Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Edit request again

1. Remove all "Alleged suicide and terror attacks" cases on which there is no a court's sentence after a trial (all cases). For the first case even on the wiki page about the accident is written "The Israeli government said soon after the blast, and insists to this day, that the explosion was an accident resulting from gas cylinders exploding".

2. ٌRemove "the Bulgarian government officially accused the Lebanese-militant movement Hezbollah". This is a misleading paper statement. Bulgaria is a Rechtsstaat, only the prosecutor can do official accuse. The reuters material is from 2013, the indictment is from 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShushkoMushko (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

1. There is no need for court sentence, and in most cases there wasn't a trial. Once someone alleged that an event was a terror attack, it *is* an alleged attack by definition. The allegation has to be notable to be mentioned here, of course.

There is a confusion around Tyre headquarters bombings. There were two events. November 11 1982 was said to be a gas leak, November 4 1983 was said to be a terror attack. Israeli sources: [1] [2]. There are other reports that say that the first explosion was an attack too.

2. Most recent quote on the subject I could find is here: "We have established that the two were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah," Tsvetanov said. "There is data showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects. What can be established as a well-grounded assumption is that the two persons whose real identity has been determined belonged to the military wing of Hezbollah." I'm not sure if it can be considered an "official" accusation. We can just quote Tsvetanov directly and let the readers decide if it constitutes an accusation. “WarKosign” 08:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

1. "Once someone alleged..." - someone who? If I alleged that you are trying to manipulate the wiki readers or that you are a terrorist because I "believe" it because someone told me saw you talking with another Hezbollah member - is this means that I can public this assumption in wikipedia' s Hezbollah page with title "alleged Hezbollah members"? O, no... I can't do it because the page is protected... Not a facts, only assumptions. Why then there is a court at all? You can not blame because you "believe" in guilt. Only the court can say who is guilty and who is not. If there is not a trial - there is not a crime according to the authorities. Everybody has its own assumptions, the published facts in wikipedia should be proved.

2. "...most recent..."? Did the quoted words changed in time and you are searching the more recent? This time your source provides correct quotation. But first "data" and "well-grounded assumption" do not mean an evidence and these words don't have any legal value, second mr. Tsvetanov is not authorized to do any official accusation, because in Bulgaria this can be done only by a prosecutor.

You said "We can just quote"... I know why "someone" don't want to write the facts as they are. I am only surprised that "someone" still cares about what is written here and what the people believe, because "someone" is always doing what he wants no matter the people's opinion.

According to the Arab–Israeli conflict this "free" page should be independent but as I see it is not. We can include it to the "Israeli sources". Pity...

Not all terror incidents beget trials. It is a bit hard to try a suicide bomber posthumously. In some cases (e.g. AMIA) there are open extradition requests after charges were filed in the home country against Hezbollah leaders - however trials usually are not performed in absentia of the charged. Connections between these incidents and Hezbollah have been made by several RS and governments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course quotes changed. The bombings happened in June 2012. In February 2013 Tsvetanov said that there is "well-grounded" evidence that Hezbollah was behind the attack". In June 2013 Kristian Vigenin said "There is no conclusive evidence for the implication of Hezbollah in the July 2012 bombing in Burgas. The authorities continue to gather evidence." In July 2013 Tsvetlin Yovchev stated: "there are clear signs that say Hezbollah is behind the Burgas bombing." In July 2014 the bomber was identified. As this was an ongoing investigation, recent quotes are more reliable as older ones. There is no doubt that there are high-ranking people in Bulgarian government that said Hezbollah is responsible for the bombing. You are arguing that this does not constitute an official accusation. It is possible you are right, this is why I just want to quote one of the officials and let the reader make their own mind. “WarKosign” 14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean the quoted words of Tsvetanov can not change in time and they are as your previous quotation - https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4341312,00.html here]: "We have established that the two were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah," Tsvetanov said. "There is data showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects. What can be established as a well-grounded assumption is that the two persons whose real identity has been determined belonged to the military wing of Hezbollah." Do you speak Bulgarian? How do you proceed in such cases where the translation is obviously misleading? In case where the quotation is not complete and this changes the meaning? In July 2013 Tsvetlin Yovchev stated: "there are clear signs that say Hezbollah is behind the Burgas bombing." actually is "The evidence gathered so far indicates that Hezbollah is behind the attack, but in order to speak of robust evidence from a procedural point of view, more time is needed." I am sure you can see the difference.ShushkoMushko (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I can (to a certain extent) read Bulgarian. This seems to quote the same statement that is translated in Ynet article: "Имаме данни за финансиране и съпричастност към "Хизбула", заяви Цветанов. Според него може да се направи обосновано предположени, че са принадлежа ли към военното формирования на "Хизбула".

The content and the date match ynet, so the quotation is not misleading. It can be argued as you did that this statement does not constitute an "official accusation", whatever it means. As I already wrote twice, I agree that the statement in the article should be changed to just quote Tsvetanov or another high-standing official saying that the investigation showed Hezbolla likely to be responsible for the attack. “WarKosign” 21:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Great! Finally someone who can read Bulgarian! The Ynet article is not misleading, the reuters article is. Yes, this is the same as I posted before. As you can see by yourself - there is no well-grounded EVIDENCE here. Data = данни, evidence = доказателство, assumtion = предположение. Except the case with minister and prosecutor roles, "data" does not mean "evidence" in the legal world. And that was what happens, the data was not reliable for official accusation. So you can read this interview you the prosecutor? "- Между кориците на делото има ли име на терористична организация?", "-Обвинението единствено се отнася до криминално деяние, осъществено от три лица в съучастие, и това е отговорът на въпроса.". In English via google translate "-Is the name of a terrorist organization among the covers of the lawsuit?", "The charge only refers to a criminal act committed by three persons in complicity, and this is the answer to the question." from here https://www.24chasa.bg/mnenia/article/5779287 ?

And let me continue with the Allged suicide and terror attacks. The two cases with "Hezbollah claimed responsibility. Both sources here are the book of the Jewish writer Levitt, Matthew. This is a violation of the independent source requirement "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not." So " Hezbollah claimed responsibility." is not OK. For both cases the responsibility was claimed by Ansar Allah, not by Hezbollah. Can I make a page of Ansar Allah and move this there? I will write that according to Levitt, Matthew they are widely held as a front for Hezbollah. On AMIA page we have the same violation again for two for the three sources, Levitt, Matthew and Jerusalem post. It is very sad that "The investigations were marred by incompetence... called ... a "national disgrace", the goal of the law to bring justice to the victim's relatives and to the guilty ones was not achieved.

In the same way it is OK to mention "On 10 May 2016, an explosion near Damascus International Airport killed top military commander Mustafa Badreddine. ... Hezbollah attributed the attack to Syrian opposition.[279][280][281]" on the Hezbollah's site, because a member is a victim and Hezbollah is accusing. But this shouldn't be and it is not published on the Syrian opposition page because it is not proved. That is my point. ShushkoMushko (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be the same statement that is quoted by reuters: "“Имаме данни за финансиране и съпричастност към “Хизбула” във връзка с атентата на летището в Бургас. Може да се направи обосновано предположение, че две лица са принадлежали към военното формирование на "Хизбула" заяви вчера вътрешният министър Цветан Цветанов след заседание на Консултативния съвет за национална сигурност при президента." "Вътрешният министър съобщи, че разследването на атентата в Бургас е установило двама от извършителите." "Кой има изгода от официално съобщеното “предположение” на вътрешния министър Цветан Цветанов за връзката на “Хизбула“ с атентата на летището в Бургас?"

While the article comments on motivation behind the announcement, it does say that this is an official announcement ("официално съобщеното").

The statement by prosecutor Chapkanova does *not* say that Hezbollah is was not involved in the action, only that the specific case being discussed refers only to the persons directly responsible for the action. It does not preclude Bulgaria from officially accusing the organization. Is any base for your assumption that only the prosecutor can "officially accuse" ? Even if you are an expert in international law, what matters is what the sources say and not an (educated or not) opinion of a wikipedia editor. I agreed several times that we can weaken the statement and not talk about official accusation but only to quote Tsvetanov. If you have a notable Bulgarian official saying that Hezbolla was probably *not* involved in the attack - it should be mentioned too.

"Hezbollah claimed responsibility" - a fact supported by a source can be stated in wikipedia voice, unless there are source that claim differently, in which case we should represent both position, attributing them to the sources. Are there sources saying that Hezbolla denied responsibility for these attacks ? If not, there is no reason to doubt the sources. “WarKosign” 07:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Official announcement is not "official accusing". In the official statement they told about data about the relation and assumptions. The word "accused" is an novel interpretation of Tsvetelia Tsolova. This is not accusing. I will write it again - one is to say "I assume you are a Santa Clause because have a data leading to this" and completely different is to say "WarKosign is a Santa Clause".

However, this can be described as "ShushkoMushko said that WarKosign is Santa". “WarKosign” 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Then compre "ShushkoMushko said that WarKosign is Santa" and "ShushkoMushko said he assumes WarKosign is a Santa Clause because he has a data leading to this". ShushkoMushko (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"does *not* say that Hezbollah is was not involved in the action, only that the specific case being discussed refers only to the persons directly responsible for the action". First of all the question to Chapkanova was for "name of a terrorist organization" - should she list all existing terrorist organization saying they are not involved? And it is for sure preclude Bulgaria from officially accusing the organization.

She was asked whether any terror organization was charged with the action. The answer was negative. She did not provide any information on whether Hezbolla would or wouldn't be accused in the future, only that this specific case does not deal with it. It makes the statement irrelevant to the question.“WarKosign” 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the only one case and it's purpose is to restore the justice, punishing the perparator/s and theperpetrator/s of perpetrator/s, which guilt can be proved by evidences. The trial is not for exactly these two guys. And how she can know who can accuse in the future and to say ot for sure? ShushkoMushko (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Hezbollah claimed responsibility". Usually when you say "the man X do the action Y" you should prove it, not the men X. When I say "WarKosign told me he is Santa Clause" I have to prove that you really said it, not you to prove that you really didn't say it. Following this the reason to doubt the sources is different. Can you please write that according to you this is not a violation - "Both sources here are the book of the Jewish writer Levitt, Matthew. This is a violation of the independent source requirement "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not." So " Hezbollah claimed responsibility."?

Every single statement in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, which means that there exists a WP:RS able to support it. Some statements are disputed, in which case WP:NPOV policy instructs us to present different viewpoints, possibly attributing them to those who hold them. Is there anyone (beside you) disputing that Hezbolla took responsibility for these attacks ? If this is the case, there must be reliable sources that either attribute the attack to someone else or at least report Hezbolla denying it. As long as it's not the case, there is no need to attribute the statement to a specific source since there are many sources repeating the statement, attributing it to all of them would be useless. “WarKosign” 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

For both cases the responsibility was claimed by Ansar Allah, not by Hezbollah. I am also disputing the source and how it is used here and in the meaning of wiki rules which I quoted. So if "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not." is " Hezbollah claimed responsibility." OK? ShushkoMushko (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked your sources about Tyre headquarters bombings. About November 4 1983 your source wrote "The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Lebanese Resistance Front claimed responsibility for the attack." These two are different organizations.

It's possible the attack was a collaboration, or one (or both) could be lying. “WarKosign” 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean there is no Hezbollah on this source at all. ShushkoMushko (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Out of the topic - no matter if the changes will be approved or not, WarKosign, it is very interesting to discussing with you. Can you find information about the November 11, 1982 and exactly why if there were "three witnesses who saw the Peugeot speed to the building, the identification of the car's parts in the rubble of the building, and the existence of a Shin Bet report detailing the Hezbollah preparations for the bombing" "The Israeli government said soon after the blast, and insists to this day, that the explosion was an accident"? I can't read Hebrew at all. ShushkoMushko (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

See google translation of the Hebrew wiki article, it contains more information. There is a theory that Shin Bet for whatever reason decided to call it a gas explosion and not car bombing. “WarKosign” 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to find his book, maybe there is a theory about their reason. ShushkoMushko (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request 2

All Iranian/Lebanon and Israeli/USA sources should be removed because of 'Identifying and using independent sources' rule violation. ShushkoMushko (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No. --GHcool (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The two cases with "Hezbollah claimed responsibility. Both sources here are the book of the Jewish writer Levitt, Matthew. This is a violation of the independent source requirement "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not." So " Hezbollah claimed responsibility." is not OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShushkoMushko (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Iranian (and possibly some Lebanese media - e.g. Hezbollah controlled al-Manar) should be removed as it is not independent of the Iranian government - there is no freedom of the press in Iran - particularly in regards to politics/foreign-affairs - Freedom House, Freedom of the Press 2017: Iran - such sources are only reliable in regards to the Iranian regime's position. However, this is not the case in regards to Israeli and US sources that are not controlled by their respective government in any way.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I find the notion that a writer's reliability is compromised by his identity as a Jew to be extremely offensive. --GHcool (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the comment about the writer's nationality was in the relation of the dependent/independent sources, because the wiki article is a part of the Israel–Iran proxy conflict. It is not offensive to comment if the source is Israeli or Iranian. ShushkoMushko (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Levitt is a US citizen (and former US gvmt official). Attacking his reliability on the basis of Jewishness is beyond the pale. Israeli sources are independent of the gvmt. So are Iranian in exile sources. Sources in Iran suffer from a freedom of the press issues.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Is a Levitt Jewish? Are the bigger part of the Israeli citizens Jewish? Are the bigger part of Hezbollah victims Jewish? Do you check what means dependence in wikipedia? it can not be independent to the Israel–Iran proxy conflict. Only you are talking about the government dependency here.And actually my comment is from the above conversation. Why it is copied here without the rest part of the talk??? ShushkoMushko (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I find the notion that a writer's reliability is compromised by his identity as a Jew to be extremely offensive. --GHcool (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I find the notion that a journalist's reliability is compromised by their identity as a Iranian to be extremely offensive. ShushkoMushko (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No one said that here. Iranians writing outside of Iran are perfectly fine sources. Sources from inside Iran (be the writers Persian or some other ethnicity) are problematical due to lack of freedom of the press. Journalists in Iran get jailed, or worse, if they do not write in accordance to what the regime expects.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

GHcool, I will explain it again, specially for you.

Wikipedia says: "The organization said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not."

I say: "Ansar Allah claimed responsibility, but according to Levitt, Matthew Hezbollah claimed responsibility" is OK using material published by Jewish autor, but "Hezbollah claimed responsibility" is not.

I want this change because of wiki rule "Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources", and I follow the dependency "Is a Levitt Jewish? Are the bigger part of the Israeli citizens Jewish? Are the bigger part of Hezbollah victims Jewish?".

Your childish try to change the dispute direction is offending, but it offends only you! ShushkoMushko (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior has been reported. --GHcool (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My reply to this was:

"I don't want to offend anybody. If we suppose there is a protected page about the Yugoslavia's civil war for example. It is protected because Serbs and Bosnians are very oftеn updating the page, because there are taking the conflict personally and can not decide how is good and who is bad. I am an ethnic Serb, I am a writer, famous as Levitt, Matthew. I wrote a book about the civil war. Someone uses my book about the war as a source in wikipedia. In the book I wrote "2+2=4". In wikipedia this men wrote "2+2=4". GHcool, which is from different ethnic group, different nationality, does not lives in Yugoslavia and he haven't ever been there asks for the following edit: "It is against the wiki independent sources to write "2+2=4" here, because ShushkoMushko is a Serb, the Sebrs are not independent to the Yugoslavia civil war. Edit the comment "ShushkoMushko wrote 2+2=4". Should be this offensive for me? Or for the rest ethnic Serbs? The question is not rhetoric, no matter will you ban me or not, please answer me. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShushkoMushko (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Shushko, just because someone is Jewish does NOT mean that are Israeli, or even support Israel. That's like saying all Muslims support Saudi Arabia, which is very clearly not the case. You are confusing nationality and religion. --Tarage (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

The list of "State allies" includes Armenia. I would like to request that Armenia be removed from this list as A) The Republic of Armenia and its government are not state allies of Hezbollah; B) The citation attributed to Armenia leads to a random blog (which itself cites a New York Times article from 2009) discussing the inner-politics of Lebanon and how an Armenian organization in Lebanon plays politics during Lebanese elections. It has nothing to do with the Republic of Armenia. Levonid (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed - I agree. The Blog was actually sourced to NYT, but whomever added this to the article confused between Armenians in Lebanon (part of the wider Armenian middle-east diaspora) and their main party Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Lebanon - that are aligned with Hezbollah in a current political alliance - and the state of Armenia that is to the best of my knowledge not taking a position on inner Lebanon (though loosely aligned with Russia and Iran).Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hezbollah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310143530/http://books.sipri.org/files/RR/SIPRIRR23.pdf to http://books.sipri.org/files/RR/SIPRIRR23.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913091527/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105065531/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-12/world/39922185_1_aleppo-war-soccer-stadium to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-12/world/39922185_1_aleppo-war-soccer-stadium
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927093727/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118214555/http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2003/2003-02-13-x/pdf/g2-137x1.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2003/2003-02-13-x/pdf/g2-137x1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615115751/http://adl.org/main_Terrorism/special_force_2.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/special_force_2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105065531/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-12/world/39922185_1_aleppo-war-soccer-stadium to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-12/world/39922185_1_aleppo-war-soccer-stadium
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014175900/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/12/266331/hezbollah%2Dbusted%2Disrael%2Dimmunity%2Dmyth/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/12/266331/hezbollah-busted-israel-immunity-myth/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729110434/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/19162 to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/hez_e0905.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504083721/http://www.adl.org/main_terrorism/hezbollah_overview.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_terrorism/hezbollah_overview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927093727/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

2.2 Online Media seems to be redundant

The one piece of content in 2.2 Online Media links to a YouTube channel that doesn't seem to exist anymore, shouldn't this get removed? Grngu (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cuba and Hezbollah allegations

The infobox as well as the article under the section "Foreign relations" assume Cuba to be a partner of Hezbollah.

However, the source is not trustworthy. Frontpagemag is not a serious source. Searching Google for "Cuba and Hezbollah" only displays results for fringe blogs.

How did this ever get on Wikipedia? I am disappointed by this lack of research on a widely known terrorist organization. Suggesting that a state has relations with a terrorist organization is a very serious allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeSoftwareEnthousiast (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

Your information regarding Hezbollah funding is not accurate in some parts and isn't updated in other parts. Quote: "Funding - Hezbollah says that the main source of its income comes from its own investment portfolios and donations by Muslims, however, Western sources maintain that Hezbollah actually receives most of its financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria". FACT: DEA has proved that the main source of funding (other than Iran) comes from drug trafficking. Quote: Iran is said to have given $400 million between 1983 and 1989 through donation. The situation has been changed due to economic problems, but Iran still funds humanitarian actions carried on by Hezbollah.[124] According to reports released in February 2010, Hezbollah received $400 million from Iran.[126][127][128] The US estimates that Iran has been giving Hezbollah about US$60–100 million per year in financial assistance.[129] Other estimates are as high as $200 million annually. Iran funds Hezbollah with 800 million of USD annually.

Please look this link for a comprehensive research published on Forbes recently: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinternational/2018/01/24/the-richest-terror-organizations-in-the-world/#75aa1e3c7fd1 Itayzehorai (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Itayzehorai:, thank you for pointing us to the article. As a person sharing the name with the author of the article you surely noticed that it is not a "comprehensive research" but rather a "post". It only mentions Hezbollah once and doesn't provide any specific information. Your other quotes seem to come from here, which is not a reliable source. “WarKosign” 14:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

1. 1 Hizballah

Total annual Income – $1.1 billion

Other than the Iranian Government, there is no doubt who is the primary beneficiary of the nuclear agreement. Within a few years, Hizballah’s budget jumped significantly with the government expenditure out of Tehran, and if in the past they received about $200 million per year, today the Iranian funding of the Lebanese terror group, according to estimates by the security establishment, is evaluated at more than $800 million dollars annually.

But despite the large sums of money flowing from Tehran, the extremist Shiite organization did not always enjoy such wide financial support and there were times in the not-too-distant past in which, as a result of urgent liquidity problems, they made do with just hundreds of millions. Because of this, Hizballah made sure to vary its sources of capital; from raising money and support collected by organizations camouflaged as charities and scattered all over the world, down to real estate dealings and “used car” dealerships run by private business people.

The crowning glory of Hizballah’s business portfolio is its hold on the global drug industry. The organization’s worldwide crime operation extends from South America, through Africa, Europe, the Far East, Australia and the Middle East. Among their various activities, there are active Hizballah cells engaged in constant money laundering, forgery, weapons trade, smuggling, and of course producing and trading drugs, primarily heroin and cocaine.

Despite sweeping denial by the leaders of the religious extremist organization, officials from the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have in the past presented conclusive evidence linking the drug organizations active at the Triple Frontier (Argentina-Brazil-Paraguay) with extremist Muslim organizations and Hizballah in particular. Its involvement in the drug industry of South America began in the early 1980s and has gained significant momentum over the last decade; through use of the large Shiite-Lebanese diaspora and close collaboration with South American cartels and drug organizations as well as crime and terror organizations in North Africa, a global-narcotic network has been created, netting billions of dollars a year. Among those enjoying the spoils is Hizballah. Today the total income generated by the organization’s global-narcotic operations comes to hundreds of millions of dollars yearly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinternational/2018/01/24/the-richest-terror-organizations-in-the-world/2/#35bab2bf1b7c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itayzehorai (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL we need some good sources, apparently there are. Project Cassandra article has a few more sources. “WarKosign” 21:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

"we need some good sources": reuters - Top Israeli general sees increased Iran spending on foreign wars - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-rallies-israel/top-israeli-general-sees-increased-iran-spending-on-foreign-wars-idUSKBN1ER0Q9

Forbes's The Richest Terror Organizations in the World ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinternational/2018/01/24/the-richest-terror-organizations-in-the-world/#290a2f5b7fd1 ) was created based on interviews with security experts and counter-terror specialists, as well as reports and analysis from international NGOs, academic and government organizations, and think-tanks. It brings to light estimated numbers behind the top ten wealthiest terrorist organizations from the State Department list of Designated Foreign Terrorist organizations.

Itayzehorai (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

Please remove Russia from the infobox "allies". It's not sourced anywhere in article. There is no doubt Russia is an ally of the Assad government, but not necessarily Hezbollah.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is not straightforward as even you you're not confident on what you're saying. Please establish consensus for so or provide reliable sources that explicitly say the are not. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done this - per WP:ONUS. We do not have a source saying they are allies - which is what we would require to state this. We do have a source saying "We maintain contacts and relations with them because we do not consider them a terrorist organization". Not considering someone a terrorist (and talking with them) - does not mean they are allies.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2018

Change "After the death of Abbas al-Musawi in 1992, the group has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General." to "Since the death of Abbas al-Musawi in 1992, the group has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General." 128.239.214.74 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Add

Add Morocco to enemies and add Polisario Front and Algeria to allies. Morocco cut ties with Iran and accused both of helping Polisario front via Algeria embassy in Iran.-fenetrejones (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

All the countries listed under opponents declared that Hezbollah is a terror organization. The source that you provided does not say anything similar. It does not say in any way what is Morocco's position regarding Hezbollah. “WarKosign” 12:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Check out Morocco-Iran relations, Hezbollah is supporting Polisario front. More sources: fenetrejones (talk) 3:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add Polisario Front and Algeria to allies and Morocco as opponents. Here are all the sources. heck out Morocco-Iran relations, Hezbollah is supporting Polisario front. More sources: fenetrejones (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected Edit Request on May 4, 2018

Because my last post went unnoticed:

Please add Polisario Front and Algeria to allies and Morocco as opponents. Here are all the sources. heck out Morocco-Iran relations, Hezbollah is supporting Polisario front. More sources: fenetrejones (talk) 3:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Which of these sources specifically calls Hezbolla nad Morocco opponents ? From the links I see that the main subject is Iran, not Hezbollah. “WarKosign” 15:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Morocco said Iran is funding Polisario Front Via Hezbollah. Here is another one: "Rabat says Iran and Hezbollah sent arms and financial support for the Polisario front." Source nine says that Morocco is accusing Hezbollah are training Polisario Front.Source Eleven says"He said Morocco obtained and verified proof that Iran-backed Lebanese militant movement Hezbollah has provided training and financial support to Polisario fighters since 2016. Last month, Hezbollah allegedly sent its first supply of weaponry to the Polisario, prompting Morocco’s decision to cut ties, Bourita said.

Iran’s government did not respond publicly to the diplomatic decision Tuesday.

Hezbollah called the allegation that it supported and trained the Polisario movement baseless. The group issued a statement admonishing Morocco for yielding to what it described as American, Israeli, and Saudi pressure.

".Source 12 says"Morocco will close its embassy in Tehran and will expel the Iranian ambassador in Rabat, Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita told reporters.

He said that Iran and its Lebanese Shi’ite ally, Hezbollah, were supporting Polisario by training and arming its fighters, via the Iranian embassy in Algeria."fenetrejones (talk) 4:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Those sources indicate that there is a tension. Does one explicitly call the other an enemy? Does Morocco call Hezbollah a terror organization, as most other countries in the list do ? “WarKosign” 08:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Polisario Front and Morocco are enemies. As shown in Western Sahara conflict, Morocco wants to annex all of that area but a group known as the Polisario Front opposes Morocco and wants and Independent Western Sahara. Western Sahara is backed by Algeria, as The Polisario Front control land that has hostile living standards, are allowed to have their quarters in Algeria (which they do). Morocco is accusing Iran and Hezbollah of funding their enemy aka The Polisario Front. The two are funding the Polisario Front via the Iranian Embassy in Algeria. So it is fair to list the Polisario Front and Algeria as allies of Hezbollah. fenetrejones (talk) 8:17 8 May 2017

Your conclusion makes sense, but it is original research. We need a source that explicitly supports what you want to add. “WarKosign” 21:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if you don't want to include Morocco as enemy because it is "Original research". It is still fair to call the Polisario Front and Algeria as allies for the previously stated statements. Since they are arming and trading the Polisario Front in Algeria and Algeria is the biggest supporter of the polisario Front and they are doing it in the Iranian embassy in Algeria. fenetrejones (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is Morocco's position, to include it here we need a neutral source, or Hezbolla and/or Polisario Front itself calling each other allies. “WarKosign” 06:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that stating Hezbollah is an ally of Polisario should have something better than a stmt by Morocco (though that's quite a bit of smoke) - The stmt by Morocco is sufficient to add Morocco to Hezbollah's state opponents - as Morocco essentially declared itself as such. Hence - I added Morocco as an opponent. Regarding Polisario as an ally - more is required.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It is at least worth putting Polisario Front on allies and saying alleged.-Fenetrejones (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Find someone other than Morocco itself saying so (i.e. Polisario, Hezbollah, or a neutral 3rd party) - and it will go in.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is one. This is a Belgian Group that found it out . Here is also the Algerian Media confirming it. Algeria should also be added due this source or others. Or at least on countries that do NOT consider Hezbollah a terrorist group.-Fenetrejones (talk) 3:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Add Polisario Front and Algeria as allies

You said give a source saying that Hezbollah and Polisario front are allies and the source is not from morocco, so here it is. Here is one. This is a Belgian Group that found it out . Here is also the Algerian Media confirming it. Algeria should also be added due this source or others. Or at least on countries that do NOT consider Hezbollah a terrorist group.-Fenetrejones (talk) 3:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It is not obvious upon inspection that these sources clearly qualify under the standards for reliable sources. The suggested edit of this request and the prior one is a larger question that cannot be simply dealt with within such a request. Please open a separate discussion on this talk page to assess whether a consensus among interested editors exists that supports adding this information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Lebanese nationalism

Obviously, Hezbollah is a Shia Islamic party, but I think it is important that they be described as Lebanese nationalists in the infobox. There is no evidence that they want to "exclude" non-Muslim Lebanese Christians (Maronites, Orthodox, etc) from the definition of the Lebanese nation, for instance. Also, Hezbollah has helped to protect Christian and minority communities in Syria. This is an important aspect that needs to be highlighted more prominently in the article, as in the English-speaking world when people see the word "Islamist", they think of insane groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hezbollah does has alliances with other groups in Lebanon (it is impossible, due to the many factions in Lebanon, for any faction to act differently) - however these alliances have changed over time (e.g. they were different during the Lebanese Civil War) - and support and voting for Hezbollah is only (or almost only) by Shia - as such Shia aptly fits. Given Iran's influence over the group which nationalism is someone in question - but we do have Islamic nationalism as an ideology in the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Western Sahara and Algeria on list of Hezbollah allies as alleged

Add it like This: Western Sahara (Alleged) Algeria (Alleged) Morocco is accusing Hezbollah of training the Polisario Front so it is fair to add Western Sahara as an allies but with "Alleged" next to it. Source Here is a source for Algeria Both of these belong on the list of allies but the same way Cuba is currently on it with the word "alleged" right next too it Algeria and Lebanon also belong on the list of countries not considering Hezbollah a Terrorist organization. Here is proof for Algeria-fenetrejones (talk) August 2, 2018 4:05 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. As Eggishorn mentioned on May 11, you can establish a consensus by starting a discussion in a new section on this talk page before submitting an edit request.​ — Newslinger talk 20:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Terroroist

Terroist Group should be in the first line of the description. Their objective is the killing of innocent Israelies that is being a terrorist.173.48.197.65 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST. “WarKosign” 09:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a recongized terrorist group by the U.S Western European nations and Israel that is sufficent.173.48.197.65 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Credibility of Citations

e.g. Article says "Hezbollah officials have said, on rare occasions, that it is only "anti-Zionist" and not anti-Semitic.[109] However, according to scholars, "these words do not hold up upon closer examination". Among other actions, Hezbollah actively engages in Holocaust denial and spreads anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.[109]" This phrase 'according to scholars' is always going to be problematic in an article of this sort, there are plenty of Zionists who claim to be 'scholars'. We now live in a world where Zionists are continuously trying to prove that to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic & that any Jew who thinks an Israeli state might not've been such a great idea is now this thing called a 'self hating Jew'. So if you really love those Jews who don't support Israel then now you are anti-Semitic too. For this article to be NPOV & worthy of Wikipedia I think we need a list of true 'scholars' on this subject who can be trusted to be free of Zionist prejudices. 86.148.15.250 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia rejects ideological tests for scholarship. The only thing Wikipedia demands is verifiability. I find extremely offensive the notion that a belief in Jewish self-determination compromise a scholar's reliability. A similar argument was put forward about a year ago and was rejected. --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia also cautions against the unwise use of what can be seen as weasel words such as 'according to scholars'. I am sorry that I am unable to express my concern without offending you but whatever our viewpoints on this subject we can all find cause to feel offended in some way. There would be no reason for me to question the reliability of (e.g.) an astrophysicist on the grounds of Zionist tendencies but this is rather different. Perhaps there can be no such thing as a perfectly unbiased academic of whatever persuasion but I'm afraid that since efforts towards what you call Jewish self-determination have had so many impacts on the rights of innocent non-Jewish people then I cannot see how it can be left to any present day Zionist to say what is impartial scholarship on this matter - you say Wikipedia rejects ideological tests for scholarship but would you completely trust in the reliability of a scholar who was a member of Hezbollah? I think Wikipedia articles should aim to reflect a global viewpoint, that's all. 86.148.15.250 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained, one is able to be both a reliable scholar and a believer in Jewish self-determination. To suggest otherwise is to engage in poisoning the well at best and antisemitism at worst. --GHcool (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hezbollah "Anti-Semitism" (Bullshit)

Two of the refs cited in "Reference #6" disprove the claim, and the other two have no proof of anything at all. Any editor with the ability to edit this page, and a modicum of intestinal fortitude, should read the references and delete "Anti-Semitism" from the list of ideologies. How the fuck did this garbage even come to be included in a so-called encyclopedia??? 174.89.132.146 (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See #Anti-Semitism above.“WarKosign” 11:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Which source disproves it ? Care to copy a quote here ? The two sources that I can check support the statement strongly, and I can't check the two others. “WarKosign” 11:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :) -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

It seems like there has been considerable debate on the subject of the alleged anti-Semitic ideology of Hezbollah, but this is by no means a shared consensus either on this website or in the global community as a whole. I propose removing this from the ideology panel, as anti-Zionism and Islamism are the more accurate descriptions for this group that are widely shared by most commentators. This website need not be in the business of supporting disputable claims. --Ðrdak (T) 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Beyond the bombing of Argentinean Jewish targets, there is no lack of reputable sources calling the organization antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I hold the belief that the notion of Hezbollah being anti-semitic is purely based off of the party/group being against the ideology of zionism which itself would be like saying anti-nazism is anti-germanism, even though everyone knows thats just ridiculous. Being a controversial statement, it is also only given one source which i think is too little to give them such an extreme label. I have also seen videos and read various articles about how Hezhollah has got a good relationship with both lebanese christians and jews. There are also some western jews that hold positive views towards Hezbollah. I agree that the label either needs more comprehensive non-biased sourcing or should be removed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: [3]. “WarKosign” 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

For most of us there is no way to validate what is being said in the video. Not only because it is a sound-file on top of a picture, but because a lot of us dont speak arabic and there are no subtitles! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a translation in the video description and a link to the full article.

In addition there is a long list of sources quoted here. There can't be any doubt that there is a non-fringe POV that Hezbollah is antisemitic. “WarKosign” 12:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It is rather the mainstream view, present in reputable RS. Hezbollah itself doesn't really contest this (nor does antisemitism have the associated stigma it has in the West).Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a mistake to assume that the prime minister of Israel is simply delivering objective information about the leader of a group opposed to his foreign policy goals, another mistake to assume that an editorial writer is doing the same. There are scant non-opinion stories about Hezbollah in English-language sources but that seems to be par for the course for groups opposed to the US/UK. Some closer investigation is warranted: [4], [5] Asasinarosa (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hezbollah is antisemitic in the same way water is wet. It is a definitional thing. This isn't up for debate. All scholars on the topic of Hezbollah and on the topic of antisemitism agree on this topic. --GHcool (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a rather absolutist statement that is, by its very nature, demonstrably false. Surely if "all" scholars on this topic agreed, we wouldn't be having these debates regularly. The point isn't whether an individual editor believes Hezbollah is anti-semitic in their heart of hearts, but rather whether this adheres to NPOV guidelines and the avoidance of bias in articles on this site whenever possible. Ðrdak (T) 03:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The New "Anti Semitism" by Carlos Latuff

-- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What is your point? Carlos Latuff is an example of an anti-semite claiming to be merely legitimately critical of Israel. “WarKosign” 15:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Ship to Gaza by Carlos Latuff

-- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Israeli Side vs Palestinian Side by Carlos Latuff

-- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Zionists' Gaza Ghetto by Carlos Latuff

-- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Zionist Who Cried Wolf by Carlos Latuff

-- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think your source is NPOV enough. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Unless they officially declare themselves as Anti-Semitic, they are just Anti-Zionist, because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Seminitism. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place for editorial cartoons. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. --GHcool (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :) -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up of "anti-Semitism" discussion

This is the subsequent discussion on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors:

Subsequent Discussion on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors

Hi. When I was reading the blue-locked article about Hezbollah, an organisation which has an Anti-Zionist view, I noticed Anti-Semitism listed as one of the ideologies in the infobox. I looked at the article's talk page and found that a discussion was already underway. The editors who supported labelling Hezbollah as Anti-Semitic were highly acclaimed editors who were very pro-Zionist, and one of them had even explicitly written on their user page that they are 'dedicated' on Wikipedia is to promote the views of the Israeli Zionist Government! I am quite concerned that the activities and high approval of these users on this website will push towards leaning to a pro-Israeli or even Zionist bias. Could somebody please help? Thank you! ^ - ^ -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC) They are User:GHcool and User:WarKosign. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I am writing this because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I've looked at several articles regarding Hezbollah, and the statements about antisemitism are very well-sourced, to scholarly books on the subject as well as newspaper articles and statements from Hezbollah leaders and spokespeople. Generally, if a group claims not to be something but the preponderance of independent sources say they are, then the article should reflect the independent sources, while still noting the group's denial. That appears to be the case here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Concur. You can be both anti-Semitic AND anti-Zionist, just anti-Semitic, or just anti-Zionist. The terms are not exclusive. As to their applicability in this instance, they are well-sourced and should stay. While someone may want to push an agenda/interest, that doesn't mean their edits are incorrect. Focus on the edits, not the editor. Buffs (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I'm a little on the fence as to whether (per WP:CATDEF) it's a defining feature of the group because there is a lot of anti-Semitism among Islamic fundamentalist political parties. It also seems like one of the cited books is actually questioning whether Hezbollah is anti-Semitic: the author criticizes Jeffrey Goldberg and others for claiming the group is anti-Semitic without doing much actual reporting on the organization. That said, I think the weight of the scholarly evidence favors the view that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, and I think we would need more than just one book in order to justify treating it as a contested claim. Nblund talk 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I think it's of note that they claim to only be anti-Zionist (violently anti-Zionist?) but that their ideology and actions do not seem to make such a distinction. This article provides a generally appropriate balance with examples: Ideology_of_Hezbollah#Jews_and_Judaism Buffs (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Anti-Semitism is not an ideology, although it can be part of one (such as Nazism) and therefore should not be included. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ideology as "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based."[6] Anti-Semitism is best seen as one of the those beliefs, not the entire set. It would only be something like Jew Watch where the central mission of the organization is anti-Semiiism that it could conceivably be described as its ideology. Some groups have more than one ideology, such as the Democratic Party of the U.S., which represent specific factions. But Hezbollah does not have separate Islamic nationalist, anti-Semitist and anti-Zionist factions competing for control. Also, per Contentious labels, we generally do not describe groups as anti-Semitic but say that they have been described as such. TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC) But Hezbollah just being against the Israeli colonisation of Palestine is definitely not Anti-Semitic. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) 1) That is not the major reason reliable sources describe Hezbollah and antisemitic, and I really think you should read the ideology article again to get a sense of where that designation is coming from; and 2) it actually doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. It would appear that the dominant point of view of reliable sources is that Hezbollah is antisemitic. If that doesn't sit right with you, prove that the dominant point of view is something else or at least more controversial than described, by citing reliable sources. Or you could attempt a rational argument that the sources used for the claim are not reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The Jerusalem Post is a highly pro-Zionist news organisation, which promotes the message of supporting the Israeli regime, and is quite likely to spread statements that are not entirely true about its anti-Zionist opponents. I believe that a label that is disputed should not be in the ideology section of the organisation's infobox. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The Jerusalem Post may or may not be biased, but it's only one of the four sources cited for that claim in the infobox. And if you look at the article section about Hezbollah's views on Jews, there are a dozen more sources. Out of all of these, some might be flawed or biased. But others are, as far as I can tell, very high quality academic sources on Hezbollah and on antisemitism. If you want to dispute the label, I'd recommend finding equally high quality sources that say Hezbollah is not antisemitic. Cherry-picking single sources out of almost 20 and pointing out flaws is not going to work. Even if you succeed in having the Jerusalem Post removed from the article, it wouldn't change the content, since other sources back that material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) A large proportion of the Western sources would say that it is. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC) First off, I respectfully ask that =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= removes the caricature they appended here, which is both contentious and irrelevant to this discussion. Second, we're not necessarily naming complete ideologies in that infobox ("the entire set"), which would be nearly impossible in the majority of cases (what does "anti-Western imperialism" means? Is it violent resistance or political action? Does it deny Russian involvement, or accept it? Does it reject Western "soft power", or only "hard power"?), but characterizing them in common terms. If we were aiming for "complete" ideologies, then that box would be near useless: the unique ideology of Hizbollah is "Hizzbollah-ism", and that's a tautology. Keep to the sources, and stop trying to white-wash this organization. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The article, "ANALYSIS: HEZBOLLAH’S LETHAL ANTI-SEMITISM", in the Jerusalem Post is by Benjamin Weinthal, who is described as "a European correspondent at The Jerusalem Post and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies." ThinkProgress, which represents moderate Democrats, describes the Foundation as hawkish, interventionist and defensive of right-wing politics in Israel. It is incorrect to assume that the views in the article necessaarily represent the views of the Jerusalem Post and should be attributed to intext to the author. But that rules out its use in the info-box. Equally importantly, Weinthal does not say that anti-Semitism is their ideology. TFD (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Here's a few more: [7][8][9][10] François Robere (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC) The ICT source you cite there actually seems pretty solid (although I didn't do a deep dive), but its also a little more nuanced: "it should be emphasized from the outset that despite its anti-Semitic motifs, this attitude is not the most significant tenet of Hizballah philosophy." This is the impression I get from a lot of the higher quality sources. I'm not sure what the norm is around infoboxes - is the norm "include all relevant ideological themes" or "include only the most important"? Nblund talk 16:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) None of these sources says that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah or one of its factions. In fact the first source, "Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas," says "it must be stressed that while anti-Semitism is a basic tenet of these movements, it is by no means the central one, as it was in Western racial and religious ideologies." In fact, the title of the article is a hint that the author considers anti-Semitism to be part of the ideology, not the ideology itself. TFD (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC) On the 1st source (ICT) see Nblund's comment; the 2nd source (Fisk) suggests it is common in the organization; the 3rd source (Rosenberg) suggests it's common in the organization's rhetoric; the 4th source (Yaakov) is an example of such in the organization's media arm. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC) The topic of this discussion thread is whether or not anti-Semitism should be included in the ideology field in the info-box. You have provided no sources that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah. On the other hand, there are plenty of sources including those presented here that their ideology is based on support of the Shi'ite side in territorial disputes in Lebanon. TFD (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Most of the sources above are pro-Israel or pro-West perspective. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC) All of the sources are RS. Trying to paint them as political because of location or nationality, as you do, is less than distasteful. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC) As previously noted, it's not the ideology of anything, but it is a component of many ideologies, Hizbollah included. The sources already in the source, as well as those first presented during this discussion, clearly paint a picture of an antisemitic organization. There's nothing "anti-Zionist" in bombing a synagogue in Argentina - it's an antisemitic act, pure and simple. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC) That is an accusation... -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC) I thought that there should be a NPOV discussion because there was significant dispute on article's talk page about whether the group was just anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, as well as the organisation officially itself denying it has any antisemitic ideology. I just want the Wikipedia page to be an encyclopaedic article that states what things really are, instead of being another echo of allegations by certain powerful groups and individuals. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Presumably that's the reason you added the irrelevant, highly political anti-Israeli caricature some lines above? François Robere (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I thought that Latuff would represent what I was trying to convey. I have removed the cartoon now. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) A lot of Zionists label anything or anyone against them as anti-semitic... -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC) When Wikipedia is used as a platform by individuals with these POVs, they change a significant amount of content is changed to align with their views, therefore intentionally disrupting the neutrality of this encyclopedia. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Maybe, we should start a RfC. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC) I suggest that this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, because the encyclopedia is being used by editors with pro-Israeli interests to push their views. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Here is a link to the previous discussion on the article's talk page, just in case you were wondering where the discussion is: Talk:Hezbollah#Anti-Semitism :) -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I have uploaded a copy of that discussion, above. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC) This discussion is pointless. We have an editor challenging academic sources with..... cartoons? Quite odious cartoons, utilizing old tropes, per reliable aources - [11].Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I cannot see why Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. The group can only be undisputably be called anti-Zionist, however, Zionists, who consider any protest against the Israeli state as anti-Semitism, will use this label to delegitimise and degrade any group that engages in such actions. Therefore, I believe that this label is being used on Hezbollah by 'journalists' who are writing such articles to push the agenda of the Western bloc on a group that is in conflict with the West. It is definitely not the role of Wikipedia tfor it to be another medium to echo these rumours. So this label, when not 100% verified to be impartial, shouldn't be used against this group which enjoys a reasonable amount of support from the international community, especially in there in a time of increase US opposition to Iran. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC) We generally follow the POV of mainstream media (or "by 'journalists' who are writing such articles to push the agenda of the Western bloc"). Your personal opinions matter little - and do not jive with Hezbollah's attacks against Jewish targets (e.g, Argentina) or with their speeches and stated aims (which include ethnic cleansing). There is significant overlap between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. And much more importantly - academic RSes disagree.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC) However, In Conflict with Israel =≠ Antisemitism.? -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ...I was not able to find sources on Google that say that Hezbollah is promoting ethnic cleansing. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I thought that Wikipedia is NPOV. 'Mainstream media' is only the 'mainstream media in Western countries. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Hezbollah aims to remove all "Zionists", or Jews, from Israel. Groups may be in conflict with Israel without being antisemitic, however some such griups are antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC) But Hezbollah does not have a racist hate policy against the Jewish people – the group is only against the takeover of the Palestinian land by Zionist groups and the subsequent expulsion of its residents in what would become the State of Israel, who will live in poverty. The group only want the land to be returned to the original residents. That is not anti-Semitic, at all. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Per WP:A/I/PIA the only place that not WP:ECP users are allowed to post is talk page."Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." So this noticeboard discussion is off limit to them --Shrike (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I thought that I should transfer this discussion to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#RFC:Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors because it seemed that the discussion is more appropriate there. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Details in "Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement"

I questioned the logical flow of the following sentence that was in place on 2 April 2019, when I edited it.

The United States lists the entire group as a terrorist organization although the United Kingdom listed Hezbollah's military wing as well.

User GHcool changed the although to and. But I still think that this could be cleaned up a bit. I'd suggest:

a) The United States lists the entire group as a terrorist organization and the United Kingdom listed ["lists", to keep the tenses the same???] Hezbollah's military wing as such.

OR (the version I'd suggest)

b) The United Kingdom lists Hezbollah's military wing as a terrorist organization, and the United States considers the entire group to be one.

I'm conscious that I'm focusing on a rather small choice of words within a significant article, yet I think the ideas could be made clearer. I will leave this out there for others to ponder and possibly edit. If I don't see any movement, I'll put version (b) in place by the end of April. Jkgree (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My preference would be Choice "A," but either one is fine with me. --GHcool (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. (Went with (b). Hey, it's my edit!!) Also fixed minor punctuation in table and a problem link (Cuba was linking to China) Jkgree (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I skimmed across the entire article, and I wonder if it is too heavily overlinked. Just eyeballing it, there's a tremendous amount of blue. I'd guess that at least a good portion of that is repeat hyperlinking, but I haven't checked. Maybe I'll look at that... (maybe not) Jkgree (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree about the overlinking. I've already begun correcting it. --GHcool (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add Kosovo to the list of state opponents. Thank you. ThreatMatrix (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

DONE. Thanks. Y --GHcool (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Please add Argentina as designating the whole organization (as seen below) as terrorists as seen in the source in Hezbollah foreign relations thanks. Source

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

Add Argentina to the list of nations who view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Gcjimmerson (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've already made the petition but here goes a further source Source --CoryGlee (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

expanded further, the whole organization of Hezbollah declared as "terrorists." Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.27.167.24 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Undone, all of those are saying preparing to sign, not have signed. If and when they actually announce something it can be added. nableezy - 14:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Please carefully read this, though not signed until July 18 it was officially confirmed by Secuirty Minsiter Patricia Bullrich https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/government-designates-hezbollah-a-terror-group-ahead-of-pompeo-visit.phtml --CoryGlee (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, read it. Read it carefully yourself, going past the headline to the first paragraph, which says

The government confirmed Thursday that it is preparing in a decree to designate the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah as a terrorist organizations with "concrete pretensions" to carry out "attacks" in Argentina, two weeks before the 25th anniversary of the bombing of AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina).

To emphasize the operative phrase here, Ill repeat it. is preparing in a decree to designate. That is they will be signing such a decree, not that they already have. nableezy - 15:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2019

Can you add Argentina to the section "The following entities have listed Hezbollah as a terror group:"? They recently announced it before the 25th anniversary of the AMIA bombing. 70.49.196.202 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• [12]
• [13]

See above, this is still future tense. If and when Argentina actually does this they can and will be added. nableezy - 17:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Yes, I now understand your position, it will be signed indeed on the anniversary of the AMIA bombing prior to the arrival of Mike Pompeo to Argentina. I'll keep you informed. --CoryGlee (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, once it is official let anybody here know and they will re-add it. nableezy - 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Hi Nableezy, hope you're doing OK, just to let you know (I'll be away perhaps), President Macri will sign the decree declaring Hezbollah as "terrorists" tomorrow morning. Source

EDIT: As always, the media is "amarillista" - "yellowish"... sensasionalist, the decree has not yet been signed. I'm sorry again, I trust the big media outlets and they still lie. Cheers --CoryGlee (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

It have now been signed into law, Argentina should be included in "Opponents", in the below infobox and Hezbollah foreign relations. Source 1 Source 2

Translations: Source 1: "AMIA: compensation increases, they declare Hezbollah "terrorist" and there will be national mourning"

Source 2: "The Government includes Hezbollah in the list of terrorist organizations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.27.181.191 (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits: "Funding" (Claims about Iran)

The "Funding" subheading needs substantial editing in regards to the citations, which are either poor or completely missing. Citation 140 is a particular example, which pulls from a source that is not reputable in the field of Middle East politics and clearly has an agenda. Immediately following that citation, the figure "$200 million" is stated without any citation. These are incredibly substantial claims to be making about Iranian funding and need much, much more rigorous research and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8200:9E77:9D94:3685:E4A9:5D8B (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed ref 140 and uncited information, and updated with more recent coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hezbollah - Israel tensions

Shouldn't a separate article on this issue be made? --RazorTheDJ (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably, I added Iran–Israel proxy conflict as a main since that's where you end up if you go Hez-Is conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See 2019 Beirut drone crash. Perhaps it can be renamed/extended, or at least it should link to the new article you're proposing. “WarKosign” 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Category Antisemitism

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories: "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations." This is why Category:Antisemitic organizations was removed here we should not include the category here.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging WarKosign who reverted the removal.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories exist for a reason. Category:Antisemitism in the Arab world exists to be applied on relevant articles. Otherwise, what's the point in having a category that can't be applied to any article ? The article describes Hezbollah's ideology as antisemitic, quoting multiple reliable sources, so it is a great example for an article dealing with the subject of the category, therefore the category is perfectly applicable. “WarKosign” 12:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WarKosign, The category should be used in individuals and organisations articles. There are lots of articles where the category can be applied like Antisemitism in the Arab world or maybe the article about the ideology of Hezbullah or the conspiracy theories in the Arab world that are identified as antisemitism.-SharabSalam (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: you are quoting some 8 years old discussion that was either overthrown since or never implemented in the first place. Current common practice is to put relevant category on organization articles. For example, Ku Klux Klan has many racism-related categories. If the recommendation you are quoting was in force, KKK article wouldn't be in any "bias" category. “WarKosign” 14:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WarKosign, I dont know what changed since 8 years. This is totally irrelevant argument. What has changed since 8 years? And for the KKK thats other stuff exist argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As WarKosign said, "Current common practice is to put relevant category on organization articles." This is totally relevant. --GHcool (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Germany Designation of Hezbollah Terrorism

The Main page source is wrong. Footnote 45: refers to Germany's Free Democratic Party designating Hezbollah a terrorist org not the Government of Germany right now. They have 80 seats and are not within any sort of Government colation and are in the opp.

The German government has not done that source below https://www.dw.com/en/germany-will-not-list-iran-allied-hezbollah-as-terrorist-minister/a-47832535 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cats4life666 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

Change: "The group, along with its military wing is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, Canada, the Arab League,[40] the Gulf Cooperation Council,[41][42] Argentina,[27] Paraguay,[28] the United Kingdom,[43][44] the Netherlands, Australia, and Venezuela (Guaidó government)[33] Germany and the European Union outlawed only Hezbollah’s military wing, and work with Hezbollah’s political wing and allow it to raise funds in Europe."

To: "The group, along with its military wing is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, Canada, the Arab League,[40] the Gulf Cooperation Council,[41][42] Argentina,[27] Paraguay,[28] the United Kingdom,[43][44] the Netherlands, Australia, and Venezuela (Guaidó government).[33] Germany and the European Union outlawed only Hezbollah’s military wing, and work with Hezbollah’s political wing and allow it to raise funds in Europe."

A period is missing, so the two sentences appear in the article as one grammatically incorrect sentence. 130.183.212.159 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out! aboideau^talk 16:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 08 January 2020

In the sub-section "Alleged suicide and terror attacks", two of the bullet points are inconsistent with the linked articles:

"The 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, killing 85, in Argentina. Hezbollah claimed responsibility."

"The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack, killing 21, in Panama. Hezbollah claimed responsibility."

The more detailed articles state that Ansar Allah claimed responsibility, and that the group is considered to be strongly linked to Hezbollah. We should change the text to match this.

Change: "Hezbollah claimed responsibility"

To: "Ansar Allah, a Palestinian group closely associated with Hezbollah, claimed responsibility." Glaucus (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

request for edit

Hi. i can not edit this article due to it's protection. in the infobox, the translation of the slogan is wrong. the true translation is: "indeed, the party of Allah - they will be the predominant."Kaviani.2548 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

change X to Y because there is a grammatical error.

X- On 13 July 2019 Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, in an interview broadcast on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television, said “Our weapons have been developed in both quality and quantity, we have precision missiles and drones,” he illustrated strategic military and civilian targets on the map of Israel and stated,Hezbollah is able to launch Ben Gurion Airport, arms depots, petrochemical, and water desalinization plants, and the Ashdod port, Haifa's ammonia storage which would cause "tens of thousands of casualties".[208]

Y- On 13 July 2019 Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, in an interview broadcast on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television, said “Our weapons have been developed in both quality and quantity, we have precision missiles and drones,” he illustrated strategic military and civilian targets on the map of Israel and stated, Hezbollah is able to launch Ben Gurion Airport, arms depots, petrochemical, and water desalinization plants, and the Ashdod port, Haifa's ammonia storage which would cause "tens of thousands of casualties".[208 Muscab1 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done AntiCedros (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for the improvement of the article

The section dubbed "Scholarly views", is very one sided, it would be best to include more sources from the opposing perspective that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization to better balance the bias and perspectives available from this article, this would heavily boost the academic credibility of this article.KhakePakeVatan (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the Ansar Allah?

In the sub-section "Alleged suicide and terror attacks" there are mentions to "Ansar Allah, a Palestinian group closely related to Hezbollah". I could not find any references to this group except for a Gaza Strip group called "Jund Ansar Allah", which is an Al Qaida-like group with Saudi affiliations obviously not related to Hezbollah, and for the Houthi faction in Yemen, which is not Palestinian and has not been linked to any actions outside of Yemen, or to any armed actions before 2004. This same group is cited in connection with the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994. There are no mentions to this group in the Argentinian press (or in the Spanish-language Wikipedia article on the bombing) in connection with the attack, let alone to its having "claimed responsibility" for the bombing.

So, besides the partisan book quoted, what are the sources for linking this ghostly "Ansar Allah" to any Hezbollah actions?

Tomás Rosa Bueno (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomás Rosa Bueno (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Tomás Rosa Bueno Hi, if it's in reference to the Ansar Allah group in Yemen (commonly known as the "Houthis"), Hezbollah is playing an active role in training the resistance fighters there and partaking in military operations there through the advisors it sent. That's really all I'm aware of. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bosnia's side

The statement they were fighting on the "Bosnian" side is incorrect. It should be replaced by "Bosniak" or "Bosnian Muslim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.15 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Germany declared Hezbollahs politcal wing as terror organisation

In December 2019 also in Germany the political wing of Hezbolla was forbidden by German Bundestag.

• Gesamte Hisbollah ist Terrororganisation, Jüdische Allgemeine, December 19 , 2019.

--188.96.189.68 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The German Government has never declared the political wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The German Government has explicitly stated this on multiple occasions since this post has been published. Here is a "Times of Israel" article explicitly stating this: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/time-for-germany-to-outlaw-all-of-hezbollah/ The German Government has maintained that it will not label any part of Hezbollah (other than it's military wing) a terrorist organization. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Now also the Government of Germany after the Bundestag in December 2019 declared on 30 April 202o, that also the political wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

• Deutsche Welle: German government bans Hezbollah — Interior Ministry]
• The Times of Israel: Germany outlaws all Hezbollah activities, including by political wing
• FoxNews: Germany outlaws Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah

--178.11.191.27 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

It should be noted almost at the top of this article that Shia Muslims in Lebanon are prevented by the national constitution's Article 24 from gaining power via the ballot box. "Until the Chamber of Deputies issues an Electoral Law, outside the sectarian record, representative seats are distributed according to the following rules: a. Equally between Christians and Moslems." https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lebanon_2004.pdf?lang=en I saw a Noam Chomsky interview a decade or more ago where he spoke, if not pontificated (there has not been a census in Lebanon since 1932), of the Shiite majority of Lebanon, which put Hezbullah in a position where it could form a government (Article 24 notwithstanding) all by itself, an outcome he did not prefer. The LA Times has, as of 2008, oracularly put the combined Sunni-Shia demographic slice in Lebanon at "more than 60%". https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-aug-30-fg-hezleft30-story.html I've sent an email to Chomsky in Arizona to see if he'd repeat his claim.Chrisrushlau (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Chrisrushlau (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Firstly, I do not know where to add this. Secondly, this change may require consensus. Please correct this edit request and establish consensus for this edit before using the {{editprotected}} template. Aasim 08:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Germany should be added to opponents in the infobox. source 59.27.127.55 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Aasim 09:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

There were issues with the previous lede. We have this sentence:

• "It acts as a proxy for Iran in the ongoing Iran–Israel proxy conflict.[45] Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass Israel."

The source for the second statement is this BBC article, which actually says WRT Hezbollah's founding:

"It emerged with financial backing from Iran in the early 1980s and began a struggle to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon... Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was close to a contingent of some 2,000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to the country to aid the resistance against Israel. Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation. It also initially dreamed of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state, although this idea was later abandoned in favour of a more inclusive approach that has survived to this day. The party's rhetoric calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. It views the Jewish state as occupied Muslim land and it argues that Israel has no right to exist. The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money.

How did "began a struggle to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon" and "conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon... Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation" become "harass Israel"? The verb "harass" isn't actually used in the article. WRT the group's political goals in the 1980s, we have the following verbs:

• "drive Israeli troops from Lebanon"
• "formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation"
• "dreamed of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state"
• "calls for the destruction of the state of Israel"

None of this seems similar to "harass Israel".

The previous lede also had this sentence.

• "as a result Israel withdrew from Lebanon on 24 May 2000"

But the fact that Israel was in control of swathes of Lebanon prior to this date was never previously mentioned! The first mention of the fact that Israel was occupying southern Lebanon—undeniably the critical moment in the founding of the Hezbollah movement, as Ehud Barak has himself stated—is (quite strangely) only mentioned in the context of its 2000 withdrawal.

So I have changed:

• "Hezbollah was founded in the early 1980s as part of an Iranian effort to aggregate a variety of militant Lebanese Shia groups into a unified organization. It acts as a proxy for Iran in the ongoing Iran–Israel proxy conflict.[45] Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass Israel.[5]"

To

• "Hezbollah was founded in the early 1980s as part of an Iranian effort to aggregate a variety of militant Lebanese Shia groups into a unified organization following the 1982 Israeli invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon. It acts as a proxy for Iran in the ongoing Iran–Israel proxy conflict.[45] Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to resist the Israeli occupation.[5]"

This is the correct paraphrase of the BBC source's statement that Hezbollah was "formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation", not to "harass Israel." This also adds an early mention of the Israeli invasion, which contextualizes the 2000 Israeli withdrawal mentioned in the next paragraph.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about spending too much time explaining that. It was a straightforward and necessary edit to correct some bypassing editor's nonsense ('harass'). This kind of article needs serious revision to get it out of the mess of period newspaper pieces. The picture is quite complex, but it is true that Hezbollah's initial function was to oust the historic 'western' meddlers in its politics, and its continued support is not based on terrorism but on consensus from the historically neglected Shiite constituency.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Just on the word 'proxy' so beloved by government analysts in this area. It is a geopolitical term used by a major power to invalidate the interests of other regional powers by insinuating that the latter's sponsorship consists of moving pawns, whereas the former only has "concerns" with supporting stable governments or political actors close to their interests. Technically the American revolution could be spun as a proxy war between France and Great Britain, the Greek war of liberation a proxy war between Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire etc. On one plane that of the global 'great game', it is: but it applies to all actors, not just, as here, exclusively to that 'fanatic Islamic' bogeyman, whose interests in sustaining Shiites against a traditional Sunni order are no less valid than Israel's in supporting Christian Maronites, or Saudi Arabia in backing Lebanese Sunnis. Since a lot of formal RS come out of 'think tanks' with a specific government-supportive agenda (Israel/US) one should be wary of using them. Azani's book is one (Herzliya), but it has serious details, whereas Levitt is toeing a line. Since we have a substantial amount of area-specialist work printed by university publishing houses, which is not directly financed by regional interests, they should be our most important sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: To add to this, I think the article should be dropped from GA status. The article is very disorganized and not at all broad. There's one paragraph, consisting entirely of a quote, that explains how Hezbollah is organized. There is a similarly dismal dearth of discussion of Hezbollah's central role in Lebanese politics or civil society. More words are dedicated to Hezbollah's activities in South America than to the organizational structure of Hezbollah. There is also a sundry list of "academics specializing in a wide variety of the social sciences believe that Hezbollah is an example of an Islamic terrorist organization", including various US-affiliated think tanks; this list is the only thing that the entire "Scholarly views" section consists of. The entire "History" section looks WP:TNT-worthy. And I feel I'm only skimming the surface of the problems here.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is a farce.You're right. GAs are subject to decay as editing rot sets in. One can see this by examining how many edits someone makes on terror/islam/Israel's enemies, versus how many edits an editor makes on historical formation, organizational divisions and institutional structures, etc. I made a serious effort to overhaul Hamas in this sense some years ago, because I think encyclopedias should tell readers how things work, how an organization developed, and hoped to do the same with Hezbollah. My thinking was influenced by a remark by Ernest Gellner that, one cannot exclude the possibility that it might be precisely Islamic fundamentalists who introduce revolutionary technologies to a conservative Islamic state world as part of their bid to create an alternative form of modernization. He was thinking of the precedent of the Protestant/Puritanical reformation's challenge to conservative backward Catholic states in Europe -European modernity began with an intolerant theological fundamentalism harnassed to new technologies, so that might repeat itself in the long view over the Islamic world. Hezbollah’s fibre optic network is an instance. We have it only mentioned in the section on Secret Services, as if there was something intrinsically threatening about this.It spreads propaganda abroad? Al-manar pales before the propaganda pushed by its dominant regional adversary. Its army has been called ‘the most capable militia force in the world’ Everything is framed in terms of conspiracy and terrorism you have an abundance of RS which sustain that spin, which however won’t make one understand the complexities behind the stereotype .

International analysts admit that it has been the key player in assuring Lebanon’s stability, always fragile, for the last decade and a half.

.

'Viewing Hezbollah through the prism of terrorism or as some kind of subsidiary of the Iranian Revolution, which remains in Tehran’s pockets, leads to some of the literature losing all pretence to objectivity. . It is counterproductive to label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization because this underplays how it has evolved since the 1980s to a point where “terrorists” obfuscates its other more dominant functions as a political party, social service provider and a semi-conventioned military organization.’ Norton et al., pp.xi,.xiii.xiv.

Of course it has resorted to terrorism, as has every other actor in the area, Western powers included. A revision of the text towards neutrality doesn’t signal approval: it just means jemmying this out of the decades long POV battles by partisans and ridding it of the spin so many interested parties in the conflict have imposed through their think tank publications (think tanks often tank ‘thinking (too) precisely on the event ‘ to quote that Danish philosopher.

There is an abundance of first-rate recent studies, and the following alone would suffice to cover the whole article’s contents (apart from the hysteria about ‘terrorism’). These should be the basic sources, though few if any editors have the time to harvest them for a comprehensive revision.

• Dominique Avon, Anaïs-Trissa Khatchadourian, Hezbollah: A History of the "Party of God", Harvard University Press, 2012 ISBN 978-0-674-07031-8
• Filippo Dionigi, Hezbollah, Islamist Politics, and International Society, Springer, 2014 978-1-137-40302-5
• James Worrall, Simon Mabon, Gordon Clubb, Hezbollah: From Islamic Resistance to Government: From Islamic Resistance to Government, ABC-CLIO, 2015 ISBN 978-1-440-83135-5
• Adham Saouli, Hezbollah: Socialisation and its Tragic Ironies, Edinburgh University Press, 2018 ISBN 978-1-474-41954-3
• Aurélie Daher, Hezbollah: Mobilization and Power, Oxford University Press, 2019 ISBN 978-0-190-09263-4
• Mariam Farida, Religion and Hezbollah: Political Ideology and Legitimacy, Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-1-000-45857-2Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you very much for the recent few edits, and certainly the Hezbollah article is far less informative than the Hamas article you overhauled is. Kudos as always—you must have quite the patience to be contributing so much about this part of the world.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have that much free time available, but I think that, calculating a few edits every day for a few months, weeding out dated stuff from newspapers, and replacing where possible with book sources, could translate into a more acceptable article. That's what I might be able to do here. All of these controversial articles take shape in breaking news edit wars smacking of WP:Recentism. The lònger view is what we need. One thing that needs change is the conflation of a large list of countries deeming is 'terrorist or its armed wing' terrorist. That conflation of two distinct things is improper. The Israeli and US branding of both as terroristic, is an anomaly, and the follow-up heavy lobbying by those two interested states to get the EU to fall in line, has not been particularly successful. Only Great Britain, the Netherlands and Germany (the latter in 2020 acting solely in regard to Hezbollah activities within its boundaries) have fallen into lockstep. Italy has a significant contingent of troops in Hezbollah territory, and coordinates with them, France likewise has kept open informal diplomatic contacts (Bernard Kouchner) etc. Then evaluations change. In 2010 (reprinted 2013) Peter Seeberg wrote:

’In Lebanon, Hezbollah , or “the resistance” is a mass movement that possesses seats in the Parliament and is regarded by its supporters as the sole successful challenger of Israel in its many wars since 1948. Hezbollah is on the US list of terror organizations, but not on the EU terrorist list, even though Hezbollah in European public discourse is often perceived as a terrorist movement.’

Some of that changed precisely in 2013, but one should not give the impression that there has been an historic agreement on defining it thus shared by the EU, the US and Israel, as our text insinuates.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Lithuania should be added to opponents in the infobox. source. 46.53.240.13 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Austrian National Council: Hezbollah terrorist org in its entirety

In a decision from already at the end of this May the Austrian National Council (primary branch of parliament) called upon govt work towards an EU-wide ban of the entire organization. -- 84.188.165.229 (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

Under those who oppose Hezbollah, you'll want to either cite a source claiming that the government, headed by Maduro, in Venezuela, opposes Hezbollah, or remove the entry. There's no such thing as a "Guaidó government" in Venezuela, if we're speaking factually. Fsfawzy (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Fsfawzy:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: There appears to be some confusion as to what I'm requesting. I'm requesting that the appropriate evidence be cited for a claim that's made on this page. Evidence can be cited for both sides on the presidential dispute in Venezuela, but that's more or less beside the point (as I note below). The burden of proof here is on the claim that's been published without evidence. Thus my request is for the page to either cite evidence for its claim, or remove it.

This page's claim is twofold: 1. that there is such a thing as a "Guaidó government," and 2. that the government has taken the position listed on the page.

To the first point, "Guaidó government" on this page links to a page on the dispute over the election. In doing so, it fails to establish any legal entity that could be considered a "Guaidó government." It only establishes a dispute, which does not necessarily entail Guaidó's presidency. To this point, Guaidó's own position as President of the National Assembly, i.e. his only claim to dispute the Venezuelan presidency to begin with, is now disputed. Luis Parra is now claimed to be the head of the National Assembly.

To the second point, the evidence provided for the claim links to a tweet by Guiadó, which I don't believe has any legal or official standing, though I could be wrong. It might be that the National Assembly has taken the position listed on this Wikipedia page, but there is no evidence cited for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsfawzy (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Fsfawzy (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take sides, and a search for Guaidó government certainly yields a large group of sources that confirm that there is such a thing. Just reading some of them helps determine that while the Maduro government appears to support Hezbollah, the Guaidó government does not, and indeed opposes it. I suppose that is why you haven't been able to provide any sources that support the claim you want the article to make? Perhaps the thing that is needed is for you to try to garner a consensus among editors who are also involved with this article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Guatemala should be added to opponents in the infobox. source and source2. 184.22.178.220 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC) 184.22.178.220 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the Reuters source says the new president "plans to designate Iran-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah as a terrorist organization" - so it hasn't done so yet. I've not heard of the publication given in the second source, so I don't know if it can be considered a reliable source or not. Seagull123 Φ 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Despite many well-reports that incoming President Alejandro Giammattei promised Israeli diplomats that he "would" designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization upon assuming office, there is not confirmation available that Guatemala actually did so. The closest to confirmation is a number of articles that cite a Mike Pompeo tweet "applauding" Guatemala such as this one. Tweets from a politically-motivated foreign actor cannot be considered to be a WP:RS for such a designation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging two similar sections about terrorist designation

@Enthusiast01: There is one section for terrorist designation in this article therefor I merge what you have added to prevent duplication. Please check Hezbollah#Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement and merge or remove duplicate information.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of the lead's information

@11Fox11: Regarding your edit[14], I think it is important to add clear and neutral information to the lead.

1. At the end of the first paragraph the Hezbollah's claim should be added to make it neutral. While Hizballah maintains that it is a legitimate resistance movement fighting for the liberation of Lebanese territory.
2. At the beginning of the second paragraph, it is important to clarify the historical context of Hezbollah's formation:After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and occupation of a strip of south Lebanon,
3. At the beginning of the third paragraph the historical context should be clarified as well: Regarding the situation of Lebanese Civil War in 1980s,
4. At the end of the third paragraph, the information about major activities of Hezbollah during the 1990s should be added. It is unacceptable to add minor information about Bosnia war while removing major contribution in south Lebanon war.: From 1985 to 2000, Hezbollah participated in South Lebanon conflict and attacked to SLA and IDF forces which finally led to dissolvation of SLA and retreat of Israel from South Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah and Israel fought each other in the 2006 Lebanon War.
5. At the beginning of the fourth paragraph, the major transformation of the group should be added:Since 1990, Hezbollah transformed from a revolutionary group into a political one, in a process which is described as the Lebanonisation of Hezbollah and later participated in the governemnt of Lebanon and joined political alliances.

--Seyyed(t-c) 05:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Hezbollah's view is undue. 2. The Israeli invasion is relevant, but the security strip is out of chronological order. When Hezbollah formed in 1982 Israel was in Beirut, not just the strip (which remained from 1985). 3&4 I agree. 5. Participation in the political process, which should be mentioned, does not mean there was a "transformation". 11Fox11 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

1.That Hezbollah's view is 'undue' shows total nescience about NPOV. The article is precisely about Hezbollah, and that anyone here can seriously assert that the view of the subject is irrelevant to its description is proof only of POV pushing, esp. since the lead highlights hostile or negative views by other countries.

2.If that were true, terrorism passages are unchronological, since that designation emerged from 1997 (US) then 2003) twenty years into Hezbollah's activities.Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is GA (has been gone over by many editors and through a verification process), it is not clear that recent editing has improved the article at all.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Yes, this is GA and I am the user who nominated it for GA. Thus I am familiar with the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it is not your edits I am referring to.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request_2

Lede repeats at the end of third paragraph "Hezbollah and Israel fought each other in the 2006 Lebanon War" which is mentioned before in the same paragraph in a better way and proper context. Also the tag for the sentence "The organization or its military wing have been designated terrorist organizations by at least 21 countries,[citation needed]" in the introduction is unnecessary per WP:CALC since somebody can make a link to this section where the reader will be able to find 23 countries that classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization with their respective sources in an orderly manner (that's besides supranational organizations like the Arab League and the EU which already have their own sources in lede and elsewhere).--Watchlonly (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. To editor Watchlonly: the redundant sentence has been removed. Also removed the Cn template, because the lead is a summary of article content, and as you yourself note, there are several citations in a later section to justify brief summarization in the lead that uses the phrasing, "at least 21 countries". Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Antisemitism should be removed, as it dosen't represent Hezbollah or it's leader ideas. More here. --Maudslayer (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request_3

I found a proper source that reported on Morsi's statement:

Please add it to text and remove the "citation needed" tag.--Watchlonly (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 November 2020

At the end of fifth paragraph in this section there's a statement by Morsi that is unsourced, where it says "Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi condemned Hezbollah by saying, "We stand against Hezbollah in its aggression against the Syrian people. There is no space or place for Hezbollah in Syria".[citation needed] Support for Hezbollah...." I easily found a normal source to back up statement, please someone add it and remove the "citation needed" tag:

Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Watchlonly:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Turkey is one of the countries that oppose Hezbollah, can you add it to the templete?

References

Splitdoris (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -ink&fables «talk» 08:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Latvia and Slovenia regards Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

hello

Latvia and Slovenia regards Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. so pleas add thank you

https://eurojewcong.org/news/communities-news/latvia/latvia-regards-hezbollah-as-a-terrorist-organization/

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/12/1/slovenia-declares-hezbollah-a-terrorist-group-in-its-entirety

https://www.timesofisrael.com/slovenia-declares-all-of-hezbollah-a-criminal-and-terrorist-organization/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseina051311 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for Correction: No proof of Taiwan listing Hezbollah as an opponent

The news article quoted was on a meeting between then-Foreign Minister Huang of Taiwan and the leader of Hezbollah: there is no mention of Taiwan considering Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization, and most news sources on the matter put Taiwan as neutral on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/taiwanese-official-admits-meeting-with-hezbollah-leader https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/153961 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/08/09/2003322421 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4400:2477:B13B:F6C5:AFB5:ABD0 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

You can add in the infobox and the related tables, Slovenia, as it declared all of Hezbollah a ‘criminal and terrorist organization'. source 109.63.238.244 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of countries that consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (either the whole organization or its military wing)

Ok people, let's count:

1) Argentina

2) Australia

3) Austria

4) Bahrain

5) Canada

6) Colombia

7) Czech Republic

8) Estonia

9) France

10) Germany

11) Guatemala

12) Honduras

13) Israel

14) Japan

15) Kosovo

16) Lithuania

17) Netherlands

18) New Zealand

19) Paraguay

20) Serbia

21) Slovenia

22) Switzerland

23) United Arab Emirates

24) United Kingdom

25) United States

26) Venezuela (Guaidó government)

(plus Arab League, Gulf Cooperation Council and European Union)

26 countries! That's the answer. Any questions or objections?--Watchlonly (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how WP:CALC motives your removal of the citation needed tag. ImTheIP (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And while doing that, explain how it reconciles with

"Either the entire organization or just its military wing has been designated a terrorist organization by at least 21 countries, by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League, with the exception of Iraq and Lebanon.

in the lead, and noting that there are EU countries in the given list.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Each one of those countries have at least one source to support the terrorist designation. Citation tag is not needed. European countries can designate terrorist organizations without aproval or agreement by the EU, which is a supranational body.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You did not explain how WP:CALC absolves you from following WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Furthermore, removing citation needed tags, without providing any sources, which you have done on a number of occasions, seem to me to be quite petty. ImTheIP (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of "Routine calculations do not count as original research" you don't understand? Did you learn to add up numbers in school? It seems we have a classic example of WP:Get the point. I might have to call in an administrator.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The EU is being double counted, it's precisely this kind of schoolboy error citations are intended to avoid.But,OK, keep digging the hole.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. I counted 26 countries. The EU, Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council are not included in the count, since they are supranational organizations.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please. There is no indication that your attempt to count sources constitutes a "routine calculation" as defined by WP:CALC, obviating the requirement for "an inline citation that directly supports the material". On Wikipedia, we are very picky about requiring sources for contentius claims. As someone already has suggsted to you, perhaps your time could be better spent locating a source for the claim rather than edit warring over a citation needed tag? ImTheIP (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement "

"Either the entire organization or just its military wing has been designated a terrorist organization by at least 26 countries, by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League" is double counting the EU (27 countries) because some of those 27 are in the 26 as well. I have altered the statement to avoid that. If you want to put the 26 back, then get a citation or change the number so as not to include EU states (that may have been why it said 21 to begin with, I haven't checked (and I shouldn't have to check)Selfstudier (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Khomeinist

I think replacing Islamist with Khomeinist in the lead is more accurate. --Maudslay II (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not. It is already bad enough that the lead says "based in Lebanon" when the plain truth is that it is a Lebanese organization. Zero^talk 02:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Noam chomsky also supports hezbollah please add it.[15].[16] [17] Ax777 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove attacks that occurred before hezbollah's formation and attacks who are only claimed by the United States Al Farwazirip (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops wrong place to type this Al Farwazirip (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove attacks that happened before hezbollah was created

A majority of those attacks happened before hezbollah's formation Al Farwazirip (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Change from political organization to terrorist organization. As it is recognized as such by many countries including the US. 2601:647:5600:2:88F7:C925:B0B5:B4EA (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See MOS:TERRORIST. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IDF pushing to change this Wikipedia article

The IDF is pushing to change this Wikipedia article: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/idf-asks-wikipedia-to-edit-hezbollah-entry-to-reflect-terror-designation-659496 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Will not happen i will add this on my watchlist Shadow4dark (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

IDF is welcome to have an editor request an RfC on the matter, but nothing will change without consensus among editors. Slywriter (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fresh from a success at changing "Occupation" to "Rule" on Hebrew WP, no doubt :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup we should respect consensus , WP have a Policy to use the least could-be propagadistic terms in this type of articles, (IE. Look at Al-Qaeda article). And there is a IDF Lobby in Wikipedia BTW. The have been caught using Sockpuppets and meatpuppets in the past.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See here: "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I did the press call for the Media Line article about this, and I tried to get across that it was absolutely OK for the IDF to express concerns, but that change would come with a consensus of editors. What I said is pretty well represented in the Media Line article, though they didn't note that the "terrorist" designation was already in the third sentence of the article, and that the IDF seemed to be demanding it be moved to the first sentence - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard, They called you and asked you to change the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

no, no! IDF tweeted about it. Media Line called me as a listed press contact about the article, asking what the WP response to this was - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good response. I ctrl-f:d "terror" in this article, and it seems reasonably covered, lead and the rest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Opponents" in list

There is a long list of countries mentioned in "opponents". An opponent implys that Hezbollah is actively fighting against these nation, which they are not. Hezbollah are not fighting against Slovenia and Japan. The list is only of countries that have designated Hezbollah as a "terrorist" group. Suggest removing all countries and only keep Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a similar issue at Hamas with a group of editors only wishing to emphasize the countries had made a designation and not wanting to recognize that there were countries that did not make a designation. I think everybody recognizes these days that these designations are mainly political. At any rate, focusing only on designators is not NPOV.Selfstudier (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually agree here. Opponent does imply actively fighting against. Suggest clarifying the matter, and listing only Israel there. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed all states and organizations that have only designated Hezbollah. Kept SLA as it says in its article "It was supported by Israel, and became its primary ally in Lebanon during the 1985–2000 South Lebanon conflict to fight against Hezbollah." Kept the terrorist groups in Syria as Hezbollah has been fighting them in the Syrian war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Suddenly you decided to remove quotation marks from the word "terrorist"... interesting. In any case, I agree that a list of opponents should include only those actors that Hezbollah is actively fighting against, not merely countries that designate them as a terrorist organization.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, there are 4 editors here that supported the removal of countries only designating Hezbollah from the "opponents" list. You had no right to restore them.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We already have a terrorist designation section. No need this useless infobox, no one of them fighting them.Shadow4dark (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't do this for other groups as an example ISIS opponents list details not just combat opponents, it lists countries that have formally announced they are opponents with ISIS, including economic or supply support. Des Vallee (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Only military's that Hezbollah has fought on the battlefield should be mentioned in the "Opponents" list. What others have done at a different article does not concern this article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And I think there is some difference between orgs designated as terrorist by UN (Isis, Al Qaeda etc) rather than by individual countries.Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does Supreme Deliciousness that's Wikipedia policy, these countries have specifically designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and have stated clearly they are opponents. What other articles do have an effect, either remove the sections that have non-combat opponents against ISIS, like Taiwan or have a hypocritical stance on this article. What you are stating isn't a policy nor even a widely accepted standard, the statement is just nothing. Countries that have stated outright they are enemies of Hezbollah and help destroy there funding, this seems like sky is blue situation. Des Vallee (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ISIS list should be trimmed to. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, "opponent" strongly suggests military's fighting against Hezbollah. Just because some countries have designated Hezbollah as "terrorist" doesn't mean they have stated that Hezbollah are their "opponents". Another suggestion would be that we create two separate sections, one "Combat opponents" and one "Political opponent" - or something similar, to make it more clearer for the reader. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Formation date

Hezbollah was formed in 1985. Many sources get the dates of the Lebanon civil war and hezbollah's formation mixed Farbne (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Foundation section covers the various possible dates quite clearly. Slywriter (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

GA status

It has been over 12 years since the Hezbollah article was kept at its last GA review. A lot has happened since then, is it still worthy of GA status? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Probaly not, it has lot of 'citation needed" tags. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I count 4, which isn't too bad for an article of that length. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right but i saw some other tags. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Stability is probably the most important thing, if there is a lot of change taking place in the article overall, then GA status may need looking at.Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I worked on this article in 2008 and tried to maintained it update. Please clarify the problems which should be solved.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

Based on this article Ideology of Hezbollah, the paragraph here is not correctly balanced. Yes, it should mention anti-semitism, but it has to focus more on Shia Islamism, Khomeinism, and Hezbollah stand on local/regional issues. -- Maudslay II (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is undue coverage of Hezbollah's ideology.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Change the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) flag, instead of using flagicon image, use {{flag|Popular Mobilization Forces}}. Mausebru (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia?

Apparently, Malaysia designates all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindimin000 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Antisemitism"

Not true, denied by Hezbollah multiple times, and dosen't represent their ideology. --Maudslay II (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I havent actively edited in Wikipedia since the early 10s, when i do it is only to correct grammar and such, but dear goodness, seeing such an absurd claim in a prominent place of a suposedly secure and heavily moderated article made me Look at the discussion in a heartbeat. It is one thing to put in critical analysis of hezbolah, a section discussing the claims of antissemitism and instances of it, and things of the sort, but to list it as a ideology like that without any context? It feels ridiculous tô have to point out that that is pure bias. I wonder if any of the IDF puppets people have talked about was behind that. Unfortunately i dont know how to check edit logs on my Phone (or if i even can while anonymous and unverified? It has been a long time lol), but dear god, i sure am tempted to guess it is not the most reliable of editors.. And the sources given? Opinions articles from the Jerusalém post and books that have clear bias? I am appalled that a verified editor would allow something like that to simply get through... Like, what happened to integrity? I am sorry if i am sounding prepotent and arrogant, and if there is a thread that justifies it or argues on it please do redirect me there and erase this as need be. Its Just that it comes as a huge shock to see something of the sort in such an important article lol. anonymous user (User talk: anonymous user) 06:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:864:8EED:40BD:9352:9E0F:97C6 (talk)

It is backed by many sources and should stay Shadow4dark (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC).

The idea that Hezbollah party lines include "antisemitism" is backed by low-quality sources. It is backed by the Jerusalem Times and other clearly biased sources. This is an absurdly biased trait to attribute as their "ideology". Hezbollah themselves deny this. This is inflammatory and clearly intended to skew perception of the group in favor of another group that opposes them. This is poisoning the well. Seems like the "Good Article" category has pretty low standards. Please remove "antisemitism" from their ideology section. 2600:1700:59E1:4C40:F59A:84DD:5203:1EB2 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

See this or several other previous discussions. "Hezbollah themselves deny this" is the worst possible argument; It's like saying that a criminal should be released despite all the evidence because they themselves deny having committed a crime. “WarKosign” 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist organization

I have updated the information at Hezbollah foreign relations#Designation as a terrorist organization and I propose changes in this section. Pahlevun (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hezbollah Size

hezbollah's military personnel size is 100k, source: https://twitter.com/AlMayadeenLive/status/1450167910299836417 Monkepedian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A better source reporting the same quote. On the other hand, Nasrallah happend in the past to say a few things that were not 100% accurate. “WarKosign” 20:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

Change the number of hezboullah members from range 20000-50000 to 100000 members Aah80 (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I added it to the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC).

Edit Request

Hezbollah has recently made the claim that they 100,000 fighters. While it's veracity can't be verified, it might be useful to mention it as a claim. https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-lebanon-beirut-civil-wars-hassan-nasrallah-a3c10d99cca2ef1c3d58dae135297025 Viago Von Dorna (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Already done. If you think it should be added somewhere else in the article, suggest where. “WarKosign” 04:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia should be a state opponent of Hezbollah

Saudi Arabia designates Hezbollah as terrorist organization. “Any citizens or expatriates who endorse, show loyalty to the so-called Hezbollah, sympathize with it, promote it, donate to it, communicate with it or house or cover those who belong to it will be subjected to the severe penalties stated in the regulations and orders, including the regulation on crimes of terrorism and its financing.” GCC and Arab League Declare Hezbollah a Terrorist Organization

Recently, Hezbollah was responsible for the diplomatic rift between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon which led to Saudi Arabia recalling its ambassador from Lebanon and ordered the Lebanese envoy in Riyadh to leave.Hezbollah responsible for Lebanon’s rift with Saudi Arabia, says former PM Hariri

On October 28, Saudi Arabia declared the Lebanon-based Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association a terrorist entity, due to its activities supporting Hezbollah. "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will continue to work to combat the terrorist activities of the terrorist organization (Hezbollah), and will coordinate with international partners to target the sources of financial support for the organization, whether they are individuals or entities." Saudi Arabia designates Hezbollah financial backers as terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwadsabano (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Australian Terrorist Designation

Australia recently declared all of Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. Can someone update the status of the list? JML1148 (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Daveout(talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to reflect change in Australia's position (November 24, 2021)

In light of Australia's ban on the entire Hezbollah organization, please remove the sixth paragraph of this section and replace it for the following (I just moved Australia and France to the beginning with Canada, the US, Israel and others and removed them from the sentence dealing with countries that designate only Hezbollah's armed wing as terrorist, for the record France listed only its military wing as such):

The United States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and Australia have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. In early 2015, the US Director of National Intelligence removed Hezbollah from the list of "active terrorist threats" against the United States while Hezbollah remained designated as terrorist by the US, and by mid 2015 several Hezbollah officials were sanctioned by the US for their role in facilitating military activity in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The European Union, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have proscribed Hezbollah's military wing, but do not list Hezbollah as a whole as a terrorist organization.

Thanks--211.229.218.253 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Daveout(talk) 18:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Ongoing Intifada?

Under the foreign relations section, the last sentence of the first paragraph, it says Hezbollah continues to support the ongoing Al Aqsa Intifada? This should be changed. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:E891:806B:60C5:3E4A (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. thanks. - Daveout(talk) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hezbollah financial sources

Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, several times in video speech has confirmed recieving money from Iran. A.saremi (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah is a terror group, this should be highlighted front and center in the article, and more weight should be given to the international sanctions and labeling as a terror group in the lead. Gachago (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see in the article, it's more complicated than that. There are different opnions regarding what Hezbollah is, and Wikipedia can't just pick one opinion, it has to represent all the opinions in a ballanced way. “WarKosign” 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST is the more relevant policy. The label "terrorist" is thrown around a lot and its assignment can depend on the bias(es) of the attributor. Thus, the most consistent policy is to never use the label definitively and to include attribution when using it (i.e. Who calls who a terrorist?). CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The article currently does not reflect the fact that many countries do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. See Hezbollah foreign relations#Designation as a terrorist organization for a more complete list of them, including India, Indonesia, Bulgaria, etc. Pahlevun (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The article currently says that at least 26 countries consider it a terrorist group, and 8 countries do not consider it a terrorist group. Maybe the article should reflect a similar percentage. Also how many countries consider it to be a "resistance movement" (something that is placed in at the same level with the terrorist designation of 26+ countries)? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

When 26 countries list a group as terrorist, it means that the remaining 167 members of the UN do not. 20 countries that have some sort of relations with the group are listed here but the article currently includes eight of them. Pahlevun (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This is a political decision by individual countries, it's not as if the UN had declared them as terrorist like Islamic State. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti Semitism Allegation

Are we absolutely sure The Jerusalem Post is the best source to use when labeling a entire organization as Anti Semitic? The same site that sees even the acknowledgement of the Israel lobby as Anti Semitic. I think a political organization/civilian militia that stands in complete opposition and criticism of the neocolonialism and apartheid the jpost plays defenses for will of course try to slander said political movement. Why wouldn't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxStirnerEnjoyer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

When the gov't of a state declares the destruction of Israel as its utmost directive & kids are taught in Gaza schools that killing Israelis is a good thing by their version of Mickey Mouse, you can pretty much take it to the bank that Hezbollah is "anti-semitic."

Fake information about Switzerland

Switzerland never designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This is completely fake.

"Citing Swiss neutrality, Switzerland does not regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Its government only uses the Sanctions List provided by the United Nations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_foreign_relations#Switzerland

Kindly ask to remove this Israeli propaganda, Israel multiple times claimed, that Switzerland is designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which is completely false too.

I live in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.36.135 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Living in Switzerland, or any other country, is not a valid reason for modifying any Wiki article - only Reliable Sources are used for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement

There are a lot confusion on Hezbollah's designation status. For all EU countries, the terrorist designation of Hezbollah is only for its military wing. Some countries like Germany added restrictions to all Hezbollah activities in their national legislations but these are not akin to a terrorist designation. All EU countries abide by the EU terrorist list so it does not make sense to have different designation status between EU countries (like Germany and France). Also, in the United States, Hezbollah is designated in the FTO list and SDGT list (Specially Designated Global Terrorist) and many Hezbollah members are designated SDGT as well. Danny B Econ (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

Change Ansariya ambush hyperlink on Secret services section to directly link the article Jenkowelten (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

I desire to make substantive changes with the addition of sources and expand more on what is already present. 2600:4040:A500:9100:9547:6738:C606:BE44 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

please add a request with a source for each change, nableezy - 05:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Update the parts about Christian support of Hezbollah with more recent and accurate sources and findings as Christian support has diminished over the past two years. 2600:4040:A500:9100:9547:6738:C606:BE44 (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

If you provide those sources here Ill be glad to update the article. nableezy - 05:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

alleged attacks

There is a claim that the assassinate attempt on the Emir of Kuwait, in may 1985. Was carried out by Mustafa Badr al-Din, Hezbollah. --Nilsol2 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

{u|Nisol2}}, please provide sources otherwise not much we can do with this claim. Slywriter (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

>In response, Imad Mughniyeh, a leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, orchestrated attacks during this period, including hijacking a Kuwaiti airline in 1984 and 1988 and the attempted assassination of the Emir in 1985. His brother in law, Mustafa Bader al-Din, was one of those arrested for these attacks source

Not sure if it fits here. Mainly, I am looking for a link that covers this better so I don't need to elaborate --Nilsol2 (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Add an opening sentence to social services paragraph: Hezbollah's Social services and all civilian activity is run by The Executive headed by Hashem Safi al-Din (considered Hezbollah's Num 2 and the next leader after Hasan Nasrallah). Avraham Levine (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland does not designate Hezbollah a terrorist organisation whatsoever.

The sources for the "Swiss designation" is actually Czech Republic's designation RamHez (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The source does both; it mentions Switzerland within the news article if you open it up. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Add anti-LGBTQ to its ideology

The leader recently went on TV and denounced a supposed plot to promote homosexuality in the region, which led to threats against the gay community in Lebanon. See [18] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2FFD (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

As they belong to the socially conservative ideology of Khomeinism, this would be pointless to mention on its own! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

New internet domain found belonging to Hizb-Allah/Hezbollah

After the seizure of moqawama.org which is still listed on the page, I have found what appears to be a sister site operated by Hezbollah called https://www.moqawama.org.lb/index.php, which is quite intriguing. Although this could be a DHS/FBI bait website, this does appear legitimate. ReelmsyWiki (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

Change the name of the Secretary General from "Hassan Nasrallah" to "Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah" since he is a Sayyed from the Prophet Mohammad’s (pbuh) holy Household. 2A02:1210:2E6E:CC00:815A:63B2:7B53:D558 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:HONORIFIC Cannolis (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Add the ongoing conflict to the list of wars

So Hezbollah has clearly engaged IDF on multiple occasions since 7 October, so shouldn't the current war be added to the list of conflicts Hezbollah participated in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.47.145 (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 For now at least, a false alarm. See The Times of Israel, Al Jazeera; moral support only, according to CNN --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

Request to change "$3–5 million a month" to "$3–5 million per month" for tone, and "Hezbollah's activities in Latin American" to "Hezbollah's activities in Latin America" (or perhaps "in Latin American countries") to fix typo, both in Funding section. Placeholderer (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done [19] Thank you for pointing this out, Placeholderer--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

webpage update

The link in the infobox to the news website is still pointing to the old, seized page. Should be updated to https://www.moqawama.org.lb/

Ansat (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done [20]--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Citation 15 in the infobox (supporting antisemitism as a label) is to a page in a book that basically only contains an explicit, attributed opinion that Hezbollah is not antisemitic. This clearly does not support the content. If other pages of the book do support the content, please change the given page number. Otherwise, please remove the citation. Thank you. 24.57.92.43 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Please change March 14 alliance to Opposition since the march 14 alliance is dead AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism should be in the lead

As Hezbollah main purpose is to attack Israel, the terrorist label needs to be prominent.38.104.7.174 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

V.B.Speranza: This edit is in direct violation of MOS:TERRORIST. I attempted to engage you in discussion, but you simply deleted my entry on your Talk page and reverted my revert. I informed a recently active admin, who does not want to get involved. Hopefully you will engage in discussion instead of ignoring this message. The issue is not whether you or I consider Hezbollah a terrorist group; the issue is that Wikipedia's policy is to refrain from using such characterizations without attribution. The article mentions in multiple instances that Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist group by numerous countries and organizations. That is not in doubt.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It was above lead in the past but some has deleted it. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie: Maybe you can help? I don't want to break the 1RR.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

2A04:4A43:95DF:F69D:353A:A668:4341:81F2 (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It has to be written that it's terrorism organisation!!!!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t US Government enough?

https://www.dni.gov/nctc/groups/hizballah.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:75F6:18F4:6E3A:E056 (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Western countries including the United States designate Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. So do U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states including Saudi Arabia. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-is-hezbollah-lebanese-group-backing-hamas-its-war-with-israel-2023-10-16/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:75F6:18F4:6E3A:E056 (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Left-wing

I get why different Arab socialist parties and alike (Nasserist, Ba'athist, Gaddafist ect.) are called left-wing but Hezbollah? Braganza (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash and Aficionado538: Braganza (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Although Hezbollah's core ideology is Shia Islamism, it is typically positioned on the political spectrum as left-leaning due to its incorporation of leftist leanings to maintain support from left wing Shi'ite supporters from various groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the People's Movement of Lebanon. I have added a source which supports this to the article [21]. Another source [22] argues that the organization's political structure is leftist: "It starts with the political structure and the country’s declared purpose. In both structures, there is a supreme leader or secretary-general, followed by a guardian council or a politburo, followed by a central committee or expediency council and the members of the party. Each has its own colors, but the construction of the blocs is similar. And this goes to serve the objectives of the belief or theology. It is state over individual. It is the same structure as the Muslim Brotherhood has opted for. When it comes to the economy, free enterprise is replaced by a state-run economy. And so, by all accounts, Hezbollah is a left-wing political formation." Skitash (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in those sources does it say that is left wing in its core, only that it adopts some left wing view points. A political structure isn't what makes a party leftist or not. It is socially conservative, nationalist and theocratic. You could add that it holds left wing believes on economics. Jaxthesubhuman (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't left-wing politics in the Arab world associated with (some) secularism?

There are other arab socialist parties which don't have a position at all because they don't really fit the western left-wing criteria (ALF, PLO, PLF, Syrian Ba'ath in Lebanon, Iraqi Ba'ath in Yemen, NVP, NDA, Sawab, Arab Ba'ath Progressive Party, Iraqi Ba'ath Party in Jordan, LPNM, NUPO).

Khomeinism has some left-leaning ideas (state controlled economy or anti-imperialism) but this doesn't make them left-wing either and the first two sources you have given are quite week: the first one states that only the milieu is left-wing but not the party leadership and the second one has a quite critical section on her wikipedia article (Judith Butler#Comments on Hamas, Hezbollah and the Israel–Hamas war). Only the last one is imo really reliable but i don't think its accepted by the mainstream. Braganza (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The academic sources cited previously in the page do not claim that Hezbollah is a left-wing group.

• From the book "Hezbollahland: Mapping Dahiya and Lebanon's Shia Community" (pg. 33) authored by Hanin Ghaddar

year: 2023

Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield

"Because the majority of the leftist parties' members came from the Shia community, this group was important for Hezbollah. Thus, Hezbollah has incorporated Shia with leftist leanings in its milieu–but not necessarily among its core military and leadership structure or trusted elites. Rather, these individuals have to be ideologically and religiously aligned, and Hezbollah has always been wary of leftist ideologies and views.
Because many communists and leftists supported Hezbollah's resistance but not its Islamic and ideological principles, the group sometimes had to tamp down its ideological stance when it needed support. Indeed, when Hezbollah highlighted its connection to Iran's velayat-e faqih, many leftists were critical and expressed disillusionment.
The tension between Hezbollah and the leftist milieu in Lebanon is increasing today because of two factors: (1) Hezbollah's financial crisis and (2) its involvement in Iran's regional wars. Many leftists genuinely supported Hezbollah's resistance rhetoric but not its ideology, even while they benefited from the group's services and political power. As both have started to decline, the leftists in Lebanon are becoming an internal challenge for Hezbollah."

• From the book "Jews and Leftist Politics: Judaism, Israel, Antisemitism, and Gender" (pg. 135, 136) edited by Jack Jacobs

Year: 2017

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

"Butler was asked whether the left could support Hamas and Hezbollah. She responded that "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of the global left, is extremely important." It was possible, she added, to see them this way while being critical of "certain dimensions" of them. She has since insisted that fury at her remarks decontextualizes them. ...
To critics of her claim that Hamas and Hezbollah were part of a "global left," she replies, "My first point was merely descriptive: those political organizations define themselves as anti-imperialist, and anti-imperialism is one characteristic of the global left." Declaring herself this time against both violent resistance and the state, a seemingly pacifist stance, she insisted that she never actually took a position. "To say that those organizations belong to the left is not to say that they should belong or that I endorse or support them in any way" [emphasis in the original]. ... Slavoj Žižek, himself anti-Zionist, has written against leftists prone to "an all- too-easy and uncritical acceptance of anti-American and anti-Western groups as representing 'progressive' forms of struggle, as automatic allies: groups like Hamas and Hezbollah all of a sudden appear as revolutionary agents, even though their ideology is explicitly anti-modern, rejecting the entire egalitarian legacy of the French revolution." He does not name Butler, but this remark seems an obvious rebuttal of her."

These academic sources are arguing against the claim that Hezbollah is a "left-wing" group.

As for the opinion piece in Arab News which was cited by the user "Skitash", thats not an academic book. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult for the uninitiated to interpret what this group is from the article. It’s apparently a political party, but not really, or a militia, but not technically, etc. What are the demographics of this group? Is it like a political party as in the US, where most are not active or something else. It may be possible this is in the article, but it is not easy to glean anything without getting lost in the weeds. Given many people will be reading it in the current situation, the article needs to be revised with some basic facts at the beginning, and leave a lot of the rest for later in the article. The situation on Hamas seems easier to understand. Again, just what IS it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:F541:1AB1:F3EE:C13A (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@2601:645:4300:EE90:F541:1AB1:F3EE:C13A

The problem is that there isn't a clear answer to that question, the subject matter itself is blurry. Hezbollah is simultaneously a political entity, a deep state, and a militia, among other things. It participates in Lebanese elections (so it has a political party like you're describing), but it's also much more than that.

It doesn't map onto American politics particularly well, but I'll try to give you an analogy anyway. Imagine if the Libertarians were more popular (lol), and also had an active, highly effective militia that frequently involved itself in conflicts nearby, and also had its own "meta-state" within the United States, where it provided government-like services for everyone who lives in Montana and Idaho. Now imagine that this Libertarian Militia was somehow more powerful than the US and Canadian governments.

This analogy is pretty terrible, and has lots of holes, but it really isn't analogous to anything in American politics, so anything is a stretch. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 10:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

References