Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:V violation

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[1][2] and Israeli-occuped Shebaa Farms[3]. In response, Israel fired back, killing several Hezbollah members, and only then did Hezbollah fire into Israel[4].

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll propose in the section below (#Proposed background versions). Lets leave this section for the glaring WP:V violation that should never happen again, no matter what other acceptable versions we agree upon.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed background versions

Lewisguile, I think the current version is fine:

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",[41][42] initially firing on Israeli military outposts in Shebaa Farms[42] and the Golan Heights[43][44] — both territories under Israeli occupation.[42] 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. Over 96,000 people in Israel[45] and over 111,000 in Lebanon have been displaced.[46] As of 24 August 2024, there were 564 confirmed deaths in Lebanon, including 133 civilians.[46] Israel and Hezbollah have maintained their attacks at a level that causes harm without escalating into a full-scale war.[47] Hezbollah has said it will not stop attacking Israel until Israel ceases its attacks in Gaza,[48] where more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed.[49][50]

Consider how a piece in the Globe and Mail covers the background on the pager attacks:

The current fighting began after the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7. Hamas demanded Hezbollah join the fray, but the Lebanese militia demurred, insisting it would limit itself to continuing efforts to drive Israel out of some border towns claimed by Lebanon, most notably Shebaa Farms. But Hezbollah increased cross-border rocket attacks, albeit mostly within the mutually accepted parameters of “routine” border violence within a mile on either side aimed at military targets. Hezbollah vows to continue until the Gaza war ends.

Only thing I'd add is also the Israeli death toll from Hezbollah firing.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Why use an opinion article from a minor Canadian newspaper when we have a much more prominent and high-quality sources, scuh as The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/world/middleeast/iran-hezbollah-israel-nasrallah.html) and Foreign Affairs? (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israel-and-hezbollah-are-escalating-toward-catastrophe) Galamore (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the recent edits on the Nasrallah assassination article, creating this:

Shortly after Hamas's 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, Hezbollah started launched rockets at northern Israel, claiming solidarity with the "Palestinian resistance", and aiming to burden Israel, which was preparing its response to Hamas in Gaza, by creating a conflict on two fronts. Over time, Iran activated its broader network of militant groups, referred to as the "axis of resistance," opening multiple fronts against Israel. This move aimed to create regional chaos and pressure both the U.S. and Israel into negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas. 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. From 7 October 2023 to 20 September 2024, there were 10,200 cross border attacks, of which Israel launched 8,300.

is the best we can find and aligned with what how the top sources present the beginning of the war in the context of the September 2024 escalation. Galamore (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore, one of the major sources for that edit is an op-ed, so the parts taken from that shouldn't be included in Wikivoice. Those parts probably belong in the Analysis section. That edit also retains prior wording that doesn't make sense now other clauses have been removed (e.g., Hezbollah joined the war the day after). Thankfully, I have already made some adjustments over on that page.

The first bit of text in Background is as follows:

"The day after Hamas's 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, Hezbollah joined the conflict with Israel, claiming solidarity with the "Palestinian resistance". Nasrallah said Hezbollah aimed to "strain Israel’s resources" by forcing it to fight on two fronts. 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. From 7 October 2023 to 20 September 2024, there were 10,200 cross border attacks, of which Israel launched 8,300."

This removes any objectionable material about the order of events, or what counts as territory of which country, but still includes the aims as described by Nesrallah (the most important addition, I feel), and includes most of what was there before.

In addition, I moved the op-ed assessment of events to Analysis, where it now says:

"Writing in The New York Times, Farnaz Fassihi said the assassination of Nasrallah eliminated a key figure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle, as Iran had spent forty years developing Hezbollah as a frontline defense against Israel. Fassihi said that Iran had, over time, activated a broader network of militant groups, including Hezbollah, to open multiple fronts against Israel, aiming to create regional chaos and pressure both the U.S. and Israel into negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas."

This covers the other matters. I think that we probably don't need to rehash all the details about Iran and Hamas here, when it's covered better in other places (e.g., Israel–Hamas war and Hezbollah–Israel conflict).

My hope is that this can make the most number of people happy without anything overly contentious or likely to trigger an edit war. We could adapt it for use here, too, if there's consensus that there are problems with the current version.Lewisguile (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile this seems to be an okay compromise, though it is unclear what "joined the conflict with Israel" means (many sources say they initiated attacks against Israel), but maybe that's clear enough without getting to more and more debates? Galamore (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I considered more detailed wording there, but it always gets into an argument or edit war. When I have tried to reflect the series of events as described in the timeline on Wikipedia, others have edited that or reverted it. I think it's best to leave it as it is and not go into too much detail. Lewisguile (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Galamore your version is extremely POV in that it only presents the conflict from Israel's perspective, leaving out both Lebanese and Palestinian POVs.

@Lewisguile, we really need to mention that Hezbollah's goals have been to stop Israel's killings in Gaza. Sources that have mentioned this:

• 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
• in a BBC interview, Hezbollah's deputy leader warned Hezbollah would escalate because "because Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children."[5]
  • This statement was then widely cited in other sources, like: Ahram, L'Orient Le Jour, Voice of Nigeria etc.
• "Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has stressed the armed group is ready, but not eager, for war. He says if there is a ceasefire agreed in Gaza, Hezbollah will cease fire too, immediately" BBC
• "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.NPR

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent, that is covered later in the same paragraph (mostly); I just didn't paste it here because it remains untouched from an earlier edit. The whole paragraph says:

"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", initially firing on Israeli military outposts in Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights — both territories under Israeli occupation. 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. Over 96,000 people in Israel and over 111,000 in Lebanon have been displaced. As of 24 August 2024, there were 564 confirmed deaths in Lebanon, including 133 civilians. Israel and Hezbollah have maintained their attacks at a level that causes harm without escalating into a full-scale war. Hezbollah has said it will not stop attacking Israel until Israel ceases its attacks in Gaza, where more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed."

Personally, I think that's a decent compromise. Lewisguile (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Another take, based on some of the sources and versions given above:

Shortly after the onset of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, Hezbollah joined the conflict, which quickly evolved into regular cross-border military exchanges impacting northern Israel, southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. Pointing out the killing of women and children in Gaza, Hezbollah said it aimed to pressure Israel by forcing it to fight on two fronts. Hezbollah offered an immediate ceasefire, should a ceasefire also happen in Gaza. From 7 October 2023 to 20 September 2024, Hezbollah has launched 1,900 cross border attacks, and Israel has launched another 8,300. The fighting has displaced entire communities in Israel and Lebanon, with significant damage to civilian infrastructure.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is better:

"Shortly after the onset of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, Hezbollah joined the conflict, citing solidarity with Palestinians, which quickly escalated into regular cross-border military exchanges impacting northern Israel, southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. Hezbollah said it aimed to pressure Israel by forcing it to fight on two fronts. Hezbollah has offered an immediate ceasefire should a ceasefire also happen in Gaza, where 40,000 Palestinians have been killed. From 7 October 2023 to 20 September 2024, Hezbollah has launched 1,900 cross border attacks, and Israel has launched another 8,300. The fighting has displaced entire communities in Israel and Lebanon, with significant damage to civilian infrastructure."

"Point out..." feels a bit shoehorned in and it's working overtime to make a point which suddenly feels very conspicuous. I also tweaked a few words (e.g., "escalated" feels better than "evolved"). Lewisguile (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Lewisguile for working with me on this. Ok, so to tweak your version:

Shortly after the onset of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, Hezbollah joined the conflict, citing solidarity with Palestinians, which quickly escalated into regular cross-border military exchanges impacting northern Israel, southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. Hezbollah said it aimed to pressure Israel by forcing it to fight on two fronts. Hezbollah has offered an immediate ceasefire should a ceasefire also happen in Gaza, where 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, majority being women and children. From 7 October 2023 to 20 September 2024, Hezbollah has launched 1,900 cross border attacks, and Israel has launched another 8,300. The fighting killed 564 in Lebanon (including 133 civilians) and 52 in Israel (including 27 civilians), displaced entire communities in Israel and Lebanon, with significant damage to civilian infrastructure.

I added the composition of the Palestinian casualties, but also, very importantly, mentioned the casualties in both Lebanon and Israel. And can we use this same version on the 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike and September 2024 Lebanon strikes? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent I would be happy with that. I'd suggest swapping "majority being" for "mostly", since that flows better in the sentence. But that's a nitpick. Lewisguile (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Great! And we agree we should just use the same first background paragraph for all three articles? That'll save us discussions on the other two pages.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Lewisguile (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it at this article[6].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What’s the need to put the year in every one of these article’s names?

I don’t remember the Punic Wars being called the 264 BC Rome-Carthage War. When has there last been pager explosions in Lebanon to make it necessary to identify the year THIS one happened in? 2A02:C7C:90E7:3500:6CD0:C99E:E495:458C (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NCWWW, which covers article naming conventions for events. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is currently being discussed in the move discussion and will most likely be removed. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding quote regarding legality of booby traps

The section in this article about international law regarding booby traps begins by claiming,

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

This quote is fabricated. Article 7.2, which concerns parties' obligation to keep records and cooperate with the removal of mine and booby traps after the cessation of hostilities, contains no such language. A similar phrase to the one quoted does appear in Article 6.1; however, the quoted version has been truncated to alter its meaning. This section actually says (emphasis mine), "Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use: (a) any booby-trap in the form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate when it is disturbed or approached" and is therefore inapplicable to the pagers, which were remotely triggered. The same section also enumerates ten categories of object which it is always prohibited to booby-trap regardless of triggering method, but pagers do not come close to any of these categories.

The full text of the protocol can be read at http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/1980d.htm, which I reached via the External Links section of Wikipedia's own article on it. Dfranke (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The quote is from the Lieber Institute source. Googling the quote will find it in the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/world/europe/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-pager-attack.html) and in a longer full-text of the treaty (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-protocol-ii-1996/article-7). Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the ICRC source you cite does contain the claimed language, I have edited the heading of this discussion from "fabricated" to "discrepancy". Both of these apparently authoritative sources purport to represent the protocol as amended May 3, 1996. Do you have any insight into how this discrepancy arose? Dfranke (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The explanation is presumably that one is an authoritative source and the other made a labeling error. The document appears to be the original Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II, II as amended, III, IV and V) Geneva, 10 October 1980 Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The document you've linked agrees with the UMN version that I cited. However, it has a different title than the one in your link text: it says "TITLE : 2. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects with Protocols I, II and III), Geneva, 10 October 1980" (sic. — imbalanced parentheses in the original). What page did you reach that PDF from? Is one version the amended one, the other unamended, and the UN has a filing error as to which is which? Dfranke (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've chased this through https://treaties.un.org and it appears to the answer to my previous question is more or less the affirmative. The version linked by Sean.hoyland (consistent with what UMN represents as the amended version) appears to be the original 1980 treaty. The amended 1996 version is at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/05/19960503%2001-38%20AM/Ch_XXVI_02_bp.pdf and is consistent with the ICRC version. The pager attacks would seem to be facially permitted by the 1980 version but not by the 1996 version. Israel is party to both. However, digressing a bit from the original subject, in both cases Israel entered declarations and reservations; for 1980 these can be found at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2&chapter=26&clang=_en#EndDec and in 1996 at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2-b&chapter=26&clang=_en. These 1980 reservations, reaffirmed in 1996, include a statement that "With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the State of Israel will apply the provisions of the Convention and those annexed Protocols to which Israel has agreed become bound to all armed conflicts involving regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the General Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." (Article 3 pertains to protection of non-combatants, the sick, and the wounded in conflicts "not of an international character"). As Hezbollah is a paramilitary organization and not a part of Lebanon's regular armed forces, Israel does not appear to have breached its treaty commitments in light of this reservation, except to whatever if any extent non-combatants were targeted. Dfranke (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have distilled the above into an edit request which should resolve this topic. Dfranke (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2024

Change "According to the Lebanese Health Ministry, the vast majority of those came to emergency rooms were in civilian clothing and their Hezbollah affiliation was unclear." to "According to the Lebanese Health Ministry, the vast majority of those who came to emergency rooms were in civilian clothing and their Hezbollah affiliation was unclear.", for grammar. Schroering1 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Added the word 'who' to the sentence. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request regarding booby traps

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

In place of the paragraph,

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

Substitute:

The use of booby traps is heavily restricted by the Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices ("Amended Protocol II") of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Article 7.2 of Amended Protocol II prohibits the use of "booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material"[1], deleting a qualification from the earlier 1980 protocol which limited this prohibition to devices designed "to detonate when it is disturbed or approached" [2]. "Booby traps" and "other devices" are both defined terms within the protocol; technically, timed or remotely-triggered devices such as the exploding pagers are classed as "other devices". Israel is party to both versions of the treaty, albeit with a reservation limiting the scope of its commitment "to all armed conflicts involving regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the General Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949"[3][4].

Suitably formatting the following citations:

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia content should be based primarily on secondary sources rather than editor summaries or interpretations of primary sources. The secondary sources, like the NYT, decide which parts of the primary sources are pertinent to the topic and our role is to summarize their coverage. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable secondary sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

WP casualty numbers inconsistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pinging PeleYoetz as it seems to be their edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:NORUSH, it may be worth parking this until we get a clearer figure anyway. That's what we did when media published contradictory numbers for those displaced as a result of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The numbers of 2,750 and 750 seem specific enough for now, and are more widely used at present. Lewisguile (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There are multiple versions at this point, so perhaps we should wait until the fogs clears and there are more consistent estimates for the impact on Hezbollah's forces. PeleYoetz (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

add relation to hezbola

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

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

the source quoted in the article support that information:

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

Why? Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

because that's what the RS sources says 109.64.42.68 (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

Please delete the text: ", mostly women and children"

It appears in the background section. It is not true. Any reliable source says that most of the victims are adult men. Gilo.12 (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ïvana (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, sources in the article do not appear to support that claim, and sources I can find elsewhere say that a minority of casualties have been identified as women and children. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The linked article in that sentence mentions the latest figure of identified deaths in the lead, and more than half are women and children. Restoring with source. - Ïvana (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve read the source - no where does it say that most of the 40,000 casualties are women and children. It does say that a very slight majority (51%) of identified casualties are, but that isn’t the claim in the article.

Further, using "mostly" for 51% is misleading; it would be interpreted by readers as more than that. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"Mostly" is accurate when it's 51%. Moreover, there was consensus for this wording previously. Lewisguile (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The term is accurate if we're talking about more than half. And there was consensus for that wording. And OP is still wrong; no article says (or at least not a recent one) that most of the victims are adult men because it is simply not true. There's no figure for the percentage of adult men (we do know it's less than half), but the linked article says 60% were not men of fighting age.

@The Mountain of Eden: I'm out of reverts for the time being but you should get consensus for that change. "With about half" is misleading because it can be interpreted broadly, potentially suggesting a range that includes less than 50%. "Mostly" is unambiguous. - Ïvana (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"Mostly" is absolutely deceptive. It implies a large majority. "about half" is the proper way to describe a ratio of 51%. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, "more than half" would be more accurate than "about half". But "mostly" still applies even when we're talking about a slight majority. - Ïvana (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Remember that is presented as background information, and the number fluctuates on a daily basis. The 51% is a snapshot in time. Therefore, "about half" is the most accurate way to present a ratio of 51% which was true on the day of Sept 17. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think earlier wording had it as "most often women and children", and I changed it to "mostly" to simplify. "Most often" would also work and purists might find that better wording. But I agree that "mostly" is right there.

18 days ago, Reuters said it was 56% and described this as "the majority": https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-death-toll-how-many-palestinians-has-israels-campaign-killed-2024-07-25/

The UN described the number as "mostly" women and children three days ago: https://press.un.org/en/2024/gashc4412.doc.htm

As numbers of 52%, 56% and 69% have also been given, "at least half" seems more accurate than "about half". I will make that change for now, and we can always change it back to "mostly" if we get a consensus/updated numbers come in. I'm happy to do that if someone pings me. Lewisguile (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

While I think "about half" is better because 51% is very close to 50%, I can live with this edit. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Still think "mostly" applies but I guess that's a good compromise for now. Thanks for taking care of it. - Ïvana (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Great. I'm pleased that works for everyone for now.

The 51% is based on the deceased people who've been identified so far, so when the unidentified deceased people are ID'd (~15%, AIUI), I'd expect this to change anyway. We can come back to it at that point. Lewisguile (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)