Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions - Wikipedia


69 people in discussion

Article Images
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 Wikipedia, 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.

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)Reply

Remove the year

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

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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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.[3] Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      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)Reply
      That's OR, and you're not a reliable source, but The Nation is. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
I think we're getting a little distracted – WP:NOTFORUM. GhostOfNoMan 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      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)Reply
      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)Reply
      The sources don't obviously support the bald assertion that only Hezbollah members had the devices. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The sources all say that the pagers were issued by Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

Leave title unchanged

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

Other proposals

I support a name like 2024 Lebanon electronics attack, and I oppose a name that includes "Hezbollah", "Syria", or "explosion". I don't feel like writing a bunch of separate responses for each piece of the article name, so I've put my thoughts here and it should be clear what my piecewise position is. I'm choosing this based on WP:CRITERIA. To review it:

1. Recognizability: From what I understand, there have been attacks involving the use of rigged electronic devices in Lebanon in the past. For this reason, putting the year disambiguates and makes it recognizable as a specific attack. 2. Naturalness: The title is very straightforward and describes (in order) When (2024), Where (Lebanon), & What (electronics attack). Sounds natural to me. Putting Hezbollah in the title will make it unnatural and may seemingly imply that Hezbollah was the perpetrator. 3. Precision: My suggested title is precise in that it zeroes in on exactly this event. 4. Concision: We don't need Syria in the title because this primary location of the attack was Lebanon, and anybody referring to the event will primarily be referring to Lebanon. Obviously, it should be noted that some of the attack took place in Syria, but as far as the article title goes, it's not necessary to include that in there. For example, the Pacific war article makes it clear in the very first sentence of the article that the war was also fought in the Indian Ocean. I draw inspiration from that, and I think that omitting the Syrian attacks from the article's title but mentioning it in the first sentence is the right way. 5. Consistency: The article title I'm proposing is very consistent with many other articles such as 2024 France railway arson attacks, 2022 Erbil missile attacks, and countless other articles with this style of (Year, location, method, "attack")

As far as alternatives go, the only one that comes to mind is 2024 Israeli electronics attack, which would instead include the perpetrator rather than the location, but I would only be willing to support such a title as a compromise, because I think that having the location of the attack is more important than having the perpetrator. Derivatives of this could also be considered that mention the location, such as 2024 Israeli electronics attack in Lebanon, but as I point out in the consistency point, the usual way is not to mention the perpetrator, and instead just have the location. For that reason, I would only support article titles that have the perpetrator if I was forced to give up on my main article title that I propose.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I mentioned my opposition to "explosion" in the previous move discussion, but I didn't mention it here so I'll reiterate it. Using the word "explosion" in the title implies that the motive behind this event was ambiguous and unclear. However, mainstream media sources are directly implicating Israel in this attack (See New York Times). For that reason, it makes more sense to refer to it as an attack. JasonMacker (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You may want to move this comment to the section that directly deals with this question. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In addition to commenting in the section #Changing "explosions" to "attacks", you may also want to comment in the sections #Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah" and #Changing "pagers" to "electronics"/"communications" since your propsal touches on them too. The reason the Requested Move has been broken down into sections is that no consensus could be reached when the question was too broadly construed as to how to rename the article. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
+1. @JasonMacker, I don't feel like writing a bunch of separate responses for each piece of the article name is not a valid reason to break the format of this RM. Sdkb talk 17:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't "break" the format of anything. But sure, if you want, I can !vote every section. However, my reasoning for multiple of them were similar and related and I wanted to avoid redundancy. JasonMacker (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Discussion

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

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)Reply
?! 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)Reply
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(talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Never mind, I found it. DaringDonna (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was an Israeli attack regardless of the Israeli denial. The attribution added by @Seananony: goes against WP:INTEXT:

“ Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

 : According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

 : The sun sets in the west each evening.

”

It was not only CNN that unequivocally stated it was an Israeli operation, but virtually all RS:

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've changed per WP:INTEXT. I suspect people are being overly cautious, but it makes the article more verbose as well as risking bias.
Lewisguile (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I think the original simple phrasing of just “in an Israeli attack.” should be restored. There is no need to mention which Israeli institution in the first paragraph and opening sentence per MOS:OPEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're right. Have made that change and restored description/link to Mossad further down (now that it's not in the opening sentence). Better? Lewisguile (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, much better, thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep in mind WP:HEADLINES; NYT at least doesn't state it in the body. I think "suspected Israeli attack" would be safe wording without being verbose, but don't feel too strongly about it. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel most of the RSes say it's an Israeli attack but some have started hedging. Si the question is: Has the balance shifted now, so that more are saying "suspected" than not? I'm not sure it has, but would be keen to hear what others say.
I'm not opposed to adding "suspected" if that's the new consensus, but if it isn't the consensus among RSes, then I think adding it in could be WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE. Lewisguile (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I tried to do a (very rudimentary) analysis with search terms in an Israeli attack vs in a suspected Israeli attack (and similar) and I didn't honestly see "suspected" becoming more frequent. If anything, the opposite—sources are more confidently attributing it to Israel lately from what I saw. Personally, I usually tend to prefer 'suspected', 'believed', etc., wording (often against consensus). For instance Stuxnet is widely known to be a joint US-Israeli creation, and many WP:RS report it as such (including the NYT) without qualification, and yet the lede of Stuxnet says multiple independent news organizations recognize Stuxnet to be a cyberweapon built jointly by the United States and Israel. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument, but I think "suspected" is fairly harmless and doesn't introduce any verbosity or weaselly prolixity. On the other hand, are there really any widespread doubts about whether Israel is responsible? I don't think so. And I'm not convinced Israel's denial alone is enough when so many RS are unequivocally pointing the finger at Israel. So in my view, "suspected" is fine to include but also fine to drop; it's enough that the lede mentions Israel's denial. GhostOfNoMan 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
All good points. And we're sort of in the situation where Bibi says they did it (with a wink and a nudge) and the president says they didn't. So it's not even as if the Israeli denial is universal within the government. Lewisguile (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's very true, yeah. Even president Herzog's denial itself felt like a tacit acknowledgement (to me), as he immediately followed it by saying "tragedies happen in war, but we have the right to defend ourselves" (paraphrasing) – which is an eyebrow-raising statement to make moments after the denial... GhostOfNoMan 19:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The NYT article does state that Israel is behind the attacks in its own voice in that article multiple times:
  • "Israeli intelligence officials saw an opportunity."
  • "Israel had put into motion a plan to establish a shell company that would pose as an international pager producer."
There is unanimity in RS that Israel is the perpetrator, regardless of the official Israeli denial. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems pretty unambiguous to me. Lewisguile (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GhostOfNoMan the error re: this line was mine, and accidental. The previous edit had said "Israeli positions in occupied Shebaa Farm, Safed, Nahariya, and other Israeli military positions". I had (wrongly) assumed the description occupied was applying to all three locations, and that Israeli positions was repeated twice, so simplified to "Shebaa Farm, Safed, Nahariya and other occupied Israeli military positions". I would have self-reverted if notified (to help you avoid the WP:1RR on contentious topic pages), but it's fixed now. Thank you. Lewisguile (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for addressing that! Sorry if my edit summary sounded a little accusative (with the "NPOV"); I'd assumed it was a return of the IP who was inserting "occupied Palestine" to describe essentially the entirety of northern Israel proper (unrelated to e.g. Shebaa Farms or Golan). I appreciate you letting me know. GhostOfNoMan 18:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem at all. I just thought that if you end up having to make another revert, you can point to my post as proof that it was really a "self-revert" by proxy. Lewisguile (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The background section says "A day after Hamas launched its 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, Hezbollah joined the conflict in "solidarity with the Palestinians" by firing on Shebaa Farms, Safed, Nahariya, and other Israeli positions."

This looks unverifiable. On October 8, Hezbollah didn't fire on Israel but on Israeli-occupied Golan Heights[13][14] and Israeli-occuped Shebaa Farms[15]. In response, Israel fired back, killing several Hezbollah members, and only then did Hezbollah fire into Israel[16].

The source currently in the article, says "Further, as time went on, both Israel and Hezbollah started attacking areas in the other side’s territory further from the border and larger cities. Hezbollah attacked Safed and Nahariya, and the IDF attacked as far as Baalback, which is 100 kilometers into Lebanese territory."

Given this is a WP:V violation, and the article is on the main page, I will remove this immediately.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fine with me. I noticed similar wording had been changed on one of the related pages already, so I think there's consensus elsewhere on WP for what you say. Lewisguile (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Galamore Please see links above for the timeframe of events on 8 October and thereafter. I believe the confusion in your last edit was due to the Times of Israel article, which says "Since 8 October" and then gives an overview of the whole conflict since that date, rather than specifically detailing the initial attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli forces in the occupied territories.
So the order of events seems to be Hamas attacks on Israel > Hezbollah attacks on Shebaa Farms and Golan Heights > response from Israel into Lebanon > response from Hezbollah into Israel, and then it carries on as described.
My view is that describing the first two events (Hamas attack, attacks on occupied territories) and then saying "Since then..." adequately covers this entire sequence of events, since it doesn't require us to detail every exchange but does confirm that both Israel and Hezbollah attacked across the border, with civilians hurt and killed. If we specifically mention that Lebanon attacked civilian areas, then I think we also have to say that Israel did too, and we have to get the order right.
I think the wording as I've tweaked it is now accurate without needing to go into that much detail, but I'm happy to discuss further if you have additional queries or suggestions. Lewisguile (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't see your removal of the text, so I wonder if you've made it on a different page? Your comment is worth copying to the talk pages of the related articles anyway (e.g., September 2024 Lebanon strikes). Here's the amended text, as I've left it:
"On 8 October 2023, a day after Hamas launched its 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel and Israel began its bombing of Gaza, Hezbollah joined the conflict in "solidarity with the Palestinians",[1][2] initially firing on Israeli military outposts in Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights — both territories under Israeli occupation."[1]
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/9/hezbollah-fires-on-israel-after-several-members-killed-in-shelling
[2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/10/violence-escalates-between-israel-and-lebanons-hezbollah-amid-gaza-assault
Let me know what you think. Lewisguile (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that such a wording would be not a WP:V violation. But I think better wording needs to be found, and we are talking about that at Talk:September_2024_Lebanon_strikes#More_background_issues.VR (Please ping on reply) 11:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is way too detailed. This should be a summary of how the war developed between Israel and Hezbollah. Hamas attacked, a day later Hezbollah joined with attacks against Israel, and it developed to a long cross-border conflict until the recent escalation. That's it Galamore (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"a day later Hezbollah joined with attacks against Israel" That's misleading, as we're trying to tell you. The October 8 firing was not "against Israel" but against Israeli military positions inside occupied Syria/Lebanon. Secondly, before Hezbollah attacked, Israel had killed hundreds in Gaza (see this discussion) through its bombing.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is getting into slippery slope territory because the conflict goes so far back that editors who want to POV push will argue that one side or the other started it.
What's the point of the background section? Why is it even necessary to have, outside of a link to Israel-Hezbollah conflict? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dropping the background section altogether could be the way to go. @Vice regent what would you add/change from my suggested wording above? If you've got a preferred solution, I'd be happy to hear it. Or be bold and make that change now, to save time, and then we can discuss it here afterwards. Lewisguile (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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) 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An IP has made a polite edit request on my user talk page that I think merits consideration:

  • 1. We should add (per The Guardian) that it was the circuit board of the pagers, that was infected with the explosive PETN, not the battery.
  • 2. We should add that Hezbollah's military wing used since 2008 for its communications its fiber optic network (per This is Beirut).

VR (Please ping on reply) 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply