Hezbollah's violent acts are characterized by some countries as terrorist attacks; while others regard them as a resistance movement engaged in defensive Jihad."
Well, since we are balanced and non-biased, it should be stressed that we must consider the following phrase for inclusion in the article Nazism: "Nazis have been subject to assassination and abduction by the Allies as well. Nazi violent acts were characterized by some countries as crimes against humanity; while others regarded them as a resistance movement engaged in creating Lebensraum."
It is extremely unreasonable that such term as defensive jihad, supposedly "as opposed to" terrorism, finds any place in any article in any encyclopedia written after 1945. A.R. 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the Nazis did kill 6 million Jews in concentration camps, so whether or not some Nazis were assassinated doesn't change this fact. In case of Hezbollah, there isn't a single terror attack for which there is proof that Hezbollah was behind it. Note that the US regarded Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces occupying South Lebanbon as terror attacks. Basically the US and Israel claim to have an exclusive licence to wage war. Whatever they do is always justified, whatever their enemies do is always terrorism. Count Iblis 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
(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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Accessed=
ignored (
help)
HG20Ak02
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).