Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes

"unprovoked"

@Galamore, you added that Hezbollah made "unprovoked" attack on Israel[1]. But this is quite POV language. Already on Oct 7 Israel had begun Israeli bombing of Gaza. Already on October 7, there were reports that Israel had killed 413 Palestinians, including 78 children[2]. On Oct 9, Al-Jazeera described Hezbollah's reasons as "solidarity with the Palestinians" and also pointed out that Hezbollah's fire was on Israeli soldiers occupying Shebaa farms (either occupied Lebanese or occupied Syrian territory).

Attacking soldiers occupying foreign territory, and part of an army that has just killed 78 children, is hardly "unprovoked".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, and a day later, Hezbollah decided to join in support, even though Israel hadn't attacked them. That's the definition of an unprovoked attack Galamore (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the Al-Jazeera article? Before October 8 strikes by Hezbollah, Israel had killed 413 Palestinians and 78 children. Israel was also occupying Palestinian, Syrian, and possibly Lebanese territory.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's grossly inflating the number by double. You're mistaking "motive" for "provocation." "Provoked" has an established meaning in military and historical contexts. If New Zealand suddenly fired a bunch of missiles at Fulani villages in northern Nigeria over the Boko Haram attacks, that would have a motive but it wouldn't be called provoked unless Boko Haram attacked New Zealand first. It might be the right thing to do, but it would still be "unprovoked." It's important to be precise with language, and it is accurate to say that Hezbollah's attacks were "unprovoked" because it communicates that Israel did not fire at Hezbollah first, which is important information. Also, please refrain from using biased state media like Al Jazeera. --Scharb (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Scharb, there is very strong community consensus that AJ is a reliable source. It's true that Israel didn't attack Hezbollah first, but also clear that Israel had killed Palestinians (including children) by the time Hezbollah did attack. Should we make both of those clear? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• If there is any mention of child deaths it should only be done so if we mention such deaths among both Palestinians and the Israelis, remembering that the initial attacks made by Hamas and Hezbollah were simply aimed at a civilian population for the purposes of effecting terror among the Israeli populace. Israel, otoh, has targeted objectives that involved terrorists and their supplies of weapons, which they typically hide in schools and hospitals and civilian homes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  We're getting off topic here, folks. If we state Israel's motives for attack, we should probably also state Hezbollah's. The other article has some decent wording for this, so that's probably a good place to start. Lewisguile (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The intention here was to simply emphasize that "civilian deaths", esp those that involve children, are an unfortunate part of war and that any such mention should be done so with the context outlined above. To simply state that the Israeli airstrikes killed civilians, children, without this context would certainly invoke serious POV and neutrality issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with stating deaths, including those of children, on both sides.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if there is precedent for an attack on an ally being considered provocation, if we consider Hezbollah an ally of Hamas and other groups in Gaza, would coming to their defense when Israel started bombing Gaza be classified as unprovoked? and in that case are the attacks by the US and UK on Yemen to defend Israel for example be unprovoked as well? Tashmetu (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is. See: the first half of the 20th century. Lewisguile (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt any of the Wikipedia articles for WWII refer to any belligerent entering the war as "unprovoked" though I did just check the article on the strikes on Yemen by the US and UK and it doesn't say it's unprovoked, the blokade of the red sea, which is far away from the US is considered reason enough. I worry there is a double standard particularly for US interventionism, in many cases (that aren't the big wars people condemn) the US will airstrike another country in the name of intervention but we never call it unprovoked even if the other country didn't attack the US first. Tashmetu (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that yes, attack of an ally can and has been considered provocation in the past. I'm definitely not arguing the opposite.

Lewisguile (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't sure thanks for clarifying, and I made a mistake too, I meant to say WWI but wrote WWII by mistake. The former is a better example of an alliance system working as a provocation. Tashmetu (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all. I realised after I posted that you had actually asked multiple questions, so saying "yes" wasn't actually helpful. I was thinking specifically of WWI, too. Lewisguile (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

More background issues

The background should state Hezbollah's stated reasons for attacking Israel, namely solidarity with Palestinians and offer of ceasefire if Israel stops attacking Gaza. Also don't agree with this one massive edit. Finally, we can't state that all of Hezbollah attacks have been inside Israel, that's an NPOV violation. Some of Hezbollah attacks, have been in Shebaa Farms or Golan Heights which is occupied territory that is not internationally recognized as a part of Israel.

NPR says "If there is a ceasefire in Gaza, we will stop without any discussion," Hezbollah's deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Kassem, said in an interview with The Associated Press at the group's political office in Beirut's southern suburbs.[3]. That article, written in July, also points out that that 37,900 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's invasion. This is probably the most salient aspect of the Israel-Hamas war. Other RS have also mentioned the Palestinian death toll when mentioning Hezbollah's rationale for fighting. For example: Hezbollah says its attacks aim to support the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where nearly 18,000 people – most of them women and children – have been killed by Israel in two months. Al Jazeera Dec 2023 A war between the militant Palestinian group and Israeli forces that so far has killed more than 19,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to Gaza's health ministry. Israel says about 1,200 people were killed in the Oct. 7 attack. After the Gaza war started, Hezbollah responded by attacking Israeli targets in northern Israel. NPR December 2023 Indeed, in a BBC interview, Hezbollah's deputy leader has referred to "Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children" as his rationale for fighting.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi VR, what didn't you like about that one big edit? I've gone through and can see most of the changes were formatting-related. In the meantime, I have restored both Hezbollah's cited reasons for joining the war (though I don't think the direct quote is justified based on the RSes provided, so have paraphrased) and have added the impact of the war on Lebanon, since that's clearly relevant and establishes the article's notability. All the other elements that appeared to have been deleted in the large edit you linked were actually just moved, as far as I can see, and are still there.

If your concerns are met with this, would you be happy to remove the neutrality tag? Otherwise, I'm happy to continue the discussion. Lewisguile (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, but my concerns are not yet met. If we're going to mention the October 7 attacks, we should also mention the Israeli attacks on Gaza, which have killed 40,000 people. If you see above, we do have RS that connect this to Hezbollah's motivation.

Secondly, we really should mention that Hezbollah has repeatedly offered Israel a ceasefire if it were to stop attacking Gaza, where again Hezbollah's leaders have cited the killing of women and children as their motivation for attacking Israel.

I don't think we should be taking sides, and mentioning both the Israeli and Hezbollah POVs.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I see those in the first sentence of the second paragraph in Background. @Vice regent are your concerns still not met? Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with VR about the Hamas attack, why not then the invasion of Gaza? Hez says they going to keep it up until there is a ceasefire. It all started on October 7 is Israeli propaganda. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As of this revision, it looks good to me. If no one else objects we can remove the tag.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent I think you're good to. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If it still needs fixing, we could use this, if others agree:

"On 8 October 2023, a day after Hamas launched its 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel and Israel began its retaliatory attacks on Gaza..."

Or even:

"On 8 October 2023, a day after the start of the Israel–Hamas war..."

We lose some of that context, but the links are right there for anyone who needs it. Lewisguile (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would tweak your top version to: "On 8 October 2023, a day after Hamas launched its 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel and Israel began its bombing of Gaza"21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC) VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would personally be okay with that, since the linked article is Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip. My only concern would be using different language for the two attacks, which might seem POV. That said, the articles already do use different terms in their titles, so people probably can't complain. Lewisguile (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to the WP article on invasion of Gaza. Read the second paragraph in Background. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all OK now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Also adding hare for convenience:

Another option is to use the following as per my latest edit to the Hezbollah HQ strikes article:

"A day after Hamas launched its 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel and Israel began bombing Gaza, Hezbollah joined the conflict, claiming solidarity with Palestine. Since then, Hezbollah and Israel have been involved in cross-border military exchanges that have displaced entire communities in Israel and Lebanon, with significant damage to buildings and land along the border." Refs as per 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Background. Lewisguile (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

I put the POV tag because of two outstanding discussions on the talk page:

• #More_background_issues - the background currently only states the Israeli POV not the Hezbollah POV. Either it should state both or none, and sources certainly indicate that Hezbollah's POV has received coverage from secondary RS to merit a mention
• #Israel's aims in the ledeThe lead features the Netanyahu's reactions very prominently, and no one else's reactions. It doesn't feature the Lebanese PM's reactions, or Hezbollah's, or the UN's or the Arab World's. That's also an UNDUE weight issue.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to fix these issues, which were reverted by @EnfantDeLaVille: claiming "consensus in edit history and talk page". [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page, and I notice others have too. I hope they engage on this talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead should show the operation's purposes (as many editors have agreed on this talk page) and the Lebanese reactions. I don't see why you removed them. I thought every operation on WIkipedia mentions the purposes on the lead? EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you citing any specific policy, @EnfantDeLaVille? I think putting Israel's aims in the lede probably requires adding Hezbollah's, too, as this is a contentious topic and we need to work harder than usual to maintain WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Lewisguile (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead should feature (a) Israel objectives (b) Hezbollah's view (c) Lebanon's legitimate government's views EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, necessarily. To be on the safe side, you might want to suggest some wording here first? That way, we can at least show consensus for it. We will need to strike a fine balance, I think, since any attempt at balance is always bound to look biased to someone. But I'm happy to offer my thoughts and help you come up with a suitable paragraph. Lewisguile (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and made comprehensive edits for NPOV and WP:SPADE. I think the Background section should be much better now (mainly taking out most of the Israeli accusations against Hezbollah re: UNSCR 1701). It still needs work, but isn't quite as egregious. I've also harmonised the way the article talks about attacks—they're now called attacks on both sides, not strikes. Lewisguile (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 on "they're now called attacks on both sides, not strikes." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well someone ended changing half of them back to strikes, so I ended up switching some of the Hezbollah attacks to strikes to match instead. I'd much prefer attacks for both, though, with "strikes" only if attack would otherwise appear twice in the same sentence.

The edit summary implied "strikes" was more neutral, but that seems inherently problematic unless we call everyone's attacks "strikes" (it's a form of false balance, where we are more cautious about some combatants than others).

Can we get some clarity on what WP considers the more neutral here? My instinct is that "strikes" is only used for certain countries (i.e., those the writer/speaker approves of), and that "attacks" is far more common for the rest (those they disapprove of), and that this is something we should address per WP:CSB. Moreover, WP:SPADE means we should avoid euphemisms. Lewisguile (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe we might be able to remove the tag now? It's looking quite good at the moment. Lewisguile (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There has been a substantial revision of the lead courtesy of @FunLater.

@Vice regent @Nythar Are your issues resolved?

@Makeandtoss Is your issue in #Lede POV resolved? Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede seems fine to me now that the unnecessary claim of human shields has been moved south and more details about the actual consequences of the attacks in Lebanon have been added. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A bit better, still needs work. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you think should be changed to make it satisfactory, @Makeandtoss? Lewisguile (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily POV-wise but a few improvements can be made. Opening paragraph should be general so the mention of pagers attack and Radwan strike should not be there. Also the strikes are deadliest since Israel’s war in 2006, not the Lebanese civil war, since these are of different contexts.

Also, there is a problem in chronology. Second lede paragraph should contain all the chronological events, while the third lede paragraph should be kept exclusively for international reactions and regional repercussions. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you make some edits yourself? We can always discuss them afterwards. But it seems the quickest way to get it to a standard you're happy with. Lewisguile (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already made a few and they were reverted, that’s why I am here. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So then let's draft it here first. How about this:

"On 23 September 2024, Israel began a series of airstrikes in Lebanon as part of the ongoing Israel–Hezbollah conflict with an operation it code-named Northern Arrows. Since then, Israel's attacks have killed over 700 people, injured more than 5,000, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians.

The attacks are the deadliest in Lebanon since the 2006 Israel–Lebanon war. The deadliest day was 23 September, when Israeli attacks killed 558 people, including 50 children and 94 women. Additionally, Israel hit 14 ambulances and fire engines, killing four emergency responders and wounding 16 other medics. The attacks caused chaos among Lebanese civilians, forming traffic jams as they attempted to flee. Hundreds of schools were converted into shelters, where NGOs and volunteers worked to meet the needs of the displaced, as the Lebanese government struggled to provide adequate support. More than 50,000 people fled from Lebanon to Syria.

A US Department of State official said the US did not see Israel's reported strategy of "escalate to de-escalate" as being effective. Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati called the attacks a "war of extermination" and accused Israel of trying to destroy Lebanese villages and towns. Governments and human rights organizations have called for de-escalation. Israel has rejected these calls and have said that they will continue the attacks. On 27 September 2024, Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, who was the secretary-general of Hezbollah." Lewisguile (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Number displaced

There's a possible discrepancy between the lead which states that 90,000 have been displaced (per AJ) and a line in Attacks/Lebanon/25 September which has Lebanon's FM stating that 500,000 have been displaced. Other RS confirm that Lebanon's FM stated 500,000 have been displaced. However, in a Sky News video with him the Health Minister (apologies, not the FM), he seems to be saying that 500,000 could be displaced if the war continues at the current rate.

I'm wondering if I should change the 90,000 number to 500,000 in the lead or add the Sky News source to the 500,000 number to clarify it. Or do nothing. I'm not sure.

References

Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the Sky News clip is a bit ambiguous. It seems to me he's saying it's an estimate based on the numbers in shelters now. Then there's an edit, and he says if things continue as they are the healthcare system will be overrun. Then he says things could get "even more" catastrophic than they are now if things continue.

I think the problem is he says "will easily reach 500,000", but I think he means "were we to count everyone, the number will reach that amount" (not that it needs time to reach that amount). If that makes sense? But it's ambiguous enough that I would wait till morning. Here's what the media and others are currently saying:

Amnesty says 500,000 displaced: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/lebanon-israel-fears-for-safety-of-civilians-grow-as-devastating-death-toll-in-lebanon-continues-to-rise/

Al Jazeera says the same: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/25/israel-is-repeating-its-gaza-assault-in-lebanon-why

ABC News says it, but attributes it to the minister: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-25/idf-says-killed-hezbollah-commander-lebanon-says-us-can-help/104392346

Irish Times says it: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2024/09/25/lebanon-scrambles-to-accommodate-those-displaced-by-israeli-air-strikes/

NBC says it's approaching half a million: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hezbollah-live-updates-lebanon-gaza-war-rcna172605

AP News said 90,000 earlier today (with 200,000 since 8 October 2023): https://apnews.com/live/lebanon-israel-strikes-hamas-war-updates

It may be that they've all run with the comments in the Sky News article and they've all misinterpreted it, but it may just be that Sky has the scoop. I think let's see if AP News updates overnight, or if there's any correction/wider reporting in the morning. Lewisguile (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

On a relisten I think your interpretation is correct actually. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is now saying 500,000, too, although it's saying this is inclusive of 110,000 displaced since 8 October 2023: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/sep/25/middle-east-crisis-live-lebanon-says-only-us-can-end-war-as-israel-launches-new-attacks-on-countrys-south?page=with:block-66f3a0b48f08d264e8b29f54#block-66f3a0b48f08d264e8b29f54

Sky News now says "approaching 500,000", which clarifies yesterday's slightly ambiguous statement: https://news.sky.com/story/were-already-at-war-lebanese-minister-says-as-he-warns-of-catastrophic-number-of-casualties-from-israeli-airstrikes-13221832

And NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/25/world/israel-gaza-hamas-hezbollah

I think that's probably enough to go on now, but I'm a little bit unsure if the number is for all targets or the Israel–Hezbollah conflict since 2023 or just for these airstrikes? What do others think? Lewisguile (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for going though these. It's a bit infuriating that RS isn't clarifying this, especially with The Guardian throwing in a wrench with 110,000 from before being included. But I think it's justified to use the 500,000 number in the lead citing NYT ("and have displaced close to 500,000 Lebanese civilians"), as that's what most RS are saying. It's definitely not 90,000 anymore, anyways. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC says it's 90,000 + 110,000 since 7 October 2024, for 200,000 total: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c981g8mrl8lt?post=asset%3A41ddba54-a52f-4095-98bc-b54b9e315547#post Lewisguile (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all a bit confusing. I'm personally not comfortable putting it in place of the 90,000 number, but I guess you could put a note? If there's reasonable uncertainty, that might be the best way to do so. Lewisguile (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Actual number of displaced people likely 250,000: Lebanon minister" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/26/israel-attacks-lebanon-live-72-killed-in-latest-wave-of-israeli-attacks FunLater (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

So that's another number entirely. Hmmm. I think we are best off waiting until we get some kind of consensus among the media about how many it actually is? 200,000 from BBC, 250,000 from AJ, but AJ and a bunch of others earlier said 500,000. Lewisguile (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this article should say "hundreds of thousands". FunLater (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added a note to explain the range, with nested refs to the BBC and Sky News. Lewisguile (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. :) FunLater (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ynet cites Reuters saying it's now approaching 1 million: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hy2hmkl0r

Can anyone back that up? I couldn't find it. Lewisguile (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Request re: POV tag

If editors here are able to resolve POV issues and remove the POV tag on the article in the next few days or so, please let us know at WP:ERRORS. I pulled this article from "In the News" on the main page due to this quality issue, and it can (probably) be restored once that's addressed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, thank you for your message, can you be more specific about what 'quality issues' you think there are and where they are in the article? Specific paragraphs would be very helpful. Without this information it will be hard to address them. I don't know if ITN has some kind of sub page template thing where you list them already? I don't know much about how it works. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No, lol. Someone else thinks there are quality issues, hence the tag. If you're looking to solve issues, I would start with the sections here that have POV in the heading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that it was someone else who raised these issues, I assumed it was you since you wrote the message here and pulled it out of the queue. You might not be aware but the Universal Code of Conduct applies to Wikipedia now. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Implying that one editor is a bad citizen and that yourself is a good citizen...not cool. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings, work on the article so that the POV tag can be removed. Once it's gone and there's consensus that it's no longer needed, say so at WP:ERRORS. Schwede66 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Schwede66 thank you for explaining the process. John Cummings (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers@John Cummings@Schwede66@Selfstudier. I just removed what seems to be the last POV tag. Let me know if there any other POV issues.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Target in infobox

The infobox states that the target of these attacks was Hezbollah. It offers no qualifications that it is in fact an Israeli claim that the raids targeted Hezbollah positions. Whereas several civilian targets were hit (residential buildings, hospitals, ambulances, etc.), one cannot reasonably simply say the target is Hezbollah (regardless of whether any members of the organization, be there civilian or militant, were linked to those targets). With so many targets, it's hard to summarize it in one word, so maybe it's better to remove it altogether. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't about raids, it's about airstrikes and shelling. Has there ever been an Infobox military operation describing a situation where group A says they are targeting group B, and group B confirms many casualties, and we didn't say group B was the target? Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We should either mention both Israeli and Lebanese POVs, with attribution, or neither. For example, "Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati yesterday slammed the ongoing Israeli “war of extermination” on villages and towns in southern Lebanon."[5] So from a Lebanese government perspective, Lebanon itself is the target. Of course, Israel would deny that. But we shouldn't be taking sides.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not symmetrical. Israeli POV = targeting Hezbollah; not targeting Lebanon. Lebanese POV = targeting Hezbollah; targeting Lebanon. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So I'd propose under targets writing:

• Hezbollah facilities
• Lebanese towns and villages (per Lebanon, denied by Israel)

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, that in 2006, targeting Lebanese residential areas was actual Israeli policy that many IDF officials wrote in detail about. So given the Gaza genocide, Lebanese claims are not implausible.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind that. I'd prefer:

• Hezbollah

and

• Lebanese civilians (per Lebanon, denied by Israel)

or

• Lebanese civilian infrastructure (per Lebanon, denied by Israel)

The Israeli claim is that Hezbollah is hiding munitions in civilian homes, not really that those homes are dedicated Hezbollah facilities. I don't like "towns and villages" because I'm sure Lebanon acknowledges that cities have been targeted too. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd also prefer:

• Hezbollah

and

• Lebanese civilians (per Lebanon, denied by Israel)

That avoids the clunkiness of "towns and villages" (which may also be incorrect). Have made that change for now. Feel free to modify if someone comes up with something better. Lewisguile (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It could also just be Lebanon, since that removes the need to state civilians, infrastructure, or towns and villages. Lewisguile (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx you can join the discussion here. I will have to check when I get to a computer, but I'm pretty sure the AJ source will include the "war is not with you; it's with Hezbollah" line from Netanyahu (AKA a denial of Lebanon's position). @Lewisguile if you can find this and add it to the infobox if it's not already there, I'd appreciate it. Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hah, I didn't realize that you were already in the discussion. Sorry about that. You can reply to my response in the other thread if you wish. Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any claims about any targets others than Hezbollah? That quote doesn't say target.

In general, only the party who ordered a strike truly knows the target. Other parties' claims about targeting tend to be speculative in nature, so I think such claims generally aren't credible and shouldn't be covered, unless there's some kind of credible argument for why other parties believe the target was different. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Lebanon's position is that Israel is intending to, and is actually, attacking Lebanese civilian infrastructure in this operation. I don't see why the word target needs specifically to be used. Lebanon thinks that Israel is being dishonest with their intentions. Is it a WP rule that we favor the attacking party in listing the target? That seems to imply that a false pretext isn't possible. It seems better to me NPOV-wise to include both states positions. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator: paraphrasing is allowed, but this goes beyond that. Vague remarks about attacks against "villages and towns" do not really imply anything about targeting (warfare). To read this as implying that the target was "villages and towns", and not something more specific therein, would at least involve reading between the lines, and would fail the directness aspect of our verifiability policy. Reading that Netanyahu quote as a denial of a targeting claim is problematic for similar reasons.

There's no genuine NPOV issue here because there's no actual controversy - no reliable sources are actually denying that the strikes targeted Hezbollah. Even if we were to find such a claim, there would need to be some kind of substantiation behind it (such as an IDF command leak), rather than mere speculation, for it to be a genuine controversy where two opposing viewpoints should be represented. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"no reliable sources are actually denying that the strikes targeted Hezbollah" - We know; we aren't trying to remove Hezbollah as a target. See my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_2024_Lebanon_strikes#c-Bitspectator-20240927020900-Vice_regent-20240927014700

I think we should have the perspective of both states on principle, but to talk specifically about this example, have you heard of the Dahiya doctrine? It was a doctrine codified by the IDF where they target civilian infrastructure. They admitted this. That was the doctrine the last time they bombed Lebanon like they are now. That's [part of] Lebanon's position of what's happening now. The doctrine is named after the Dahiya neighbourhood, which is currently being bombed.

In light of this to portray the Lebanese stated position as being so farfetched that we can dismiss it out of hand and only give the Israeli perspective is just insane. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue remains that we don't have a proper source for the perspective you're referring to. Targeting (warfare) has a meaning which differs in important ways from the meaning of other words like attacking, waging war, etc. A proper source for a statement about targeting should probably use the word "target"; paraphrasing is allowed but those other words aren't similar enough in meaning.

Your point about Dahiya doctrine is interesting, but at best it might add credibility to a (hypothetical) future source making explicit claims about targeting. As it stands, the content you restored clearly fails the directness aspect of our verifiability policy, and I think you should self-revert unless a suitable source can quickly be added. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think most people would understand "targeting" in its common rather than technical usage, but there's an argument for precision in the infobox.

I also see the argument that what one side claims is the target isn't necessarily true, and so the other side's views may also be relevant. RSes certainly have noted destruction to civilian infrastructure.

A suggested alternative to the current wording was "Lebanese civilian infrastructure" rather than "Lebanese civilians". That may be less objectionable? Lewisguile (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the Wiki page for targeting that creates a technical definition that meaningfully differs from the way the word is typically used in English, or that demands that the word "target" specifically be used. I don't see anything there that makes the argument you're making. The page is also mostly unsourced. Your position is that if Israel said of an airstrike only "the purpose of XYZ airstrike was to kill a top Hezbollah commander there", it would be unacceptable to describe the XYZ airstrike as targeting Hezbollah per Israel? I'm sorry, I don't agree with you at all. That seems obviously incorrect. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's a technical definition of "target" which differs from the usual one. Under any reasonable definition, the target of a strike is the entity that the commander ordering the strike sought to harm. So if a command is given to strike a soldier, and he happens to be in a cafe at the time, the target was the soldier, not the cafe.

Now, it's possible to make an argument that the strike actually targeted the cafe, and maybe a soldier just happened to be there. Or maybe the commander knew of the soldier, but also wanted to damage the cafe. Such an argument could be made based on the type of munition selected, or based on leaked command communications, for example.

But noone is making such an argument here. Even if we were fine with covering unfounded speculation about targeting, with no evidence or reasoning behind it, the source isn't even (explicitly) speculating about targeting.

There are quite a few issues with the current sourcing:

1. It's not a statement about targeting, at least not without reading between the lines. WP:V restricts us to covering what sources say clearly and explicitly, not their subtexts.
2. No mention of civilians. Even a (hypothetical) town being carpet bombed wouldn't necessarily imply that the target was civilians; other possible targets are military or economic infrastructure in the town.
3. The source also doesn't mention any substantive reasons for why Mikati believes whatever we're interpreting his statement to mean. We don't normally cover idle speculation, which isn't really be a "viewpoint" under NPOV.
4. No mention of an Israeli denial (and the Netanyahu quote wouldn't constitute one).
5. Mikati's remarks do not necessarily constitute an official Lebanese position; same for Netanyahu.
6. It's also a WP:PRIMARY source, so we would need a reliable secondary source for any interpretation (such as interpreting it as a statement about targeting, or about civilians, or as an official Lebanese position).

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's codified Israeli doctrine to target civilian infrastructure discussed at length by multiple (22) RS in the article I shared with you, Dahiya doctrine. I'm not going to engage in this any further. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your argument about Dahiya doctrine doesn't relate to the aforementioned issues with the source, which doesn't mention the doctrine. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your assumption that the Lebanese stated position is just "idle speculation" with "no evidence or reasoning behind it". The head of government of Lebanon might know something about Lebanon and what's happening in Lebanon. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that we shouldn't generally cover claims of this nature where the source offers no evidence or reasoning, even if we as editors can come up with our own original arguments for the claim. In any case I think the other points stand. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

When I brought up the Dahiya doctrine it was to respond to your assumption that the Lebanese POV is just "mere speculation". I argued that it could be more than mere speculation from the Lebanese POV per the history of the Dahiya doctrine. It isn't a NOR violation to respond to arguments editors make on a talk page. In any case, Hezbollah in the infobox is unsourced. Could you provide a source that has:

1. Evidence that the buildings hit were hit solely to target Hezbollah. This should be verifiable, and should be credible, and should be substantive.

2. Reasoning for why they know the buildings that they hit were indeed Hezbollah targets. This should be verifiable, and should be credible, and should be substantive.

and

3. Can't be construed as being the opinion of an individual.

and

4. Secondary interpretation of the statements that concludes that the Israeli stated position is honest (i.e. not withholding their actual targeting policy) and not speculative (i.e. incorrectly assuming the buildings had a Hezbollah presence).

The argument @Fjmustak was making was based on the apparent lack of this in a source. I disagreed with him and argued that we can describe the Israeli POV even without this. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't really how we do things - we don't prove statements to one another, or require sources to prove things, we only require that statements we include are backed by roughly equivalent statements from reliable, independent sources. Here are some statements from such sources about the targets -

• NYT: "Warplanes Target Hezbollah"; "bombed Hezbollah targets"; "targeted Ali Karaki"
• NPR: "targeted the leader of the militant group"
• AP: "blast targeting the militant group’s leader"
• CBS: "targeted the leaders of the militant group"
• ToI: "targeted the Hezbollah military headquarters"
• Reuteres: "target Hezbollah command"

Notice how these sources directly support the content, with no subtexts or any real interpretation involved, as our verifiability and NOR policies require.

So the statement that the strikes targeted Hezbollah is clearly verifiable. And since no reliable, independent sources are actually claiming that the targets included civilians or anything other than Hezbollah, there doesn't seem to be any genuine NPOV issue either.

With that said, I'm fine with including attribution (as in Hezbollah (per Israel) or similar), out of an abundance of caution, if it would mitigate any neutrality concerns. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Only the first quote of the first source is about the whole of the campaign this article is covering. The full line is "Israeli Strikes in Lebanon Kill Hundreds as Warplanes Target Hezbollah". This doesn't say the primary target of the whole campaign is Hezbollah. The headline would still be accurate if the primary target was Lebanese civilian infrastructure. For the record, I think that this is good enough. Please add if it's not there. I don't know why you'd say "per Israel" for this though. Bitspectator ⛩️ 05:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that no one is really disputing that Israel's targeting Hezbollah, its the targeting of Lebanese civilians that needs attribution in the infobox.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"Under any reasonable definition..."

Yes and no. If you want to assassinate someone but he's in a cafe, so you order an attack on the cafe, then the cafe might also, reasonably, be considered a target (since you're literally targeting it with the attack). Lewisguile (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the Lebanese PM was pretty clear with his "war of extermination" remark. Its hard to imagine that extermination (crime) being unrelated to targeting (warfare). He further said "the aggressor is claiming that they are only targeting combatants and weapons, but I assure you that the hospitals are full of civilians.” Further accusations of targeting have also come from:

• Egyptian Foreign Minister: "targeting innocent civilians in Lebanon."[6]
• Hezbollah: "a Hezbollah spokesman accused Israel of targeting civilians."[7]
• Witnesses in southern Lebanon: "We evacuated our homes because Israel is targeting civilians and attacking them.”[8]
• Researcher at Doha Institute for Graduate Studies: "The claim by Israeli officials that the army is not intentionally targeting civilians but instead carrying out precise strikes on Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon is “nonsense”".[9].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: "In general, only the party who ordered a strike truly knows the target". Hamas claims the target for the 2023 October 7 attacks were Israeli military and civilians were collateral damage. But the host authorities have provided evidence to the contrary. Its a similar case here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2024

• September 2024 Lebanon strikes → September 2024 Lebanon airstrikes
• August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes → August 2024 Israel–Lebanon airstrikes
• April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → April 2024 Iranian airstrikes against Israel
• October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → October 2024 Iranian airstrikes against Israel
• 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → 2024 Iranian airstrikes against Israel

– Per WP:PRECISION titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article - how can we reasonably say that "strikes is perfectly unambiguous? Are we supposed to believe that the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike was a military operation? Same for the 2022–present National Health Service strikes? "Airstrikes" is perfectly precise to accurately describe the nature of these attacks.For the first two nominations I would also support "... Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon". estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Edit: Please see the below comment by @JasonMacker: for an updated move request.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Missile attacks are probably better described as such rather than as "airstrikes" since those by definition involve aircraft. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Per Prima. Felicia (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Different opinions for different articles: The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • For the article April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel: Oppose "airstrikes", Support "missile and UAV strikes". My understanding of the word "airstrikes" is a fighter jet dropping bombs, which is not what happened. I believe "missile and UAV strikes" would the the WP:PRECISE description. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

    Could we not just simplify and go with "attack(s)" in all cases? This also makes it easier if multiple weapons/mode of attack were used. Lewisguile (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  • For the article October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel: Oppose "airstrikes", Support "missile strikes" (see above)
  • For the other articles under consideration: Support "airstrikes"

Soft Oppose. Airstrikes involve aircraft. Missiles were used in the attacks, not just aircraft. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I hadn't realized there was a distinction between airstrikes and missile attacks... I'm not opposed to any of the alternative suggestions provided above.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose.

Iran's statements about the attack have all been that it was about the assassination of the Hezbollah leaders, same as the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while in Tehran for the swearing in and under Iranian protection.

Iran's response has nothing to do with the Lebanon strikes themselves but on the insult taken and need to show a response to save face.

After this rocket attack, Iran will have proven the point that the death of their backed Hezbollah leaders will not go unpunished. Move the page will only contradict Iran's official statements for why they did this most recent aerial attack on Israel.

Al Jazeera article

RCSCott91 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Iran's official statements do not matter at all for our purposes. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Estar8806

Okay, You could go with what a ton of news outlets have called this most recent one, Ballistic Missile Attack.

You could individually name them based on what each one was being called in media at the time of the event.

iran-launched-ballistic-missile-attack-israel RCSCott91 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion in your above comment had nothing to do about this being a "missile attack", you were commenting about why Iran launched their attacks today. I agree that this was a missile attack, but Iran's official statements on "why" they launched an attack are completely irrelevant. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Please note that I have applied move protection for two weeks to the October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel article as it's currently on the main page. Only an admin, who can also attend to the resulting main page redirect, can move the article during that period. Ping me if you need admin support once this is settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwede66 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe some of these would more properly be called missile strikes, not airstrikes. I think strikes is fine. If anyone is confused as to whether or not there is a labor dispute involved, they can just read the first sentence of the article. Unbandito (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Airstrikes explicitly involve airplanes, these did not. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PrimaPrime@Felicia777@Professor Penguino@Unbandito@The Kip@BelowFlames would you all be amenable to the suggestions as proposed by @The Mountain of Eden (replacing "airstrikes", a term I was ill informed about its definition with "missile strikes")? Or would you be amenable to simply replacing "airstrikes" with "attacks"? We do have precedent for using "missile strikes", see 2024 missile strikes in Yemen, 15 March 2024 Odesa missile strikes. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Missile strikes works for me. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe "attacks"? I believe that both aircraft and missiles were used in September in Lebanon. I'd like to know what others think though. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  For the Iran-related articles I'd suggest following the format of 1991 Iraqi missile attacks against Israel.

  Since it's now October, September 2024 Lebanon strikes should presumably be looked at in the context of the burgeoning escalation of the low-level Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) into a full-scale 2024 Lebanon war. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Estar8806, as mentioned below, we should use "attacks" instead. That way we don't have to quibble about whether it was a manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft (drone), missile, loitering munition (is that a drone or a missile?) etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent I’m not opposed. I’m just not sure how the first two should be phrased: “September 2024 Lebanon attacks” is fine, but “September 2024 Israeli attacks against Lebanon” would likely be better. The August article is difficult as both sides exchanged attacks, and Lebanon there should be replaced by “Hezbollah” as the Lebanese state was not a belligerent. I do believe the three Iranian articles would be best served by “attacks”, and I’ll happily update the request to that effect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Second.is better but would settle for either. Lewisguile (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Missile Strikes And Attacks Both Work For Me. BelowFlames (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose - this is a ground attack. No evidence of surface-to-air attacks. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - would support something like October 2024 Iranian missile attacks against Israel DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Replace all "strikes" with "attacks". The nom is correct that "strike" is ambiguous. But "attack" is not, and both words are used interchangeably by news. In various other places, we've already replaced "strike(s)" with "attack(s)" (eg at 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Iran did not send aircrafts in its attack on Israel. - Hu753 (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: these were not airstrikes. Support this new name: 2024 Iranian missile strikes into Israel. Iran did not just launch 200 ballistic guided missiles randomly at the entirety of Israel, it launched them into specific targets in Israel, including airbases and Mossad HQ. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Change all to attacks per WP:CONCISE while still being WP:PRECISE. Most lay people won't know or care about the technical distinction between "airstrike", "missile strike" or "rocket strike", etc. This also saves us from having to litigate the language for every single article, avoids the imprecision of "strikes", avoids complexity if multiple types of attack are used, and heads off any NPOV if we call one side's attacks "strikes" and another's something else. Lewisguile (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  +1.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all, with caveats The fatal flaw of the requester is not knowing that airstrikes refer specifically to attacks done by aircraft. However, there is still the problem of the word "strike" itself, which, as the disambiguation page Strike explains, is a word that has a lot of different uses. But honing in specifically on military strike, it is woefully inadequate. It seems to provide a definition within the context of US military usage. Specifically, it says it's a term used for military operations other than war (MOOTW). This usage is not common, as the overwhelming consensus of most scholars is that the United States has engaged in armed conflicts best described as "war(s)" since 1945, even if technically there have been no formal declarations of war from the United States government. I don't think Wikipedia should be using this context of US-centric military terminology. Instead, the general word "attack(s)" seems much more preferable. For these reasons, I generally Support replacing "strike" with "attack(s)". But even so, some of these article titles listed have problems beyond this. To summarize:

• September 2024 Lebanon strikes → September 2024 Israeli attack on Lebanon
• August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes → August 2024 Israeli–Lebanese attacks
• April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → April 2024 Iranian attack on Israel
• October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → October 2024 Iranian attack on Israel
• 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → 2024 Iranian attacks on Israel

The first article should name the attacker in the title. The second article should have its format changed from noun-noun to adjective-adjective. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th articles should replace "strike(s)" with "attack(s)", but also the word "against" should be replaced with "on". And, as a side note, this should prompt a review of literally every article that uses the word "strike" to refer to a violent attack, not just these 5 articles.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Not keen on a multimove procedure for disparate events, I have a preference for the word attack in general because it covers a host of sins but would still prefer to separate these things and go with what majority RS are saying. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. These articles should be renamed on a case-by-case basis, with a separate general discussion regarding the use of the word "strike(s)" in the article namespace. JasonMacker (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support these as well. Though regarding the second one I feel August 2024 Israeli—Hezbollah attacks would be better as using “Lebanese” could lead to confusion over involvement by the Lebanese state. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, @Estar8806. Otherwise, I strong support @JasonMacker's suggestion. I made a similar suggestion upthread, but Jason's is more detailed and takes into account who was attacking who. I think this neatly addresses a number of issues which have plagued recent RMs and could be applied more widely with little fuss. Lewisguile (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I considered that, but that only makes "Lebanese" a better choice than "Lebanon", because Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party that is part of Lebanon's ruling coalition. I think that the current title's usage of "Lebanon" doesn't clearly distinguish between Hezbollah and the state of Lebanon, but "Lebanese" does, because Hezbollah is clearly "Lebanese", and the target of Israel's attacks were Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil, and Lebanese citizens attacked Israel in response. JasonMacker (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that makes Lebanese better than Hezbollah, though. Lebanon would be accurate per WP:NCWWW, but Hezbollah feels more WP:PRECISE.Lewisguile (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

NCWWW doesn't have to be a geographic location, an explicitly cited example is Charlie Hebdo shooting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

What about August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon? That should be undisputed.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

VR's suggesting works for me: August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon. Lewisguile (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. Not perfect, but a sufficient improvement. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As WP:PRECISE states, "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." There is no ambiguity when it comes to the name "August 2024 Israeli-Lebanese attacks". Even the adjective "Israeli" can be replaced with "Israeli Defense Forces" to make it more precise, but again, that's unnecessary. JasonMacker (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Except there is ambiguity. Or maybe there's not ambiguity, just fallacies. "Lebanese" implies the direct relation to Lebanon, as in operating in the name of the Lebanese state. Neither the Lebanese state nor any of its institutions are directly involved. The Israeli Defense Forces are an institution of the Israeli state, which therefore is a party to the conflict. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The direct relation to Lebanon is that the attacks targeted Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil. And again, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese state, winning a plurality in the previous election. Trying to argue that "Lebanese" somehow doesn't accurately describe Hezbollah is absurd. But even if your point was correct, that there was some ambiguity, it can easily be addressed with the first sentence of the article explaining that a political party within the ruling coalition of the Lebanese government was specifically targeted. You say "neither the Lebanese state nor any of its institutions are directly involved", but that is simply false. The Lebanese state is involved by the sheer fact that Israel violated its sovereignty with these attacks (just one in a long list of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty). And there's also the obvious fact that the Lebanese Armed Forces were directly targeted in these attacks, as detailed in the article's infobox. And the article states that "A Lebanese Army soldier was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Wazzani". The Lebanese Armed Forces, separate from Hezbollah, are very clearly an institution of the Lebanese state. JasonMacker (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

By using "Lebanese" instead of "Hezbollah" we'd be implying that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah, which fails WP:PRECISE. If our standard for involvement in a conflict was that "someone from X country was killed in the conflict", then Israel would be fighting practically every country in the world. The fact of the matter is that while "Lebanese" is not entirely inaccurate, it's simply far less precise than "Hezbollah".

And further, the only article in contention about this distinction is August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes. There's not a single source cited in that article that states that any Lebanese civilians were killed. That is the only article in contention because Israel and Hezbollah exchanged attacks, using "Lebanese" would imply that the Israeli Defense Forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces exchanged fire, when in reality it was Israel and Hezbollah. I'm not in any way suggesting that the titles of articles where only Israel launched attacks should use "Hezbollah" instead of Lebanon/Lebanese, but those where Hezbollah launched attacks, Hezbollah should be called Hezbollah, not conflated with the entire of Lebanon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You just asserted that "By using "Lebanese" instead of "Hezbollah" we'd be implying that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah" but you offered no explanation for that. Why in the world would someone think that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah, exactly? You really think that my suggested title, "August 2024 Israeli–Lebanese attacks", would somehow imply that ALL Lebanese people are Hezbollah? I really don't understand the logic and you have failed to provide any. How would someone read that title, which doesn't even mention Hezbollah, and somehow reach the conclusion that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah? JasonMacker (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I never said someone would think that, I said we'd be implying it. Even if my wording was poor, the fact of the matter is it still fails WP:PRECISE nonetheless. There are absolutely no benefits to using Lebanese. And you're simply picking one line, one point, of my entire argument and ignoring all the other points I made. I'll say it again: Lebanese may not be inaccurate, but Hezbollah is far more precise. Why should we not use the more precise title? It's part of our policy, after all. Just because the attacks happened in Lebanon does not mean they were against Lebanon. I still support August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon as the most precise option presented here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to explain how a title that doesn't even mention Hezbollah, would somehow be implying something about Hezbollah. The benefits to using "Lebanese" are already explained. As I've said, Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, much in the same way that a restaurant in Beirut is a Lebanese restaurant. Thus, the adjective "Lebanese", which means "of or relating to Lebanon", is a correct descriptor of the attacks, because they are Lebanese attacks. Any attack by Hezbollah is a Lebanese attack, in the same way that any sandwich made in a restaurant in Beirut is a Lebanese sandwich. You have this bizarre idea that "Lebanese" strictly means the government of Lebanon, when it is just not true. It's a normal adjective like any other demonym.

"Why should we not use the more precise title?"

Read WP:PRECISE. It's actually talking about how we don't actually need to be very precise in the naming of things. The specific example provided is "Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." This is my position. "Hezbollah" is too precise, in the same way that naming the IDF in the title would also be too precise. Instead, the correct amount of precision is "Israeli-Lebanese" rather than "A few units of the Israeli Defense Forces and a few members of the Armed Wing of Hezbollah." Because remember, if we actually wanted to be very precise, then it is actually not Hezbollah as a whole, but rather specifically the armed fighters of Hezbollah that engaged in attacks. That's why "Lebanese" is the correct level of precision; it is precise enough to characterize the subject of the article.

The problem with I have with "August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon" is that the title should mention the perpetrators in this case. Also, by your own admission, the attacks were not on "Israel" or "Lebanon" generally, but rather attacks on specific armed units operating in those countries. So your suggested title fails your own rubric of precision (I don't mind that particular failure, because your rubric is inconsistent with WP:PRECISE). JasonMacker (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Never thought I would see the day someone would argue that WP:PRECISE says we don't need to be very precise, but I digress.

A. You're again conflating Hezbollah with all of Lebanon. Should we be conflating Hamas with all of Palestine?

B. I never admitted that the attacks were not on "Israel". There were attacks committed by Israel targeting Hezbollah, and those committed by Hezbollah targeting Israel.

C. the title should mention the perpetrators in this case - the perpetrators are Israel and Hezbollah, you're proving my point. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:PRECISE. I quoted it directly where it talks about avoiding too much precision. Please acknowledge that part of WP:PRECISE. And no, the perpetrators are the Israeli Defense Forces and the Armed wing of Hezbollah, as I've mentioned. Please read what I wrote carefully. You're saying things that I've already addressed. Please acknowledge what I've written and respond to those points. JasonMacker (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes if we're getting incredibly specific then the Israeli Defense Forces and the armed wing of Hezbollah are the combatants. So the Israeli Defense Forces → Israel is perfectly acceptable, but the 'armed wing' of Hezbollah → Hezbollah, is not? How is that in any way logical? If "Israeli/Israeli" implies the Israeli Defense Forces, then "Lebanon/Lebanese" implies the Lebanese Armed Forces. I'm familiar with WP:PRECISE, the "Mother Teresa" example is an incredibly poor comparison to make here. That title balances precision, concision, and, above all, WP:COMMONNAME. If we can prove that "Lebanon" is the common name for Hezbollah, I'd happily consider that point. But you've asked me to respond to your points so I will.

A. The direct relation to Lebanon is that the attacks targeted Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil. - Lebanese soil, yes. Lebanese citizens, no. Or at least in the case of the article that is in contention. Other attacks, perhaps.

B. The Lebanese state is involved by the sheer fact that Israel violated its sovereignty with these attacks (just one in a long list of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty). - just straight up WP:POV there.

C. And the article states that "A Lebanese Army soldier was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Wazzani". The Lebanese Armed Forces, separate from Hezbollah, are very clearly an institution of the Lebanese state. - Again, if we're titling based off of one single casualty then Israel would be at war with France, for example.

D. You just asserted that "By using "Lebanese" instead of "Hezbollah" we'd be implying that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah" - Admittedly a poor argument on my part, I'll give you that one. But the point that "Lebanese" implies the "Lebanese Armed Forces" are directly involved still stands.

E. As I've said, Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, much in the same way that a restaurant in Beirut is a Lebanese restaurant. Thus, the adjective "Lebanese", which means "of or relating to Lebanon", is a correct descriptor of the attacks, because they are Lebanese attacks. - By that logic, terror attacks committed by the Taliban are/were attacks committed by Afghanistan. (And obviously that point is in regards to pre-2021 considering now I guess the Taliban is Afghanistan).

F. Read WP:PRECISE. It's actually talking about how we don't actually need to be very precise in the naming of things. - Well actually it doesn't say that, it says we don't have to be overly precise. But we still have to unambiguously define the scope of an article in the title. So no, it can't easily be addressed with the first sentence of the article.

G. Because remember, if we actually wanted to be very precise, then it is actually not Hezbollah as a whole, but rather specifically the armed fighters of Hezbollah that engaged in attacks. - You're simply trying to twist my argument to make it sound ridiculous. I'm not advocating for it to be as precise as humanly possible (that would be undoubtedly WP:OVERPRECISION), I'm asking for it to be as concise as necessary to prevent ambiguity.

H. The problem with I have with "August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon" is that the title should mention the perpetrators in this case. - This is very fair. In an ideal world, I would agree that Hezbollah attacks on Israel and Israeli attacks on Lebanon should be specified, but "Lebanese" doesn't help with that. Were the perpetrators Lebanese nationals, yes. But if the nationality of members of a terrorist/militant group is how an attack is classified then the November 2015 Paris attacks must've been committed by Belgium as a Belgian national participated in the attacks.

I. Also, by your own admission, the attacks were not on "Israel" or "Lebanon" generally, but rather attacks on specific armed units operating in those countries. - Key word being in. It's similar to the War in Afghanistan, when the Taliban wasn't in control it was against the Taliban in Afghanistan, not against Afghanistan itself. and again, I never said the attacks weren't on Israel or Lebanon, that's actually the title I support August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon.

J. And no, the perpetrators are the Israeli Defense Forces and the Armed wing of Hezbollah, as I've mentioned. - I'll say it again— by your logic the Israeli Defense Forces is Israel, but the armed wing of Hezbollah isn't Hezbollah? How does that make sense?

It boils down to whether Hezbollah should be taken as a pars pro toto for Lebanon. I don't believe it should, but if you do I'm afraid there's nothing left I have to say that could convince you. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Cambridge, Oxford and Britannica dictionaries explicitly mention airstrike means attack by aircraft, as Wikipedia article on Airstrike. The missiles Iran used to attack Israel were surface-to-surface missiles, not launched from aircraft. So this attack does not fit into the criteria of airstrike. --CometVolcano (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose They were not aistrikes, but missiles launched from the ground. Durraz0 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as airstrikes involve aircraft. The missiles were launched from the ground, as shown from the article infobox image. HarukaAmaranth 09:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as airstrikes involve aircraft. I really don't get how the move would come from any informed viewpoint. Missiles were launched from the ground and ballistic missiles in particular did the most damage. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I've stricken the original move requests as it's been made (rather painfully) clear that I was misinformed as to what an "airstrike". Reading through the discussion it seems as though some editors are very passionate about that distinction, so I apologize as I'm not nor never would claim to be an expert on military affairs. In any case, please see the above comment by @JasonMacker:[10] for the updated request.

@CometVolcano, Durazz0, HarukaAmaranth, and MrThunderbolt1000: What are your thoughts on the alternative proposal?--estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — This seems to be going in multiple directions. We should say what the reliable sources used to cite/source an article says. If a reader happens to get 'confused', he or she can simply read the lede, for starters. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kola district strike on the 29th

Would this article be an appropriate place to include the 29th September Israeli attack on the Kola district of Beirut targeting the PFLP?[11][12] I would think so, yet they are not currently included in this article. Mason7512 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)