Talk:Hezbollah

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

GA Reassessment

Hezbollah

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2026

Under the “Designated as terrorists by” list, France should be removed / omitted. While Germany has designated the entire Hezbollah organization as terrorist, France (much like Italy) has voted for the well-known 2013 EU designation of Hezbollah’s military arm as incitement of terrorism, rather than the whole group (which involves also its political wing). To this day, the entire group (such as Hezbollah’s political party) is not designated as terrorist by either Italy or France. Conversely, the political party is banned in Germany. Setuber (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It has proven to be challenging to find exactly the right source that indoctrinates the differences between recognizing the military wing as banned and acknowledging the plight of the political faction. Many are written in between the lines through op-ed pieces and organizational guides such as:

• https://transatlanticinstitute.org/analysis/frances-hezbollah-problem?page=1

• https://www.wsj.com/opinion/hezbollah-france-lebanon-youssef-raggi-d20b7799

• https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/what-hezbollah#chapter-how-have-the-united-states-and-other-countries-treated-the-group

• https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/rescuing-hezbollah-inside-frances-panic-over-israels-deepening-incursion

However, this news story better dives into the concrete inflection point:

• https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/after-us-claims-france-says-no-evidence-hezbollah-explosives-stores-2020-09-18/ Setuber (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done The list has now been updated to reflect the distinction you've pointed out. Day Creature (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

Referring to the 2026 Lebanon War as Israel's "War on Lebanon" violates Wikipedia's neutral stance here. It should be the "2026 Lebanon War" instead. Defrancerobert110110 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. RubyEqualityAction (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ambiguous Sentence

The first sentence is ambiguous: “Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party with an active paramilitary wing that has been banned by the Lebanese government since March 2026, amid Israel's war on Lebanon.” Which has been banned, the party or its paramilitary wing? Also, the sentence is followed by references dated earlier than 2026, so those references can’t verify an event taking place in March 2026. It’s a run-on sentence. It needs dividing up for clarity. The references need to follow the particular statements to which they are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32607-05 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. But without a edit request nothing is going to change. 5aturnius (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Yes, with an edit request, you can be sure that an editor will consider what you say, but also ordinary comments on a talk page will be read and sometimes acted upon. Lova Falk (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead edits

@User:RubyEqualityAction, I have a couple of questions. Are you aware of WP:LEAD, specifically that the lead is nothing more than a summary of the article body? If the answer is yes, it is unclear why your edits only appear to address the lead (including adding sources there), rather than addressing concerns in the body then re-summarizing if required. Perhaps you can explain. My second question, mostly out of curiosity, is whether you are using an LLM to help you in any way, and if so whether you are aware of WP:LLM? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. I do appreciate the need for consistency. I will check the article body for any inconsistencies as soon as I can, unless another editor happens to do so in the meantime.

I came across the article while researching for a project and noticed, in particular, issues relating to WP:NPOV and WP:V. I had limited time available and decided to prioritise the lead (summary) on the basis of reader-behaviour research findings: a substantial proportion of Wikipedia readers, notably on mobile, do not read beyond the lead. This makes accuracy and neutrality in the lead content particularly important.

Yes, I am aware of WP:LLM. I respect the ban, which makes sense given risks regarding AI accuracy. I am curious to know if there was an edit or edits in particular that raised your concern?

I also note that WP:LLM states: “The ban does not cover indirect use of LLMs, which means that they can be used adjacent to editing. For example, they can help editors spot structural problems in long articles (such as: the same information being repeated in different sections, the infobox not agreeing with the prose, etc.), and to generate ideas for new or existing articles.”

My general understanding of WP:LLM is that certain more technical forms of assistance, adjacent to editing, are permissible. However, the resulting edits themselves must of course comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I welcome your thoughts. RubyEqualityAction (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Over 15% of the tokens in the article (including a significant part of the lead) were put there by accounts that employed deception or went on to employ deception via sockpuppetry, so for this article I'm not sure policy compliance, in particular neutrality and compliance with the Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", is the top priority for many contributors who allow they personal views to color their editing. Regarding the WP:LLM guideline, I'm not a fan personally because I think it is mostly unenforceable in practice, and in fact I would prefer it if leads were automatically generated by an LLM fine-tuned to summarize Wikipedia article body content. I think, for now at least, partisan human editors present a greater risk to accuracy and neutrality than LLMs. Anyway, I am not king of Wikipedia so none of that matters. Regarding ...if there was an edit or edits in particular that raised your concern?, no, LLM use by editors is not something that concerns me personally. There are plenty of editors looking out for what they regard as possible WP:LLM violations. I'm more interested in how people are using them as a tool. For your edits, I am interested in whether you use LLMs to assist you, and if so how. For example, do you use them to help generate edit summaries (which I assume is an allowed use)? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have less faith in AI than you do. I really enjoy research so I like to do it myself and learn so much from the process. No, using AI to generate edit summaries is not permitted. So much of the guideline is subject to interpretation so I suggest avoiding AI completely. RubyEqualityAction (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLM does not contain the quote you give. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request for lede 22 August 2026

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

Its armed strength was assessed to be equivalent to that of a medium-sized army in 2016.

+

Its armed strength was assessed to be equivalent to that of a medium-sized army in 2016. As of 2024, following several conflicts with Israel, Hezbollah has reportedly lost 80% of rockets and missile arrays, yet nonetheless is still assessed to be more powerful than the Lebanese military. (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20260710154123/https://israelpolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/What-Is-Hezbollah-one-pager-1.pdf)

Antecerebellum (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Did I post this in the right spot? Antecerebellum (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're in the right spot. It'll just take some time for someone to assess your request, as Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers and there are 122 other edit requests like yours. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 08:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you! Antecerebellum (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. NomanPK44 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I do that? Isn't the Talk page where we establish consensus on edits? Antecerebellum (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Antecerebellum:You're correct that talk pages are where consensus is developed; however, the issue is that an edit request itself isn't the discussion but rather the final step. As outlined in WP:EDITREQUEST, the {{Edit extended-protected}} template is intended for changes that already have consensus (or are clearly uncontroversial), so a reviewer can apply them without needing to engage with the content itself.

The general process for forming consensus is explained at WP:CONSENSUS (how agreement is reached on Wikipedia). In practice, start by opening a plain section on the talk page, without using an edit-protected template, and clearly state your proposed addition and source. Follow the basic guidelines at WP:TALK to ensure your message is clear and respectful. Since you're the one suggesting new content, WP:ONUS places the responsibility on you to gain agreement, not on others to challenge or disprove your suggestion. Once there is genuine agreement (or no objections after a reasonable period), you can re-add {{Edit extended-protected}} to implement the change.NomanPK44 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Typo-rage should be range. Edit request 09/04/26

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  On 2 March 2026, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stated that the organisation's military actions rage outside of Lebanese law.

  +

  On 2 March 2026, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stated that the organisation's military actions range outside of Lebanese law.

• Why it should be changed: Typo. The word rage should be changed to range.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Lovelyman718 (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)