Misplaced Pages

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PeleYoetz (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 13 October 2024 (→Recent edit: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:33, 13 October 2024 by PeleYoetz (talk | contribs) (→Recent edit: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Gold Apollo AR924 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 October 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 4 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

In the newsA news item involving 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 September 2024.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconComputer Security: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).
Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:
Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...
  • Review importance and quality of existing articles
  • Identify categories related to Computer Security
  • Tag related articles
  • Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
  • Identify articles for improvement
  • Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
  • Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconExplosives Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLebanon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconSyria Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTelecommunications Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
On 17 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2024 Lebanon–Syria pager explosions. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 19 September 2024

It has been proposed in this section that 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log

2024 Lebanon pager explosions → ? – Following up from last RM, the options for this RM will focus on the specific language in the title. Keep the arguments on WP:TITLE policy. We can always propose additional changes to the title in this section. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove the year

Support as per nom FloridaMan21 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah"

Extended content
  • Perhaps, but the electronic devices were distributed by Hezbollah to its operatives. The devices were not commercially available. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Two of the killed were children, and 2 were hospital workers, were they also Hizbollah "operatives"?. They might have targeted Hizbollah, but the fact is that they hit innocent people, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
      The children who died were probably children of Hezbollah operatives who played around with their parents' pagers, and the "hospital workers" who died were probably Hezbollah operatives who moonlighted as "hospital workers". But none of that is even remotely relevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the devices were issued by Hezbollah. Nobody who is not affiliated with Hezbollah, or affiliated with people affiliated with Hezbollah, would have had access to those devices. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      What about the people at funerals or supermarkets who happened to be near someone with a pager? Are they "operatives" too?
      RSes have said civil servants and charity workers also received those devices because Hezbollah is a political party as well as a paramilitary group. They're not "moonlighting" as anything.
      And of course other people would have access to those devices. There were 4,000 devices spread across two countries. People leave devices lying around, lose them, put them in cloakrooms, store them in lockers, etc.
      But regardless of all that, a child — even if their parents work for Hezbollah — isn't a valid target and their deaths shouldn't be shrugged off as "oh well, Hezbollah!" Let's not be glib, even accidentally, about the death of kids. Yikes. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      The children were not the target. The target was Hezbollah. It was the parents who put their child in harms way by choosing a dangerous line of work, and then on top of that, they brought their work home with them. Hezbollah is a paramilitary organization with representation in the Lebanese parliament.
      Anybody who freely chooses to associate with Hezbollah is putting themselves, as well as anybody they associate with, in harms way, even if the people who associate with the Hezbollah operatives are not even aware that they are associating with a Hezbollah operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      It was an unlawful boobytrapping of civilian communications devices that contravened all kinds of laws of war, including, not least, targeting devices also used by (non-Hezbollah) medical personnel. The devices also exploded in indiscriminate locations, such as supermarkets. Not surprising that all legal commentators call it A) a war crime, or B) a terrorist attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      Remember that these were communication devices that were purchased by Hezbollah and issued to its operatives. These devices were not available to civillians in any store within Lebanon. To receive one these devices, a person had to have either gotten it from Hezbollah, or, for whatever reason, were given the devices by an operative of Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      That's OR, and you're not a reliable source, but The Nation is. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      The Nation did not say that the pagers were widely available for the general Lebanese population. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      It said medical workers were killed after the words "but so", contrasting this with "Hezbollah members". A statement that OR alone cannot overwrite. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
      In case it does actually need to be said: someone working for a charity or hospital doesn't deserve to die just because of who funds (or part-funds) that organisation. Taking pagers home isn't supposed to be a risk to your child. Nurses don't deserve to die. Neither do kids. Again, yikes! Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      Nurses who are Hezbollah operatives during their day job are absolutely legitimate targets, and parents who let their children handle their Hezbollah-issued pagers put the lives of their children at risk. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      So you think booby trapping a device used by a member or supporter of a party and making it explode without caring about who it harms or where the explosion happens is perfectly fine and legal and should be celebrated. We are not supposed to feel bad for the victims even if they were not the intended target cause they chose to be nearby other people so they were asking for it. Hopefully you'll apply the same logic if/when the target is Likud or any other Israeli or American political party. - Ïvana (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we're getting a little distracted – WP:NOTFORUM. GhostOfNoMan 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    • You are losing focus here.
      I definitely think that booby trapping devices used by operatives of a paramilitary organization absolutely means that the article name should contain the name of the paramilitary organization whose devices were booby trapped. The fact that this paramilitary organization has representation in the Lebanese parliament or that the operatives of this paramilitary organization moonlight as nurses does not mean that the name of this paramilitary organization should not be in the article's name. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
      Nurses are civilians, so that's a no. It doesn't matter what the political allegiance of medical personnel is; no one gets to murder medical personnel in cold blood and call it lawful. The civilian/combatant distinction doesn't magically evaporate because some countries call a group 'terrorist' – language that has zero bearing in international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
      Doesn't seem like you understand that just because a Hezbollah operative moonlights as a nurse and puts on a nurse uniform, that does not erase their affiliation to Hezbollah. It is not a contradiction to be a nurse and a Hezbollah operative. And that means that it is appropriate to put Hezbollah in the article's name.
      Only people with affiliations to Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
      The sources don't obviously support the bald assertion that only Hezbollah members had the devices. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
      The sources all say that the pagers were issued by Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Per above comments. Also, any concerns about target vs attacker are still applicable if Lebanon is used, not to mention that they can be entirely circumvented by using "against Hezbollah". Arcturus95 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per VR. WP:NCWWW is clear. Proposed alternatives are ambiguous and might allude to Hezbollah being the perpetrator instead of the target. A lot of victims are/were also civilians, and the only thing they had in common with Hezbollah members was the geographic location. - Ïvana (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the title "Hezbollah device explosions," as used by the BBC . I don't think it suggests Hezbollah was the perpetrator, I think it suggests that Hezbollah's devices exploded, which is accurate. "Lebanon" isn't entirely accurate because there were also explosions in Syria, even if most of it happened in Lebanon. "Lebanon pager explosions" or "Lebanon device explosions" I find problematic because it makes it sound like they were Lebanese pagers or Lebanese devices, as in made in Lebanon, which does not appear to be the accurate. WP:NCWWW says "in the majority of cases," and I think this is one case where we should say "who" rather than "where." Levivich (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Although indeed Hezbollah pagers and communication devices, many civilians have been killed or injured either from the explosion or shrapnel. Most of the explosions took place in Lebanon. A change from Lebanon to Hezbollah would be misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - The attacks were targeted at Hezbollah in more than one country. I agree with Levivich that a title such as Hezbollah device explosions suggests that Hezbollah's devices exploded, which is accurate. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as per VR, Havradim, and Iskandar323. Policy should guide this decision, such as WP:NCWWW. If we were going purely for accuracy and precision, we'd have a long name such as 2024 Israeli attacks on Hezbollah pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon and Syria. As it is, 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks seems fine, although I could accept pagers (and I also prefer attacks over explosions). Lewisguile (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - As spoken before, attacks targeted Hezbollah, also removes the geographic argument some had about Lebanon vs. Lebanon and Syria in title name. poketape (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Most of the explosions did take place in Lebanon, but some in Syria as well. The attack was targeted against Hezbollah, and as we have Israel–Hamas war we have precedent to use the intended target even if there are civilian side-effects.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons stated by user VR. Macxcxz (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons mentioned by editors above. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support only if the exact title is established, and we have a revote. Changing one word to the other implying "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions" sounds like Hezbollah is the perpetrator. Jay 💬 14:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – Regardless of the collateral damage, the target of the attacks was Hezbollah. Aria1561 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I think pro-Israeli sources would describe the attack as targeting Hezbollah, while other sources would indicate attacks on objects used by civilians would indicate something broader Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – Hezbollah was targeted across territories. More accurate and more precise. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support- I agree with the above. The incident did not target Lebanon, it was against Hezbollah, and there were pagers that exploded in other places besides Lebanon. DaringDonna (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I share the same opinion; the operation was directed at Hezbollah rather than Lebanon. There’s no ambiguity about that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Is this based on what the reliable sources state or should the title change given your original research? --Mhhossein 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Mhhossein Check out the sources shared by others here, or this Washington Post article, and then check out WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: First, per naming conventions, "Lebanon" accurately reflects the location, whereas the group "Hezbollah" would misleadingly imply they were responsible for the attacks, which is not the case. Second, the attacks targeted a broad range of devices, including those belonging to civilians, medical personnel, and non-Hezbollah entities, in various public places like supermarkets. Renaming it to "Hezbollah" would obscure these facts and misrepresent the scope of the attacks, which affected many beyond Hezbollah. StarkReport (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The majority of RS are using Lebanon and the rest Hezbollah, somewhat reminiscent of the Gaza/Hamas debate except that the media are being more cautious about accepting the Israeli narrative, especially since they still have not admitted responsibility for what some are calling terrorism. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as explained in the previous RM. I see multiple users saying the title should change, only based on their original research that Hezbollah was the target. It was reported that people irrelevant to Hezbollah were targeted, as well. I think the title with Lebanon is a common name as per WP:TITLE. --Mhhossein 13:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Neither status quo nor proposed change "Lebanon" isn't inclusive enough, "Hezbollah" is still controversial as there are arguments about targeting. Why not Middle East or some equivalent regional designation? Still precise enough to help people understand which event is mentioned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Including the location or country is standard practice. Lebanon is perfectly descriptive and I don't see how there would realistically be any confusion toward Lebanon being the perpetrators. That's not an actual issue. The fact that the explosions also affected many others outside of the group in question is another reason to not specify it only to the group. Silverseren 05:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per VR, the primary location of the events, Lebanon, should be in the title as stated in WP:NCWWW. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCWWW the location takes precident here in the naming conventions. There should likely be a redirect page with other names included. Cocoaguy (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. More precise name which is also used by RS BBC, Foreign Policy. Alaexis¿question? 09:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - As has been noted, multiple sources including the BBC, have used Hezbollah device explosions. That is the most concise and accurate title. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. More specific. All Hezbollah is in Lebanon but not all Lebanon is in Hezbollah. Andre🚐 06:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I see no reason to deviate from naming conventions, it would only serve to introduce confusion in this case. Rail88 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Needlessly limiting/ exclusionary. Although they were the alledged target, the affected are not limited to Hezbollah nor the Hezbollah-affilated. This title swap would ignore explosion of devices owned by non-Hezbollah civillians including people in the medical field. The nature of the attacks were not contained to Hezbollah with collateral damage, but to the devices (many of which owned by Hezbollah, but not ALL). Plus article naming conventions of "when, where, what" would be followed.Mason7512 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Lebanon as a country was not the target of the attacks. Hezbollah pagers were. Whether non-Hezbollah members were caught as collateral damage is irrelevant; the devices they were using were still Hezbollah pagers. This is also the language that other RS are primarily using ⇒SWATJester 17:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing "pagers" to "electronics"/"communications"

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

  • Support per my reason in the previous RM. WP:RS classify this as an "attack" including and so we should just mirror what RS does. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with "attacks" in principle, but I'm a little concerned that, coupled with a Lebanon → Hezbollah change, the title "Hezbollah pager attacks" (or "Hezbollah electronics attacks" etc.) would be misleading – wouldn't a plain reading make it appear Hezbollah were themselves responsible, and not the target? Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I could easily see such a title causing confusion. GhostOfNoMan 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    We can use "attacks on ..." or "attacks in ..." if needbe. I do appreciate the concern as we do need to ensure this title is not misleading though. Awesome Aasim 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    But I think "Lebanon electronics attacks" would be fine and unambiguous.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    2024 Lebanon electronics attacks would be my preferred title, but I'm not immovable on the 2024 part. Lewisguile (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose That title makes it sound like Hezbollah committed an attack, not that they were attacked. Explosions is also more descriptive. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Opoose Explosions is more specific. Jehochman 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Explosions seems more vague, because it includes accidents (eg 2020 Beirut explosion), whereas this was not accidental.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Support Attacks. Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support "Explosions" implies it was an accident. "Attack(s)" is clearer. Similarly, articles about bombings do not use "explosions" (eg Oklahoma City bombing). As for the confusion of who was the attacker and who was the target, there are ways around it. There were some ideas to resolve that in the previous RM. Saying "Attacks on/against Lebanon/Hezbollah" should suffice. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. 'Explosions' implies it could've been an accident; it was mostly definitely an attack and most RS support this. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Could cause someone to misinterpret Hezbollah/Lebanon (Lebanon is fine to use, check replies) as the perpetrator. Other than that, I support. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    @BerryForPerpetuity, based on my understanding of English (it is not my mother tongue), the word "Lebanon" is only a noun (whose adjective is "Lebanese"), whereas "Hezbollah" is both a noun and adjective. So "Lebanon electronics attack" should unambiguously indicate Lebanon as the location of the attack, not the perpetrator.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Vice regent: You are correct. I've updated my support to clear that up. Thanks, — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Explosions is more specific - "attack" could mean an attack on pager infrastructure or similar. Further, if it's changed to Hezbollah, the title Hezbollah pager (or word) attack would imply they attacked pagers, rather than their pagers exploded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Clarifying my comment in relation to the above - I think that this needs to be considered together with the question over what the "items" that exploded/were attacked are called. I cannot support "electronics attack(s)" because that is ambiguous as to whether it was an attack on electronic infrastructure, an attack using electronic weapons, etc. So if it's changed to "electronics" (the shortest word that seems to include the various devices involved) then I still oppose changing to attacks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - I am partial to Lebanon exploding electronics attacks; it is concise, precise, follows policy, and does a good job of explaining what happened and in what location. As others have said, having explosions alone omits the fact that this was a targeted attack, leaving open the possibility that it was instead a series of tragic accidents. And having attacks alone leaves too much open to interpretation: Was Lebanon / Hezbollah attacked or did they attack? And via the use of what kind of electronics warfare? Havradim leaf a message 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support "attacks", per what I've written below.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but care must be taken that the final outcome of this RM does not make it sound like Hezbollah was the one committing the attack. Therefore, the article name should be something like Attacks on Hezbollah's pagers and walkie talkies. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "explosions" is more exact to describe what happened (pagers exploded) while "pager attack" may imply electronic espionage or disrupting communication. Also "...pagers attack" could imply active ("they attacked") instead of passive ("they got exploded"). MathKnight 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with you on your second point. That's why I put a note in my !vote with a caution that if using the word "attacks", the word order would have to change (along with needing to add the prepesition "on").
    On your first point, because all the explosions happened at the same time (or within a ½ an hour or so), then it does constitute an attack (or more accurately "attacks" because there were two attacks on two different days). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support; "explosion" could be an accident, "attack" is what it was, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - an explosion might be unintended, an attack is not. - Ïvana (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for this title format - "Lebanon pager attacks" and "Hezbollah pager attacks" make it sound like Lebanon/Hezbollah are the perpetrators. I don't categorically oppose using "attacks" instead of "explosions" but it has to be as part of a title that phrases it in a way that doesn't confuse the perpetrator with the victim of the attack, so something different than any of the variations currently proposed. Levivich (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support as these specific "explosions" had a perpetrator, Israel. RS have confirmed Israel to be the perpetrator of this coordinated attack. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as explosions is more specific. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support attacks. Explosions is too vague and implies the devices just blew up, e.g., due to manufacturing issues or excessive heat. These were attacks, and RSes support that. This is why I also don't think Hezbollah should be in the title. It should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - because I support changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah", and 2024 Hezbollah pager attacks could mislead readers to believe the attacks were committed by Hezbollah rather than against Hezbollah.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as attack is what it was. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "explosions" is more specific and exactly what happened. I would support "attack" if it was a weapon that was used. Pager is a harmless device, and its hard to visualize it as a weapon in "pager attacks". It sounds more like a virus attack that software devices are prone to. I do not mind "attack" if the nature of the attack is part of the title, such as "explosion attacks" or "explosive attacks". Jay 💬 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – Feels more correct to include "attacks" in the title—considering that's what it was—particularly to avoid indicating that the devices exploded by themselves in some sort of accident. Aria1561 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Speaks to state of mind of the perpetrator. Likely an WP:NPOV issue. AllPurposeScientist 17:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    ...you think they accidentally put explosives in thousands of pagers? Or that they did it intentionally but not with the intent to attack anyone? What other state of mind could the perpetrator possibly have had? (And does any RS suggest any state of mind other than attack?) Levivich (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Clear enough that it was deliberate, but explosions is more descriptive and recognisable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Explosions is more descriptive, and "attack" is ambiguous, as said above, you cant tell who is doing the attacking. DaringDonna (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support; I agree with the argument that an "explosion" could be accidental, while the term "attack" is more specific. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: The title should be revised from "explosions" to "attacks," as sources consistently identify these incidents as deliberate, coordinated actions, rather than accidental explosions. The term "explosions" suggests unintended events, whereas "attacks" accurately conveys the intentional nature of these acts, with known perpetrators. This aligns with the terminology used for similar events, such as bombings, which are properly labeled to reflect their deliberate nature. Simple. StarkReport (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak support (weak because of grammar issues) Attacks is more precise term. However, explosions clearly attaches to the device mentioned in the title, while attack is typically mentally attached to an animate actor (e.g., Hezbollah, Lebanon, etc.). The heading should be phrased to clarify that the devices were the agents of the attack, rather than Lebanon or Hezbollah.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some editors are considering these sections entirely separately - and I think that puts us at risk of having a title that is very unclear/ambiguous. Pager attacks is pretty clear (attack on pagers), electronics explosions is clear (there were electronics that exploded), but electronics attack(s) is ambiguous. Was it an electronic attack (i.e. jamming)? Was it an attack on electronics infrastructure (i.e. cell phone towers or internet infrastructure)? Was it an attack that used electronics as the vector for the attack (this is the closest)? Does anyone have ideas for potential other words (other than explosions or attacks) that may be better? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    I can't think of much that isn't too wordy or problematic for other reasons – e.g. explosive electronics attacks introduces more problems than it solves. I don't honestly think electronics (plural) is that likely to cause confusion regarding electronic attacks (singular). A shame that something like 2024 explosive sabotage of Hezbollah communication devices is just so verbose... GhostOfNoMan 22:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    (I'm not suggesting that latter title; just an example of how lengthy a title can sometimes grow when the goal is to remove all ambiguity. Or it's just a display of the poverty of my imagination when it comes to naming things...) GhostOfNoMan 22:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Per my comment in the previous RM, RS describe the events as an attack. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sources are using "device explosions" and that is what has happened in both cases. Attacks is not wrong but explosions is more specific and equally concise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. The device explosion was the attack, while both are accurate, it would appear that attack is the more common title. Andre🚐 06:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both "attack" and "explosions" are equally accurate descriptors in isolation, but when combined with "Lebanon" or "Hezbollah" in a title, "attack" is more prone to misreading that Lebanon/Hezbollah was the source rather than the target. jnestorius 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Attack is not a *bad* descriptor per se, but it creates ambiguity that a reader unfamiliar with the event will think that this means throwing or bludgeoning with pagers, rather than them as a vector for an explosive. So would prefer "explosions" as that solves that ambiguity. I could live with "attacks" though if that was the consensus.⇒SWATJester 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

  • Support - a wide range of sources are saying as a fact this was an Israeli attack. The NYTimes has reported these were manufactured by Israel. Axios reports that "Israel decided to blow up the pager devices carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon and Syria on Tuesday out of concern its secret operation might have been discovered by the group, three U.S. officials told Axios." and that "A former Israeli official with knowledge of the operation said Israeli intelligence services planned to use the booby-trapped pagers it managed to "plant" in Hezbollah's ranks as a surprise opening blow in an all- out war to try to cripple Hezbollah." CNN reports that "CNN has learned Tuesday’s explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military." There are no sources that actually dispute that Israel was behind these explosions. nableezy - 01:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Kowal2701 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose- per WP:NPOV. Israel has not taken credit for the incident, and nobody has provided proof that it was Israel. All mentions of Israel as the culprit are allegations. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose clear NPOV violation. Even if there is a consensus they were Israeli or proven to be, this is a clear POV title intended to imply things that should not be implied in a title. Titles should not be disambiguated beyond what is necessary. Unless there is some other attack on Hezbollah pagers/walkie-talkies this year, there is no need for this. And if there's another attack in another year, a year is a NPOV disambiguation that will suffice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Where is the NPOV violation and what is it intended to imply? nableezy - 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, borders on original research at this point. Not at all clear if Israel acted alone on this one, so having this in the title is overreach. Havradim leaf a message 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning oppose per what I've stated below. Identifying the perpetrators within the article title seems unnecessary. The first sentence of the article should explain that reliable sources believe Israel is the perpetrator of this attack.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while Israel is the natural "prime suspect", it has not taken responsibility, and all we have so far is media speculations and Hezbollah's blame. MathKnight 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Consensus by RS is that Israel was behind the attack. We should reflect that consensus. Arcturus95 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    If you read the references carefully, the consensus is that Israel is the only logical suspect. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    We also have Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus as a precedent, where Israel also didn't claim responsibility, but multiple sources identified it as the perpetrator. - Ïvana (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    Israel is not a suspect by process of elimination. RS have evidence of Israel's responsibility and are fully naming them as responsible.
    CNN has learned Tuesday’s explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military.
    12 current and former defense and intelligence officials who were briefed on the attack say the Israelis were behind it
    Israel decided to blow up the pager devices carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon and Syria on Tuesday
    Israel placed explosives inside thousands of pagers imported by Hezbollah months before Tuesday’s extraordinary attacks, according to sources cited by Reuters and US media. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose, but in any case please take care when participating in Israel based discussions to be mindful of WP:NPOV, as your user page could suggest that you have a strong vested interest. I believe this would be a reckless edit in any case. If Israel is the perpetrator to comment on their intent is completely unknown. AllPurposeScientist 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support There are other pages that include both the attacker and target's identities, as shown above. Plus, in doing so, all the concerns raised elsewhere in the RM about who was the attacker vs the target would be solved. Arcturus95 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a comparison, even in terrorist attacks where known terrorist organizations claimed responsibilities, we never mention their names in the title. While the incident is clearly different, I think the same principle applies.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose 'sabotage' - Sabotage would be if they made the pagers and walkie talkies stop working. When you make a device like that explode, that's a booby trap, not sabotage. Neutral on the principle of including 'Israel' in the title; MSM is all more or less reporting that Israel is behind the attack or widely believed to be (also, it's kind of obvious that they are, even if they never admit it). Levivich (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure the NYT agrees with you here. nableezy - 16:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    Journalists 🙄 NYT isn't the only one making this obvious mistake, either. If enough of them make it, it'll become "consensus of RS." But mark my words: "sabotage" is not the right word to describe booby trapping, and some day, the NYT and the rest will learn this. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's actually a meaningful distinction (in my view). "Sabotage" is the right word if we want to say that the purpose of putting explosives into personal communications devices was to impede communications. "Booby trap" is the right word if we want to say the purpose was to kill or injure people. Levivich (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unnecessary complication to title, if there were more than one group of pager explosions, then I could see the argument. poketape (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Multiple other pages describe the attacker in the title, and this would follow that precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewishIdeas (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)  WP:ARBECR Awesome Aasim 22:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nableezy. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support including Israeli - per nableezy and Arcturus95. Israel not taking responsability for anything as usual doesn't mean we can ignore the multiple RS rightly pointing them as the perpetrator. We already have articles where the attacker is named, regardless of whether they admit to their authorship or not. I don't really like the term "sabotage" - it generally means intentionally damaging or interfering with a device to stop it from functioning properly. I would prefer using "attacks" or similar terms that clearly indicate intent to harm or kill. - Ïvana (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Needlessly complex. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – Here we go again into the world of NPOV. The problem is not that Israel is in the title, since it is almost certain they carried out the operation. The problem is the word sabotage, which can mean anything. The specific nature of the incident needs to be included in the title, whether its pagers, communications devices, or electronics, but something about the method must be in the title. The best title would be "Israeli surprise precision attack against Hezbollah using pagers and other electronic devices." But of course that is too long. But please, sabotage is not the way to go. DaringDonna (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose sabotage, support attacks, ambivalent to Israeli. On the one hand, Israeli attacks is accurate, as far as we currently know, but WP:NCWWW means we should go with when (2024), where (Lebanon) and what (pager/electronics attacks), not who (Hezbollah or Israel) or how (explosions, sabotage). This also has the benefit of being immediately recognisable and being as close to a WP:COMMONNAME (as per recent RSes) as we're likely to get. So, it should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks, though I would settle for 2024 Lebanon pager attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not WP:CONCISE. Unnecessary lead detail, and the wording makes assumptions that are not clearly established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose unnecessary and confusing, and potentially ambiguous. Andre🚐 06:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- sabotage is definitionally the wrong word to apply here for a supply chain explosive attack. ⇒SWATJester 17:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Is there a reason there is no RMCD hatnote on the article page? jnestorius 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The User:RMCD bot must have broke. @Wbm1058? Fix? Or maybe someone can add the tag manually. Awesome Aasim 11:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
?! Edit failed due to a recent RMCD bot edit (0RR) is what I saw on my bot's console. Sorry, imposed a 0RR restriction on the bot to mitigate possible edit warring, and did not anticipate that a new RM would open within four hours of the close of another. If you had waited 24 hours to open the new RM, the bot would have been fine with it. My bot hasn't yet found the intelligence to distinguish between its short-term edits to two different requested moves on the same page. Frankly, the whole world is watching this one; I don't think an article notice is really necessary to draw more participation. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
IMO the hatnote serves not merely to invite editors to participate in the debate, but also to alert non-editors that the current title may not reflect a settled consensus of editors. jnestorius 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I raised the bot's edit limit for posting in subject-space from 0RR to 1RR. Hopefully will mitigate this issue in the future. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I have not seen an RFC before that has been divided into multiple sections with separate votes. Is this proper practice? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This is not an RFC; this is an RM. Sdkb suggested subsections for each part of the title, so I just did that. I don't find anything unusual about this, it helps a lot with discussion organization for complex and contentious article title discussions. If this was cut and dry then the proposed title would have been speedy moved in the last RM discussion. Awesome Aasim 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I still haven't seen an RM doing these subdivisions for each word in the move. But anyway, I will participate in the move discussion tomorrow, if no other editor finds this also unconventional other than myself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is effectively several move requests wrapped into one and seems like an inevitable WP:TRAINWRECK for that reason.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The trainwreck was the previous move request from Sept 17, which could not reach a consensus, other than the article needs to be renamed. In this format, in which the questions on how to rename is broken down into simple questions, it'll be possible to reach a consensus. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think the terms of the RM are too broad and we should have done it one title change at a time. E.g., I would have started with a proposed change to 2024 Lebanon pager attack first, then one for electronics, and so on. Alternatively, we should just have asked everyone to give their preferred title and any compromise titles they'd also accept and just gone with that. With multiple discussions each on one or two words in the title, you run the risk of the final title being nonsense like Israeli sabotage attacks Hezbollah devices attacks (to give one example). Lewisguile (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's also impossible to know if we should keep the year or remove it without knowing what the rest of the title will be. For example, I support the title Pager and walkie-talkie attacks, so I voted for removing the year. But many other titles are too broad without the year. FunLater (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair point. And trying to assess consensus
ll be a nightmare. I've tried to re-edit my !votes to clarify which options I'd like in every answer, but not everyone has done that.i
Lewisguile (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I like this format for a potential RM/name change with several potential permutations of possibilities. It allows us to quickly see where there is or is not consensus and in theory we should be able to make at least gradual improvements to the article's name. It's also much easier to figure out than a million "Option 1, Option 2, etc." variations. ⇒SWATJester 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

Can someone get a courtesy ping for this? I think it would be very helpful. I wish there was an automated way for this. Awesome Aasim 00:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging editors who commented in the previous WP:RM, but have yet to comment in this WP:RM.
MathKnight, Eastwood Park and strabane, Nice4What, Whizkin, Thuresson, RisingTzar, Makeandtoss, Kowal2701, मल्ल, DaringDonna, David O. Johnson, Mk17b, Borgenland, Pilaz, Spilia4, Hogo-2020, Mhhossein, Nishidani, Oathed, Martinevans123
Apologies if I missed anybody. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy ping, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I do not think the name of the article is that overwhelmingly important, as long as it is neutral and can be found easily by someone looking for it. Also, it looks like the RM is closed anyway. If you cant figure it out, 2024 Lebanon pager explosions seems just fine. DaringDonna (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The previous RM closed w/o a consensus. In lieu of the RM that closed, a new RM was opened in which the question of how to rename was broken into smaller questions. If you'd like to participate in the new RM you can. If you don't that's fine. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, but I don't see this new "trainwreck" of an RM. Help please so I can add my useless opinion, maybe. DaringDonna (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. DaringDonna (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Telecommunications, WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Computer Security, WikiProject Explosives, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, and WikiProject Israel have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request regarding booby traps

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request follows up and should resolve the discussion in Discrepancy_regarding_quote_regarding_legality_of_booby_traps.

In place of the paragraph,

"Booby traps are mostly outlawed under the Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices ("Amended Protocol II") of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which Israel is a party. Article 7.2 of Amended Protocol II prohibits the use of "booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material."

Substitute:

The use of booby traps is heavily restricted by the Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices ("Amended Protocol II") of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Article 7.2 of Amended Protocol II prohibits the use of "booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material", deleting a qualification from the earlier 1980 protocol which limited this prohibition to devices designed "to detonate when it is disturbed or approached" . "Booby traps" and "other devices" are both defined terms within the protocol; technically, timed or remotely-triggered devices such as the exploding pagers are classed as "other devices". Israel is party to both versions of the treaty, albeit with a reservation limiting the scope of its commitment "to all armed conflicts involving regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the General Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949".

Suitably formatting the following citations:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/05/19960503%2001-38%20AM/Ch_XXVI_02_bp.pdf (1996 treaty)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1983/12/19831202%2001-19%20AM/Ch_XXVI_02p.pdf (1980 treaty)

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2&chapter=26&clang=_en#EndDec (Israeli reservations to the 1980 treaty)

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2-b&chapter=26&clang=_en (1996 reservations including a reaffirmation of their reservation as to the scope of Article 1) Dfranke (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages content should be based primarily on secondary sources rather than editor summaries or interpretations of primary sources. The secondary sources, like the NYT, decide which parts of the primary sources are pertinent to the topic and our role is to summarize their coverage. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable secondary sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

add relation to hezbola

change "The first wave of explosions occurred on 17 September, around 15:30 EEST, killing at least 12 people, including two Hezbollah members and two children"

to "The first wave of explosions occurred on 17 September, around 15:30 EEST, killing at least 12 people, including two Hezbollah members and two children, One of them was the son of a Hezbollah member in Parliament"

the source quoted in the article support that information:

https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-hezbollah-israel-exploding-pagers-8893a09816410959b6fe94aec124461b 109.64.42.68 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Why? Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
because that's what the RS sources says 109.64.42.68 (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

WP casualty numbers inconsistency

I just removed a number that wasn't very clear from the lede. At present, the article breaks down the casualties as 2,750 from one attack and 750 from the other. These seem to be well sourced. There was another statement saying:

"It is estimated that up to 3,000 Hezbollah officers and members were killed or injured, along with an unspecified number of civilians."

This is source to the WP here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/05/israel-mossad-hezbollah-pagers-nasrallah/

That source specifically attributes these casualties to the pager attacks, not the walkie talkie attacks, whereas the wording I removed suggests it could have been across both. I've looked for the same number in other sources, but Reuters and the BBC both differ.

The BBC says: "...this week thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah blew up in Lebanon, killing at least 32 people and injuring more than 3,000." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyl9048gx8t (This implies 3,000 people across both attacks. No mention of most or all being Hezbollah.)

Reuters says: "The operation was an unprecedented Hezbollah security breach that saw thousands of pagers detonate across Lebanon, killing nine people and wounding nearly 3,000 others, including the group's fighters and Iran's envoy to Beirut." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-planted-explosives-hezbollahs-taiwan-made-pagers-say-sources-2024-09-18/ (This implies 3,000 people in only the pager attacks, and is also indifferent on the proportion of Hezbollah members and civilians.)

A previous figure of 1,500 was cited in the article for Hezbollah members specifically, but this was (IIRC) attributed to an unnamed Hezbollah source.

Anyone able to help clarify these numbers? Or should we just leave the 3,000 out for now? The more detailed numbers given earlier in the lede make way more sense and are more widely used, as far as I can see. Lewisguile (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging PeleYoetz as it seems to be their edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
As per WP:NORUSH, it may be worth parking this until we get a clearer figure anyway. That's what we did when media published contradictory numbers for those displaced as a result of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The numbers of 2,750 and 750 seem specific enough for now, and are more widely used at present. Lewisguile (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. There are multiple versions at this point, so perhaps we should wait until the fogs clears and there are more consistent estimates for the impact on Hezbollah's forces. PeleYoetz (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

PeleYoetz, can you explain this revert, as your edit summary is unclear. It seems many scholars have raised concern about at least some Hezbollah members being civilians and we have 2 subsections about this in the article, so a brief mention in the lead is warranted.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote, I don't think that was an improvement, I thought the previous wording - mentioning a dispute, a controversy, a debate, was more neutral when it comes to objective encyclopedic presentation. PeleYoetz (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: