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)

Requested move 19 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Inching ever closer to consensus. Alright. The Frankenstein's monster close comes out to "2024 Lebanon electronic devices attacks". If I can be permitted to exercise some personal opinion here, I'd like to revise this to "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks", because "devices attacks" sounds horrendous and "device attacks" does not introduce confusion about there only being a single device involved. I find "Lebanon" superior to "Hezbollah" for Frankenstein's Close because the ambiguity that many participants worried about at various points of the discussion does indeed cause problems when we swap "Hezbollah" in, making it sound like this may have been an attack by Hezbollah instead of on Hezbollah.

Why is this "inching ever closer to consensus" instead of a close in favour of "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks"? Well, while I do think it's an accurate read of this discussion, I worry that perhaps what I've done here is created a title that everyone hates, and which no one ever got to explicitly agree with. Accordingly, what I propose is a simple run-off between 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks and 2024 Hezbollah device explosions. That's Franken-close pitted against an updated version of "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions", which was popular in the last, no-consensus RM. I strongly suggest leaving 2024 in both to simplify things. Let Wikipedians of the future argue about that one. asilvering (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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

Remove the year

The following discussion 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.

---

• Support, this event is so unique, there is no need to include the year in the article name. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support, do you know of any other pager explosions Afdshah (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral - no real reason to include, but also it adds 5 characters total, so not a big deal either way to me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - seminal geopolitical event, similar to what the King David Hotel bombing was in its day. Havradim leaf a message 04:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - have there ever been pager explosions in Lebanon before the year 2024? Brevity and succinctness in title is an age-old Wikipedia policy. The Oklahoma City bombing is not known as 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the Tokyo subway sarin attack is not called the 1995 Tokyo subway sarin attack. Let's apply some common sense here. Colipon+(Talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per above. EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal – It's not needed for wp:natural disambiguation. FunLater (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been attacks involving electronics in Lebanon previously. The year makes the article title precise.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can you name at least one other attack involving electronics in Lebanon? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  List_of_Israeli_assassinations has quite a few of them if you focus only on attacks in Lebanon. The attacks were car bombs, although one of them was remotely-controlled. Similar to this current attack, electronic devices were rigged with booby-traps that exploded.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  So what exploded were cars, not electronic devices. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the naming convention WP:NCE recommends the "When" in the majority of cases unless this event can be understood by the reader without the year, in historic perspective. We have no historic perspective here, and there is no certainty that this event will be remembered with standalone names that do not include the year, which is why I strongly believe we shouldn't remove the year, as it is ultimately useful for the casual reader. Pilaz (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  By your logic, all new events must contain the year in the article name, and the year can only be removed within a decade or two, when there is a "historical perspective".

  The key word in WP:NCE that you did not quote is "for disambiguation". I think you'll agree that the year is not needed in this case for disambiguation purposes. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - unnecessary dab. - Ïvana (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, unnecessary dab. Levivich (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Presence of the year in title gives a good historical context. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Useful historical context for readers. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no useful reason to remove it that I can see. If further attacks of this nature occur next year, we can retitle as needed. Naming policy says to include "what, where and when". Lewisguile (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOYEAR. Until we can judge the notability in historic perspective, its best to leave the year for clarity, similar to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.
• Oppose – It's far too soon to apply WP:NOYEAR. The year significantly improves clarity without sacrificing conciseness. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the title is descriptive as it is and fine. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - unique event, unnecessary dab. If further attacks of this nature re-occur, we can retitle as needed. Jay 💬 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support I don't think it makes a practical difference either way. WP:NOYEAR suggests that the month/year is only needed if the title would otherwise be too narrow. Unless someone can give another example of when Lebanon experienced pager explosions (NB: title could change if consensus appears correct to "Lebanon electronics explosions") AllPurposeScientist^blah 18:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom... Unless there are more, we shouldn't worry about year. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Nothing to disambiguate from. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The year might help some people find the article.DaringDonna (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Including the year is quite common for events and is much more descriptive of what event in question is being referenced. Not only now, but for the future as well. Silverseren^C 05:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCWWW, the time period the event occurred in is important factor. Considering pagers are mostly an antiquated technology. Cocoaguy (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:NOYEAR and WP:CONCISE. Unnecessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per NOYEAR and if there is ever any other similar attack that can be considered, not now. Andre🚐 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Gives immediate relevant information. Lova Falk (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose including the year helps with precision. This is not the first time in history that Israel has used an explosive hidden inside an electronic communications device, so we need to be clear and precise. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am aware of only one such case (the assassination of Yahya Ayyash, which is in the "See also" section of the article), and that case didn't target Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  The Engineer was a notable one as you mentioned; but far from the only one. Samir Malabi of Fatah was killed by an exploding cell phone in 2000. Mahmoud Hamshari of the PLO was killed in the 1970's by a bomb in his landline telephone as that was obviously prior to mobile devices. Osama Fatih al-Jawabra, Iyad Mohammed Hardan and Muhammad Ishteiwi Abayat were killed by rigged phone-booth bombs. Khaled Mashaal of Hamas survived a phone-based poisoning attack. There's probably others that I'm not thinking of but it is a documented history.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Khaled Mashaal's attempted assassination had nothing to do with phones (per the link you provided). Phone booth bombs are not "explosive hidden inside an electronic communications device" (your words). And none of the individuals you mentioned were Hezbollah operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I never said anything about a restriction specifically to Hezbollah operatives. Go bludgeon someone else, your strawman argument is not welcome here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah"

The following discussion 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.

---

• Weak support as from what is gathered here, this attack primarily targeted the militant organization Hezbollah. But then, we don't always mention the intended target; so I would probably just say drop Lebanon/Hezbollah from the title, as a second option. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support They were the target. This also seems to be more of a COMMONNAME, the sources I've seen use Hezbollah instead of Lebanon. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support the explosions targeted Hezbollah, not Lebanon. Jehochman ^Talk 01:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons.
  • First, our guidelines (WP:NCWWW) suggest naming an article as "when, where and what". Lebanon is clearly the "where".
  • Secondly, writing "Hezbollah" makes the title ambiguous, as if Hezbollah carried out the attacks, when this is not true.
  • Finally, the attacks seem to include targets other than Hezbollah. While many of the pagers did belong to Hezbollah, did the solar panels also belong to Hezbollah? There are sources that indicate that pagers owned by non-Hezbollah civilians were also targeted[7][8].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Lebanon pager explosions" is ambiguous for the same reason - it could be interpreted as Lebanon carrying out the attack. Both seem unlikely in practice though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Lebanon" is a noun, the adjective is "Lebanese", whereas Hezbollah is both a noun and adjective. When we mention an actor like this, it usually implies they're a perpetrator: NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Israeli bombing of Gaza, October 7 Hamas attacks etc. When we mention a place, it implies the location it took place, not attribution of responsibility: 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2004 Madrid train bombings etc.

  This ambiguity is why we moved "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" to "Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be pedantic, "Hezbollah attack" would be valid not because Hezbollah is an adjective, but because it's a well-formed noun adjunct. Technically "Lebanon attack" is also a well-formed noun adjunct, although "Lebanese attack" is indeed more natural. So both proposed names are technically ambiguous. I expect readers will resolve any confusion by reading the first bit of text, rather than reasoning about why we likely chose a particular wording. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think Lebanon attack probably suggests an attack in Lebanon more than Lebanese attack does? The latter may suggest possession, and thus may imply an attack made by Lebanon. Hezbollah doesn't necessarily imply Hezbollah made the attack, but WP:NCWWW suggests when, where and what, rather than who, how and why, anyway. This is also why I prefer attacks to explosions, since explosions veers into the how rather than the what. Lewisguile (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @VR Charlie Hebdo shooting is an explicit example cited by WP:NCWWW, so the "where" doesn't necessarily have to be Lebanon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NCWWW says in that case the "where" is the "Offices of Charlie Hebdo", which are indeed a place. But Hezbollah is not a place, and its members or its pagers are also not a place.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - it was targeted against Hezbollah, not Lebanon. In fact, there were explosions outside of Lebanon. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons as stated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support target was Hezbollah and included explosions out of Lebanon. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vice regent (VR) and WP:CONSISTENT. This policy is probably why this is up for discussion — again. Just imagine if War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) was titled "Taliban eradication war". Havradim leaf a message 05:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose if attacks passes: Going from 'Lebanon pager explosions' to 'Hezbollah (pagers/electronics/communications) attacks' would imply that Hezbollah did an attack using or involving pagers/electronics/communications. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: As mentioned in the last RM, we use places to describe events by default per WP:NCE. This is also the natural and recognisable language. Furthermore, the suggestion has a fundamental flaw in that introduces ambiguity over whether Hezbollah is the target or actor – even if the wording were to work, merely switching positions in the manner suggested above would be no way to do it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as they literally were Hezbollah pagers, ordered by Hezbollah and issued to their members. Per Reuters, The senior Lebanese security source said the group had ordered 5,000 beepers made by Taiwan-based Gold Apollo, which several sources say were brought into the country earlier this year. NCWWW is a good default, but "Hezbollah" conveys the same information (obviously they operate in Lebanon) and more. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  But were they also "Hezbollah solar panels"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  If we were to update the title to include other purported devices, I agree that could complicate the matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Remove both – Titles like "Pager explosions", "Pager attack", and "Pager and walkie-talkie explosions", etc. unambiguously identify the subject. This avoids ambiguity over whether Hezbollah is the target or actor and avoids specifying that the attacks were in Lebanon when they were also in Syria. FunLater (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I've stated below. --JasonMacker (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR, Havradim, and Iskandar323's comments. Tule-hog (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Hezbollah was the target and most of the affected ones were its members, in Lebanon and Syria. MathKnight 21:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR and Iskandar, although one issue is that having Lebanon in the title implies it was against the Lebanese government Kowal2701 (talk · contribs) 21:24:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 
• Oppose a lot of people not associated with Hizbollah, also became victims, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Perhaps, but the electronic devices were distributed by Hezbollah to its operatives. The devices were not commercially available. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Two of the killed were children, and 2 were hospital workers, were they also Hizbollah "operatives"?. They might have targeted Hizbollah, but the fact is that they hit innocent people, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC) The children who died were probably children of Hezbollah operatives who played around with their parents' pagers, and the "hospital workers" who died were probably Hezbollah operatives who moonlighted as "hospital workers". But none of that is even remotely relevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the devices were issued by Hezbollah. Nobody who is not affiliated with Hezbollah, or affiliated with people affiliated with Hezbollah, would have had access to those devices. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC) So the female nurse who was killed: please inform me: was she a "Hizbollah operative" moonlightning as a "hospital worker"? Or a "hospital worker" moonlighting as a "Hizbollah operative"? Just wondering, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC) For the purposes of naming the article, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she was affiliated with Hezbollah and that's why she had a Hezbollah-issued pager on her. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) : "she was affiliated with Hezbollah": You have brought exactly zero proof of that statement, (= zero significance), Huldra (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC) The proof is the exploding pager that Hezbollah issued to her. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Again: you have brought zero proof of that. Also this is far into WP:FORUM, and by now you are just violating WP:BLUDGEON, good-bye, Huldra (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC) How else could she have gotten a Hezbollah issued pager? Those pagers were intended for internal communications by Hezbollah, and were not supposed to have been shared with non-Hezbollah members. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC) What about the people at funerals or supermarkets who happened to be near someone with a pager? Are they "operatives" too? RSes have said civil servants and charity workers also received those devices because Hezbollah is a political party as well as a paramilitary group. They're not "moonlighting" as anything. And of course other people would have access to those devices. There were 4,000 devices spread across two countries. People leave devices lying around, lose them, put them in cloakrooms, store them in lockers, etc. But regardless of all that, a child — even if their parents work for Hezbollah — isn't a valid target and their deaths shouldn't be shrugged off as "oh well, Hezbollah!" Let's not be glib, even accidentally, about the death of kids. Yikes. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC) The children were not the target. The target was Hezbollah. It was the parents who put their child in harms way by choosing a dangerous line of work, and then on top of that, they brought their work home with them. Hezbollah is a paramilitary organization with representation in the Lebanese parliament. Anybody who freely chooses to associate with Hezbollah is putting themselves, as well as anybody they associate with, in harms way, even if the people who associate with the Hezbollah operatives are not even aware that they are associating with a Hezbollah operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC) It was an unlawful boobytrapping of civilian communications devices that contravened all kinds of laws of war, including, not least, targeting devices also used by (non-Hezbollah) medical personnel. The devices also exploded in indiscriminate locations, such as supermarkets. Not surprising that all legal commentators call it A) a war crime, or B) a terrorist attack.[9] Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Remember that these were communication devices that were purchased by Hezbollah and issued to its operatives. These devices were not available to civillians in any store within Lebanon. To receive one these devices, a person had to have either gotten it from Hezbollah, or, for whatever reason, were given the devices by an operative of Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC) That's OR, and you're not a reliable source, but The Nation is. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC) The Nation did not say that the pagers were widely available for the general Lebanese population. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC) It said medical workers were killed after the words "but so", contrasting this with "Hezbollah members". A statement that OR alone cannot overwrite. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In case it does actually need to be said: someone working for a charity or hospital doesn't deserve to die just because of who funds (or part-funds) that organisation. Taking pagers home isn't supposed to be a risk to your child. Nurses don't deserve to die. Neither do kids. Again, yikes! Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Nurses who are Hezbollah operatives during their day job are absolutely legitimate targets, and parents who let their children handle their Hezbollah-issued pagers put the lives of their children at risk. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC) So you think booby trapping a device used by a member or supporter of a party and making it explode without caring about who it harms or where the explosion happens is perfectly fine and legal and should be celebrated. We are not supposed to feel bad for the victims even if they were not the intended target cause they chose to be nearby other people so they were asking for it. Hopefully you'll apply the same logic if/when the target is Likud or any other Israeli or American political party. - Ïvana (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC) I think we're getting a little distracted – WP:NOTFORUM. GhostOfNoMan 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC) You are losing focus here. I definitely think that booby trapping devices used by operatives of a paramilitary organization absolutely means that the article name should contain the name of the paramilitary organization whose devices were booby trapped. The fact that this paramilitary organization has representation in the Lebanese parliament or that the operatives of this paramilitary organization moonlight as nurses does not mean that the name of this paramilitary organization should not be in the article's name. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Nurses are civilians, so that's a no. It doesn't matter what the political allegiance of medical personnel is; no one gets to murder medical personnel in cold blood and call it lawful. The civilian/combatant distinction doesn't magically evaporate because some countries call a group 'terrorist' – language that has zero bearing in international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Doesn't seem like you understand that just because a Hezbollah operative moonlights as a nurse and puts on a nurse uniform, that does not erase their affiliation to Hezbollah. It is not a contradiction to be a nurse and a Hezbollah operative. And that means that it is appropriate to put Hezbollah in the article's name. Only people with affiliations to Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) The sources don't obviously support the bald assertion that only Hezbollah members had the devices. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC) The sources all say that the pagers were issued by Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per above comments. Also, any concerns about target vs attacker are still applicable if Lebanon is used, not to mention that they can be entirely circumvented by using "against Hezbollah". Arcturus95 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR. WP:NCWWW is clear. Proposed alternatives are ambiguous and might allude to Hezbollah being the perpetrator instead of the target. A lot of victims are/were also civilians, and the only thing they had in common with Hezbollah members was the geographic location. - Ïvana (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I like the title "Hezbollah device explosions," as used by the BBC [10]. I don't think it suggests Hezbollah was the perpetrator, I think it suggests that Hezbollah's devices exploded, which is accurate. "Lebanon" isn't entirely accurate because there were also explosions in Syria, even if most of it happened in Lebanon. "Lebanon pager explosions" or "Lebanon device explosions" I find problematic because it makes it sound like they were Lebanese pagers or Lebanese devices, as in made in Lebanon, which does not appear to be the accurate. WP:NCWWW says "in the majority of cases," and I think this is one case where we should say "who" rather than "where." Levivich (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Although indeed Hezbollah pagers and communication devices, many civilians have been killed or injured either from the explosion or shrapnel. Most of the explosions took place in Lebanon. A change from Lebanon to Hezbollah would be misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The attacks were targeted at Hezbollah in more than one country. I agree with Levivich that a title such as Hezbollah device explosions suggests that Hezbollah's devices exploded, which is accurate. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per VR, Havradim, and Iskandar323. Policy should guide this decision, such as WP:NCWWW. If we were going purely for accuracy and precision, we'd have a long name such as 2024 Israeli attacks on Hezbollah pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon and Syria. As it is, 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks seems fine, although I could accept pagers (and I also prefer attacks over explosions). Lewisguile (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - As spoken before, attacks targeted Hezbollah, also removes the geographic argument some had about Lebanon vs. Lebanon and Syria in title name. poketape (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Most of the explosions did take place in Lebanon, but some in Syria as well. The attack was targeted against Hezbollah, and as we have Israel–Hamas war we have precedent to use the intended target even if there are civilian side-effects.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by user VR. Macxcxz (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons mentioned by editors above. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support only if the exact title is established, and we have a revote. Changing one word to the other implying "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions" sounds like Hezbollah is the perpetrator. Jay 💬 14:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Regardless of the collateral damage, the target of the attacks was Hezbollah. Aria1561 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think pro-Israeli sources would describe the attack as targeting Hezbollah, while other sources would indicate attacks on objects used by civilians would indicate something broader Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Hezbollah was targeted across territories. More accurate and more precise. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support- I agree with the above. The incident did not target Lebanon, it was against Hezbollah, and there were pagers that exploded in other places besides Lebanon. DaringDonna (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support I share the same opinion; the operation was directed at Hezbollah rather than Lebanon. There’s no ambiguity about that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is this based on what the reliable sources state or should the title change given your original research? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Mhhossein Check out the sources shared by others here, or this Washington Post article, and then check out WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: First, per naming conventions, "Lebanon" accurately reflects the location, whereas the group "Hezbollah" would misleadingly imply they were responsible for the attacks, which is not the case. Second, the attacks targeted a broad range of devices, including those belonging to civilians, medical personnel, and non-Hezbollah entities, in various public places like supermarkets. Renaming it to "Hezbollah" would obscure these facts and misrepresent the scope of the attacks, which affected many beyond Hezbollah. StarkReport (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The majority of RS are using Lebanon and the rest Hezbollah, somewhat reminiscent of the Gaza/Hamas debate except that the media are being more cautious about accepting the Israeli narrative, especially since they still have not admitted responsibility for what some are calling terrorism. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as explained in the previous RM. I see multiple users saying the title should change, only based on their original research that Hezbollah was the target. It was reported that people irrelevant to Hezbollah were targeted, as well. I think the title with Lebanon is a common name as per WP:TITLE. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neither status quo nor proposed change "Lebanon" isn't inclusive enough, "Hezbollah" is still controversial as there are arguments about targeting. Why not Middle East or some equivalent regional designation? Still precise enough to help people understand which event is mentioned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Including the location or country is standard practice. Lebanon is perfectly descriptive and I don't see how there would realistically be any confusion toward Lebanon being the perpetrators. That's not an actual issue. The fact that the explosions also affected many others outside of the group in question is another reason to not specify it only to the group. Silverseren^C 05:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per VR, the primary location of the events, Lebanon, should be in the title as stated in WP:NCWWW. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCWWW the location takes precident here in the naming conventions. There should likely be a redirect page with other names included. Cocoaguy (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. More precise name which is also used by RS BBC, Foreign Policy. Alaexis_¿question? 09:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - As has been noted, multiple sources including the BBC, have used Hezbollah device explosions. That is the most concise and accurate title. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. More specific. All Hezbollah is in Lebanon but not all Lebanon is in Hezbollah. Andre🚐 06:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I see no reason to deviate from naming conventions, it would only serve to introduce confusion in this case. Rail88 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Needlessly limiting/ exclusionary. Although they were the alledged target, the affected are not limited to Hezbollah nor the Hezbollah-affilated. This title swap would ignore explosion of devices owned by non-Hezbollah civillians including people in the medical field. The nature of the attacks were not contained to Hezbollah with collateral damage, but to the devices (many of which owned by Hezbollah, but not ALL). Plus article naming conventions of "when, where, what" would be followed.Mason7512 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Lebanon as a country was not the target of the attacks. Hezbollah pagers were. Whether non-Hezbollah members were caught as collateral damage is irrelevant; the devices they were using were still Hezbollah pagers. This is also the language that other RS are primarily using ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above, and to more accurately reflect reliable sources which report it as an attack on Hezbollah, not Lebanon. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The following discussion 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.

---

• Support broadening as both pagers and handheld-radios are included in this. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support we can all agree on this. Mobile devices would be too specific and possibly exclude the (alleged) solar panels. Bremps... 02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support electronics; but people claiming solar panels and phones exploded should read this DW Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as it's become abundantly clear that pagers were not the only devices involved. GhostOfNoMan 00:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support mobile devices. Pagers is too specific. Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Day 1 was pagers. Day 2 was walkie talkies. Mobile devices is too broad and two vague. Cullen328 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you. That's why in my !vote I proposed "pagers and walkie talkies". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support electronics. Simple and covers solar panels, which are not communication devices.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Alternate: pagers and walkie talkies per WP:PRECISE. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics since the attack expanded beyond just pagers after the first round. It also wasn't solely communication devices that were targeted, and 'communications' could imply it was a cyberattack on communications systems rather than physical devices. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support to Electronics. "Communications" doesn't cover the solar panels we have reliable sources for. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pagers is the shortest title, the majority of the explosions were pagers, and I don't think either "electronics" or "comunications devices" is as eloquent as pagers. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I've actually been convinced to support "electronics explosions" - but I still oppose "electronics attacks" because that is very vague. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Easy support - much more electronics than just pagers have been affected at this point. More people were killed by handheld radios in the second wave than pagers in the first wave, so having pagers alone in the title is misleading. Havradim leaf a message 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since I am now seeing multiple sources mention the phrase pager and walkie-talkie in their reporting, I prefer that language (BBC, multiple NYT, AP, NBC, VOX, Foreign Policy, VOA, CNN, MSN, Algemeiner). Havradim leaf a message 02:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Alternate: Support pager and walkie-talkie per WP:AND. Electronics is way too broad and doesn't define the subject like "pagers and walkie-talkies" does. In other words, "Pager and walkie-talkie explosions" can be the title of this article but "Electronic explosions" cannot as it's too broad. Even "2024 Lebanon electronic explosions" and other similar variants are too broad and confusing. FunLater (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "electronics" Although at first the majority of explosions originated from pagers, the 2nd wave of attacks was from other electronic devices and it looks like we're not going to be having separate articles for each attack. For that reason, this article's title should reflect both attacks.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "electronics" or "devices" given the range of devices targeted. Tule-hog (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• I think "pagers and walkie-talkie" or "communication devices" are better. MathKnight 21:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, press sources such as the NY Times and NBC News seem to be using the common name "pager attacks". Whizkin (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics - infobox mentions "Pagers, walkie-talkies, solar panels, radios, intercoms, car batteries", etc. Some of these do not fall under "communications" but all are considered electronic devices. - Ïvana (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • FWIW I think the infobox is wrong and took that out; MSM seems to all say pagers and walkie-talkie. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Good to know, then I think devices or communication devices sounds better. - Ïvana (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Btw, Hezbollah has released a couple of statements since the attack describing the devices involved as "pager and wireless devices" and "communication devices". - Ïvana (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support 'devices' or 'pagers and walkie-talkies', as used by BBC and CNN respectively. Both "electronics" and "communications" strike me as too vague. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support devices, oppose electronics which is more about circuits rather than devices. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "communication devices" as pagers were not the only devices involved. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics, but would settle for just pagers. as devices isn't as broad and suggests handheld devices rather than electronics equipment in general (such as solar panels). Devices attacks feels clumsy. My preferred title would be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks or 2024 Lebanon pager attacks. (!Vote modified now infobox updated to remove bad info.) Lewisguile (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Solar panels weren't part of this attack. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I saw the clarification upthread after I made this post, though noted that the article itself and a few RSes mention other devices as "unconfirmed", so left it. In either case, I think "electronics" is more future-proof if any of these do turn out to be connected (even if it's unlikely). Lewisguile (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support because walkie-talkies were also involved. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 18:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronic devices, the main page of Wikipedia has been using …electronic devices used by Hezbollah members explode… for about a week. It works on the main page, so why not use Hezbollah electronic devices explosion as this article’s title? Ilenart626 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as more RS refer it to it as pager attacks, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "communications" devices as too technical, and less helpful than the current title. The first communications device that comes to mind is the mobile phone, which was not involved. Instead support FunLater's "pager and walkie-talke" suggestion. Jay 💬 15:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Either "electronics", "electronic device", or "device" would seem sufficient. Aria1561 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. In order of most preferred to least: "communicaiton devices", "electronic devices", "electronics" are all options that are more befitting of the circumstances as they stand now. AllPurposeScientist^blah 17:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - This might be most notable as pager explosions, though I am sympathetic to the broadening scope of the attack. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - This one actually seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• I would weakly support "electronics", and oppose "communications". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics or devices. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It has widely been reported as the "pager" explosions. Keeping 'pagers' just makes it easier for readers to find the article. DaringDonna (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support: "Electronics" should be the title, as the attacks encompassed a broader range of devices beyond pagers, including solar panels, car batteries, and radios, which fall outside the scope of communication devices. Given the second wave of attacks targeted various electronics, not just communication systems, "electronics" is the most precise and encompassing term. StarkReport (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, as the explosions involved more than just pagers. I think this is the easiest part of the RFC to resolve. What exploded? Pagers, radios, maybe other things. Electronic devices or electronics should be used. "Electronic devices" is clearest, but it does add a word making the title longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support either electronics or devices. The page's scope includes attacks involving more than just pagers. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It is the most known part about the incident. It is how the incident was described in the press and the average person is going to remember the pagers. Also it was the first part of the incident. Although other devices were involved I think the pagers are what stands out to most people. Cocoaguy (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Pagers is wrong. device would match what many sources are using, e.g. the BBC [11]. I do not understand the logic for keeping "pagers" just because that is better known than the walkie talkies (and is it?). The page is about both types of device. Move will leave an appropriate redirect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Andre🚐 06:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Pager is only the COMMONNAME for the pager attack. This page is about both attacks. I see no evidence that the combined Walkie Talkie and pager attacks are being commonly referred to as pager attacks. Why would they be? The current title fails WP:PRECISE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's true, but "pager and walkie-talkie attacks" are more common than "electronics"/"communications" Andre🚐 07:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• First choice: "pagers and electronics" but I recognize that just limiting it to "Pager" is more concise and still effectively communicates the event; so Second choice would be no-change here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

The following discussion 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.

---

• Support per my reason in the previous RM. WP:RS classify this as an "attack" including [12] [13] [14] and so we should just mirror what RS does. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with "attacks" in principle, but I'm a little concerned that, coupled with a Lebanon → Hezbollah change, the title "Hezbollah pager attacks" (or "Hezbollah electronics attacks" etc.) would be misleading – wouldn't a plain reading make it appear Hezbollah were themselves responsible, and not the target? Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I could easily see such a title causing confusion. GhostOfNoMan 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  We can use "attacks on ..." or "attacks in ..." if needbe. I do appreciate the concern as we do need to ensure this title is not misleading though. Awesome Aasim 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  But I think "Lebanon electronics attacks" would be fine and unambiguous.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  2024 Lebanon electronics attacks would be my preferred title, but I'm not immovable on the 2024 part. Lewisguile (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose That title makes it sound like Hezbollah committed an attack, not that they were attacked. Explosions is also more descriptive. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Opoose Explosions is more specific. Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Explosions seems more vague, because it includes accidents (eg 2020 Beirut explosion), whereas this was not accidental.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Attacks. Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Explosions" implies it was an accident. "Attack(s)" is clearer. Similarly, articles about bombings do not use "explosions" (eg Oklahoma City bombing). As for the confusion of who was the attacker and who was the target, there are ways around it. There were some ideas to resolve that in the previous RM. Saying "Attacks on/against Lebanon/Hezbollah" should suffice. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per above. 'Explosions' implies it could've been an accident; it was mostly definitely an attack and most RS support this. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Could cause someone to misinterpret Hezbollah/Lebanon (Lebanon is fine to use, check replies) as the perpetrator. Other than that, I support. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  @BerryForPerpetuity, based on my understanding of English (it is not my mother tongue), the word "Lebanon" is only a noun (whose adjective is "Lebanese"), whereas "Hezbollah" is both a noun and adjective. So "Lebanon electronics attack" should unambiguously indicate Lebanon as the location of the attack, not the perpetrator.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: You are correct. I've updated my support to clear that up. Thanks, — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Explosions is more specific - "attack" could mean an attack on pager infrastructure or similar. Further, if it's changed to Hezbollah, the title Hezbollah pager (or word) attack would imply they attacked pagers, rather than their pagers exploded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Clarifying my comment in relation to the above - I think that this needs to be considered together with the question over what the "items" that exploded/were attacked are called. I cannot support "electronics attack(s)" because that is ambiguous as to whether it was an attack on electronic infrastructure, an attack using electronic weapons, etc. So if it's changed to "electronics" (the shortest word that seems to include the various devices involved) then I still oppose changing to attacks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I am partial to Lebanon exploding electronics attacks; it is concise, precise, follows policy, and does a good job of explaining what happened and in what location. As others have said, having explosions alone omits the fact that this was a targeted attack, leaving open the possibility that it was instead a series of tragic accidents. And having attacks alone leaves too much open to interpretation: Was Lebanon / Hezbollah attacked or did they attack? And via the use of what kind of electronics warfare? Havradim leaf a message 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "attacks", per what I've written below.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but care must be taken that the final outcome of this RM does not make it sound like Hezbollah was the one committing the attack. Therefore, the article name should be something like Attacks on Hezbollah's pagers and walkie talkies. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, "explosions" is more exact to describe what happened (pagers exploded) while "pager attack" may imply electronic espionage or disrupting communication. Also "...pagers attack" could imply active ("they attacked") instead of passive ("they got exploded"). MathKnight 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you on your second point. That's why I put a note in my !vote with a caution that if using the word "attacks", the word order would have to change (along with needing to add the prepesition "on").

  On your first point, because all the explosions happened at the same time (or within a ½ an hour or so), then it does constitute an attack (or more accurately "attacks" because there were two attacks on two different days). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support; "explosion" could be an accident, "attack" is what it was, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - an explosion might be unintended, an attack is not. - Ïvana (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for this title format - "Lebanon pager attacks" and "Hezbollah pager attacks" make it sound like Lebanon/Hezbollah are the perpetrators. I don't categorically oppose using "attacks" instead of "explosions" but it has to be as part of a title that phrases it in a way that doesn't confuse the perpetrator with the victim of the attack, so something different than any of the variations currently proposed. Levivich (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support as these specific "explosions" had a perpetrator, Israel. RS have confirmed Israel to be the perpetrator of this coordinated attack. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as explosions is more specific. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support attacks. Explosions is too vague and implies the devices just blew up, e.g., due to manufacturing issues or excessive heat. These were attacks, and RSes support that. This is why I also don't think Hezbollah should be in the title. It should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - because I support changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah", and 2024 Hezbollah pager attacks could mislead readers to believe the attacks were committed by Hezbollah rather than against Hezbollah.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as attack is what it was. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as "explosions" is more specific and exactly what happened. I would support "attack" if it was a weapon that was used. Pager is a harmless device, and its hard to visualize it as a weapon in "pager attacks". It sounds more like a virus attack that software devices are prone to. I do not mind "attack" if the nature of the attack is part of the title, such as "explosion attacks" or "explosive attacks". Jay 💬 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Feels more correct to include "attacks" in the title—considering that's what it was—particularly to avoid indicating that the devices exploded by themselves in some sort of accident. Aria1561 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Speaks to state of mind of the perpetrator. Likely an WP:NPOV issue. AllPurposeScientist^blah 17:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  ...you think they accidentally put explosives in thousands of pagers? Or that they did it intentionally but not with the intent to attack anyone? What other state of mind could the perpetrator possibly have had? (And does any RS suggest any state of mind other than attack?) Levivich (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – Clear enough that it was deliberate, but explosions is more descriptive and recognisable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Explosions is more descriptive, and "attack" is ambiguous, as said above, you cant tell who is doing the attacking. DaringDonna (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support; I agree with the argument that an "explosion" could be accidental, while the term "attack" is more specific. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The title should be revised from "explosions" to "attacks," as sources consistently identify these incidents as deliberate, coordinated actions, rather than accidental explosions. The term "explosions" suggests unintended events, whereas "attacks" accurately conveys the intentional nature of these acts, with known perpetrators. This aligns with the terminology used for similar events, such as bombings, which are properly labeled to reflect their deliberate nature. Simple. StarkReport (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support (weak because of grammar issues) Attacks is more precise term. However, explosions clearly attaches to the device mentioned in the title, while attack is typically mentally attached to an animate actor (e.g., Hezbollah, Lebanon, etc.). The heading should be phrased to clarify that the devices were the agents of the attack, rather than Lebanon or Hezbollah.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Some editors are considering these sections entirely separately - and I think that puts us at risk of having a title that is very unclear/ambiguous. Pager attacks is pretty clear (attack on pagers), electronics explosions is clear (there were electronics that exploded), but electronics attack(s) is ambiguous. Was it an electronic attack (i.e. jamming)? Was it an attack on electronics infrastructure (i.e. cell phone towers or internet infrastructure)? Was it an attack that used electronics as the vector for the attack (this is the closest)? Does anyone have ideas for potential other words (other than explosions or attacks) that may be better? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can't think of much that isn't too wordy or problematic for other reasons – e.g. explosive electronics attacks introduces more problems than it solves. I don't honestly think electronics (plural) is that likely to cause confusion regarding electronic attacks (singular). A shame that something like 2024 explosive sabotage of Hezbollah communication devices is just so verbose... GhostOfNoMan 22:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  (I'm not suggesting that latter title; just an example of how lengthy a title can sometimes grow when the goal is to remove all ambiguity. Or it's just a display of the poverty of my imagination when it comes to naming things...) GhostOfNoMan 22:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Per my comment in the previous RM, RS describe the events as an attack. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sources are using "device explosions" and that is what has happened in both cases. Attacks is not wrong but explosions is more specific and equally concise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The device explosion was the attack, while both are accurate, it would appear that attack is the more common title. Andre🚐 06:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both "attack" and "explosions" are equally accurate descriptors in isolation, but when combined with "Lebanon" or "Hezbollah" in a title, "attack" is more prone to misreading that Lebanon/Hezbollah was the source rather than the target. jnestorius^(talk) 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Attack is not a *bad* descriptor per se, but it creates ambiguity that a reader unfamiliar with the event will think that this means throwing or bludgeoning with pagers, rather than them as a vector for an explosive. So would prefer "explosions" as that solves that ambiguity. I could live with "attacks" though if that was the consensus.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

The following discussion 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.

---

• Support - a wide range of sources are saying as a fact this was an Israeli attack. The NYTimes has reported these were manufactured by Israel. Axios reports that "Israel decided to blow up the pager devices carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon and Syria on Tuesday out of concern its secret operation might have been discovered by the group, three U.S. officials told Axios." and that "A former Israeli official with knowledge of the operation said Israeli intelligence services planned to use the booby-trapped pagers it managed to "plant" in Hezbollah's ranks as a surprise opening blow in an all- out war to try to cripple Hezbollah." CNN reports that "CNN has learned Tuesday’s explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military." There are no sources that actually dispute that Israel was behind these explosions. nableezy - 01:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • nableezy what is the exact title you propose? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Attack on Pearl Harbor or Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor? Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm not in favor of this, but there is Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp, after all. Havradim leaf a message 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

        And 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. nableezy - 11:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

    2024 Israeli electronics sabatoge attack nableezy - 11:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Israeli electronics attack against Hezbollah?

  Kowal2701 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose- per WP:NPOV. Israel has not taken credit for the incident, and nobody has provided proof that it was Israel. All mentions of Israel as the culprit are allegations. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose clear NPOV violation. Even if there is a consensus they were Israeli or proven to be, this is a clear POV title intended to imply things that should not be implied in a title. Titles should not be disambiguated beyond what is necessary. Unless there is some other attack on Hezbollah pagers/walkie-talkies this year, there is no need for this. And if there's another attack in another year, a year is a NPOV disambiguation that will suffice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Where is the NPOV violation and what is it intended to imply? nableezy - 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, borders on original research at this point. Not at all clear if Israel acted alone on this one, so having this in the title is overreach. Havradim leaf a message 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose per what I've stated below. Identifying the perpetrators within the article title seems unnecessary. The first sentence of the article should explain that reliable sources believe Israel is the perpetrator of this attack.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, while Israel is the natural "prime suspect", it has not taken responsibility, and all we have so far is media speculations and Hezbollah's blame. MathKnight 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus by RS is that Israel was behind the attack. We should reflect that consensus. Arcturus95 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you read the references carefully, the consensus is that Israel is the only logical suspect. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  We also have Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus as a precedent, where Israel also didn't claim responsibility, but multiple sources identified it as the perpetrator. - Ïvana (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Israel is not a suspect by process of elimination. RS have evidence of Israel's responsibility and are fully naming them as responsible.

  [15] CNN has learned Tuesday’s explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military.

  [16] 12 current and former defense and intelligence officials who were briefed on the attack say the Israelis were behind it

  [17] Israel decided to blow up the pager devices carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon and Syria on Tuesday

  [18] Israel placed explosives inside thousands of pagers imported by Hezbollah months before Tuesday’s extraordinary attacks, according to sources cited by Reuters and US media. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose, but in any case please take care when participating in Israel based discussions to be mindful of WP:NPOV, as your user page could suggest that you have a strong vested interest. I believe this would be a reckless edit in any case. If Israel is the perpetrator to comment on their intent is completely unknown. AllPurposeScientist^blah 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support There are other pages that include both the attacker and target's identities, as shown above. Plus, in doing so, all the concerns raised elsewhere in the RM about who was the attacker vs the target would be solved. Arcturus95 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As a comparison, even in terrorist attacks where known terrorist organizations claimed responsibilities, we never mention their names in the title. While the incident is clearly different, I think the same principle applies.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose 'sabotage' - Sabotage would be if they made the pagers and walkie talkies stop working. When you make a device like that explode, that's a booby trap, not sabotage. Neutral on the principle of including 'Israel' in the title; MSM is all more or less reporting that Israel is behind the attack or widely believed to be (also, it's kind of obvious that they are, even if they never admit it). Levivich (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure the NYT agrees with you here. nableezy - 16:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Journalists 🙄 NYT isn't the only one making this obvious mistake, either. If enough of them make it, it'll become "consensus of RS." But mark my words: "sabotage" is not the right word to describe booby trapping, and some day, the NYT and the rest will learn this. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's actually a meaningful distinction (in my view). "Sabotage" is the right word if we want to say that the purpose of putting explosives into personal communications devices was to impede communications. "Booby trap" is the right word if we want to say the purpose was to kill or injure people. Levivich (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unnecessary complication to title, if there were more than one group of pager explosions, then I could see the argument. poketape (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Multiple other pages describe the attacker in the title, and this would follow that precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewishIdeas (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)  WP:ARBECR Awesome Aasim 22:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per Nableezy. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support including Israeli - per nableezy and Arcturus95. Israel not taking responsability for anything as usual doesn't mean we can ignore the multiple RS rightly pointing them as the perpetrator. We already have articles where the attacker is named, regardless of whether they admit to their authorship or not. I don't really like the term "sabotage" - it generally means intentionally damaging or interfering with a device to stop it from functioning properly. I would prefer using "attacks" or similar terms that clearly indicate intent to harm or kill. - Ïvana (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Needlessly complex. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – Here we go again into the world of NPOV. The problem is not that Israel is in the title, since it is almost certain they carried out the operation. The problem is the word sabotage, which can mean anything. The specific nature of the incident needs to be included in the title, whether its pagers, communications devices, or electronics, but something about the method must be in the title. The best title would be "Israeli surprise precision attack against Hezbollah using pagers and other electronic devices." But of course that is too long. But please, sabotage is not the way to go. DaringDonna (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose sabotage, support attacks, ambivalent to Israeli. On the one hand, Israeli attacks is accurate, as far as we currently know, but WP:NCWWW means we should go with when (2024), where (Lebanon) and what (pager/electronics attacks), not who (Hezbollah or Israel) or how (explosions, sabotage). This also has the benefit of being immediately recognisable and being as close to a WP:COMMONNAME (as per recent RSes) as we're likely to get. So, it should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks, though I would settle for 2024 Lebanon pager attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not WP:CONCISE. Unnecessary lead detail, and the wording makes assumptions that are not clearly established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary and confusing, and potentially ambiguous. Andre🚐 06:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose -- sabotage is definitionally the wrong word to apply here for a supply chain explosive attack. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

The User:RMCD bot must have broke. @Wbm1058? Fix? Or maybe someone can add the tag manually. Awesome Aasim 11:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

?! Edit failed due to a recent RMCD bot edit (0RR) is what I saw on my bot's console. Sorry, imposed a 0RR restriction on the bot to mitigate possible edit warring, and did not anticipate that a new RM would open within four hours of the close of another. If you had waited 24 hours to open the new RM, the bot would have been fine with it. My bot hasn't yet found the intelligence to distinguish between its short-term edits to two different requested moves on the same page. Frankly, the whole world is watching this one; I don't think an article notice is really necessary to draw more participation. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO the hatnote serves not merely to invite editors to participate in the debate, but also to alert non-editors that the current title may not reflect a settled consensus of editors. jnestorius^(talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I raised the bot's edit limit for posting in subject-space from 0RR to 1RR. Hopefully will mitigate this issue in the future. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen an RFC before that has been divided into multiple sections with separate votes. Is this proper practice? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not an RFC; this is an RM. Sdkb suggested subsections for each part of the title, so I just did that. I don't find anything unusual about this, it helps a lot with discussion organization for complex and contentious article title discussions. If this was cut and dry then the proposed title would have been speedy moved in the last RM discussion. Awesome Aasim 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I still haven't seen an RM doing these subdivisions for each word in the move. But anyway, I will participate in the move discussion tomorrow, if no other editor finds this also unconventional other than myself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's also impossible to know if we should keep the year or remove it without knowing what the rest of the title will be. For example, I support the title Pager and walkie-talkie attacks, so I voted for removing the year. But many other titles are too broad without the year. FunLater (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. And trying to assess consensus

ll be a nightmare. I've tried to re-edit my !votes to clarify which options I'd like in every answer, but not everyone has done that.i

Lewisguile (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Courtesy ping

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

Pinging editors who commented in the previous WP:RM, but have yet to comment in this WP:RM.

MathKnight, Eastwood Park and strabane, Nice4What, Whizkin, Thuresson, RisingTzar, Makeandtoss, Kowal2701, मल्ल, DaringDonna, David O. Johnson, Mk17b, Borgenland, Pilaz, Spilia4, Hogo-2020, Mhhossein, Nishidani, Oathed, Martinevans123

Apologies if I missed anybody. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I do not think the name of the article is that overwhelmingly important, as long as it is neutral and can be found easily by someone looking for it. Also, it looks like the RM is closed anyway. If you cant figure it out, 2024 Lebanon pager explosions seems just fine. DaringDonna (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The previous RM closed w/o a consensus. In lieu of the RM that closed, a new RM was opened in which the question of how to rename was broken into smaller questions. If you'd like to participate in the new RM you can. If you don't that's fine. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but I don't see this new "trainwreck" of an RM. Help please so I can add my useless opinion, maybe. DaringDonna (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Note: WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Telecommunications, WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Computer Security, WikiProject Explosives, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, and WikiProject Israel have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

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.