Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Removal of Japan

@Nableezy I saw the article, but can you provide the actual list? It seems a bit far fetched. In Japanese wiki the Japanese write their government considers it terrorists when I last saw. I'd imagine they would have removed Japan from their list if such a change was done. Can you present the Public Security list? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You just presented one article from Yahoo. I think the actual Public Security list will make more sense or a few more sources. Thank you for the time. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont have the primary source no, and we rely on secondary sources. Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. nableezy - 15:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You showed only 1 source though... Japanese Wiki still has it. Can you double check? Homerethegreat (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you not tried searching for yourself? Do you have some reason to doubt the info?

How about this? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! So basically it appears that the news piece Nableezy sent is not related to whether Japan considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Thank you for sending this and making it clear! Nableezy can you self rv?

"the reason for the major deletion was ``a change in the source of the information.'' Starting with the 2023 edition , the content is said to comply with the sanctions list based on UN Security Council Resolution 1267. Previously, we used reports from overseas think tanks as sources, but we received inquiries as to what the standards were, so we published the 2013 edition with the policy of making the standards clear and easy to understand. Updating the web version. I think this timing made it a hot topic," said the person in charge." - Machine translation

Basically, it seems that the 2013 directive is still in place and that there wasn't an actual change in policy. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Starting with the 2023 edition , the content is said to comply with the sanctions list based on UN Security Council Resolution 1267." is the current position. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No, because what that actually means is that Japan never actually considered Hezbollah to be a terrorist entity. It had simply listed organizations that think thanks said were terrorist entities. So no, definitely not restoring Japan here, they appear to have never belonged in the first place. nableezy - 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just look at Japanese Wiki: イランとシリアの政治支援を受け、その軍事部門はアラブ・イスラム世界の大半で抵抗運動の組織と見なされている。日本、欧州連合、米国、オランダ、バーレーン、エジプト、英国、豪州、カナダ、イスラエルは Homerethegreat (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Btw, those refs are all dated. Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

In the chapter "Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement", Switzerland is incorrectly named as a country which has designated Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. This is inaccurate and the reference gives talks about the Czech Republic.

The following report by the Swiss government (unfortunately only in French and German) shows that Switzerland does not designate Hezbollah a terrorist organisation: https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-91070.html

Please delete the reference to Switzerland.

Thank you! Vpasquier (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This ref, referring to that report, says "A ban on Hezbollah and its activities in Switzerland could impair missions within the framework of good offices and also Switzerland's humanitarian engagement. Likewise, such a ban could damage Switzerland's credibility as a neutral country, according to the government."

It seems from this that Switzerland has not designated H as terrorist, so I will remove it unless there is some objection. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done by Selfstudier. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing

Books describing Hezbollah as right-wing: 1 and 2. Bakbik1234 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Both are passing references, the first to some Hezbollah prisoners and the other to some Hezbollah woman. That does not mean that Hezbollah is right wing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism

Sources describing Hezbollah as Islamic fundamentalist: Bakbik1234 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of the source are from the 1990's to the 2000's. Librero2109 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Hezbollah’s secret service is not one of the best and it shouldn’t be said so in Wikipedia

In the secret service part it says: Hezbollah's secret services have been described as "one of the best in the world" what is the source for this Statement? 77.137.73.45 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Statements in Wikipedia should have sources. Sources can be seen via the [.] symbol next to a statement.

The source in this case is apparently...

• Engeland, Dr Anisseh Van; Rudolph, Ms Rachael M (2013). From Terrorism to Politics. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-4094-9870-4.

The statement is from page 33, in the chapter written by Van Engeland, Associate Professor of International Security & Law, titled "Hezbollah: from a Terrorist Group to a Political Party - Social Work as a Key to Politics"

Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

The notion that Hezbollah is just a political party is a complete joke. It is a recognized terrorist group by United States, France, Israel, Germany, UK and others. Furthermore, emphasizing the handful of instances in which Hezbollah decided to “condemn” acts of targeting civilians is a complete joke. This article is sickeningly false, anti-Semitic and pro-Terrorism. - Mention that Hezbollah failed to condemn the targeting of civilians including burning them alive in their homes, kidnapping unarmed civilians including babies under official orders and rape potentially unofficially ordered of October 7th. - Mention their numerous terrorist attacks on Civilians if you mention their so-called condemnation of civilian targeting. Including their recent murder of 14+ children playing soccer no where near any military targets. The only one mentioned is their targeting of a Jewish Synagogue in Argentina over 30 years ago… they’ve committed countless acts of intentional killing but I suppose those don’t count because it was of Jews. 97.113.140.220 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 22:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024 (4)

The Likely death of Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah in the hands of the IDF to be added Conquestor 246 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Already done This has been already added to the article. Ratekreel (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

Secretary general role is vacant now. Namnaam (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Accepted. Although Form is incorrect. Regardless, If you'll check the edit history, you'll see that I was too quick on that news as well and I self reverted my edit.

Previously, there were conflicting reports of whether he was killed or not. Going off the sources, I will mark Nasrallah as killed but without knowing for certain who his replacement will be, I will leave him in his current position.

https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/hassan-nasrallah-profile-hezbollah-chief-killed-in-beirut-lebanon-says-israeli-army-gaza-hamas/article68693937.ece

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/hassan-nasrallah-is-dead-this-cleric-is-now-tipped-to-lead-hezbollah-6669637 RCSCott91 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Its has been confirmed, the guy is dead. Please proceed with the edit.

Hezbollah confirms its leader Hassan Nasrallah was killed in an Israeli airstrike Ronnieroxx (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, someone beat me to it. But I don't blame them, so much is happening so fast, I'm glad there are so many people attempting to keep track and edit it all these events down into a digestible form.

RCSCott91 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

Under "Ideology " in the "Manifesto" section: "The ideology has since evolved, and today Hezbollah is a left-wing political entity focused on social injustice.[123]"

[123] refers to a source "From Terrorism to Politics. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-4094-9870-4." The source doesn't support this claim as stated in the wiki article. You should remove the above sentence from the text as it neither reflects the source it claims to reference, nor the reality of what the group represents.

The stated source has a more extended quote: "The ideology of Hezbollah has changed: it has nowadays a left-wing political speech focused on social justice. It is the champion of minorities' rights. The fight against Zionism is not the first goal anymore and the movement hardly speaks in public of founding an Islamic republic in Lebanon, because it frightens other communities. The political speech has taken over the radical speech. The ideology is nevertheless double-faced: there is on the one hand the speech for the public and on the other hand a hard and radical speech for Hezbollah's real supporters, denouncing the occupation of Palestine, targeting Israel as the enemy and willing to establish an Islamic republic. Consequently, the movement has a double discourse. Sometimes this double discourse is quite incoherent as Hezbollah tries to please its electors and its militants at the same time."

As you can see, this is quite a U-turn from the one-sentence statement currently featured on Wikipedia.

Bellka12 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to suggest additional specific information from the source to be added, feel free to do so. I don't see the text as a U-turn from the perspective of this article. The article already covers the complicated nature of this organization, including the parts covered by the extended quote. The article should describe all of the notable features of the organization without any expectation of internal consistency or simple narratives. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to Remove Source

Request to remove source and affiliated information.

Reason: ~8 years ago, an undergraduate University paper was added as a source, and about 2 paragraphs worth of information was added from this source to the article. At least one portion of that information has gone almost completely unedited since then.

I'm requesting removal under

WP:RSSELF,

WP:RSDEPRECATED

WP:QUESTIONABLE

The source in question is nearly 14 years old. In italics is the main portion of information that I am requesting to be removed, it is nearly identical to how it appears in the source material. The citation opens to the source paper.

"In the Arab world, Hezbollah is generally seen either as a destabilizing force that functions as Iran's pawn by rentier[clarification needed] states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, or as a popular sociopolitical guerrilla movement that exemplifies strong leadership, meaningful political action, and a commitment to social justice.[396]"

Because this source's material has been present for years, I do need consensus to remove it regardless of my evaluation of it.

RCSCott91 (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Unclear if it has gone though any peer review. It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It has not been peer reviewed. It is an undergraduate assignment; I'm assuming, he did it as an honors paper although it is not labeled as such. I could contact him for questions.

RCSCott91 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need. Even if it has been peer reviewed, it isn't enough to support such a strong summarizing statement, especially because of its age. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed, source is not good enough (PHD at least would be usual and no evidence of citations by other RS). Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Historically, the source was used in the article more than once, the other portion(s) lost their citation a number of years ago as well, the only difference is I suspect they were edited into the article whereas the italic text is almost identical to when it was first added 8 years ago. I have the revisions date time, of when it was added, in my edit summary of the retrieval of source. RCSCott91 (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Turkey's position

Turkey is listed as being in opposition to Hezbollah. While this was the case during the Syrian civil war, since the Israel v Hamas War of 2023, Turkey's position has changed. Turkey and Hezbollah's opposition to Israel have aligned. While Turkey has not (yet) stated its support of Hezbollah as it has with Hamas, it also shouldn't be considered in opposition to Hezbollah anymore.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/turkey-israel-gaza/ Betoota44 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that "...[Türkiye] has not [yet] stated its support of Hezbollah...". Their prior official stance has been against Hezbollah, until they officially change that stance, any change would be based on political commentary that requires speculation.

There is a foreign relations section where this ultimatum tipping point can be added for context on Türkiye's complex and evolving political view of Hezbollah. RCSCott91 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

This sentence needs to be changed or removed: "Since then, close ties have developed between Iran and Hezbollah." The rest of the article makes clear that Iran played a critical role in the formation of Hezbollah. The "close ties" have been present from the organization’s founding. Suggested replacement text: "…after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and has maintained close ties to Iran since then." Blocky1OOO (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Rejected, not because of form of request or disagreement with your objection to the wording but because Hezbollah was officially founded in 1982. You are welcome to re-word the request and submit again. RCSCott91 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Targeting policy

The targeting policy section seems to focus on attacks that Hezbollah has condemned, rather ironically, pulling from sources like Saad-Ghorayeb, Amal in her book Hizbul̉lah: politics and Religion, where she explains Hezbollah's avoidance of attracting unwanted international attention by avoiding attacking Western targets.

Would it make more sense to rework this section to explain their targeting policy, pulling from the same sources, or simply rename the section something more in line with its content? RCSCott91 (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@OdNahlawi: WP:LEDE is a summary of the body, not a standalone article. [1] The burden to achieve consensus and initiate a discussion lies on the inserter of the contested material. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that edit isn't the best representation of Hezbollah's ideology. It talks about "destruction of Israel", not even mentioning that in 1985 Israel was occupying Lebanon. The source used isn't particularly scholarly. Professor Al-Aloosy writes Hezbollah's original ideology was rebellious in nature, distrustful of authority. Hezbollah's resentment of Israel stemmed from the dire humanitarian conditions facing the Shi'ites. He goes and writes that by 2009 Hezbollah's ideology became "unrecognizable" when compared to the 1985 manifesto. For one, by 2009 it had become Lebanese nationalist, and secondly, they argued in favour of a plural democracy (but not liberal democracy) as opposed to Islamic theocracy. I'll go ahead and make those edits.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is also confirmed by Dr Farida who writes that Hezbollah's anti-Israel ideology is rooted in "the religious and ethnic persecution of Shi’ite communities in southern Lebanon during the Israeli occupation in 1973 and 1982" and "Hezbollah’s success in driving Israel out of southern Lebanon gained it widespread support among Lebanese Shi’ites". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also, why is Hezbollah's terrorist designation listed in the first paragraph? It shouldn't be. For example, with respect to Hamas it is not listed in the first paragraph. It is more logical to mention it alongside its military wing later in the lead.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Also why exactly is Hezbollah's role in providing "religious education" removed[2]? Even if "social services" is mentioned in a lower paragraph, this is still very much a part of what Hezbollah does and should be mentioned in the first paragraph.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024 (3)

The word "lead" in the initial paragraph is a spelling mistake. The correct spelling is "led". 80.195.242.130 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done It seems like the issue is fixed now. FunLater (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024 (2)

Remove current event box. Hezbollah is not a current event. It is an organisation involved in current events, but should not itself be considered an event. TheMinionsOfTheTrenches (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Hezbollah is a left-wing political entity focused on social injustice"

This claim is made in the "ideology" section under "1985 manifesto". The source given states "The ideology of Hezbollah has changed: it has nowadays a left-wing political speech focused on social justice." The author of that source cites The Failure of Political Islam by Olivier Roy, but I can find nothing here that explicitly says Hezbollah is left wing. In fact, that source only mentions Hezbollah a handful of times. The closest I can get are some lines detailing how Islamist movements had aligned with Marxists in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The author goes on to state "they have in common the cult of the return to the past, of authenticity and purity; the concern with dress, food, and conviviality; the rebuilding of a "traditional" way of life". That sounds more conservative than left-wing to me, but I'm not going to argue that.

Scrolling through the talk page archive shows some old discussion about how Hezbollah is/isn't right or left wing.

Regardless of what their actual ideology is, I don't think there's a reason the line in question shouldn't be removed.

StalkerFishy (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been resolved yet. I've heard this line of thinking before. I think it stems, in the Middle East, largely from the former Soviet Union siding against Israel in the mid-1950s to maintain stable oil supplies from Arab states.

But that explanation never really explained the relationship that modern communist-leaning political groups have with Muslim groups in places like SE Asia. A prime example I can think of in the last decade is the anti-monarchy movement in Thailand.

It might be that I am lacking in Political Science and/or Theology instruction to understand either the political theory that explains it or the chain of events that seems to push a religious and non-religious set of groups together, at least anecdotally.

Technically speaking, Conservativism can be relatively centered depending on the society the term is being applied too; one of its main desires is to keep to the status quo. It's the fact that so many politicians use it as a buzzword; its meaning gets skewed. This is kind of similar to how US GOP politicians will remind people that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican, except he ran on a party platform full of ideas like abolitionism and women's suffrage, which definitely wouldn't be maintaining the status quo.

Britannica - Conservatism

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah killed"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

The IDF said at around 09:00 BST that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah had been killed in a "targeted strike" on the militant group's central headquarters in Dahieh, in southern Beirut

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c981g8mrl8lt

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Israel-Lebanon latest: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah killed in Beirut |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c981g8mrl8lt |website=BBC News |access-date=2024-09-28 |language=en-GB |quote=The IDF said at around 09:00 BST that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah had been killed in a "targeted strike" on the militant group's central headquarters in Dahieh, in southern Beirut}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

U15627r473 (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Might wait for other sources to confirm. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah Is a terrorist organization and should be categorized as such

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.

---

Per the United States government and the basic premis of their stated goals Hezbollah is and should be describes as a terrorist organization. According to the US government (citation below), "Hezbollah (“Party of God,” also spelled Hizballah) is an Iran-backed Lebanese Shia militia and U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Hezbollah is an Iranian partner force, helping Tehran project power across the region, train allied militias (reportedly including Hamas), and threaten U.S. interests and allies across the region." Also "According to the U.S. government, the External Security Organization (ESO, also known as the Islamic Jihad Organization), headed by Talal Hamiyah, is the arm of Hezbollah responsible for overseas terrorist attacks."

There is no excuse for Wikipedia to label Hezbollah as a "political party" when their stated goal of the destruction of the Jewish State. They are a terrorist group with roots in Islamic Jihad and should be labeled as such for the proper education of those researching.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10703#:~:text=Hezbollah%20(“Party%20of%20God%2C,Foreign%20Terrorist%20Organization%20(FTO). 2601:58B:E80:7B20:1DB8:234:24E2:895A (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There are at least 3 things that you don't appear to have considered or don't care about

• MOS:TERRORIST
• To categorize in Wikipedia means to describe something using Wikipedia's unattributed editorial voice i.e. to state something as an objective fact, which would be inappropriate in this case. When there are a variety of labels depending on POV, a "proper education" requires attribution to the labelers.
• Wikipedia is not part of the US government. See WP:NPOV. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24: Clearly there is no consensus for the addition of this category. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the above discussion from months ago is related to my recent edit. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24: It is indeed not related to your recent edit, but related to the content of your recent edit, and that is the addition of a terrorism category. Please self-revert now that you are aware that there is more opposition than support to your edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That someone opposes an edit I made is not enough of a reason to revert my edits. There's also someone who support it. Check oy the Terrorism in Lebanon article - there are whole paragraphs there about Hezbollah's activities. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24: Your edit was reverted because it is POV of certain nations. Now after you have been notified that there are three opposers, and that is enough of a reason to self-revert. Pinging @Selfstudier: and @Sean.hoyland: who have commented on this bit. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are confusing labeling Hezbollah as a terrorist organization with categorizing this article as relevant to the category of terrorism in Lebanon, It is not the same thing. Is there a specific reason why you are only inviting people who support your position to this discussion? @user:Prodrummer619 Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the false accusation of canvassing, as I have only pinged the two confirmed users who have participated in this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I pointed out what you did. The user I pinged is the one who added this category - surely you saw that? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The cat is a subcat of Islamic terrorism in Lebanon, which already contains H (idk whether it should, I don't like cats). So seems redundant anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the other way around - Islamic terrorism in Lebanon is a subcat of this. But yeah, that makes sense, we only need the more specific sub category. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Now I am wondering if we should add the state terrorism category to Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There is the State-sponsored terrorism cat which includes Terrorism by (various countries), you could probably add one for Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

State terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism are both possibilities, I wonder how much RS support there is for applying those labels to Israel. I can think of examples of both but I'm not an RS. My guess is there is also enough RS support for categorizing Hezbollah as terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism by Iran, but I've never looked it up. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of the last paragraph, fourth paragraph, to mention this fact, is too late. This should be the first or second sentence of the lede. Wikipedia is not part of the US Government, but the designation by the US Government and others is important enough to warrant immediate mention in the article. Drsruli (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope, and shouldn't have to respond to non EC speechifying, either. Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So if United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Gulf Cooperation Council, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Colombia, Estonia, Germany, Honduras, Israel, Kosovo, Lithuania, Malaysia, Paraguay, Serbia, Slovenia, Gautemala, and others claim Hezbollah as a terrorist group isn't enough for wikipedia to label them as such. However somehow they have enough sources to label Proud Boys as far right pro fascist militant organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:21EC:8324:97A:8257 (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC) WP:ARBECR

There is literally a list, Under foreign relations, breaking down countries that list Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Possibly the main reasons Hezbollah is not listed as a terrorist group on Wikipedia is: it acts in a hybridized political/paramilitary form one that usually doesn't exist for long periods in a democracy, normally a group like that will either take over to become a ruling regime or the government will attempt to squish them, generally they don't become a political party that coalition with the dominate political party in parliament.

The second reason probably stems from the fact that the UN has refrained from adding them to the consolidated terror group list, the majority of countries don't keep an active list of terrorist groups outside their own country or interests; they instead largely differ to the consolidated list, example would includes India who has a running list of internal terrorist groups but also includes any group of the UN list.

Editors are supposed to remain neutral, so having a broken down list in a complex situation like this makes the most sense.

With the Proud Boys, they have been labeled a fascist paramilitary group by their host nations. (US and Canada; and certain Oceania and European countries that the group exists (ed). Hezbollah is not labeled a terrorist group by Lebanon.

RCSCott91 (talk) 18:46, 24 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.

Drug trade and financing

I don’t understand why there is no mention of the illegal drug trades , both inside of Lebanon and in Syria and around the world. Instead it’s moved to a separate article not mentioned in the the main one. I mean, nobody believes that they maintain 100 thousand rockets on donations alone 2A0D:6FC2:4D22:4C00:30EB:9745:D650:5B65 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a novel use of "there is no mention" given that it is covered in the Hezbollah#Funding and Hezbollah#Latin_America_operations sections of this article, with further coverage in Funding of Hezbollah and Drug_economy_in_Lebanon#Hezbollah's_involvement_in_the_drug_industry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that the IRGC military-industrial complex is the size of pretty large multi-billion dollar company. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The drug topic is mentioned in section Organization, subsection Funding. Also links to detail pages are included.

I propose the "Funding" part be merged with the (stub) section "Economic activities" to resolve this confusing situation. 213.208.157.36 (talk) 10:19, 29 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)

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 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

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. [3] 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)

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.

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], Personisgaming (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

References

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)

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[9].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)

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: [10] "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: [11] "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: [12] "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: [13] "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: [14] "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: [15] "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: [16] "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: [17] "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: [18] "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: [19] The militia, which also commands a political party and runs social services in Lebanon...
• The New York Times: [20] 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: [21] 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: [22] 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: [23] Hezbollah also provides basic services to those living in the areas it controls, which would normally be provided by the national government
• ABC News: [24] 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[25] :a major provider of health, education and social services
• AP News[26]: 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:[27] 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) Sockpuppet.

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)

References

References

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)