The Hiballah came into existence as a reaction to the Israeli invasion in 1982. I would like to add this. Btw. I was in Lebanon at the time. --RS
Isnt this a Copyright infrigement?
Antonio Here comes Martinez!! Here Comes Martinez!! Martin
That text is everywhere on the Internet and has been in Wikipedia for well-over a year. If anything everyone else copied from us - but it probably is public ___domain US government text. --mav
Well, I wanted to stop people from bashing back and forth, and instead start moving forward. It might be a case of "I don't write 5 words but I change 7", but let's try to add to things instead of (just) delete them/revert them.
~ender 2003-05-07 01:45 MST
I still think that we should pare the history of invasion out of this article, and put it elsewhere. This should only be Hizballah stuff. Maybe just put something to the effect that Americans were on the scene, and as part of the occupation forces (to the residents) they were targeted. I'm willing to re-put in that much of the world media depicts Hizballah differently, but I'd really like some cites for that. That's implied when we put 'American media says' but not stated.
I'd also like some current information... but I ain't been following that too much.
~ender 2003-05-07 02:15 MST
Is it really true that hizbullah is also known as the "Islamic Jihad Organisation"? I know there is an organization of this name in Palestine, but as far as I know that originated from Egypt and has nothing to do with Hizbullah. So, is this merely a name overlap? Do they need to have disambiguation? "We are not that Islamic Jihad, we're another group of the same name." Or, more likely, is this incorrect information? Graft
- (Can't help myself...) No, we're the People's Front of Judea! (stifled snicker) -- John Owens
Why have we chosen this spelling? Google finds 17,400 hits for "Hizballah" and 151,000 for "Hezbollah", and a search for Hizballah says, "Did you mean: Hezbollah" - Zoe
I deleted several paragraphs and links discussing accusations of Israeli bombing of south Lebanon. Although those items might belong in some other article, they seem out of place here. -- Zoe
- Accusations?? Umm, those are news reports.
- Damn, you guys are making me start to side with that anonymous guy who can't spell.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 21:12 MST
- As I said, put it into an article in which it is more relevant. -- Zoe
- If you're gonna be deleting it, then *you* put it in an article that would be more relevant.
- And deleting source documents is not very NPOV.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 21:24 MST
- Also, I don't see where it could be much more relevant than in an article on Hizbullah... that would be like saying that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not relevant to an article on Operation Desert Storm... Graft
- Please explain how bombings in May of 2003 have anything to do with Hezbollah. If you want to include discussions of other events which led up to the creation of Hezbollah, then that's fine, but this is a current event which, unless it's because of Hezbollah attacks on Israel, or are direct attacks against Hezbollah which somehow are more important than any other attacks on Hezbollah, then how is it relevant? -- Zoe
- Who's talking about May 2003? I didn't see any specific dates in the relevant text, actually, but as far as I'm aware the last time Israel bombed southern lebanon was when Barak was in power. Anyway, it doesn't matter much.. the article really just needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Graft
- The rationale by the non-western contigent complaining that we're just spewing department of defense rhetoric is that the Hizballah is a self-defense organization, and that they only operated on lebanese soil (which I tried to disprove using some sources). Part of the rationale behind the Hizballah existing is the terror attacks by Israel, to 'eliminate' terrorists, by bombing power plants and radio stations. Kinda like the US in Iraq, if you look at Gulf war 2 & 3....
- But ya know what, have it. Stupid revert wars aren't acceptable. Add information, make information more correct, add new articles. If you want to delete. Have fun. Point is to be adding stuff, and making it better, not removing it. It was an attempt at trying to be more inclusivist to other non-state department views.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 21:38 MST
- Oh yeah Zoe you should also mention that you completely removed all references to American peacekeeping forces entering the fray, UN resolutions, and the like :)
- ~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST
Sheez, ender, create a damn login already! Graft
- Bah, hate logins :P
- This is the internet, we're all allowed to be cranks. :)
- ~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST
The last sentence of the article is pretty awful. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, exactly, so I didn't want to unilaterally change it, but it's a terrible sentence. john 04:05 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
Moving my comments to the bottom instead of continuing to post in the middle. Please tell me what American peacekeepers have ever been involved in Lebanon/Israel. -- Zoe
- Consider reading before editting.
- FYI: [1]
- Which is why Americans have been attacked by the Hizballah.
- I've had enough with wasting my time on this.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 21:52 MST
- Claiming that there were US peacekeeping forces in the area doesn't make it true. -- Zoe
- How did US Marines come to be bombed by the Hizballah in Lebanon? They magically appear? Maybe they're some other 'US' forces I don't know about.
- Tell that to Congress and the Department of Defense who awarded those forces medals for excellent conduct. Claiming it is not true doesn't make things false either. I gave you specific references to look up and prove or disprove, that should be enough. I didn't merely claim 'american forces' although that would read cleaner, which is what you seem to be shooting for - delete everything you can get your hands on. Minimal information. I'm not sure that those specific references should've been in there (note above), but I did include them. Because we're talking about the rationale for attacks on Americans in Lebanon.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 22:01 MST
- "Peacekeeprs" implies that they were there to engage in action against either the Israelis or the Lebanese or both. Their sole purpose there was to remove Americans safely from the action. They never engaged in battle against Hezbollah. -- Zoe
- Try reading again, you'll like it.
- non-combatants -> combatants.
- Also, I don't make up these names, you have issues with it, tell it to the US Department of Defense & the UN. I don't think invading a country should be called peacekeeping either, but that's what we like to call it.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 22:23 MST
Basically I guess my complaint is this: I don't see people attempting to adapt to/address other points of view and refute them with facts. In the places where there may be different interpretations of events, I don't see both sides being given air-time. I don't think that the clueless non-speller user has been taken seriously enough. Yeah *e has issues - but that doesn't mean *ier viewpoint is irrelevant.
I believe this article is pretty much US propoganda at present - that doesn't mean it's without merit, but the suppression of disenting voices/views does not make me feel good that it is even half-way accurate.
But underlying this is a larger problem. I see people deleting information they don't agree with. Removal of sources, etc, etc. I don't believe some people are actually reading what's written before editting/reverting (as is apparent above, re: American forces). I think it's disingenous to imply that all the information is still there, when it's buried in the history page and not visible.
And I'm unhappy with the way the Wiki system seems to be dealing with these issues. Which is an indictment of the people who watch recent changes and do nothing.
~ender 2003-05-11 23:05 MST
- And who might those people be? -- Zoe
Seems to me the main problem with this article is that it's very poorly organized, and not especially well written, at least at present. The last sentence/paragraph remains dreadful, and much of the rest of it isn't much better. I don't know that much about the subject, so I don't really want to get into rewriting it, but I think what really needs to be done is a thorough rewrite that tries to give information about Hezbollah in basically chronological order. As it is, the chronology is extremely garbled and its full of bizarre statements and scare quotes. john 06:06 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
- (American Media) That is only the result of edits :)
- Check the history and see the progress before recent reverts. If Zoe had completely reamed all the information in the article, you wouldn't have been bothered at all.
- ~ender 2003-05-11 23:15 MST
- There ya go, almost completely back to US state department stance.
- C'mon, you guys can delete the rest too...
- ~ender 2003-05-11 23:21 MST