Talk:Hezbollah

GA Reassessment

Hezbollah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisting because consensus has been reached to delist, and discussion has subsided. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has several citation needed type tags, violating WP:V. It last went through GAR in 2008, thus making it very likely it is unduly weighted toward that time period. Also were the standards for GA in 2008 lower?

This article is obviously very important right now, so an unwarranted GA status is very bad for the reliability of Wikipedia. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The article relies too much on newspaper reports and speculation by biased parties, it should be scrapped and rewritten. The lead has it that Hezbollah failed to disarm after the 2006 withdrawal from Lebanon but the Shabaa Farms are still occupied. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I know it's probably not my place but small examples like the article is still quoting polled support numbers published in 2006 by The Christian Science Monitor. It listed 80% support for Druze, assuming they weren't polling children, nearly half the current population was not in that 2 decade old poll. Does having sources that may reached some level of obsolescence at least when talking in present terms mean something against verifiability? Regardless article's subject is such a complex entity because of its paramilitary/political party hybridizing, that's the argument that has been made in the UN which keeps it off the consolidated terror groups and individuals list. I can't think of any other examples of non state actor groups that are in the same position. Not withstanding all that, just in the past week, so much has happened that may fundamentally change their structure that a whole new section would need to be added to attempt to give context to an unprimed reader. Even before last week I'm not certain if meets broad coverage with news coverage pushing the bulk of its sources and now just this last week such drastic numbers that can only be estimated at this point, the article might as well have a time date describing the group before that date while refraining from describing them after last week. RCSCott91 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire article, but just from reading the lede, it seems to have had a major expansion in recent years, which has turned it into a rather incoherent and bloated summary. Given the intensity of the past 16 years with regards to Hezbollah, I suspect if there was no organized and centralized effort to keep the content top notch in that period, most expansions were likely made randomly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a GA article imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Word count according to prosesize (web tool version) is now: 11,513. That puts it at the probably should be split size; still a little short of the definitely split size on word count according to the article size guideline. BUT the prosesize word count does not include tables and lists, which this article has, and may not include long quotations since these are not highlighted as part of the "prosesize" count and the article has several long block quotes. The random increases in the size of the article and its overall size alone would seem to be enough to change the assessment to B class from GA. Donner60 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNSCR 1701

@XDanielx: Why do you think so? I don't think it is appropriate for the lede; just as much as we don't mention Israel's violations of UNSCR 242 in its lede to mention one example. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Israel has been the subject of many UN resolutions, and there has been some controversy about how UNSC 242 should be interpreted, how it should be implemented (considering other parties' noncompliance), and whether it's legally binding. It seems a bit nuanced for the lede of Israel, which does contain plenty of other negative information.

Hezbollah on the other hand has been the subject of mainly two UN resolutions, both clearly binding (Chapter VII), and its noncompliance with either is more of a simple and unambiguous matter. I'm not adamant about including this in particular, but I feel the updated lede was unbalanced overall, generally portraying Hezbollah as a legitimate organization besides the last sentence. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: UNSCR 242 is the prominent resolution relating to Israel, as it focuses on its occupation of WB, EJ, GZ and GH. It dates back to to at least half a century and has been consistently neglected by Israel. It is much more notable than 1701. So I don't think this is a convincing argument. Plus this does not summarize the body appropriately, as a lede should do. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

UNSCR 242 is irrelevant for this discussion.

As to UNSCR it's frequently mentioned by sources describing Hezbollah and the conflict between it and Israel ABC, AA (!). Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Resistance

The fact that Hezbollah is a military-resistance organization and resistance plays a major role in its ideology is cited to many scholarly sources.

• Farida, Mariam (2019). Religion and Hezbollah: Political Ideology and Legitimacy. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-000-45857-2.
• Kanaaneh, Abed T. Understanding Hezbollah The Hegemony of Resistance. Syracuse University Press. p. 1.. The entire book is dedicated to Hezbollah's conception of resistance.
• Worrall, James J.; Mabon, Simon; Clubb, Gordon (2016). Hezbollah: from Islamic Resistance to government. Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado: Praeger, an imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC. pp. XV. ISBN 1440831351.
• Koss, Maren (2018). Resistance, Power and Conceptions of Political Order in Islamist Organizations: Comparing Hezbollah and Hamas. Taylor & Francis. pp. 45 (in the online version). ISBN 9781351599405.
• Daher, Aurélie. Hezbollah: Mobilization and Power. Oxford University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN 0197787088.
  • Page 8: "Hezbollah is generally defined as an Islamist organization. The establishment of political Islam in Lebanon would be the original template for resistance against the Israeli occupation would constitute one of its practical applications."
  • Page 176: "In the first, just four-and-a-half months after Liberation, on 7 October, a group of Resistance fighters set up an ambush on an Israeli patrol in the vicinity of Shebaa" in reference to the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid
• Al-Aloosy, Massaab (2020). The Changing Ideology of Hezbollah. Springer International Publishing. p. 74. In other words, Hezbollah is not an Islamic resistance only but also a nationalist (i.e., Arab and Lebanese).
  • Page 43: "In this sense, Hezbollah is first a resistance movement that created a political party, not the other way around."

This should definitely be in the lead.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course Hezbollah defines itself as a resistance group. This is a POV term. We obviously cannot define the group based on its own propganda terms EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

None of the above scholarly sources were authored by Hezbollah. Do you dispute the reliability of any of them? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If the reliable sources are calling it a resistance group, then it isn’t a POV term. Unless we have many reliable sources that explicitly say it is not a resistance group. starship.paint (RUN) 23:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the major question of context should be, is Hezbollah really a resistance movement, or is that simply the origin story that they use to bring their forces together? 1975 Lebanon was in civil war, the speed that they were able to mobilize in the 1982 invasion should show that they were simply refocusing their efforts.

Either way, generally speaking, everyone is the hero of their own story. In Hezbollah's mind every action they do is justified, just like in the IDF's mind every action they do is justified.

Hezbollah began rocket fire on October 8th 2023 and Mossad used false intelligence to trick Hezbollah into literally purchasing equipment that would explode upon command, both sides refer to these acts as resistance, resistance is such a loaded worded in this conflict, I'm not sure if a metaphorical mirror or dictionary is more needed to be gifted to both sides.

RCSCott91 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the question must be limited to "what do the sources say?" Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's my point; reading Farida's work (I couldn't get it from the library, so I had to read it in PDF format), she goes over how Hezbollah defines its resistance. IE: We are all the heroes of our own story. The majority of sources that go in-depth are using the term resistance in their framed situational definition. I can get a scholarly source that uses a term in a technically or situationally correct way but if I use that quote out of the context of the framing they make for their work, your average lay reader will have to defer to the standard definition of the term.

I can use low hanging fruit examples like a bus, referencing a data communication system between hardware components versus what the average English speaker might think of as a large mode of transportation for people on a road. But in more abstract and complicated concepts, a reader may not get easy context clues from the reading that resistance is not being framed in the generic way that they may be accustomed to thinking, if a bus is referenced in a text, a few sentences in, the reader would at least realize I wasn't talking about a type of vehicle.

I don't think I can say the same about words whose definitions are argued and debated at both academic and international venues.

RCSCott91 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the appropriate context to use that word? Is it your contention that Hezbollah was a resistant movement 1982-2000, but not after that? Are there any sources to that effect? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if you want to stretch what a resistance force is, 1982-2000 would be that sweet spot where if you took that snapshot in history, you can make the argument that they are a resistance military. The only issue comes with their open letter in 1985, and them beginning to run for opflitical ofices in 1990. It really muddies the water and makes it harder to say they are a resistance group.

The article describes Hezbollah as multiple Shia militant groups that originally were against the Amal political movement and came together to form Hezbollah after Israel finally invaded in 1982. They didn't even begin to attack until after Israeli forces had pushed out PLO in Lebanon. Soon after, in 1985, they sent their open letter phased plan. Objectivity, they don't sound like a resistance group. (Have to admit, I had never read the phases from the letter until today.)

Wilson Center - Hezbollah's Record War Politics RCSCott91 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above at least one scholarly source writes that Hezbollah's ideology shifted significantly farther than the 1985 letter. The article you posted above says ". It assumed the mantle of chief resistance force against Israel and Western forces after the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was forced to withdraw from Lebanon in August 1982", but it doesn't seem to say Hezbollah stopped being a resistance movement in 2000. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent

"in August 1982. Hezbollah’s campaign of suicide bombings against US and Israeli targets killed hundreds, a major factor in the Reagan administration decision to end the US peacekeeping mission to Lebanon in 1984"

I'm gonna say Hezbollah began to stop being a resistance force around this time. I assumed the US presence in the Lebanon invasion was aiding Israel, not providing safe passage and protection to unarmed civilian Palestinians so that both Israel and any other group wouldn't be able to harm them.

US presence during Lebanon invasion RCSCott91 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm also ok with replacing "is a military-resistance group" with "is a military group that is also regarded as a resistance group". If sources say Hezbollah was a resistance group, but not anymore, we can word the lead accordingly.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds both the most factual and current option. Something like, "Formed of multiple Shi'ite forces after the 1982 Lebanon invasion with their first phase being to defend Shiites amid the civil war and expel Western and Israeli forces from Lebanon." RCSCott91 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds fine, VR. starship.paint (RUN) 10:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @RCSCott91@Starship.paint I've added it to the last paragraph with attribution, seeing that's what Makeandtoss did[2].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: - thank you. I am guessing the references should also be re-used in the body? Because the lede is meant to summarise the body, there must be some place that the content should be there to be cited. starship.paint (RUN) 11:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, done.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Source 393 does not indicate that Malaysia considers Hezbollah a terrorist group

^ 2001:D08:2293:5F3E:B41C:2534:B87:49DF (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm. This seems murky. Hezbollah is indeed on that list, the second last page. That list consists of entities that either (a) facilitated a terrorist act or (b) were associated with entities that facilitated a terrorist act. So is Hezbollah a terrorist group according to Malaysia? Maybe if (a), maybe not if (b). Either way, this document seems like a primary source. A secondary source is needed for due coverage. starship.paint (RUN) 14:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• I am removing it. Editors can find a reliable secondary source if they want to add it back. starship.paint (RUN) 10:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2024

There's a minor typo in the History section, first paragraph: "many villages in the south had been destroyed and large numbers of Shias had been displaces from their homes", should be changed to "many villages in the south had been destroyed and large numbers of Shias had been displaced from their homes".

Thanks in advance. Gue101 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede too long tag

Lede is way too long, making it unreadable. We don't need five sentences to talk about its 1985 manifesto. Three sentences about one Arab barometer survey is undue. Mention of UNSCR 1701 is undue. Many duplicates between third and fourth paragraphs. Many sentences are redundantly elongated. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It is chunky. Probably don't need the Nasralleh assinainaion part since there are multiple articles and even portions of this article that repeat that same info. Also the leader portion can just be combined with it's political party sentence considering that nearly every source that goes into depth about Hezbollah's beginning years marks Nasrallah command as a major point.

Maybe something like this?

" Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and militant group, lead from 1992 until 2024, by Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah's paramilitary wing is the Jihad Council. "

RCSCott91 (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah is much bigger than Nasrallah. Here's what I suggest as the first paragraph: "Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party, and a military organization that also provides social welfare and religious education services. Formed in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah has also been regarded as a resistance movement. It is a key player in the Lebanese political system, and its political wing, the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party, holds 15 seats in the Lebanese Parliament. Its paramilitary wing is the Jihad Council."

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I like all the new additions except the one relating to chronology (1982) as it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, nor does the resistance and terrorism labels. So maybe:

"Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party. The group provides social welfare and religious education services, and is a key player in the Lebanese political system, with its political wing, the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party, represented in the Lebanese Parliament. Hezbollah is considered to be one the world's most powerful non-state actor, with its armed strength assessed to be equivalent to that of a medium-sized army. " Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent We were trying to shorten it. I might be confused at what the lead section is. I was only addressing the top portion which is currently.

"Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and militant group. Its paramilitary wing is the Jihad Council. Hezbollah was led by Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah from 1992 until his assassination in an airstrike in Beirut in September 2024."

What is this portion called? I'm looking at WP:MOSLAYOUT. I might be confusing it with the short description.

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We can call it the first paragraph. We can shorten the entire lead to three strong paragraphs. My proposal above is for the first paragraph.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The group is bigger than Nasrallah, so not sure he deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent @Makeandtoss I do 95% of my editing by phone, that first paragraph appears before the infobox and is essentially an executive summary when views on mobile. I know that on PC both Chrome and Firefox browsers, that distinction isn't made.

If I may make the argument, the majority of people looking up Hezbollah, are on their phones. Giving an "executive summary" that overwhelms with information may not be the most prudent thing. That info can go into the following paragraphs. But, in my opinion, you really want that first paragraph to give a simplistic and summarized topic summary which will give the quick reader what they want to know but not make the curious reader feel overwhelmed. Similar in terms of how they set up published studies and research papers.

RCSCott91 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok how about ""Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party, a military group that is also regarded as a resistance movement, and an organization that provides social welfare and religious education services. It is a key player in the Lebanese political system, and its political wing, the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party, holds 15 seats in the Lebanese Parliament, while its paramilitary wing is the Jihad Council."

It would be just 2 sentences. I understand you work on mobile, but the FA on today's front page has 3 sentences as its first paragraph.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw that "provides social welfare and religious education services" was removed. I'm guessing that was by error. It shouldn't be, as sources often consider social welfare and religious services as part of what makes Hezbollah.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The new framing of Hezbollah as first of all a political party with social welfare and then militant force was reverted by multiple editors already, please stop promoting it anyway. Read all the major sources: the first things mentioned about Hezbollah is their backing from Iran, their significant military power, and their designation by most of the Western nations as a terrorist organizations. We cannot hide those widely covered aspects, and we can't replace them with aspects that only receive minor coverage in sources. I'm restoring the other lead, that while not ignoring the political involvement of the group in the Lebanese parliament, lends the same weight as all major RS do for the group's militia activities, connections to Iran, and legal status as a terrorist group in virtually all Western countries. HaOfa (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in here to say I completely agree with HaOfa. The primary description of Hezbollah being a political party and an organization that provides social welfare and religious education services is comically WP:UNDUE at best, and whitewashing at worst. This is not what they're primarily known for, at all. As much as I do my best to AGF, I notice one of the users who added this information has a userbox which expresses support for this organisation (I will make no comment on the taste of that), which makes me think this is not a neutral weight addition. — Czello ^(music) 08:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that VR's version is not a good reflection of what the sources say. What HaOfa says really seems to be the case with how the main outlets are defining Hezbollah recently.

• The Times: [3] "The Shia Muslim group was conceived with Iranian backing after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon (explanation). It developed from a ragtag militia that operated under several front names and carried out attacks on western interests in Lebanon during the 1980s, including the 1983 bombings of the Marines barracks and US embassy. It developed into the most powerful armed group in Lebanon, dwarfing the military and other sectarian militia."
• The New York Times: [4] "Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim group formed in the 1980s from the chaos of Lebanon’s long civil war to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, which ended in 2000. The name Hezbollah is Arabic for “Party of God.” In recent decades, Hezbollah has grown into Lebanon’s most effective political party and fighting force, and has expanded its operations into Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East. ... Hezbollah and its political allies lost their majority in Lebanon’s Parliament in elections in 2022, but the group remains a formidable political force that exercises de facto control over parts of the country, including southern Lebanon, which borders northern Israel." ... "Hezbollah, formed with the support of Iran, maintains close financial, spiritual and military ties to the nation, a Shiite Islamic republic. Hezbollah is part of what Iran calls its “Axis of Resistance."
• The Washington Post: [5] "Hezbollah is one of the most powerful militant groups in the Middle East, a major political and social force in Lebanon, and a decades-long opponent of Israel." later it moves on to cover social elements too.
• CBS News: [6] "The militant group Hezbollah was formed in 1982 as a Shiite Muslim political and military force, with the support of Iran and Syria, after an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It functions within the Lebanese government as a political party, but also outside of it, providing services to its Shiite followers and maintaining its own paramilitary force. While not a recognized military, Hezbollah's top leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said last year that the group had some 100,000 fighters at its disposal, and it is believed to be a better equipped, larger fighting force than Lebanon's actual state military. Like its much smaller Iran-backed ally Hamas, Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States government for almost two decades, and several of its leaders, including Nasrallah, are listed as global terrorists."
• Foreign Affairs: [7] "As the most heavily armed nonstate actor in the world, Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist organization by most Western countries. Within Lebanon, however, it operates as a legal political party and as a security force: the group effectively governs much of the country, particularly in the south and east. Hezbollah also provides basic services to those living in the areas it controls, which would normally be provided by the national government. In effect, the group operates as a state within a state. Neither the national government nor the Lebanese Armed Forces has the capacity to counter Hezbollah, meaning the group could effectively drag Lebanon into a war with Israel on its own."
• AP News: [8] "Founded in 1982 during Lebanon’s civil war, Hezbollah’s initial objective was ending Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. It achieved that in 2000. Shiite Muslim Hezbollah is part of a collection of Iranian-backed factions and governments known as the Axis of Resistance. It was the first group that Iran backed and used as a way to export its brand of political Islamism. In its early days the group attacked U.S. targets, causing Washington to designate it a terrorist organization."
• BBC: [9] "Hezbollah is an influential Shia Muslim political party and armed group. It has a significant presence in both the Lebanese parliament and government, and controls the most powerful armed force in the country. Hezbollah rose to prominence in the 1980s in opposition to Israel, whose forces had occupied southern Lebanon during the country's 1975-1990 civil war. It has received strong backing from Iran, both financially and militarily, for many years. It is also a strong ally of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Hezbollah's armed wing has carried out deadly attacks on Israeli and US forces in Lebanon."
• Council on Foreign Relations: [10] "The Iran-backed Shiite militia was considered the most powerful non-state group in the Middle East, but an Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in 2024 has considerably weakened it."
• ABC News: [11] "Hezbollah -- which means "party of God" or "party of Allah" -- is an Iran-backed, Shiite Muslim political party and militant group based in Lebanon. It was founded in the 1980s amid the 15-year Lebanese Civil War and has been led by its Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah since 1992. Today, it controls much of the Shiite-majority areas of Lebanon, including parts of the capital, Beirut. Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist organization by multiple countries, including the United States and Israel."

So: Militant activities prominent, Iranian backing prominent, political and social aspects prominent too, and also is the terrorist organization status. Galamore (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

But this simply represents the results of your particular sampling bias which is apparently skewed towards news reporting and recent events. That's fine, but Hezbollah has been around for decades. It is covered extensively by high quality sources. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

All of these are WP:RECENT news reports. We should instead be focusing on how WP:SCHOLARSHIP describes Hezbollah. But even those sources all say Hezbollah provides social services:

• The Times: [12] The militia, which also commands a political party and runs social services in Lebanon...
• The New York Times: [13] In Lebanon, it has deep roots in parts of society and an extensive apparatus to support its mission, including offices dedicated to social services, communications and internal security.
• CBS News: [14] It functions within the Lebanese government as a political party, but also outside of it, providing services to its Shiite followers and maintaining its own paramilitary force.
• Council on Foreign Relations: [15] It manages a vast network of social services that include infrastructure, health-care facilities, schools, and youth programs, all of which have been instrumental in garnering support for Hezbollah from Shiite and non-Shiite Lebanese alike.
• Foreign Affairs: [16] Hezbollah also provides basic services to those living in the areas it controls, which would normally be provided by the national government
• ABC News: [17] it was part of the Lebanese parliament and government while also operating its own political, military and social services network with a great degree of impunity.
• BBC News[18] :a major provider of health, education and social services
• AP News[19]: It also provides extensive social services, including running schools and health clinics, in southern Lebanon and other parts of the country where it has a strong presence.
• Washington Post:[20] However, the group also provides civil services including school and medical centers, and even museums and construction companies...

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting they don't provide services – but that's already mentioned later in the lead. The issue is that introducing it as the primary thing they're known for at the beginning of the lead is WP:UNDUE. — Czello ^(music) 11:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No one suggested it's the primary thing they're known for, but rather one of the many things they're known for.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, consequently it's mentioned later in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 12:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what I propose for MOS:OPEN, which should be kept neutral:

Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and military group. It is a key player in the Lebanese political system, and its political wing, the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party, holds 15 seats in the Lebanese Parliament. Its military wing, the Jihad Council, was assessed to have an armed-strength equivalent to that of a medium-sized army in 2016. It was formed in the 1980s, with Iranian assistance, to fight the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah also provides health, education and other social welfare services.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally prefer this version (opening paragraph, no comment on the rest of the lead yet); however, I could acquiesce to your proposed version. Firmly opposed to this version. — Czello ^(music) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That version is the long standing stable version of the lead that you are edit-warring out. You also repeat, word for word, the same sentence twice in the lead. nableezy - 15:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The version I have reverted is not the same as the one VR has proposed above. If you're talking about the one I oppose – well, okay? I'm saying that it should not be the lead.

Any dupilication can easily be removed and doesn't affect the discussion at hand. — Czello ^(music) 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The one you oppose it the longstanding version of the lead, and it should be restored until there is a consensus to change it. nableezy - 15:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not – your links below demonstrate that. — Czello ^(music) 16:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Czello "I could acquiesce to your proposed version" sounds promising. @Nableezy would you also agree to my proposed version? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I’m fine with that too, I hadn’t noticed the rest of the first sentence in my revert just then placement of militant group first. nableezy - 21:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Tag removal

@Omnipaedista: MOS:LEADLENGTH states that lede should contain four well-composed paragraphs of 250-400 words; which is clearly not the case here as we have around >600 words. There is also consensus on the talk page that the lede is overwhelming. So why did you remove the tag? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realized that there was consensus here to keep it. I just reverted myself. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the lead is too long, I'm going to go ahead and trim it. From what I see, all the details seem to be in the body anyway, but if I miss anything, let me know and I'll undo that part of my edit.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Arab barometer

Any objections to the removal of the Arab barometer content from the lede as it does not summarize the body? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Or just add it to the body? EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Longstanding version of the opening paragraph

The longstanding version of the opening paragraph can be seen here before it was changed by EnfantDeLaVille (now topic banned) on Sep 24 without discussion:

Hezbollah (/ˌhɛzbəˈlɑː/; Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and paramilitary group, led since 1992 by its Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah's paramilitary wing is the Jihad Council, and its political wing is the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party in the Lebanese Parliament. Its armed strength was assessed to be equivalent to that of a medium-sized army in 2016.

Until we can reach a consensus on a new opening paragraph, I'll go ahead and restore that one, but remove "led since 1992 by its Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah" as obviously that's no longer the case. Meanwhile we can continue to discuss what the opening paragraph should be.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• That's reasonable while discussions continue. starship.paint (RUN) 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I likewise agree, and Czello if you want to say something to me, either ping me or bring it up on my talk page. Your inability to understand a userbox is not cause for you to make such comments on a talk page about me without so much as a ping. Thanks. nableezy - 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ping because I didn't mention you by name. I had considered messaging you on your talk page, but ultimately determined that you would be unlikely to remove the UBX given that its existence is to circumvent the consensus that it should not exist. — Czello ^(music) 14:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, it is you that should get consensus for your change, you are edit-warring in a change to the long standing lead here. As far as your reason for assuming bad faith and continuing to display an acute inability to understand what the userbox is about, that is not a discussion appropriate for a talk page and you are welcome to discuss it in a place where it actually is appropriate. In the meantime though, the stable lead should be restored, and the people attempting to make a radical change to the lead that stood prior to this latest bout of tag-team edit warring should seek consensus for that change. That, to be clear, includes you. nableezy - 14:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted to this version.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And to demonstrate the absurdity of Czello asking others to get consensus for a change to the lead, please see the following versions of the lead: Sept 29, August 16, Dec 3, 2023, April 12, 2023, Nov 12, 2022. Czello, please stop edit-warring in disputed changes and restore the stable lead and seek consensus for your changes. nableezy - 15:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Erm, those version you link are not the same as the version you have tried to implement. Which version do you actually consider to be the long-standing lead? — Czello ^(music) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? They are not one-for-one, but those versions all start with is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and militant group. Your version that has been tag-teamed in now starts with is a Lebanese Shia Islamist militant group and political party.. They do not include the barracks bombing, with the weasel worded "believed to be responsible", yours does (twice, in your haste to tag team edit war, you have duplicated material in multiple paragraphs). nableezy - 16:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, as it seems you're not understanding me, my issue (as I mentioned above) is with this wording:

is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and an organization that provides social welfare and religious education services.

Again, this makes it seem like the primary thing they are known for is social welfare and religious education services rather than militancy. It whitewashes them them makes them appear to be more of a charity organisation than a paramilitary.

My ideal wording is האופה's, for what it's worth. The versions you linked a couple of posts above are varying degrees of acceptability. Primarily describing them as a political party and an organization that provides social welfare and religious education services is not. — Czello ^(music) 19:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to keep my mind away from troubling things for while by simply picking up the mop. Obviously, distraction are impossible because even archives aren't sacred in this world.

Reading over the exchange, have we at least settled on that opening 3-5 sentence paragraph? My opinion is cut out all the bias in that first paragraph. You can lay on the social welfare and terrorist manifesto after the executive summary. Something like this...

Founded in 1982, through a coalition of Shia paramilitary groups in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Their original goal was to protect Shia Muslims in Lebanon and expel Israeli/Western forces. They are currently recognized as a political party in Lebanon with a standing militant force. Although listed by the USA as a terrorist group they are currently only recognized as a political party by the United Nations.

RCSCott91 (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the USA deserves mention in the first paragraph. Also their goals should probably not be in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is there to define the organization, and its clear from sources that there are three aspects to what Hezbollah is: political party and influence, military power, and social services.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent Because the USA has backed their core enemy from their creation.

Because the USA whether through economic, media, or war drastically influences the world.

Because the readership of English wiki is disproportionately focused on the USA. It's true, I've checked, not every other wiki is like the English one. The cultural focus starts to come through even in translated pages.

More importantly, leaving out the fact that the biggest military (something like the next 10 combined) has put them on their bad group list is paltering.

By giving people, upfront, the knowledge that their is a disagreement on the terms of the international situation. You can both maintain neutrality but also entice a reader to want to learn more.

I don't know where you stand on this conflict but I want a lede that is neutral, entices the reader to learn more, and keeps the general audience frame of reference in mind.

The lede is supposed to be an "appetizer" that even a picky teenager will read with comfort, feel like they gained some knowledge, and possibly be willing to dive deeper for seconds.

I hope that explained what I was thinking with my example of a first paragraph.

RCSCott91 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Because the readership of English wiki is disproportionately focused on the USA." Your point contradicts policy which tells us "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered." By your logic the opening paragraph of all countries listed on State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) (Cuba, Iran etc) should all have the American designation in their opening paragraph.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent Oh, I think you had my last reply confused. I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was both making an observant statement about the differences I see between the different language wikis and explaining were I was coming from with my paragraph suggestion. I assume those differences are mainly cultural and at some level linguistic in nature. (I am a believer in the that our language(s) can help shape the way we see the world)

I know I have huge biases but I also don't wish to argue over semantics like Hezbollah's viewing of the USA/Israel relationship or the fact that we literally use a chart that groups the two sides in the conflict. Or the ft that being on a terrorist sanction list by the USA is a huge deal in the very least because of sanctions and I'm sure there are many groups that would think it much worse than simply being on the consolidated UN terror list.

I think good question would be, considering the political discourse and complexity of Hezbollah as a multifaceted group being the main argument that they have been left off the consolidated terror list in the UN. Why wouldn't you want to start with the disagreeing nature of Hezbollah?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there aren't any modern examples like Hezbollah that I can think of...I mean they literally coalition with a Christian political party yet just still maintain an independent standing force. I don't know why you wouldn't want to highlight the conflicting nature and uniqueness that somehow has maintained for decades.

I addressed your call to policy up above but you did get me curious, This month roughly 40% of all English wiki traffic was from the USA. The next is 9.5% with the UK and 8.6% with India. The numbers are irrelevant but they are really interesting, also way to go India!

RCSCott91 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Because its unencyclopedic. Consider topics that are much more controversial, at least from the US perspective: Islam, Sharia, Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Israel, North Korea. Each has a first paragraph that carefully defines the topic without any discussion of the term's "disagreeing nature". Even Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) don't have any discussion of the constant controversies plaguing those two parties in the first paragraph.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but Hezbollah's whole reason for uniting as a group, for being, is literally to expel Israel and the western Invaders. I've literally seen people use their phone and only read the lede for wiki articles. You can include something that is controversial that is both truthful and relevant in the lede. Nothing about about that action seems unencyclopedia.

I've literally seen people use their phone and only read the lede for wiki articles. You can include something that is controversial that is both truthful and relevant.

And most certainly we would start certain articles with their disagreeing nature. Ex: Shi'a Islam first successor dispute. I would feel it should be mentioned in the lede since it's literally why they fractured off.

RCSCott91 (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

האופה's proposal

I agree with @Czello that @האופה's version seems the best we have at this point. It gives readers the closest presentation to how all the major reliable sources do to describe the group.

Hezbollah Arabic: حزب الله, romanized: Ḥizbu 'llāh, pronounced [ħizbu‿lːaːh], lit. 'Party of God') is a Lebanese Shia Islamist militant group and political party. Its paramilitary wing, the Jihad Council, commands the most powerful armed force in Lebanon. It has extensive financial and military backing from Iran and serves as the leading member of its "Axis of Resistance". The group is a key player in the Lebanese political system, and its political wing, the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party, holds 15 seats in the Lebanese Parliament. The entire organization, or its military wing alone, has been designated as a terrorist group by several countries, including most Western nations.

Let's see what other editors think on it? Galamore (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Make it a four, this version indeed seems to be more closely aligned with WP:RS. ABHammad (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You already said it but to reiterate – I support this version. — Czello ^(music) 10:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per MOS:OPEN since the opening paragraph should be neutral and paragraph; the group's foreign relations, military status, regional axis affiliation does not belong in the lede; as much as these things do not belong in the lede of Israel and the Israeli government or the ledes of the Haganah. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, obvious POV driven proposal. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That reads like Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. ABHammad (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss@Selfstudier@ABHammad Would working in the fact that the UN does not consider them a terrorist group satisfy MOS:OPEN in your minds?

Because I would have objection to the neutral tone of האופה's version if had that.

RCSCott91 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I write in the Israel lead that it has extensive financial and military backing from the USA? And how the Israeli government contains extreme right wing elements and that Israeli settlers and illegal settlements and settlement organizations have been sanctioned by multiple countries? Etcetera. That will get consensus, right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier

Possibly, get some sources together and go to the Israeli talk page. I'm not saying that exact wording would be agreed specifically because the USA normally gives around 3-4 billion and Israel spends 27-28 billion on military spending itself. So the word "extenstive" is doing a lot of work. But ~10% is ~10%. RCSCott91 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think given the controversy nothing about this aspect should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, there is nothing wrong with the current intro, it is backed by RS, and the other points are all included in the lede shortly thereafter. Packing it in at the beginning serves no purpose. I see it as similar to a proposal for the IDF or Ukrainian military pages to include in the first paragraph of the lede that they are backed financially and military by the US, and, in the former case, that they have been accused of war crimes by human rights organizations. Such a proposal would be made in order to push as certain POV into the respective ledes, and I would oppose that for the same reason. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.RevI'm not saying you choose the worst examples but you are literally making the exact opposite point.

The Ukrainian military page lists being funded by NATO, a group they are not a part of, nearly half of said funding coming from the USA.

Ironically, The IDF lede does mention the United states and their strategic partnership and mentions, "The IDF's control of Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories through repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuses of the Palestinians’ rights has received widespread criticism."

So are you gonna go over to those article's talk pages and request this be corrected or be hypocritical? Because you picked those examples. RCSCott91 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you misread what I said. " I see it as similar to a proposal for the IDF or Ukrainian military pages to include in the first paragraph of the lede". Neither of those pages include that information in the first paragraph, in fact its in the last paragraph for both, reflecting long-standing consensus text for the lede here. I believe that's correct.

Do you believe that those points should be put in the first paragraphs of the ledes of those pages? If so I look forward to seeing your talk discussions to make those edits. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.RevI don't think that piece of info needs to be in the first paragraph. But again, I'm not against it being in the lede.

FYI: I do like 95% of my edits by mobile so that first paragraph, in my mind is what the casual referencer sees and reads. Arguably, I want it to be something like an executive summary that pulls that simple lookup into reading the actual context and multiple layers of info deeper in the article. But in the event it can't pull them in, it gives a relevant 5 or so sentence explanation of what Hezbollah is (which is extremely hard even from a neutral perspective). I don't want it to say welfare organization because that isn't even their top 5 things that they do. But I don't want it to say blatant terrorist organization because that pigeon holes them into a mold that they don't always check the boxes for. The only other time I would care enough to change things would be if a source is wrong or simple grammar wording.

I can't really find policy against that view although VR has lead me to believe that keeping the information that your audience is looking up in mind would go against neutrality based on the quote from the neutrality policy. I've checked that policy and dove into historical ones plus the current.

WP:LEADDD MOS:LEAD

Trying to make the article accessible and enticing to casual readers seems to fall under the fifth pillar.WP:IGNORE

But honestly, I'm probably completely wrong. Maybe the majority of readers who actually look up Hezbollah have known enough about them since the early 2000's to make intelligence products. (I'm being slightly sarcastic but I actually don't know because obviously we don't know who looks at the article.)

By the way, fun fact I only learned like a week ago. (Honestly, probably could have asked someone at NW wiki conference if I had thought of it while I was there) The lede is actually not just that first paragraph but the whole opening portion including the top photo, infobox, etc. I had originally thought the lead was that first introductory paragraph(s). I know it might seem like a duh thing to more experienced editors but previously I had paid more attention to the DOs and Donts and didn't dive deeper into the article explaining the formatting. (See, I'm a victim of my own aforementioned bias) RCSCott91 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all, and to be clear, it already is in the lede, it's just in the subsequent paragraphs and not the first, which again reflects how it is on other pages. I don't see any cause to move that up to the first paragraph, and it seems POV pushing to me, as it would be in the case of those other pages I mentioned.

I think @Vice regent made a good point in this post that perhaps expresses my point better, so I'll repost it here: "Because its unencyclopedic. Consider topics that are much more controversial, at least from the US perspective: Islam, Sharia, Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Israel, North Korea. Each has a first paragraph that carefully defines the topic without any discussion of the term's "disagreeing nature". Even Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) don't have any discussion of the constant controversies plaguing those two parties in the first paragraph."

I fully agree with that, and have not seen a persuasive argument as to why it ought to be any different here. But we can agree to disagree.

Also, while I knew the lede includes the entire introductory part, I didn't know the infobox and photos were included in it either! Good to know for future reference. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, oppose this version for reasons I've stated above.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

After I read how sources describe Hezbollah I see the same order more or less and the same details in this option. The Axis of Resistance membership and connection to Iran is one of the first things sources say about Hezbollah. So is the part on them being the most powerful armed force in Lebanon (some sources even say the strongest non-state actor in the Middle East). So I'll go with this option too, I think it's good, better than the current one and the other options I saw above in this page. Count me in the supporters.Eladkarmel (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN:The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. Based on this, the Longstanding version of the opening paragraph is more appropriate. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Which sources? Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

TbhTindia (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

[Hezbollah denies choosing Hashem Safieddine as Nasrallah replacement]

RCSCott91 (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Secretary-General Of Hezbollah hashem safieddine

Classified Terrorist Organization by US

Please include “Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist organization by the US, UK, and other Western countries.” in the lede. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93pg1qpxxzo.amp

This is done in most other Wiki articles discussing groups classified as terrorist organizations by the US. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that it being designated as a terrorist organization by western countries (although not explicitly the US and UK) is in the lede, but it’s lost in wordy blocks of text. I think the revision of the lede should include this statement more prominently in the beginning. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is something that would need consensus first (something that you cannot seek, given the the contentious nature of the topic). M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The "antisemitism" section of ideology should be removed for lack of evidence

All of the cited sources are incredibly poor, unsourced assertions, unsourced quotes, and in fact some of them counter the claim of antisemitism by Hezbollah.

Source 16 does not in fact cite any antisemitism at all from Hezbollah, only the author's unsourced personal opinion that they are antisemitic. In fact the source itself says that prior antisemitic quotes attributed to Nasrallah were fabricated.

Source 17 provides zero evidence of antisemitism from Hezbollah. It merely gives the author's unsourced assertion that they are. Zero evidence is provided. A mere assertion is not evidence. I could just as easily cite a different author that asserts Hezbollah are not.

Source 18 provides evidence AGAINST the claim that Hezbollah is antisemitic. The source quotes former LA Times reporter Ken Silverstein, who travelled to Hezbollah and personally met with them, who states: "There is no question that Hezbollah opposes Israel...but I found no overt anti-Semitism in any of the language of its leaders--who were intent to make a clear distinction between their war on Israel and their feelings on Jews. They continually said that they had no argument with Jews and were not at war with them."

Source 19 provides zero sources for the quotes they attribute to Hezbollah. There is zero evidence to back up any of these quotes. 69.12.11.252 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• In light of the above, as well as Jerusalem Post being questionable in this context, and the lack of true elaboration on such a claim in the body, I will be removing this claim. We can make this claim - but it would be much better to (1) discuss this in the article body and (2) use peer reviewed academic sources. starship.paint (RUN) 01:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I read the reference added to Hizbul̉lah : politics and religion. It is an insightful read. A couple of things. First the entire chapter is called "anti-Judaism" not antisemitism. Second it documents Shia Islam critique of Jewish theology more than hatred towards Jewish people. Third it does contain various good things about Jews too like Hezbollah considering them People of the Book. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Mustafa Mughnieyeh

A bunch of articles are suggesting that Mustafa Mughniyeh have the same office as Imad Mughniyeh and Mustafa Badreddine, as the Hezbollah Chief of Staff.

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], Personisgaming (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2024

Change hezbullah from a militant group.It is not a militant group Learn what militancy means 2409:40D5:1:7FA8:A8A4:75A1:6A00:E598 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Assassination in time of war

My understanding of the definition of the word "assassinate" is to "murder a public figure". If this definition is correct, I would challenge that killing the leadership on either side of a conflict is assassination. Such an attack is a legitimate act of war, if the subject is in the chain of command. Is there a better term? 76.184.240.51 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Content should reflect the language used by topic specific reliable sources, whatever that happens to be. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

at the end of the first paragraph, add - "Hezbollah-aligned parties include the Maronite Christian Marada, the Socialist Ba'ath and Armenian Tashnag." (What is the make-up of Lebanon's new parliament?, Reuters 5/7/22)

The article includes nothing about Hezbollah's alliances with non-Shi'a and non-Islamic parties. This information would paint a very different picture of Hezbollah in the eyes of Western readers, who, as a whole, consider Christian and secular parties as more rational, and therefore more legitimate in their goals. The omission of this information crosses the line from bias to misinformation.

Best, a librarian who majored in Middle Eastern Studies Lightning964 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Happened?

Was Herzi Halevi assassinated? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

According to sources, Herzi Halevi also known for his command of IDF (Terrorist Organisation) was assassinated by Hezbollah but not confirmed yet. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

US embassy and barracks bombing

The attribution of US embassy and barracks bombing to Hezbollah is controversial. Hezbollah denies it. And many scholars argue Hezbollah didn't officially exist when these bombings happened. Aurelie Daher writes

On 18 April 1983 a car bomb exploded outside the American embassy in Beirut where a meeting of CIA officials and other members of the organization was taking place, leaving sixty-three people dead. On 23 October a double suicide attack, simultaneously carried out against the barracks of the American forces and French paratroopers in Beirut, resulted in 243 dead among the former and 58 among the latter...The principal suspect was Imad Mughniyeh...The problem of his hierarchical ties to the Iranian government, visibly stronger than those he maintained with the party [Hezbollah], and the fact that Hezbollah did not exist as such at the time of the acts attributed to him, complicate an assessment of the degree to which the party was implicated in the terrorist initiatives attributed to Mughniyeh.

Daher further continues,

The 1982 and 1983 attacks were not the only terrorist acts blamed on Hezbollah by the West. Between 1982 and 1992 nearly 105 were kidnapped in Lebanon, mostly Westerners and mainly in Beirut... The name surfacing most often remained Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah was once more accused of using these...The leadership of Hezbollah denied any involvement in this case also. The works of several researchers conclude that hostage takers of various stripes in reality acted for different sets of reasons, sometimes related simply to fishing for ransom or for family reasons.

Therefore this should not be in the lead and should be explained in more detail in the body.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not a reliable source, and the views of one scholar alone does not mean Hezbollah was not behind the 1983 bombings. We have plenty of sources saying they were. I'm restoring this text, which was attributed correctly, used 'believed' so no WP:VOICE issues, and was based on quality sources, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. HaOfa (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I've quoted from several scholars on this:

• Al-Aloosy, Massaab (2020). The Changing Ideology of Hezbollah. Springer International Publishing.
• Daher, Aurélie (2019). Hezbollah: Mobilization and Power. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-190-09263-4.
• Volo, James M. (2010). A history of war resistance in America. Santa Barbara (Calif.): Greenwood.
• Norton, Augustus R. (2018). Hezbollah: a short history (Updated and expanded third ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691180885.

Neither WaPost and NYT are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And this is WP:UNDUE for the lead but should be covered in the body.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "is believed to be" is a, not attributing who believes it, b. is disputed by a number of sources, making it an obvious NPOV violation to include it unanswered. I reverted that inclusion. nableezy - 14:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead twice. It's mentioned in the second paragraph and the last paragraph.

Along the same lines, the first paragraph and last paragraph have end the exact same way, including the same sources. 137.6.20.109 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong headquarter location

Hezbollah is not located in Beirut, Lebanon. Its headquarters are “were” located in Haret Hreik, a neighborhood in the suburbs (dahye in arabic meaning suburb) SOUTH of Beirut, not inside Beirut at all. In Beirut you’ll only find malls and Gucci Hermes Dior and those Trustededitors2023 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

Hello, can someone change Hashim safieddin status from MIA (Missing in action) to KIA (Killed in Action) as his death was confirmed Israel's military confirms killing of Lebanon Hezbollah's Hashem Safieddine, thanks 102.41.40.138 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Khiikiat (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Canada: A state opponent of Hezbollah

Canada is also a state opponent to Hezbollah (Hizballah) which should be added.

Government of Canada source: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx 142.181.124.117 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2024

Typo Change "As of 2018, annual Iranian monetary support for Hezbollah was estimated at $700 by US officials." to "As of 2018, annual Iranian monetary support for Hezbollah was estimated at $700 MILLION by US officials." Missing Million in the monetary amount. In "Funding" section. Nsbrown93 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Recoil16 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)