Talk:Hezbollah

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.

Request to remove the word “scholars”

Please change “While Hezbollah has been regarded as a resistance movement by some scholars” to “ While Hezbollah has been regarded as a resistance movement by some” removing the word scholars. This would improve POV neutrality. Words like terrorists or scholars that carry a connotation should be avoided. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is neither an uncontroversial improvement nor one that is already supported by a consensus (see per WP:EDITXY for more information of what an uncontroversial improvement is). M.Bitton (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This article clearly has portions written by person(s) sympathetic to Hezbollah (as many others have pointed out in this talk section). Removing the word “scholar” (an appeal to authority facially) would only be controversial because some Wikipedia editors would like to keep this article favorable to Hezbollah and its non-neutral POV. I do not think I am allowed to request a consensus, but if possible, could you please pose the request? 71.179.129.209 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, you don't need a formal process to request a consensus - you just post here and see who replies. (Which you've done.) There's also WP:RFC, which you can read about at the link. PianoDan (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove Lebanon from allies

As a Lebanese, I can clearly say that Lebanon is no longer even partial allies with the party. Mikati as well as the rest of the politicians and government personnel clearly say that Hezbollah weapons are illegitimate and the army has started confiscating them, starting with the south of the Litani (the agreement says that all the country cannot have illegitimate weapons). As for before, the only reason why the gov seemed like it was cooperating was because of Hezbollah being too strong. Trustededitors2023 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)