Talk:Hezbollah

Archives

Chronological Archive: May 2003 - June 2006 July 2006 – July 2006 Inactive as of August 7, 2006 Inactive as of August 12, 2006 Inactive as of August 20, 2006 Inactive as of August 31, 2006 Inactive as of September 30, 2006 Inactive as of October 30, 2006 Inactive as of December 30, 2006 Inactive as of March 30, 2007 Inactive as of June 30, 2007 Inactive as of September 30, 2007 Inactive as of October 29, 2007 Topical archive: POV-Disputed-Controvercial discussions Terrorist allegations structure Lead/Introduction discussions Good article Archive index

Removal of Dennis Ross text for strange reason

Shamir1 removed

“ In a 2004 article, Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy under the first Bush and Clinton administrations, was cited as saying that Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli occupation, unlike its past activities aimed at Western targets, is not terrorism and that the US included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups for Hezbollah's past activities, not for its ongoing resistance to Israel. ”

with the edit summary "misrep of source, in addition the editorial cites a source which cites a source which cites Christopher Ross responsible for that position". But the source [1] says,

“ Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy under the first Bush and Clinton administrations, has stated that Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli occupation, unlike its past activities aimed at Western targets, is not terrorism. ”

And in a footnote to that statement,

“ Ross stated in the daily as-Safir that the US included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups for Hezbollah's past activities, not for its ongoing resistance to Israel. ”

So what gives?? <eleland/talkedits> 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Here is the article by Prof. Sami G. Hajjar of the U.S. Army War College." (pdf) (hosted on a .mil no less!), saying "Likewise, Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross stated that Hizballah’s resistance to Israeli occupation is not terrorism, but that past acts of terrorism that the party engaged in is why it is included on the U.S. terrorism list. He noted the important social activities of the party in several regions of Lebanon. See “Ross: The Resistance of Hizballah Is Not Terrorism,” Beirut As Safir (Arabic Internet Edition), March 23, 2002." Who is Christopher Ross, and what was Shamir talking about!? <eleland/talkedits> 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(moved from Eleland's talk)

Regarding your revert of the Hezbollah article, besides the fact that I am already skeptical of a tertiary source that is an editorial and does not use quotations, the cited source cites this source. And that source cites this, which says that Christopher Ross made those comments. :::--Shamir1 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin here? The NYBooks piece cites Hajjar, who cites "Beirut As Safir"'s Arabic web-page. The fact that some random, non-reliable "ArabicNews.com" says something kind of similar but not the same is totally irrelevant, and it's very difficult to take that objection as being meant seriously. Hajjar, an expert on the subject, cited as-Safir. Some other site put up a garbled version of the story, and that means that the as-Safir citation must be wrong!? This objection is so strange and tenuous that it's difficult to believe it is meant seriously. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYBooks source accurately quotes the Hajjar source (which is available at Google Books), but I'm still a little skeptical that the Hajjar source accurately quotes the as-Safir source because I don't think that Dennis Ross would ever say that Hezbollah's targetting of Israeli civilians does not amount to terrorism. Unfortunately, I do not know how to read Arabic and so I cannot check the as-Safir website myself. Could someone who knows Arabic find the article cited in Hajjar's book: "Ross: The Resistance of Hizballah Is Not Terrorism," March 23, 2002? --GHcool 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a clarification? I understand you're skeptical, and I too would like to see the original source. But I'd like us to agree that this is no basis for removing the information, since it is being cited by a credible source - a director of Mideast studies at the US Army War College. <eleland/talkedits> 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I'd like to get somebody to read and verify that the Hajjar source accurately quotes the as-Safir source. I don't have more to say than that. --GHcool 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I understand you there. I just wanted to be sure that nobody is going to remove this information again saying that the source is insufficient, or something. The information should be improved, not removed. <eleland/talkedits> 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sourced information

User:Pejman47 and User:SJP have been removing sourced information. The original charge was that the English translation of "The Hezbollah Program" was posted on the website of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel organization. Most of us don't know how to Arabic and so an English translation is necessary for English Wikipedia (I assume Pejman47 and SJP would agree with this point). Since Stand With Us was suspect and there was a demand for verifiability with other reliable sources, I provided them. These sources were also deleted. The reason for these deletions were not articulated.

Furthermore, the information that was deleted is not even controversial! Every reliable source ever written on the subject of Hezbollah (including Lebanese sources) have the exact same information. One needs to look no further than the "Ideology" section (or better yet, the Hezbollah ideology article) for proof of this.

The onus is on the people who deleted the sourced information to defend their position, in other words, to answer why they delete not only information sourced to a translation of Hezbollah's own manifesto by an admittedly biased source, but also to several other reliable sources. --GHcool 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I remember we've consider The Hizballah Program as a reliable source.(Sa.vakilian)--Seyyed(t-c) 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I remember too. Its just these two newcomers who challenge it and are actively trying to delete information cited to it. --GHcool 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A "reliable source" should be one that just reports the facts of the matter, and not from one POV or another. Judging from the mission statement of standwithus.com, "...ensure that Israel's side of the story is told...", they clearly pick a single side to represent. Tarc 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they don't. To my knowledge, we do not cite Stand With Us elsewhere in this article for that reason. However, publishing a translation of Hezbollah's manifesto is hardly an act of POV (assuming that the translation is accurate, of course, and none of us have any reason to believe that it is inaccurate). In fact, Hezbollah might even welcome the English language availability of their manifesto, which they have made public in Arabic. The claim that the publication of Hezbollah's manifesto in a language other than Arabic is an attack on Hezbollah is ludicris. --GHcool 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Standwithus is a invalid resource to use. It clearly has a pro-Israel POV. That, in my opinion, makes it a invalid.--SJP 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to read my last response to Tarc regarding Stand With Us and the use of an English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto. --GHcool 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

StandWithUs is not a reliable source, please spare some time for finding a source in mainstream, other wise they will be deleted. If they are (as you may think) established facts, finding them will not be hard. --Pejman47 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But I've provided links to The Stanford Review and The New York Sun that say the same thing as the English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto and it was still deleted. I've just added another reliable source (PBS) saying the same thing. Surely The Sanford Review, The New York Sun, PBS, and the English translators of Hezbollah's manifesto aren't all unreliable sources. Must I continue to cite even more reliable sources that say the same thing? As I said before, this isn't controversial information and is almost in the realm of common knowledge. --GHcool 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if those sources support what is being said then it is okay to add that. I do not believe you should add standwithus as well though. It is a poor site to use as a resource as I said below. The reason why I reverted your edit was because we should talk about this before we add it. We should reach a consensus before adding this. I am not trying to silence you:) Have a nice day--SJP 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, if you find some other sources for your texts, replace the sources, just don't let StandWithUs remain in the article.--Pejman47 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not against that being in the article if it is true and can be sourced. I actual support putting it in the article if we can source it with good sources. What I am against is putting it in without valid sources. I assume Pejaman47 feels the same way about it.--SJP 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

exactly--Pejman47 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we all agree that this information is verifiable and worthy of being in the article. I expect no more reverts. Thank you. --GHcool 22:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We will keep on reverting if you can't provide reliable resources. We can't have information that is not verified.--SJP 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have added some sources. Let me take a look at them.--SJP 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, standwithus needs to be taken out. It has a pro-Israel agenda. That is not good for a article on Hezbollah.--SJP 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources says that newspapers are not always good sources to use in articles. In my opinion I do not think The Stanford Review is the best resource. This article is clearly biased against Hezbollah. Some quotes from in are "It is incomprehensible on what grounds the E.U. reached its decision. First, Hezbollah publicly supports groups that are currently on the E.U. list of terrorist organization such as Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)", "This ideology—which includes anti-Semitic, anti-western and anti-democratic dogma—is indoctrinated in Hezbollah’s schools and kindergartens, which are free for all of Hezbollah’s Shi’a supporters", and "Not adding Hezbollah to the E.U.’s list of terrorist organization signifies once again the E.U.’s impotence in making difficult decisions." Read the article for yourself for more evidence. I would like to hear your oppinions on if this is a good source. Thanks for your time.--SJP 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My Suggestion

What I suggest is that we A)Get rid of Stand With Us, B)Do whatever consensus is with the other 2 sources you added, and C)Add the sources that were used on the section on Hezbollah's position on Israel in the article Ideology of Hezbollah.--SJP 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the editorials from Stand With Us's website are not a neutral, but I fail to see why a neutral translation of the Arabic text of Hezbollah's manifesto is so offensive to some people. Stand With Us did not even hire the translator. The translation comes from the Jerusalem Quarterly, a journal published by Jewish and Arab scholars. See the endnote on page 5 in the Stand With Us PDF.

I oppose this suggestion because its aims are misdirected. While SJP is trying to limit the amount of POV material, a noble ideal that I support, he/she is incorrectly attributing the words of the primary source of the Hezbollah manifesto and the neutral English translation by the Jerusalem Quarterly to a website that did nothing more than make words available over the Internet without comment. If the words of the manifesto sound like it makes Hezbollah "look bad," then that is a problem that SJP has with Hezbollah, not with Stand With Us. These same words make Hezbollah "look good" to other people (i.e. supporters of Hezbollah), so it cannot be said that the manifesto itself or the publication of it is pro- or anti-Hezbollah. --GHcool 06:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to find the Manifesto on another website. It is not good to link to attack websites that spread propaganda. It would be better if we could find this on a more neautral website, and post it here. You would think it would be on a regular website somewhere.--SJP 06:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe it to be apropriate for us to link to a pro-Israel propaganda website. It does not make us look good. If there are other options, which there would be, we should take those instead.--SJP 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The propaganda site should be out last option. It should only be used if that is the only thing we have to verify the statement. Since it is not, I am strongly against using it.--SJP 07:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

first: the propaganda websites from both parts should not be used.

the manifesto of an organization should be obtained from it itself directly, not from unreliable sources. If you can find the original text (in Arabic) please post its link here (there are lots of users here who can read/write Arabic), if the original manifesto is not obtained directly this should be stated in the article.--Pejman47 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic to cite the Hezbollah charter in the context of its present policies and attitudes. Like any political party, it evolves and changes political positions over time. The manifesto is more than twenty years old and dates to a period where South Lebanon was under Israeli occupation and Hezbollah was a very different group. By analogy, there are many centrist political parties in the West which trace their lineage to Marxism, and some of them have manifestos calling for world revolution that are still technically in force. This does not mean we could claim they're radical socialists and cite their old manifestos to verify it. There's no shortage of secondary sources, so why should we risk original synthesis from the primaries? <eleland/talkedits> 20:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

you have a point, why don't edit the article according to it and then me and others can talk about it.--Pejman47 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If another copy of the manifesto can be found on the Internet translated into English, and that copy was provided by a source that is more "neutral" than Stand With Us, then I would be in favor of changing the Stand With Us footnotes to this more neutral website's translation. I myself had tried looking for such a site (I even tried the Jerusalem Quarterly website), but didn't find anything more complete than the Stand With Us's publication of the Jerusalem Quarterly translation of the manifesto. I encourage others to find a good translation from a neutral website in English and hope that they have more luck than I did when I tried to find one.
As for Eleland's argument that citing Hezbollah's manifesto in the article about Hezbollah is "problematic," I submit for review the following Wikipedia articles all of which are also from "Category:Organizations designated as terrorist" and include citations to the stated purposes of the organizations in question: Hamas, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Muslim Brotherhood, Ku Klux Klan, and more. All of these organizations' stated goals are vital to an understanding of the organization's history. Even an "ordinary" Lebanese political party such as Qornet Shehwan Gathering has a citation to and description of its official stated purposes. For these reasons, I strongly oppose censorship or a kind of "dancing around the issue" of Hezbollah's manifesto. Discussion of the manifesto with a citation to an English translation is absolutely necessary. --GHcool 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I found another version of this document in The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology: Religious Ideology, Political Ideology pages 223 -228. You can read it on google book. Of course the translation differs to some extent. There is also another version of Hezbollah's objectives on the basis of their "Parliamentary elections program" which is published in 1990s (see pages 248-249).--Seyyed(t-c) 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should Standwithus be under external links

I suppose that's acceptable as a good place to cite the manifesto, but I think that the more complete version of the manifesto should be available for someone to browse through over the Internet, perhaps in the "External links" section under "Other links." So if anybody would like to replace what is currently footnote #9 with a Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology citation, I will not stop them, however, I will add the Stand With Us hyperlink under "External links." --GHcool 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I am against linking to propaganda sites or attack sites, unless those are you only sources we can use for a statements. I am against you adding this link to the external link section. Have a nice day.--SJP 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

External links are not sources or references. Many would say that Hezbollah's official site is a propaganda site (when you think about it, what website is NOT a propaganda site? Everyone has their POV they wish to share..). I agree with GHCool that it is imperitive to have a complete translation of the statement available, preferably in the article well sourced. I personally believe that the source in question is not an issue for this particular translation. But if consensus states it is an unreliable source, lets keep it in the External Links. mceder (u t c) 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mceder. The issue is not with the translation, but with Stand With Us. I imagine that if I spoke Arabic and was editing an article on the United States of America on Arabic Wikipedia, I would be obligated to add a neutral, accurate Arabic translation of the Declaration of Independence. If that neutral, accurate translation from English to Arabic was published by www.death-to-america.com, I would expect that it can and should be used on Arabic Wikipedia if no better website can be found on the Internet with the same translation.

Furthermore, as Mceder said, all of the Hezbollah "Official sites" are propoganda sites. Mother Jones, which is also given an external link, is certainly not known for its neutral point of view and the Mother Jones article is far less relevant to a discussion of Hezbollah than a neutral translation of its manifesto. If Stand With Us isn't suitable for inclusion in the "External links" list, than neither is Mother Jones. --GHcool 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there is only 1 time that a propaganda site can be used that I can think of, that is if it it the main website(s) of the topic of the article. Will you please explain your position on why if standwithus is not used, then Mother Jones website should not be used either? Thanks for your time.--SJP 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

please mind Wikipedia:External links, putting the StandWithUs in the external links violates that policy.

and please watch for obvious fallacies. I don't know about the other website, but even if its inclusion violates that policy, this doesn't make case for new violation. --Pejman47 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A neutral English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto does not violate Wikipedia:External_links. As I said before, Jerusalem Quarterly provided an accurate and neutral translation. Stand With Us added no commentary and there isn't any reason for any of us to believe that Stand With Us changed a single word of the Jerusalem Quarterly translation.

Mother Jones is a far left American magazine (and website) known for its criticisms of the United States. Like the Stand With Us website, Mother Jones is generally accepted as a reliable, but one-sided, source on the politics it deals with. Like Stand With Us, it is not academically reviewed. However, if the neutral translated copy of Hezbollah's manifesto from the Jerusalem Quarterly appeared on the Mother Jones website, I would support its inclusion in the "external links" section for the same reason I would support the same translation on the Stand With Us website. --GHcool 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against the inclusion of the Manifesto which is hosted on http://www.standwithus.com because we can add links that have the same information on it to the external link section. It would be a different story if we could find nothing else. I only support the adding of propaganda websites if that is the only place the information on it can be found, and the information on it is helpfull. Since this is not the case, I am opposed to adding it. Cheers!--SJP 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, if there was a consensus that standwithus should not be in the article at all, would you respect the consensus, or would you go on edit warring? Thanks for your time:)--SJP 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If another, more neutral website can be found that also hosts a neutral, accurate English translation of Hezbollah's manifesto, I would prefer that that site be used. As hard as I tried, I could not find one. I encouraged others to search for one and perhaps find one, but so far none has been found. Until one is found, I'm afraid the Stand With Us hyperlink will have to do. Its an imperfect solution to the problem, but the only solution I can think of that would for the manifesto to be available to Wikipedia readers in English. Perhaps some day WikiSource will pick it up, but until then, all we have to work with is, unfortunately, Stand With Us, which I'm sure we all agree is better than nothing at all. In short, SJP and I are in agreement: another site would be better than Stand With Us, but Stand With Us would be better than nothing at all. --GHcool 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--SJP 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you fully understand what I am saying. I am saying that if the information found within the Manifesto, then we should take out the translation from the pro-Israel propaganda site, and replace it with the link with the same info, even if it is not a translation of the manifesto. We are not in need of a translation of the manifesto if the information contained within it can be found elsewhere. Have a nice day!--SJP 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The best option though would be for us to find a translation on a neutral site. That is common sense.--SJP 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We are even less "in need" of Mother Jones editorials, but I don't see anybody trying to delete it from the "External links" section. As I said before, if another website can be found with an accurate translation, by all means put it in. If not, then Stand With Us will have to do. --GHcool 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am against adding Mother Jones in if what is covered in it is covered in other links. DOn't try to make it sound like we are singling out standwithus, we are not.--SJP 03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean keeping it in:)--SJP 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at SWU suggests we should single them out. Their partisanship extends far beyond advocacy and extends to highly abusive attempts to damage the personal and professional lives of those they disagree with. It would not be unreasonable to call them "dangerous extremists" carrying out a McCarthyite campaign of smears, making the use of their material highly problematic. I'm not familiar with Mother Jones, but I'd be very surprised if they're as unpleasant to those they disagree with. PR^talk 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll About Standwithus

Should the manifesto found on the pro Israel propaganda site standwithus be used as a source/external link? Please vote yes or no below and give a reason. This is to see what the consensus is.

---

• No it should not be used. We can find the same exact info on other, more neutral websites. When we can we need to stay away from biased sites with a political agenda.--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. As I said before, if you can find another "more neutral website" with the "same exact info," I would support that website to be the one sourced. If not, then Stand With Us will have to do. --GHcool 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it does work on consensus.--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any sources that violates WP:RS should not used, with out any exception. --Pejman47 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on consensus. Wikipedia works on Wikipedia guidelines (most notably WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V). The Jerusalem Quarterly is an reliable source, it can be verified (as shown by Sa.vakilian), and the information is presented in the article from a neutral point of view. The debate is over unless a better website can be found with the same translation. --GHcool 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus says "Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus." We have policies and guidelines we work with as well.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I stand corrected, but Wikipedia is still not a democracy. --GHcool 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say it is:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• source:No/external link:Conditional Yes In the case of source I prefer the book. In the case of the external link I can accept it conditionally. If it's the only complete version which can be find freely in this case and if it's translation is correct, I agree with it. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject reason #1, SWU is not acceptable - there are huge problems with translations from Middle Eastern languages appearing in the Western media (think of Ahamdinejad's "wipe out Israel" and alleged problems in MEMRI's translations). The problem is much worse when it comes to advocacy groups which systematically smear those people who have some knowledge of what they speak - eg SWU says things like: ... (MECA) an anti-Israel group headed by "reformed Zionist" Barbara Lubin, who is notable for her dismissal of Hizbollah terrorists as "ordinary schleps like the rest of us".[2] So we'd be unable to trust any tame interpreter that SWU were using anyway. And Reject reason #2, this is not a manifesto - this is not The Hezbollah Manifesto (it's not even A Hezbollah Manifesto). It's a statement from one guy (of whom we know nothing whatsoever) in 1985, when Hezbollah was newly formed and fighting the occupying Israelis. If Hezbollah had a manifesto they'd have translated it themselves, precisely in order to stop people like SWU inventing something. (And on this occasion, we cannot even claim that our western ways are better, when Israel itself has no constitution). PR^talk 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• source:No/external link:Conditional Yes Agree with Sa.vakilian. It's an important document, important to have the translation, and until proven otherwise Jerusalem Quarterly should be considered a reliable source. --BoogaLouie 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you make of the argument that it's not their manifesto - it's just a very, very out-dated statement from someone who is (presumably) a complete unknown within the modern Hezbollah? And that, if it was a manifesto, it would have been sympathetically translated (or even white-washed) into English long ago - we'd not be having this argument? Could you also comment on the argument that SWU is too "angry" and personally unpleasant to be depended on anyway? PR^talk 12:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do they have a new manifesto? If not, has Hebollah disavowed, or revised, or distanced itself from the manifesto?

There are a good many angry and unpleasant sources about in the middle east and elsewhere. We're not inviting SWU for a cup of tea, were attempting to assess its credibility. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 18:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah appear not to have a manifesto - they'd most certainly have their own English translation of it if they did, and it would be easily accessible to us. And they would have re-issued it for the totally different circumstances they're operating under 22 years later now that the occupation forces have been driven out of the country. Meanwhile, SWU could never produce a reliable translation of such a document. PR^talk 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't make a statement about StandWithUs's validity as a translator and host of the manifesto, but I have noticed a problematic use of the manifesto in synthesizing sources to advance a position. For instance, the statement "Hezbollah wishes for the destruction of Israel, which they see as being a unlawful "entity", and not a real nation" is effectively sourced only to the manifesto. (I say "effectively" because it's also sourced, presumably for camouflage purposes, to a smattering of nonreliable sources, such as a guest piece in an independently run student newspaper and an op-ed by the director of the partisan group MEMRI. Both pieces simply re-quote the manifesto, and neither use the terminology adopted in our article. For bonus points, there's a citation to a PBS website which has bupkis to say about the "destruction of Israel".)

• Now, the nature of Hezbollah's manifesto is certainly worthy of discussion. The problem comes when citing the Hezbollah charter in the context of its present policies and attitudes. Like any political party, it evolves and changes political positions over time. The manifesto is more than twenty years old and dates to a period where South Lebanon was under Israeli occupation and Hezbollah was a very different group. By analogy, there are many centrist political parties in the West which trace their lineage to Marxism, and some of them have manifestos calling for world revolution that are still technically in force. This does not mean we could claim they're radical socialists and cite their old manifestos to verify it. There's no shortage of good secondary sources, but right now we're combining original synthesis from the primaries with claims made in op-eds and unreliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I told before we can find more information about Hezbollah and its idea in some books like "The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology: Religious Ideology, Political Ideology". There is also a paragraph in Hezbollah#Ideology which discuss about this issue. I think we can refer to manifesto and then explain which part of it has changed.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Template:LOCErequest Please consider WP:SIZE. It's not an absolute rule, but perhaps some material should be split into separate articles. In addition to being more attractive to more readers, a more concise article reduces the amount of discussion needed to achieve consensus, especially on controversial topics as this one is. Unimaginative Username 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Do you agree with nominating the article in Wikipedia:Peer review. I think this article is going to be an FA article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, once the "Ideology" section is trimmed. --GHcool 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have problems at the moment on the point of it being stable. But this is recent, and hopefully consensus will be built. Once that is resolved, and the Ideology section is trimmed I would say lets do it. mceder (u t c) 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It won't be a FA until we resolve the categorization issues. Yahel Guhan 18:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yahel, I guess you misunderstood. I didn't say I want to nominate this article as FA article. Peer review is what I meant. In this process some other wikipedians including you can explain their ideas about this article.Then we can improve the article on the basis of their ideas. Of course stability isn't one of the criteria for peer reviewing.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I've nominated this article for peer review in last week. But just it has received suggestions which were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. Please be bold and write your ideas and suggestions here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagreements

In some cases I'm not satisfied with the suggestions and we should discuss about them.

1. Hezbollah's Shi'a Islamic doctrine:

   There is written Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. But in this case we can't obey it. Because there are different interpretation of Shi'a Islamic doctrine and Hezbollah fallows Ayatollah Khomeini's interpretation. I think Shi'a Islamic doctrine is not clear heading.

Aye. I wondered if I perhaps jumped the gun on this one, after I renamed the heading. If it is as you say, and I have no doubt it is not, then we should change it back. mceder (u t c) 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. References

   We need seperate part for references especially if we use books as reference like what has done in Islam. I disagree with GHcool's edition due to the fact that nobody looks for the references in Other links section.

2. Removing some sections

   It's written in peer review Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Therefor GHcool has removed some sections but we should discuss about it to achieve consensus.[3]

1. Lebanese government positions on Hezbollah's disarmament

   This art is important. I prefer to improve and expand it. At present there are two political block in Lebanon's government which have different viewpoint about the issue. We should explain both of them.

1. Intelligence capabilities

   I think we should merge this part into Hezbollah#Armed strength and make a new section Armed strength and Intelligence capabilities. Of course as I wrote in Todo template Armed strength is not clear. This part should be rewritten due to the fact that Hezbollah's armed strength isn't revealed and different sources have announced their estimations which contradict with each other.

1. Accusations of war crimes

   This section contains duplicated information and I agree with removing it. The point is found in Background as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations, again

It looks like we need to go through all references again, and replace links with the Cite templates. This is a potential FA failure point under criteria 2c. mceder (u t c) 13:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should replace online source with print one wherever possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Big problems with this article

I'm no expert on Hezbollah, but I can immediately see four five significant problems with the article (only the last fourth of which is under consideration):

1) Hezbollah supporters claim it has now defeated Israel 5 times. We may not accept the claims, but we need to report them properly ("Conflict against Israel" in the article doesn't do it). Here's how a March 07 Counterpunch article lists these victories: 1) The April 30, 1985 Israel withdrawal ... direct result of military pressure from a new organization ... calling itself Hezbollah. 2) July 1993. Israel's "operation accountability". ... UN counted 1,224 air raids and more than 28,000 US shells fired into Lebanon by Israel ... Hezbollah fired Katusha rockets for 10 hours into Galilee settlements ... Israel had enough and contacted Washington to arrange a ceasefire. 3) April 11, 1996 Israel's 'Operation Grapes of Wrath'. ... Hezbollah's victory cost Shimon Peres ... 1996 Israeli election. 4) May 24, 2000. ... abandoning its planned phased withdrawal as well as its agents, the South Lebanon's Army. 5) Hezbollah's claimed (and widely accepted) victory in 2006 July.

2) Hezbollah tries not to punish the many Lebanese who have collaborated. Hezbollah scores mightily with this tactic, which is vital to understanding it's relative success. (Bush and Olmert are alleged to want another Civil War in Lebanon, seeking out and arming small factions - another side of the same coin? - also needs mentioning).

3) There is no mention that the founders of Israel always intended to seize the south of Lebanon. David Ben-Gurion in 1937 wanted the northern border of Israel to be with a new Christian state (while boasting of transfers already carried out). His political opponents, Begin, Shamir etc wanted the whole of Lebanon and much more. It took the Lebanese at least 45 years (since before their state existed until 1982) to wake up to the threat they were and are under, and Hezbollah was and is the first real indication of it. (Dayan was talking of the take-over of Lebanon in 1955 according to Sharett's diaries).--Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

4) We quote the "1985 Hezbollah manifesto" as saying: "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated." a) The statement in question is not a manifesto (see reasons above). b) Even if this was the manifesto, to use a translation with "obliterate" is needlessly alarming - we have lots of examples of immigrant controlled (and bitterly resented) governments collapsing without too much drama. We're publishing the propaganda of one side with these weasel words. PR^talk 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

5) No mention that the Palestinians are Sunni, the opposite of Hezbollah and al-Qaeda and (according to Zarqawi referenced several times) their sworn enemy. Careful work is needed if people are to have a chance of "understanding" the subject. PR^talk 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello PR. This is all very interesting, and if you feel this page has big problems without the information you state in #1, #2 and #3 I suggest you write something to this effect based on reliable sources, and add it here for review and consensus before adding it to the article. I think this is a good way to add information into a GA rated article, while not required of course - it is a good way to make sure the relevant, reliably sourced information stays in the article! On #4, I think this one is being discussed above... Cheers. mceder (u t c) 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello PalestineRemembered:) Thanks for bringing up some of those changes here. I totally agree that that information should be added to the article. You need to find reliable sources though. If the sources are of bad quality, then I am against adding this. First of all, look for sources written by the experts. If you can't find those, look for news articles. If you add that Bush and Olmert are alleged to want another Civil War in Lebanon, but cite a source from a hezbollah, anti-American, or Anti-Israel website then there will be a problem. Just as adding SWU is unacceptable, adding other propaganda sites is unacceptable. Cheers!--SJP 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Hezbollah, and my distaste for it is such that I don't intend to become one. But just passing acquaintanceship with the topic convinces me that this is an article with major omissions. It completely ignores some of the most important information concerning the subject.

I could try and improve this article, but I'd be concerned that any sources I bring to bear (I've only offered CounterPunch so far, though that should be adequate for what I'm using it for) will be rejected in an effort to paint Hezbollah in the one-dimensional fashion we have here. Finkelstein would be an excellent source for some material - not least because he's exceptionally careful in this area. And yet he's missing completely. Judging by the edit-record, he'd have been aggressively edit-warred out if he was ever in there.

Even where I have unimpeachable sources (such as Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan's intention to seize Lebanon), I fear bogus opposition of the kind I suffered on a previous occasion when I tried to edit this article, quoting Ben-Gurion is summararily dismissed as POV. If Lebanon is now uniting behind Hezbollah (as seems possible), then we all want and need to understand what's going on. The current article doesn't help anyone to do this - on a topic where there is such massive disinformation, it should be relatively easy for us to produce something that makes people think "Wow, these Wikipedia people really know their subject". That's not the impression given now. PR^talk 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, one revert labeling your edit as POV should not cause fear. It is to be expected really, with so many people from so many places, with so many viewpoints. The best way to go about it is come up with what you want to add or change, find reliable sources and post it in here, asking for comments. The talk page is where we work this through and if we create consensus here, then keeping it in the article will be much easier. I personally do not believe this article is particular one-dimensional as much work has been done to try to include several viewpoints(check out the extensive archive of this talk page to see what I mean......), but everything can be improved so bring it on. mceder (u t c) 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

These are my idea about 5 points which PR has mentioned:

1. I have reliable sources for 3, 4 and 5. In the first case we have some problem due to the fact that Hezbollah officially established at that year and it usually deny former operations, although its members participate in them.
2. I think we should expand Hezbollah political activities by adding information about two opposite block in Lebanon and the stance of Hezbollah about 14 March coalition. You can read 2006–2007 Lebanese political protests and Hezbollah political activities.
3. It is written in background that Israel had become militarily involved in Lebanon in combat with the Palestine Liberation Organization which 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 Southern Lebanon and besieged Beirut. We can change it if you can find reliable sources for your claim.
4. I think it's really the position of Hezbollah at that time and I haven't seen any fact that shows they've changed their idea.
5. There is something about this issue in Hezbollah#Foreign_relations and we moved some more information to a sub-article to reduce the size of this article:Hezbollah foreign relations. We can mention Hamas is Sunni but I oppose to adding more information.Y

--Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If Hezbollah claim they've defeated Israel 5 times, then we should report them doing so. It's not a "surprising" result requiring some cast-iron explanation from a Western RS, the CounterPunch article is entirely adequate. Rejecting non-Western views makes this articles meaningless, as should have been obvious before we started writing it. If we cannot provide a tolerably NPOV article, then the honorable solution is that we flag ourselves here as "Propagandists for the West and incapable of giving anyone else a fair crack of the whip".
2. The "policy of forgiveness to ex-collaborators with Israel" by Hezbollah needs a proper discussion. (I see unexplained reference to the truly astonishing fact that large numbers of Lebanese Christians are said to support Hezbollah). Also mention the boxes of arms being allegedly sent to every identifiable criminal faction - the sources for these statements are bound to be anti-Israel - so? I've just been told (unchallenged) that such sources cannot be used - you can see why I'd not waste my time against this kind of thing.
3. There are excellent, Western, sources that the pre-cursorors of Israel intended to seize some or most of Lebanon. The actual founders of Israel intended it in the 1930s (and long dead ones intended it in the 1890s). It's quite difficult to understand those who seek to edit-war out this information. Is it our intention to provide a caricature bogey-man, or are we trying to write worthwhile articles in a worthwhile encyclopedia?
4. The 1985 "Hezbollah manifesto" is worthless, for the reasons given that nobody seems to have challenged. What's it doing still in the article? There is far, far better evidence that some/many/all Israelis want/wanted the boundaries of Israel to be the Nile and the Euphrates. Israel still isn't telling us what border it wants. Where in the encyclopedia do we have Ben-Gurion saying "the boundaries of Israel is where the Sahal will take us"? (Sahal is the army) It's ludicrous to be quoting the "intentions" of Hezbollah (badly distorted as has been done) and not quoting the intentions of Israel reported by Westernised ex-Israeli bi-lingual Hebrew/English speakers such as Naeim Giladi.
5. We've referenced Zarqawi (long dead Iraqi?) calling Hezbollah apostate, but nothing to indicate that he bears no relation to what is happening between Shi'ite and Sunni in Lebanon. If it's our intention to produce a misleading article, then we've done a fine job. PR^talk 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spell "Hezbollah" consistently

In attempting to copy-edit this article, have noticed various spellings of the organization. It's often difficult to transliterate other alphabets (Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Cyrillic, etc.) into English, but if the article is entitled, "Hezbollah", then for consistency, it should be spelled that way throughout. Please keep this in mind when making edits! Thank you, Unimaginative Username 06:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick application of the "Hated Google Test" gives 7.7 million to Hezbollah and 1.4 million to Hizbollah, so there's pretty much consensus of the spelling in the English language. PR^talk 07:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We should use Hezbollah(the title of the article) throughout this, but we should bring up the other spellings in the intro. The Osama Bin Laden article does that, and I do believe we should do that here. Cheers!--SJP 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SJP, sounds like a good plan! Please do so if you can. I'm just here to copy-edit and have little personal knowledge of the topic, spellings, sources, etc. Thanks, Unimaginative Username 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay:) I will soon. Cheers!--SJP 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline in funding from Iran?

While copy-editing, noticed this statement: "The US estimates that Iran has been giving Hezbollah about US$60-100 million per year in financial assistance, but that assistance declined as other funding was secured, primarily from South America." However, the article that is cited appears to verify only the estimated $60-100 million, but not the portion of the statement about this figure declining as South American funding rose. I'm not going to change this, but if there is a source for the decline in Iranian funding, please provide; else, perhaps the South American funding should be mentioned without any connection to an Iranian reduction. Unimaginative Username 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Funding of Hezbollah, where the same statement is made, but with two references. The same as in the main article, plus a CNN article. The only reference to Hezbollah funding is this statement:

Barakat is co-owner of Galeria Page, one of Ciudad del Este's biggest shopping malls, which intelligence sources said they believe he has used as a front for raising funds and recruiting volunteers for Hezbollah.

I would not say this is conclusive that South American funding rose.......... I have also attempted to find online sources in this matter, but with no success. I have removed "but that assistance declined as other funding was secured, primarily from South America." until such reference can be located. mceder (u t c) 18:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Position of Russian Federation

Copy-edit is complete. The only other content issue I noted (besides the above) was that there is still a tag (challenge) in the section on Russia's position on Hezbollah. Would suggest that a consensus be reached there before FAR. Good luck with FA! Unimaginative Username 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose we delete this sentence since it doesn't really serve any purpose and is borderline original research. ---- GHcool (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I second the deletion. It is not very clear, and I am not quite sure what the piece is trying to say anymore. I am sure there was a point in there somewhere, sometime. mceder (u t c) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression, but having not done any research on this topic, only copy-editing it, I felt that the change should be made only by editors involved with this article. I agree with the two posts above, and do think it reads more clearly and flows better now. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For further copy-edit assistance...

In copy-editing this article, I've become rather interested in it and in its progress to FA. I'm at WP only intermittently, but if you feel that I could be of any further assistance in this area, please feel free to place a message on my talk page. Will respond when able. Peace, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're interested in this article. I suggest you help us with it before nominating for FA. This let you improve other articles. You see, due to the fact that it's not a calm article and now and then we have editorial war, it cause wiki-stress. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I have not done any research on this topic, and so cannot contribute as far as content. I meant that when you resolve the content issues and get it to a stable version with consensus, I would be happy to copy-edit again. As for helping with the wiki-stress of a controversial article, I am not an admin, and I am not sure that it would be proper to act as some sort of unofficial moderator. But as a copy-editor, I like to see all WP articles well-written, in a fair and balanced manner. If there is something specific I could do, let me know. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nasrallah quote about suicide bombers

Well, hello again. Didn't intend to become involved in content issues, but in reviewing, saw this statement: " But until such a settlement is reached, he said that he would continue to encourage Palestinian suicide bombers." I read the article that is cited as a source for this statement, a 2003 interview with Nasrallah. There is no such quote. The interviewer says of Nasrallah, "In his speeches to the faithful, his language is laced with ... rationalizations for suicide bombings. ". "Rationalization" is not quite the same degree as actively "encouraging". I didn't see anything in this interview in which Nasrallah encourages suicide bombings until there is a Palestinian state; the other parts of this section indicates that he feels such a settlement is a Palestinian matter. Unless someone sees something else in the interview that I missed, or has other sources, it seems that this statement should be removed, as misrepresenting Nasrallah's position.Perhaps changed to, "However, Nasrallah has rationalized suicide bombing attacks." That is the most NPOV way that I could describe what was in this 2003 interview. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)