Talk:Hezbollah/Archive structure

Wikify
This important article is extremely bloated and lacks a coherent structure. I'm going to 'wikify' tag it. Any objections please follow up below. Nick Fraser 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The structure as it was and as it is again makes perfect sense to me: there is a section regarding specific allegations, there is a section regarding general allegations (or specification) and there is a section for rebuttal (which looks really weak, by the way : you may wish to spend some energy looking for something a little stronger). I suggest that major changes to the article structure not be made until they have been discussed here ... and by "discussed", I mean that a suggestion should be up for at least 24 hours before action is taken. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My dear friend many people have editted this article and some of them don't pay attention to this page. I propose you to improve this part. I think you can do it well.--Sa.vakilian 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dream of holding you responsible for other people's actions. I'll only consider you responsible for your own actions. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that part(Designation as terrorist organization ). I've only tried to improve it. Of course this part is very disputable. I prefer to move it to a new article and write an abstract instead of it.--Sa.vakilian 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Operation against Hezbollah
There are some operations which took place against Hezbollah. I think we should add them in "Operational history" section to save neutrality.--Sa.vakilian 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added two operations. Count Iblis 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

THIS MUST BE ADDED OR IT IS NOT NEUTRAL AND BECOMES A POV On the operational side, we do not learn about what Israel has done do fight them. They have also killed many civilians in the process. SkyEarth

Remove "Operational History"
The "Operational History" section should be removed - it merely duplicates what is already in the "History" article and some of the operations referred to are really old. Is there any consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: The whole purpose for a History of Hezbollah is to put it there and leave a lead to it here. Mceder 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed too. The Operational History only talks about what Hezbollah has done. It should also talk about what Israel has done to stop Hezbollah. --SkyEarth 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)SkyEarth
 * Well.. this is the article about Hezbollah right. So I am sure Israel has it's own operational history section, and that information fits there. This information fits here. Mceder 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving the items that are not already in the History of Hezbollah article to that article. Count Iblis 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I am so impatient. I have removed the whole section. The article is now 6 kilobytes less in size. Mceder 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mceder, Hezbollah conflict with Israel is what defines it. So it only makes sense to describe Hezbollah's strikes on Israel and Israel's strikes on it. Otherwise this is POV!! Because it only says Hezbollah is attacking and attacking Israel without Israel attacking back (which it is fully entitled to). You are not including Israeli attacks on Hezbollah because..... you tell me why? EVERYONE MAKE NOTE OF MCEDER'S COMMENTS
 * Dear User:SkyEarth.. Please chill. All I did was move the Operational History to the History of Hezbollah section. Which you agreed to yourself. And please, everyone make note of my comments - perhaps soon I will get my jewish decoder ring. Mceder 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mceder, What do you mean by a "Jewsish decoder ring"? I don't care if you are Arab, Muslim, or Jewish (I am neither of the three). I just thought your comments were harsh, "Well... this is an article about Hezbollah right. So I am sure Israel has it's own operational history setion...."; Israel has had many engagements with many other forces. Hezbollah is only fighting Israel. So its conflict with Israel is what defines it. So therefore, it was important to have a chronicle showing each sides attacks on the other. Hezbollah abduction of soldiers, assasinations by Israel, tragedies, etc. --82.35.35.4 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear 82.35.35.4.. The decoder ring is a joke. If my comments were harsh, I apologize. But please do not assume bad faith, or that everyone has a hidden agenda with every edit. A lot of us are just trying to make this article better. I have worked on several things to shorten it down. It is way too long. It needs to be written more in summary style, with broken off articles. This is not POV, just standard Wikipedia practice when an article gets too big. Mceder 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did this go? This needs to be summarized or the article is very POV.  Elizmr 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Elizmr, everything is saved at Talk:History of Hezbollah. You guys feel free to put it back wherever you deem it to go. My suggestion is as I state on that talk page, information already not in the History article should be worked into it - and a summary written for the History section on this page. Mceder 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe we have consensus that this be removed from the main article. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be difficult, but consensus means everyone agrees. I don't agree. Elizmr 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The names of former Secretary-Generals
I propose to add this text to History. As I know of people just know Naserallah. "After announcing the formation of Hizbullah in 1985, Sheikh Subhi Tufaili became its first Secretary-General. In 1991 Sheikh Sayyed Abbas Musawi substituted as Secretary-General, but he was killed within mounths by Israel and Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah succeeded him. --Sa.vakilian 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree: I think this should be kept in the "History" article, particularly since neither of Nasrallah's predecessors have wikiPages. But it's only a few words so I can't get excited either way. But "mounths" should be changed to "months", if it is in. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We write a paragraph about relation with "Iranian Revolutionary Guards" so why shouldn't write a paragraph about the most important persons who have participated in this movement.--Sa.vakilian 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

 * I have reverted changes by the user "Elizmr" to the summary of "History". This section is the current subject of a POV tag and it is entirely inappropriate for major changes to made in this section - particularly by this user, who has not achieved any semblance of consensus. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, just because you don't agree with me, and because I'm not happy with the article being one-sided, please don't say I have not been looking for consensus. Others have complained because I have been discussing TOO MUCH (see below).  Moreover, I explained the changes I made in my edit summaries.  I apologize for not using the talk page and will do that more.


 * To summarize recent changes to the History section: One sentence was not historical and was a copy of what was already in the intro. I thought we were worried about length here; I don't consider that to be a major change.  I took out white space between one mention of when the org started and amother mention of when the org started.  I also don't consider that to be a major change.  Finally, I deleted something about a murder since it was already mentioned in the section referred to.  Maybe this is a major change and I apologize for not discussing on talk first, altho Wikipedia does tell us to "be bold".  It seems bizarre to highlight one historical event in a "history" section while omiting others.  The entire "operational history" was removed, for example (in my opinion, without consensus, see above).  I think some of those events are more relevant than what is included.  The comprimise would be to not mention any specific events.  What do others think?  Elizmr 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your summary of proposed changes: it makes no sense to take something out of a major subsection because it is "a copy of what was already in the intro." The introduction is subordinate to the body of the article. It introduces the body of the article. That is why it's called an introduction. In any event, seek consensus before inflicting your changes on the article. Wait 24 hours and see what gets posted. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the verb "inflicting" to describe my edits to the article is a personal attack. Re: waiting 24 hours, that is not a wikipedia guideline, but WP:NPA is.  Please refer to it.  Elizmr 09:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV history
Please read above debates and tell us haw could we make this part NPOV.--Sa.vakilian 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My problem with the section is that it doesn't really summarize the History of Hezbollah. I'd like to see more of an abstract of the phases the organization gone through in their development than what is here.  The section as it stands doesn't say much, and by that omission I feel it is a bit of a whitewash and have labeled it POV for that reason.  I can work on an abstract version of the other article and post here to see what others think.  Elizmr 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure
While heroically referenced, this article seems a bit muddled structurally. We've got things at all levels of detial, some bits are summary style, others aren't, etc. I've put the current TOC, and below it a possible structure for a new more compressed structure. The idea it that each bits is a summary of a fuller article, as history is now. Thoughts? - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 14:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed structure
Please edit me! * 1 Introduction (including summaries from each of the following sections) * 2 History o 2.1 1982-2000: Under Israel o 2.2 2000-2005: Post-occupation * 3 Ideology o 3.1 Religous o 3.1.1 Initial o 3.1.2 Evolving o 3.2 Social o 3.2.1 Initial o 3.2.2 Evolving o 3.3 Political o 3.2.1 Initial o 3.2.2 Evolving * 5 Structure and activities o 4.1 Political o 4.1.1 Elected Members o 4.1.2 Rallies/Recruitment o 4.1.3 Notable speaches, etc o 4.2 Military o 4.2.1 Structure o 4.2.2 Methods o 4.2.3 Known Engagements o 4.3 Civilian (including media) * 5 Political relations o 5.1 Within Lebanon o 5.2 Israel (recognition of Nasrallah, mutual rispecks) o 5.2 Internationally (summary of EU, UN, US, etc. positions,                  also Iran, Syria, and "betrayal" by Egypt,                   Jordan, etc.; spin this off into a new article) o 5.3 With other militant groups (summary of current "Assistance from abroad,"                 "Relationship to Hamas," "Links to al-Qaeda," etc.,                   and spin these off to their own article) o 5.4 Public opinion (popularity or lack thereof in Lebanon,                  Muslim world) * 6 See also * 7 Notes (eg with the tag) * 8 External links

Discussion
(Goofyfoot2001 = Goofyfoot)

I am really amazed that people actually think Hezbola is NOT a terrorist organization. I thought people were smarter than that. Not changing the text of this article basically says that Wikipedia is worth the pixels it's printed on. I checked the rules and as far as I can see this piece is just that a piece.

Thanks for starting this, I'm with you that this is sorely needed. I'll try my hand at it here when I have time a little later. —Banzai! (talk) @ 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I hope it's okay that I got rid of the current outline (it was distracting me). Do you think most of the group's "Military operations," excluding the current conflict, could be merged into "History"? Also, I've always been unhappy with the title "Definitions/designations as terrorist," which I consider unwieldy, so I changed it--too chatty now? Feel free to revert my edits, of course. —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Comment I like the current structure of section 6: and would not like to lose it. People want to know about the relationship with other armed groups, especially. I will admit that I dislike the "Assistance from abroad" title (is Iran abroad?) ((there's a pun there, somewhere!)) and would prefer "Funding", but it's not a big deal. Given all the dispute that has been generated regarding the terrorism table, we should consider spinning that section off into a new article. Then we can report all the little nuances of the EU debate to our hearts' content. (Mr. Herman J. Blogsnotcher, office clerk to the Member from Porky's Corners, declared on July 22, 2006 that "Hezbollah aren't just terrorist, they're a bunch of old poo-poo heads!" (ref)) JiHymas@himivest.com 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6 Foreign and domestic relations
 * 6.1 Alleged links to al-Qaeda
 * 6.2 Position of the UN
 * 6.3 Relationship to the Lebanese government
 * 6.4 Relationship to Hamas and Palestinian national movement
 * 6.5 Assistance from abroad
 * 6.6 Current Relationship with Iran


 * What specifically do you like about the structure of that section? It seems so big and sprawling, I'm inclined to think it's the one section that could benefit the most from refactoring. Not just the "terrorist" section, but also Hezbollah's relationship to other guerilla groups deserves an article of its own, IMO. Both would be much more manageable than the present situation, and probably encourage more useful contributions. Then, as you say, we could summarize them here in a subsection. What do you think of these changes to the outline? —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with spinning out the relationships to other groups rather than incorporating them in the main article. The structure as currently proposed looks fine with one exception: funding. If you want to understand an organization, follow the money! Perhaps "Funding" should go in the "Structure and Activities" section? Ideally, however, it would get its own full section - I consider it that important. JiHymas@himivest.com 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have another quibble: the proposed structure has a "History" section with three subsections. We have already spun-off history ... shouldn't this section just be a brief summary and wikiLink? JiHymas@himivest.com 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's reasonable, I think. I'm not familiar with the "Funding" section and I've got no idea what to do with it, anyone else? —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, "Funding" is now called "Assistance from Abroad". Also, note that the dates are wrong in the proposed History Section (most of which should be a reference to the "History of Hezbollah" article): 1982-90 was the civil war, 1990-2000 was the Israeli Occupation. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "2006" section from "history" as it's not, err, historic. I alos added some subsections to make i easier to edit. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll embark on restructuring the article as worked out above. Suggestions? Opinions? Death threats? Write 'em in. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree JiHymas@himivest.com 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (24 hrs later) I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so this will have to wait for the weekend, unless someone else wants to take on the refactoring in the meantime. I've got my fingers crossed... :-) —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted to version "Revision as of 23:22, 20 August 2006". Structural changes should be discussed here prior to entry. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting article to avoid bloat and POW
[This heading was originally stand-alone: I have moved it to become a subheading of "structure" JiHymas@himivest.com 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)]

I suggest the subject of wether Hezbollah actually is or is not a terrorist organization be made a separate article. The title of the article would be something like "Hezbollah_terrorist_allegations".

The fact remains that merely 6 countries in the world officially regard Hezbollah (or parts of it) as terrorist, whereas the terrorism allegations table at the bottom of the article is very prominent when looking at the aricle as a whole. Tables, like pictures "say more than 1000 words", and is one of the first things a quickly scanning reader will focus on.

The table is also actually only a regular list in a very eye catching packaging - it does not actually give any clearer information than if the information had been presented as a regular paragraph: "Entities designating Hezbollah in full as terrorist: USA, Israel, Netherlands, Canada. Entities designating The Hezbollah External Security Organization (but not the rest of Hezbollah) as terrorist: United Kingdom, Australia."

When also including EU (which are not labeling any part of Hezbollah as terrorist) in that table the NPOW of the article as a whole is not fully maintained. It is also interesting to notice that Netherlands and United Kingdom also are part of EU and thus indirectly appear twice in this table.

My main point was that Hezbollah_terrorist_allegations be split into a new article, where it can take the space and focus it needs. The main article should of course clearly mention the allegations but not enhance them by using visual effects like tables. The table would be viable in a separate article as it would not imbalance overall focus.

84.48.108.156 10:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs a sep article and is central here. Let's just try to do it in a concise way that everyone can be happy with.  Elizmr 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) NOTE:  When I made this comment, I was not writing on "terrorist alleg" at all.  This comment of mine was moved here from another section out of context.  It is important not to overedit the tal pages/archives, lest things like this happen.  Elizmr 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We should maintain something like what is exist at the end of this article, but I agree to make a new article because I almost sure there are many things which wikipedians want to add in this issue and it will result in many dispute here. --Sa.vakilian 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections: Military: Political: Social
I propose we order the sections as above. The military activities chronologically first and it seems weird to place them last. Elizmr 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it up in the discussion of "Structure" on this page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That discussion is a bit old now. Why don't we discuss it here?  Elizmr 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)  You asked me to discuss on talk, I'm discussing.  Carbonate did some reorgs along structural lines and commented in talk, and you didn't tell him to discuss in the appropriate talk page section.  Call for balance.  OK?  Elizmr 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you propose that order? Yes, I did some reordering and posted a comment. I was going for paralellism in the structure by createing the social and political sections with the same heading as the military one. If anything, I think it is important to enphasise the positive social and political aspects because of recent events. Whether or not this group engages in terrorist activities, it also participates in democratic elections and is on the forefront of the reconstruction effort. I have read/seen on TV that they have created a construction company to help rebuild. Carbonate 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose that order because the military activities came first in their evolution as an organization. Elizmr 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have any opinions on changing the order. JiHymas, what do you think since you were the one who reverted the change I made.  I will change it in a few hours if no one is opposed to the change.Elizmr 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I put my comment here.--Sa.vakilian 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign and domestic relations
The begining of this part is not good. It should not be started with relation with iraqi groups. We need a begining which says there some countries who support Hezbollah including Iran and Syria also there are some movements which have strategic alliance with it including Palestinian groups also there are some countries which recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate party and negotiate with it including EU and there are some some countries who recognized it as a terrorist group and imposed military and financialy sanctins against it including US.

Also I think we should seperate domestic relations of Hezbollah with Lebanon government and Lebanese parties. Also we should put "Public opinion" of lebanese in that section.--Sa.vakilian 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * agree that we need more material on the relationships with Iran & Syria, and that these sections should be at the beginning of the section.
 * disagree that "Relationship to the Lebanese Government" should be in this section; this information should be in the "Political Activities" section.
 * disagree that "Public Opinion" of the Lebanese should be included in "Foreign & Domestic Relations". Public opinion is not always the same thing as government policy.
 * JiHymas@himivest.com 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to wikify "Foreign relations" as I told before.

I moved some part about position of Lebanese government and make a new section "Situation in Lebanon". Also I moved some part from history to armed strenght. Please look at this changes and try to improve the article structure. --Sa.vakilian 03:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * by the way, it this thing you added ok with you where I put it (in "politics"). I thought it was nice there, but let me know.  I wasn't sure if you had seen that I moved it.  Elizmr 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Manar TV
It seems strange that this is under "social services". Arguably as a propaganda organ, this is a military functionality. Let's put the media operation as a separate section. Elizmr 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Note:  one big step to getting the NPOV tag off the article is moving this section out of social services. Elizmr 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. There is some dispute as to whether Al-Manar television is a "military functionality" - the bombing has been condemned by all media associations except the Israeli one. See the article. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you disagree. I hear you.  I meant to say that it serves as a propaganda function, along with other functions.  This is why I think media ops should have its own section.  Calling it "social service" is a bit of a misnomer since it is too narrow a descriptor.  Elizmr 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I put this in its own section. This is crucial to move this article towards NPOV.  No one else expressed an opinion and JiHymas did not explain explicitly why Al Manar is explicitly as "social activity" only.  Elizmr 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Get consensus to change the structure and then change the structure to reflect consensus. The structure has been reviewed in earlier discussions (including the current one, which you are ignoring) and passed muster. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to get consensus for every edit I do to the article. You should defend why Al Manar TV is soely a "social service" if you want to put it there.  Elizmr 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in its own section. This station is not all social service. There is a huge amount of political content. There is a huge amount of content that serves military objectives of Hezbollah. Please note that I did NOT put this under "military" or "politics"; I just moved it out of "social services" into its own section. Reverting this change without defending it is unacceptable. Elizmr 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Fox News. It contains more government propaganda than Al Manar. It's all POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.255.32 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for leaving it where it now is, JiHymas, in its own section. This is an important aspect of moving the article towards NPOV.  Elizmr 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Military activities
Elizmr, Why do you insist on putting ths part before political activity? As I know although Hezbollah initially was a military organization but now it becomes a political party and I think its political identity has dominated its military one. --Sa.vakilian 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would argue that the military came first, so should be first in the discussion and is still prominent. If Hezbollah were to disarm, for example, I would say put the military lower down but as it is it is still a/the major focus.  If Hezbollah were to want to negotiate with Israel I would say put military lower down, because political activities goes with diplomatic activities.  But I don't see that happening.  At the core, H is a military organization with military goals.  Do you disagree?  Elizmr 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

i disagree, because Hezbollah DID want to negotiate with israel. they always do, but israel does not, so your better off taking this to the israel discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac33c (talk • contribs)

Mac33c; negoitiate with Israel about what? Israel's destruction? The raison d'être that Hezbollah has an armed "wing" (call it a military) is, as stated by them to destroy Israel; not to negotiate prisoners. Itzse 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

ummm no, to negotiate with the trade of soldiers. israel has plenty more than hezbollah has if you listen to anything other than what you want to hear, maybe you will find that out. Mac33c 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw that you went ahead and changed this. Here's a suggestion.  How about if we put military first, given the chronologic and other issues above, but expand explicit dicussion in the article (more than is there now) about the evolution of the organization and what they are doing to work politically?  This way the point you want to make implicitly with the structure can be made explicitly with the text instead.  Elizmr 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Hezbollah is a political party. It has 2 ministers in Lebanese cabinet and have political relation with many countries. It has negotiated with EU. Why do you it will have political identity if negotiates with Israel? I don't understand your viewpoint. But I think we can add an abstract abiut history of military activites and clashes between Hezbollah and Israel in the history section(and not only what Hezbollah has done but also what Israel has done against it). Then it comes above.--Sa.vakilian 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And also please pay attenion to this:"Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament. "--Sa.vakilian 16:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The negotiation stuff is beside the point--I apologize for clouding the issue with that. When Hezbollah disarms, it can be considred a political org first.  It adamantly refuses to do so.   It started as a paramiltary group and still is one.  It only later became active politically.  The military stuff should come first.  Also, I have read the BBC quote and the thin little article it came from.  Although many would disagree, the  BBC is not the word of God.  Elizmr 00:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree that hezbollah's military came first, so if you want to look at it in that light, then military comes first, then social, then political, but this is about what is most important. without the support of the people, hezbollah's military would be nothing. and it doesnt work the other way around. dont get me wrong...hezbollahs military is a very important aspect of them, and they wouldnt be as powerful without it, but they would still exist. hezbollah should not lay down arms until peace has been created with israel and palestine. Mac33c 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC article isn't pro-Hezbollah one. How can we acheive agreement?--Sa.vakilian 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really arguing whether the BBC thing is pro-Hezbollah or anti-Hezbollah--one would hope it would be neither. My  problem with letting a whole Wikipdia article stand on the BBC article is that it doesn't contain any in-depth analysis to support the strong statement it makes.  I also do not in any way dispute that Hezbollah is a political party.  Of course it is!  But it started as a armed organization and in becomming a political party it has not laid down arms.  I think the Wikipedia article should be true to this and place military activities first and work chronologically through the activities of the organization.  I understand that Hezbollah may want to be seen now as primarily a political party or social service org, and some have argued that the structure of the article should follow how Hezbollah wants to be percieved right now.  This would be totally ok if Wikipedia were Hezbollah's Web site, however it is not.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a NPOV source of information.  We need to convey what Hezbollah actually is, not how it wants to be seen.  Could you live with moving chronolocially through and adding more text about the evolution of the org in the "political activities" section as I suggested above?  Elizmr 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hezbollah will not should not put down its arms. In your view of things, if we were to go by it, then maybe israel should put down its arms as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac33c (talk • contribs)

Mac33c; By stating that hezbollah "should not put down its arms" only says that you are a Hezbollah supporter; but you stating that "hezbollah will not put down its arms"; how do you know what hezbollah will or will not do? Are you a member of hezbollah? Also your previous unsigned comment that "Hezbollah DID want to negotiate with israel. they always do"; how do you know what hezbollah wanted, and what it always is ready to do? Are you maybe Nasrallah?

those are ridiculous accusations! you made me laugh! thank you! i listen to all the media i can understand. western media, european, arab and plenty others. i also listen to nasrallahs statements and speaches in english. so that is how i know. western media is the worst by far, which is probably all you watch. things like this have happend in the past. hezbollah captures israeli soldiers, and they trade without further bloodshed. i think hezbollah has made it obvious they are not going to lay down their arms so easily, and your a fool if you cant see that yourself. that above comment was a complete waste of you foolish time. please dont write anything that idiotic again and save yourself the embarrassment. Mac33c 21:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this, and the above unsigned comment, doesn't belong in middle of someone else's discussion; because it confuses the reader with which comment refers to which; please put your comments in the proper place. My comment and yours; this and the previous one; needs to be moved out of here, and placed in its proper place. I don't want to do this, lest I'll be accused of moving someone else's comments for POV. Itzse 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Chronologically approach is suitable for History part. Also it's before activities and you acheive what you want. But how do you judge that Hezbollah is basically military organization at present. I look at some of the references. Those who call Hezbollah a terrorist organization focused on its military activities but others do not for example. --Sa.vakilian 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying "basically" military at present. But since it started as miliatary and is still military now it seems most reasonable to put that first.  If Hezbollah were to disarm I would say put military last, but that hasn't happened.  Elizmr 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with putting the military section first. I would like to see it's order as political, social, military. Carbonate 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Carbonate, I totally hear you, but could you defend the position of putting military last (ie-say why you want it that way?_Elizmr 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

because hezbollah uses their military to support political and social, just as any other country does. Mac33c 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure (Part Two)
We seem to be finding it hard to find a focus in the above, so perhaps stepping back to the higest level is a good place to start. The below are the proposed section headings. If we could agree on this (or something like it) first then work on what goes in each section that would be the least disruptive way forward. brenneman color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

* 1 Introduction * 2 History * 3 Ideology * 4 Structure and activities * 5 Political relations * 6 See also * 7 Notes * 8 External links


 * Could you more further define #4? Elizmr 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I think that "Structure and activities" should be swapped with "Ideology." This would make it a logical progression from history -> acts -> ideas. brenneman color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel that ideology should come up top, since everything starts from the place of outlook and goals. Elizmr 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Elizmr. I prefer putting Idealogy before history and acts.But there is a disagreement between me and Elizmr about order of activities. Which one should be first. I wrote my idea above.--Sa.vakilian 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and disagree at the same time. I do believe that Ideology should be before struct/act. I also believe that History should be as close up as possible, per informal wiki tradition. I would prefer the first 4 to be as below;
 * Introduction -> History -> Ideology -> Structure and activities Mceder 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * History is currently a small and bizarre section since it doesn't say much in the way of history. But as long as ideology comes before history, I would say that history before structure and activities is ok with me.  Elizmr 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So do we have consensus on:
 * Introduction
 * Ideology
 * History
 * Structure and activities
 * Political relations
 * See also
 * Notes
 * External links
 * ? Mceder 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with it. Elizmr 17:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good start. One point I'd like to stress is that we're going for summary style on these sections, correct? That the bulk of each section's information will be in seperate articles, as the "history" section is now. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ideally summary style would be good, however the "history" section is NOT a good example as what is on the page now is NOT a summary of what is in the history article at all. If summary style is to work, we need summaries that are actually summaries.  Elizmr 10:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree on summary style on these sections. Our only shot at keeping this article to a sane size. Of course the summaries need to be summaries :) Mceder 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the order. But I have three questions.At first where do we put Funding. I propose put it between structure and political relations. Seconde Question is the order of structure and activities and the last one is suitable place for the relation between Hezbollah and other Lebanese groups.--Sa.vakilian 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with placement of funding. I'd vote to put political relations maybe before funding or maybe after funding, but nearby.  As for the subsections on military-political-social I would argue for that order as noted above.  I know that there is a difference of opinion on this.  Would it be possible for those who want to put politics first to state why they think the article should be in this order?  Elizmr 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The decision on funding placement is a it early. How long these summaries need to be in the limiting factor on what goes in, so let's set a target size.  I suggest that we work on the history section until it is
 * A good summary, yet still
 * Not too long.
 * Once we agree on the desired section length it's easier to decide what will be included.
 * brenneman color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 02:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan189 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)