Talk:Hezbollah armed strength

INS Hanit

"The Israeli corvette INS Hanit before it suffered severe damage by Hezbollah anti-ship missile on July 14, 2006." Shouldn't it be "after", seeing the black hole near the water?

No, the 'black hole' near the waterline is I understand an exhaust stain. The wiki article on the Hanit suggests that you'll see similar markings on other warships of this class. A close look at the photo tends to support the exhaust stain viewpoint. I'd also note that the photo is 'too perfect' to be anything other than a 'portrait'. A photo of the real damage would likely not be taken from a particularly advantageous position.

Drone or missile attack

Hezbollah initially claimed (and apparently still maintains) that the Israeli ship was hit on 14 July by a drone (unmanned aerial vehicle) carrying explosives. The claim that the ship was hit by a missile came from the Israeli's on July 15 and was reported by the Guardian as follows: "The attack late Friday alarmed Israel because initial information indicated the guerrillas had used a drone for the first time to attack Israeli forces. But the army's investigation showed that Hezbollah had fired an Iranian-made missile at the vessel from the shores of Lebanon, said Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan. ``We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hezbollah. We see this as very profound fingerprint of Iranian involvement in Hezbollah, Nehushtan said in an interview with The Associated Press." Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan went on to describe a second missile striking a nearby merchant ship.

The device that struck the Israeli ship was subsequently identified by the Israeli's as being a C-802 anti-ship missile. Although this is of Chinese manufacture, it is understood that Iran (amongst others) have stocks of this missile. This missile carries approximately 165 kilos of explosive. The wiki article on this missile suggests that it is normally programmed to strike the target near the waterline, and penetrate the hull before exploding, in order to inflict maximum damage. The Israeli's have said that the ship's anti-missile defences were not switched on, suggesting that they believed that the ship would normally have had adequate defences against this type of missile.

There has (apparently) been no suggestion that the ship's command were negligent in failing to activate the ship's anti-missile defences, or any explanation why they were not activated. The inference is that no such attack was 'contemplated'. My understanding is that the normal experience of the US/British/Australian navies would be that a ship engaged in 'hostilities' would be on full alert with all defences activated (anti-missile/anti-aircraft/anti-mine), and that any failure to to maintain full alert would trigger an inquiry into the command of the ship. On the other hand, it was not apparent whether the Israeli ship was actively 'engaged' at the time of the attack. Even so, a ship does not have to be engaged in actually firing to be on alert. Usually simply 'presence in the battle zone' is sufficient cause to maintain active defensive surveillance and reaction capability.

According to Wiki, Hezbollah's weapons include the C-802 anti-ship missile, but also an Iranian drone or UAV called the Mohajer-4. A report today on TimesOnline reports on an Israeli claim to have shot down a Hezbollah drone. No date is given for the shooting down, but the inference is that it was 'recent'. The full text of the report follows:

"The Israeli air force shot down a Hezbollah drone for the first time, sending its wreckage plunging into the sea, the army said. Israeli media said the unmanned aircraft had the capacity to carry 90lbs of explosives, nearly as much as the more powerful rockets Hezbollah has been firing into Israel for the last 27 days. Unlike the rockets, however, the drone has a guidance system to for accurate targeting."

This latest report regarding a Hezbollah drone, particularly the news that it was shot down over the sea (and that it could carry 90kg of explosive) suggests the possibility that the Israeli's may have chosen to describe the first attack as a missile attack, whereas it may have actually been a drone attack as Hezbollah have claimed all along. This is not to suggest that Israel distorted the truth in order to attribute the attack to Iranian armament because the drones that Hezbollah have are also Iranian-sourced. The point about Iranian involvement could have been equally well made with either device, even down to the suggestion about the potential involvement of Iranian advisors at the launch site.

The significance might in fact be in that Israel did not want the public to know that something no more sophisticated (in the public's mind) than a remote control 'toy' aircraft inflicted considerable damage on an Israeli warship, and particularly that something so 'unsophisticated' had penetrated the ship's defences. Now that the Israeli's claim to have shot one down, and presumably have alerted their ships to the threat and taken measures to defeat incoming drones, they may feel more comfortable feeding their own public news of any further attempted attacks using drones. There may still, however, be a tendency to continue to attribute any successful attacks to missiles, as missiles will always (in the public's mind) be a 'less avoidable' threat than drones. The Israeli's might also be concerned at the reaction of the public to the concept of a drone that can be targeted, as opposed to the current fairly random rocket threat.

Further work on 'getting to the bottom of this' might proceed along the lines of getting further information on the nature of the damage to the Israeli warship - if it was superstructure then a drone might be more likely. The issue of the second ship that was 'hit' might need looking into as well. There seems to be a peculiar lack of information about that incident (but that's not unusual when events onshore tend to swamp the news feeds). I'll do some digging. If anyone else is interested they're welcome to pick up a shovel. Cheers, Tban 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The alleged Hezbbolah fightr shown in civilain dress

First of all the website from which it has been taken is not neutral secondly couple of days ago i saw this picture with the description "palestenian fighters with anti-aircaft guns" I dont have the link to verify it right now but I will try my best to find one soon. Thanks

Rockets' table

This table is not supported by the reference given. Most references I saw only mention the 122mm Katyushas, the Fajr-3, Fajr-5 and Zelzal-2. I think that unless better references are found only these rockets should be included in the table. Incidentally it may be useful to include a column with the estimated number of rockets. Dianelos 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This study reports 122mm Katyushas with a 30kg warhead and 30-50km range. What do you make of this?

No 220mm Katyushas or 333mm Fajr-5 rockets are mentioned; instead 220mm Ouragan (?) rockets and a 302 mm rocket based on the Chinese WS-1 with 175 kg warhead. Dianelos 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

9P140 Uragan is the BM-27, a large Katyusha launcher, although Hezbollah's 220mm rockets probably aren't launched from that exact vehicle. Katyusha isn't the name of a model, just a general class—it may refer to any truck-mounted MRLs or just to Soviet/Russian-made ones. The term is commonly used by the news media, but it's probably better to refer to rocket calibre or specific model of launcher when possible, to prevent this kind of confusion. —Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:04 Z

By the way, BM-21 and BM-27 are the names of Soviet/Russian launchers, not of the rocket ammunition. —Michael Z. 2006-09-10 14:25 Z

hizboollahh is a very intelligent man .He has aforces

Clean up

Some of the online sources which doesn't exist anymore and should be replaced with other sources. There are some new sources in Hezbollah article.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--10:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Source reliability through proxy site

Even BBC articles are not sufficiently referenced to be raised from the “speculation” status. To put it in a provocative way: “Is a reference to an unreferenced article a reference?” An article citing Debka as reference isn’t a reference, as long as Debka reliability is far from being proved. MEMRI is also known to be biased, not mentioning MEIB…

So ok, this may be the best available, but some introduction article on the mostly speculative nature of the data provided -especially about Zelzal capabilities- wouldn’t hurt, would it?

True, a referenced book would be much better, but at least the BBC can be considered a relatively reliable source: a professional news organization with a reputation for fact-checking. And it is verifiable, by clicking to the BBC article, a reader can see that it says things like "it is thought" and "some analysts believe".

Agreed that the other sources are not as easily evaluated. —Michael Z. 2007-08-08 15:18 Z

Fair use rationale for Image:54949.jpg

Image:54949.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Khaibar-1.jpg

The image Image:Khaibar-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, Well I was wondering, do people have any sources that Hezbollah possess the types weapons that part of the article says they do? Some items are cited but quite a lot isn't. e.g. anti-ship, anti-tank, part of the anti-air weapons and some of the rockets. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

no this article is done by conseus . democracy at its best .--KAWASAKI (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Denial is not very clear in haaretz and the name for the haaretz article is incorrect. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The denial is as clear as can be, it says 'the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "The Syrian Arab Republic denies these fabrications."'. I've corrected the article's title. Don't use primary sources (gov't press releases) when secondary sources in reliabel mainstream media are available. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated number of fighters in Syria

Anyone can add an updated number of Hezbollah fighters in Syria?GreyShark (dibra) 18:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The future

Here's what needs to be done with this article:

- rebuild section on missile force

- flesh out and finish sections on training, supply, command, and infrastructure

- source the small arms section

- better integrate sources for the various weapons tables

- clean up the sources and write proper citations. One source is cited 30 times. That probably shouldn't happen.

If this stuff was done the article would be in basic shape. Then we should move it to military of Hezbollah and add sections on leaders and history. Denarivs (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright all of these things are done lol. Denarivs (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hezbollah armed strength/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stingray Trainer (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	This article is not written in a flowing and consistent prose that tells an encyclopedic story. The introduction is well written, but after that it is clear that the article has not been edited together properly. A lot of facts and figures are quoted, often out of date order and contradicting each other. The sentence structure after the introduction is poor, with a lot of short statements and lists that appear to be taken from a lot of difference sources with little linking together. In many sections there is no context or 'so what' from all the facts and figures listed.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	On the whole the article follows the MoS and the layout is sensible and works.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	See below for further details. Many of the sources are out of date (some from pre-2005) and have not been updated to reflect the current situation. There are several dead links	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Many of the sources and citations listed are very dubious. There is a significant bias towards pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel sources (especially news sites and opinion pieces). Very few of the facts are backed up by reliable figures that come from independent assessments. A lot of the points are presented as hard verifiable facts. Many of the facts and figures quoted in the table are apparently backed up by 4 or 5 different sources. However, an analysis of these sources shows that they quote different figures to the ones shown in the table.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Whilst the article is well cited and apparently without much original research, many of the citations are of poor quality and are a based on a single bias opinion. Therefore a lot of the facts here could be considered to be very close to original research as they do not provide multiple/peer reviewed sources and are not verifiable.	Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers a good range. However, it needs to be more closely linked to the main Hezbollah article section of the same name, as they have different facts and figures.	On hold
(b) (focused)	The article is not really just focused on a encyclopedic coverage of the strength of Hezbollah, but rather appears to be an attempt to prove that Hezbollah has a certain level of strength and is better than its opponents. There are some very good parts, but also a lot of unreliable figures quoted as absolute fact, including contradictions due to different parts being edited at different times and from different sources.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
This article is far from a neutral viewpoint. It shows significant bias towards Hezbollah and highlighting how it is 'better' than it opponents repeatably, often with dubious or bias sources. The article is not currently encyclopedic in nature and leans towards propaganda.	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Appears to be fairly stable with only minor changes occurring regularly.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The images appear to comply with all copyright rules and are well used and informative.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The captions all support the images and add to the article and photos.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	This article does not meet all the criteria for GA status.

Discussion

This article has not been accepted for GA status and I would currently rate it somewhere between C & B class on a quality scale. It is confused over what it is trying to say and in many cases is just a list of facts and figures that needs blending together into an article. This was only a quick review and I found significant bias, poor citations, unverified research in the sources and felt that the prose was poor. Arguably it is also excessively detailed as it contains a lot of information that is available on other pages, which, unless it is well maintained, means it quickly degrades in quality and ends up with different figures/facts. I have not provided blow by blow what needs to be changed, as the article really needs to have a copyedit and be updated and re-written. Once that has occurred and the article is more balanced and flowing it could be re-considered for GA nomination.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Hezbollah parade, 2000.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hezbollah parade, 2000.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hezbollah fighters.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Fajr-3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing subject

? “… has blocked Iranian trucks and planes from passing through its territory.”

incomplete sentence 62.31.71.214 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Voice of America as a source

Really? We're just using western propaganda as a trustworthy news source now because why? Idontknowanythingok (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)