Jump to content

Talk:Hezbollah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sa.vakilian (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 11 April 2021 (→‎Ideology: yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{Hezbollah|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Hezbollah|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Hezbollah|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Hezbollah|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Hezbollah|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Hezbollah|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Hezbollah|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Hezbollah|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Hezbollah|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Hezbollah|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide
Good articleHezbollah has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 16, 2008, February 16, 2011, February 16, 2012, February 16, 2015, and February 16, 2020.
Current status: Good article
Archive
Archives

Untitled

Topical archive:

  1. POV-Disputed-Controvercial discussions
  2. Terrorist allegations
  3. Structure
  4. Lead/Introduction discussions
  5. Good article

Archive index

Norwegian terrorist designation

I don't think there are enough sources for Norway's designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist org. Could someone please add more?

Edit request: Designation of Hezbollah by United States as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization

The Hezbollah page already documents (under "United States" header) that Hezbollah is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as a Specially Designated Terrorist Organization, but omits the more recently affixed SDGT (Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization) designation. Verification available here: https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/

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:[1][2][3][4] fenetrejones (talk) 3:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/morocco-cuts-diplomatic-ties-iran-western-sahara-feud-180501173229190.html
  2. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/01/morocco-cuts-ties-with-iran-over-sahara-weapons-dispute.html
  3. ^ https://apnews.com/3aebb7da756940c99434b420a45aa84b
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-morocco-iran/morocco-severs-ties-with-iran-over-support-for-west-sahara-polisario-front-official-idUSKBN1I23VF

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"

Remove "Antisemitism"

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

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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

Will not happen i will add this on my watchlist Shadow4dark (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fresh from a success at changing "Occupation" to "Rule" on Hebrew WP, no doubt :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See here: "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
David Gerard, They called you and asked you to change the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Probaly not, it has lot of 'citation needed" tags. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I count 4, which isn't too bad for an article of that length. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right but i saw some other tags. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Yes, there is undue coverage of Hezbollah's ideology.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hezbollah&oldid=1017143949"