Talk:Hezbollah

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former good articleHezbollah was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
September 25, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 16, 2008, February 16, 2011, February 16, 2012, February 16, 2015, and February 16, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Hezbollah

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2025

[edit]

Please add the information for Funding block:

In October 2023, Dutch media outlet RTL Nieuws reported findings from the Israeli crypto analytics firm BitOK, which estimated that Hezbollah had received approximately US$3.7 million in cryptocurrency between mid-2021 and October 2023. The same investigation attributed around $41 million in crypto to Hamas and nearly $98 million to Palestinian Islamic Jihad during the same period.[1] Ameliabogach (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Dutch, I can look into this shortly. Lova Falk (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a WSJ source about the same funding: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/militants-behind-israel-attack-raised-millions-in-crypto-b9134b7a?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAg6Otxbx_c6feMYV3a83GhT6ZqrfEQeP2DLMTlrJiL5iN-8xqcnB0a-W9pA9bk%3D&gaa_ts=68ab2511&gaa_sig=FVfP65gcoa3EopxEO5weYnuZbKDrdyl2uwSOkintUs5kGqIxqfF7tRN06ld2Icy1IlGBnk3fLawpac3WP5tKiA%3D%3D
 Done (in my own words though, and with the WSJ as an extra source. Thank you for your request! Lova Falk (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hamas ontving tientallen miljoenen aan cryptovaluta, RTL Nieuws, October 2023 (in Dutch).

Not just a "political party"

[edit]

An Islamist movement is far more than a political party. ANY movement is far more than a political party, but an Islamist one even more so. Parties aren't normally a state-in-state, with not just a complete, crystal-clear worldview and divinely revealed pathway to its goals, but also with their own foreign policies, banking system, various industries, schools, hospitals, pensions and every type of social assistance, large-scale housing projects etc. And I didn't even mention the military wing, with its own nation-sized weapons industry.

How many "political parties" like this based in countries where this term has any meaning at all, i.e. substantial democracies, can you name? I guess ZERO. Arminden (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlexBobCharles. You're asking "how is "political party" a weasel word?" I guess you didn't read what I wrote. And didn't really ask yourself in the first place. It's like saying ancient Rome was a city in Italy. Or the Nazis were a political party which won the German elections in 1933. Or the Mayflower was a wooden sailing ship. Arminden (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's lead describes it as such and it's what it is. Doesn't need to have a metaphor in Western countries, it's similar to something like Hamas. Also the Nazi Party article's short description is "Fascist German political party (1920–1945)". AlexBobCharles (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The short description must be... short - but still give the essence. The intro has more space, the article even more. There's no rule or even guideline that says "copy & paste the 1st line in the intro".
  2. Let's see what others say.
  3. What is precisely your problem here: do you actually disagree it's an Islamist movement? Or what exactly? Could you please address my actual remarks? When there is a deeper disagreement, it should be addressed directly; beating around the bush or or pretending it's a formal discussion is a waste of time. I hope you agree.
PS: Movements have multiple expressions, sometimes even give birth to more than one electoral list/pol. party, but are coalesced around a central ideology. Islamist movements even take it to an all-encompassing worldview and don't tolerate factions, wings & splinter groups, which are very much typical for political parties. Political parties are democratic actors, i.e. accept the democratic rules; Islamist movements don't, if given the chance, they gradually dislodge or even overthrow the democratic system once they gain the upper hand. Not the same. Where does the "Party of God" fit in, in your opinion?
Thanks, Arminden (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is much more of a political and military organization than an "Islamic movement". It doesn't seek to have widespread reforms like Taliban and it doesn't have a very unique "all-encompassing worldview". AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An honest, direct question: are you a supporter, at least of part of their platform? In return: I'm an enemy of every single idea in their playbook. Even those which might sound good stem from the wrong premise and motivatiin. Here you are.
The Taliban controls a country and has controlled territory even while defeated and on the retreat. Hezbollah hasn't managed to take over Lebanon, and Hezbollahland is different (Lebanon is not Afghanistan), but not much better than Talibanistan.
Do you believe even a word of Hezbollah not seeking widespread reforms and not having an "all-encompassing worldview"? Unique not, the Isl. Rep. of Iran is there already, as is the Houthi-controlled part if Yemen. And reforms probably indeed not intended: that's the completely wrong word for shattering any trace of democracy and freedom in Lebanon. Khomeini didn't bring reform any more than Hitler or Lenin have.
Words have meaning. That's my whole point. Arminden (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Currently on the infobox for Hezbollah, the Ideology section there links to List of political ideologies but I'm thinking of changing it to Ideology of Hezbollah instead as I see it as more fitting. Should I do it or nah?

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yah! I am sorry, I mean of course: yes, please, do so! Lova Falk (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
will do my friend, will do
but I think the ideology being linked to List of political ideologies is built into the {{Infobox political party}} so I might have to move the Infobox of Hezbollah into a Template, like what something similar was done with article for the Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) and it's Infobox (Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) infobox) being turned into a template.
But I'll ask that question on the Wikipedia discord server, and update you if I can.
(By the way, I love the quirky and kind way that you responded to me <3, It's pretty wholesome :D)
GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🙏 Heartwarming. Lova Falk (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're welcome my friend ❤
GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Instead of planning to do the thing that I said a few messages ago, I instead added For more information, see Ideology of Hezbollah at the Bottom of the list (someone by the name of "King Borke" (username: "bremperor") on the English wikipedia discord server suggested that to me), Hope you're happy with it now :D
05:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC) GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been anything but happy with it. 😉 Lova Falk (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you're happy, then I'm happy with it too 😄
Glad I satisfied you.
GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Infobox for Hezbollah be converted into a template instead?

[edit]

The current Infobox for Hezbollah is too long and lags my computer (school Chromebook though, so might be a hardware problem instead) whenever I try to edit it. I suggest moving it to Template:Hezbollah infobox instead in order to be more organized and clean like with Template:Islamic State infobox and Template:Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) infobox. Feel free to ask me any questions about this suggestion in here.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]