Talk:Hezbollah/Archive structure

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Wikify

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added two operations. Count Iblis 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation against Hezbollah

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)

text: * 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: Where did this go?  This needs to be summarized or the article is very POV.  Elizmr 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)

text: * I believe we have consensus that this be removed from the main article. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "Operational History"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The names of former Secretary-Generals

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

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 {L} 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree JiHymas@himivest.com 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: [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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting article to avoid bloat and POW 

message: 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)
replies: text: Take it up in the discussion of "Structure" on this page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion is a bit old now.  Why don't we discuss it here?  Elizmr 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose that order because the military activities came first in their evolution as an organization.  Elizmr 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes I put my comment here.--Sa.vakilian 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of sections:  Military: Political: Social

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Al Manar TV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Military activities