Jump to content

Talk:September 2024 Israeli attacks against Lebanon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 1 October 2024

[edit]
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.

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

Missile attacks are probably better described as such rather than as "airstrikes" since those by definition involve aircraft. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Per Prima. Felicia (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose. Airstrikes involve aircraft. Missiles were used in the attacks, not just aircraft. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hadn't realized there was a distinction between airstrikes and missile attacks... I'm not opposed to any of the alternative suggestions provided above.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
Iran's statements about the attack have all been that it was about the assassination of the Hezbollah leaders, same as the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while in Tehran for the swearing in and under Iranian protection.
Iran's response has nothing to do with the Lebanon strikes themselves but on the insult taken and need to show a response to save face.
After this rocket attack, Iran will have proven the point that the death of their backed Hezbollah leaders will not go unpunished. Move the page will only contradict Iran's official statements for why they did this most recent aerial attack on Israel.
Al Jazeera article
RCSCott91 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iran's official statements do not matter at all for our purposes. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806
Okay, You could go with what a ton of news outlets have called this most recent one, Ballistic Missile Attack.
You could individually name them based on what each one was being called in media at the time of the event.
iran-launched-ballistic-missile-attack-israel RCSCott91 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion in your above comment had nothing to do about this being a "missile attack", you were commenting about why Iran launched their attacks today. I agree that this was a missile attack, but Iran's official statements on "why" they launched an attack are completely irrelevant. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I believe some of these would more properly be called missile strikes, not airstrikes. I think strikes is fine. If anyone is confused as to whether or not there is a labor dispute involved, they can just read the first sentence of the article. Unbandito (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - this is a ground attack. No evidence of surface-to-air attacks. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - would support something like October 2024 Iranian missile attacks against Israel DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: these were not airstrikes. Support this new name: 2024 Iranian missile strikes into Israel. Iran did not just launch 200 ballistic guided missiles randomly at the entirety of Israel, it launched them into specific targets in Israel, including airbases and Mossad HQ. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change all to attacks per WP:CONCISE while still being WP:PRECISE. Most lay people won't know or care about the technical distinction between "airstrike", "missile strike" or "rocket strike", etc. This also saves us from having to litigate the language for every single article, avoids the imprecision of "strikes", avoids complexity if multiple types of attack are used, and heads off any NPOV if we call one side's attacks "strikes" and another's something else. Lewisguile (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, with caveats The fatal flaw of the requester is not knowing that airstrikes refer specifically to attacks done by aircraft. However, there is still the problem of the word "strike" itself, which, as the disambiguation page Strike explains, is a word that has a lot of different uses. But honing in specifically on military strike, it is woefully inadequate. It seems to provide a definition within the context of US military usage. Specifically, it says it's a term used for military operations other than war (MOOTW). This usage is not common, as the overwhelming consensus of most scholars is that the United States has engaged in armed conflicts best described as "war(s)" since 1945, even if technically there have been no formal declarations of war from the United States government. I don't think Wikipedia should be using this context of US-centric military terminology. Instead, the general word "attack(s)" seems much more preferable. For these reasons, I generally Support replacing "strike" with "attack(s)". But even so, some of these article titles listed have problems beyond this. To summarize:

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

Comment Not keen on a multimove procedure for disparate events, I have a preference for the word attack in general because it covers a host of sins but would still prefer to separate these things and go with what majority RS are saying. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These articles should be renamed on a case-by-case basis, with a separate general discussion regarding the use of the word "strike(s)" in the article namespace. JasonMacker (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support these as well. Though regarding the second one I feel August 2024 Israeli—Hezbollah attacks would be better as using “Lebanese” could lead to confusion over involvement by the Lebanese state. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Estar8806. Otherwise, I strong support @JasonMacker's suggestion. I made a similar suggestion upthread, but Jason's is more detailed and takes into account who was attacking who. I think this neatly addresses a number of issues which have plagued recent RMs and could be applied more widely with little fuss. Lewisguile (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but that only makes "Lebanese" a better choice than "Lebanon", because Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party that is part of Lebanon's ruling coalition. I think that the current title's usage of "Lebanon" doesn't clearly distinguish between Hezbollah and the state of Lebanon, but "Lebanese" does, because Hezbollah is clearly "Lebanese", and the target of Israel's attacks were Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil, and Lebanese citizens attacked Israel in response. JasonMacker (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that makes Lebanese better than Hezbollah, though. Lebanon would be accurate per WP:NCWWW, but Hezbollah feels more WP:PRECISE.Lewisguile (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NCWWW doesn't have to be a geographic location, an explicitly cited example is Charlie Hebdo shooting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon? That should be undisputed.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VR's suggesting works for me: August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon. Lewisguile (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Not perfect, but a sufficient improvement. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:PRECISE states, "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." There is no ambiguity when it comes to the name "August 2024 Israeli-Lebanese attacks". Even the adjective "Israeli" can be replaced with "Israeli Defense Forces" to make it more precise, but again, that's unnecessary. JasonMacker (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is ambiguity. Or maybe there's not ambiguity, just fallacies. "Lebanese" implies the direct relation to Lebanon, as in operating in the name of the Lebanese state. Neither the Lebanese state nor any of its institutions are directly involved. The Israeli Defense Forces are an institution of the Israeli state, which therefore is a party to the conflict. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The direct relation to Lebanon is that the attacks targeted Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil. And again, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese state, winning a plurality in the previous election. Trying to argue that "Lebanese" somehow doesn't accurately describe Hezbollah is absurd. But even if your point was correct, that there was some ambiguity, it can easily be addressed with the first sentence of the article explaining that a political party within the ruling coalition of the Lebanese government was specifically targeted. You say "neither the Lebanese state nor any of its institutions are directly involved", but that is simply false. The Lebanese state is involved by the sheer fact that Israel violated its sovereignty with these attacks (just one in a long list of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty). And there's also the obvious fact that the Lebanese Armed Forces were directly targeted in these attacks, as detailed in the article's infobox. And the article states that "A Lebanese Army soldier was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Wazzani". The Lebanese Armed Forces, separate from Hezbollah, are very clearly an institution of the Lebanese state. JasonMacker (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By using "Lebanese" instead of "Hezbollah" we'd be implying that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah, which fails WP:PRECISE. If our standard for involvement in a conflict was that "someone from X country was killed in the conflict", then Israel would be fighting practically every country in the world. The fact of the matter is that while "Lebanese" is not entirely inaccurate, it's simply far less precise than "Hezbollah".
And further, the only article in contention about this distinction is August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes. There's not a single source cited in that article that states that any Lebanese civilians were killed. That is the only article in contention because Israel and Hezbollah exchanged attacks, using "Lebanese" would imply that the Israeli Defense Forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces exchanged fire, when in reality it was Israel and Hezbollah. I'm not in any way suggesting that the titles of articles where only Israel launched attacks should use "Hezbollah" instead of Lebanon/Lebanese, but those where Hezbollah launched attacks, Hezbollah should be called Hezbollah, not conflated with the entire of Lebanon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just asserted that "By using "Lebanese" instead of "Hezbollah" we'd be implying that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah" but you offered no explanation for that. Why in the world would someone think that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah, exactly? You really think that my suggested title, "August 2024 Israeli–Lebanese attacks", would somehow imply that ALL Lebanese people are Hezbollah? I really don't understand the logic and you have failed to provide any. How would someone read that title, which doesn't even mention Hezbollah, and somehow reach the conclusion that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah? JasonMacker (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said someone would think that, I said we'd be implying it. Even if my wording was poor, the fact of the matter is it still fails WP:PRECISE nonetheless. There are absolutely no benefits to using Lebanese. And you're simply picking one line, one point, of my entire argument and ignoring all the other points I made. I'll say it again: Lebanese may not be inaccurate, but Hezbollah is far more precise. Why should we not use the more precise title? It's part of our policy, after all. Just because the attacks happened in Lebanon does not mean they were against Lebanon. I still support August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon as the most precise option presented here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have failed to explain how a title that doesn't even mention Hezbollah, would somehow be implying something about Hezbollah. The benefits to using "Lebanese" are already explained. As I've said, Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, much in the same way that a restaurant in Beirut is a Lebanese restaurant. Thus, the adjective "Lebanese", which means "of or relating to Lebanon", is a correct descriptor of the attacks, because they are Lebanese attacks. Any attack by Hezbollah is a Lebanese attack, in the same way that any sandwich made in a restaurant in Beirut is a Lebanese sandwich. You have this bizarre idea that "Lebanese" strictly means the government of Lebanon, when it is just not true. It's a normal adjective like any other demonym.
"Why should we not use the more precise title?"
Read WP:PRECISE. It's actually talking about how we don't actually need to be very precise in the naming of things. The specific example provided is "Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." This is my position. "Hezbollah" is too precise, in the same way that naming the IDF in the title would also be too precise. Instead, the correct amount of precision is "Israeli-Lebanese" rather than "A few units of the Israeli Defense Forces and a few members of the Armed Wing of Hezbollah." Because remember, if we actually wanted to be very precise, then it is actually not Hezbollah as a whole, but rather specifically the armed fighters of Hezbollah that engaged in attacks. That's why "Lebanese" is the correct level of precision; it is precise enough to characterize the subject of the article.
The problem with I have with "August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon" is that the title should mention the perpetrators in this case. Also, by your own admission, the attacks were not on "Israel" or "Lebanon" generally, but rather attacks on specific armed units operating in those countries. So your suggested title fails your own rubric of precision (I don't mind that particular failure, because your rubric is inconsistent with WP:PRECISE). JasonMacker (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought I would see the day someone would argue that WP:PRECISE says we don't need to be very precise, but I digress.
A. You're again conflating Hezbollah with all of Lebanon. Should we be conflating Hamas with all of Palestine?
B. I never admitted that the attacks were not on "Israel". There were attacks committed by Israel targeting Hezbollah, and those committed by Hezbollah targeting Israel.
C. the title should mention the perpetrators in this case - the perpetrators are Israel and Hezbollah, you're proving my point. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:PRECISE. I quoted it directly where it talks about avoiding too much precision. Please acknowledge that part of WP:PRECISE. And no, the perpetrators are the Israeli Defense Forces and the Armed wing of Hezbollah, as I've mentioned. Please read what I wrote carefully. You're saying things that I've already addressed. Please acknowledge what I've written and respond to those points. JasonMacker (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if we're getting incredibly specific then the Israeli Defense Forces and the armed wing of Hezbollah are the combatants. So the Israeli Defense Forces → Israel is perfectly acceptable, but the 'armed wing' of Hezbollah → Hezbollah, is not? How is that in any way logical? If "Israeli/Israeli" implies the Israeli Defense Forces, then "Lebanon/Lebanese" implies the Lebanese Armed Forces. I'm familiar with WP:PRECISE, the "Mother Teresa" example is an incredibly poor comparison to make here. That title balances precision, concision, and, above all, WP:COMMONNAME. If we can prove that "Lebanon" is the common name for Hezbollah, I'd happily consider that point. But you've asked me to respond to your points so I will.
A. The direct relation to Lebanon is that the attacks targeted Lebanese citizens on Lebanese soil. - Lebanese soil, yes. Lebanese citizens, no. Or at least in the case of the article that is in contention. Other attacks, perhaps.
B. The Lebanese state is involved by the sheer fact that Israel violated its sovereignty with these attacks (just one in a long list of Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty). - just straight up WP:POV there.
C. And the article states that "A Lebanese Army soldier was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Wazzani". The Lebanese Armed Forces, separate from Hezbollah, are very clearly an institution of the Lebanese state. - Again, if we're titling based off of one single casualty then Israel would be at war with France, for example.
D. You just asserted that "By using "Lebanese" instead of "Hezbollah" we'd be implying that all Lebanese people are Hezbollah" - Admittedly a poor argument on my part, I'll give you that one. But the point that "Lebanese" implies the "Lebanese Armed Forces" are directly involved still stands.
E. As I've said, Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, much in the same way that a restaurant in Beirut is a Lebanese restaurant. Thus, the adjective "Lebanese", which means "of or relating to Lebanon", is a correct descriptor of the attacks, because they are Lebanese attacks. - By that logic, terror attacks committed by the Taliban are/were attacks committed by Afghanistan. (And obviously that point is in regards to pre-2021 considering now I guess the Taliban is Afghanistan).
F. Read WP:PRECISE. It's actually talking about how we don't actually need to be very precise in the naming of things. - Well actually it doesn't say that, it says we don't have to be overly precise. But we still have to unambiguously define the scope of an article in the title. So no, it can't easily be addressed with the first sentence of the article.
G. Because remember, if we actually wanted to be very precise, then it is actually not Hezbollah as a whole, but rather specifically the armed fighters of Hezbollah that engaged in attacks. - You're simply trying to twist my argument to make it sound ridiculous. I'm not advocating for it to be as precise as humanly possible (that would be undoubtedly WP:OVERPRECISION), I'm asking for it to be as concise as necessary to prevent ambiguity.
H. The problem with I have with "August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon" is that the title should mention the perpetrators in this case. - This is very fair. In an ideal world, I would agree that Hezbollah attacks on Israel and Israeli attacks on Lebanon should be specified, but "Lebanese" doesn't help with that. Were the perpetrators Lebanese nationals, yes. But if the nationality of members of a terrorist/militant group is how an attack is classified then the November 2015 Paris attacks must've been committed by Belgium as a Belgian national participated in the attacks.
I. Also, by your own admission, the attacks were not on "Israel" or "Lebanon" generally, but rather attacks on specific armed units operating in those countries. - Key word being in. It's similar to the War in Afghanistan, when the Taliban wasn't in control it was against the Taliban in Afghanistan, not against Afghanistan itself. and again, I never said the attacks weren't on Israel or Lebanon, that's actually the title I support August 2024 attacks on Israel and Lebanon.
J. And no, the perpetrators are the Israeli Defense Forces and the Armed wing of Hezbollah, as I've mentioned. - I'll say it again— by your logic the Israeli Defense Forces is Israel, but the armed wing of Hezbollah isn't Hezbollah? How does that make sense?
It boils down to whether Hezbollah should be taken as a pars pro toto for Lebanon. I don't believe it should, but if you do I'm afraid there's nothing left I have to say that could convince you. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Cambridge, Oxford and Britannica dictionaries explicitly mention airstrike means attack by aircraft, as Wikipedia article on Airstrike. The missiles Iran used to attack Israel were surface-to-surface missiles, not launched from aircraft. So this attack does not fit into the criteria of airstrike. --CometVolcano (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They were not aistrikes, but missiles launched from the ground. Durraz0 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as airstrikes involve aircraft. The missiles were launched from the ground, as shown from the article infobox image. HarukaAmaranth 09:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose as airstrikes involve aircraft. I really don't get how the move would come from any informed viewpoint. Missiles were launched from the ground and ballistic missiles in particular did the most damage. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've stricken the original move requests as it's been made (rather painfully) clear that I was misinformed as to what an "airstrike". Reading through the discussion it seems as though some editors are very passionate about that distinction, so I apologize as I'm not nor never would claim to be an expert on military affairs. In any case, please see the above comment by @JasonMacker:[1] for the updated request.
@CometVolcano, Durazz0, HarukaAmaranth, and MrThunderbolt1000: What are your thoughts on the alternative proposal?--estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This seems to be going in multiple directions. We should say what the reliable sources used to cite/source an article says. If a reader happens to get 'confused', he or she can simply read the lede, for starters. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Kola district strike on the 29th

[edit]

Would this article be an appropriate place to include the 29th September Israeli attack on the Kola district of Beirut targeting the PFLP?[2][3] I would think so, yet they are not currently included in this article. Mason7512 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2024

[edit]
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: Moved to September 2024 Israeli attacks against Lebanon. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 Lebanon strikes → 23–24 September 2024 Israeli strikes into Lebanon – There is no reason why we should avoid mentioning the perpetrator of the strikes, Israel. Clearly, this decision is inconsistent with rest of similar articles on Wikipedia such as: October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel and 1991 Iraqi missile attacks against Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly oppose - I have a few separate thoughts on this matter: 1) I support inclusion of "Israeli" both parties should be clarified. 2) I don't see why the nominator has only chosen to use 23–24 September when the prose says these attacks took place from 23–30 September. 3) I strongly oppose the use of "strikes" as a complete failure of WP:PRECISION. Optimally in this case would be "airstrikes" (as despite my prior lack of knowledge of a difference between airstrikes and ground-launched missiles, these seem to have been exclusively airstrikes). I would nonetheless equally support "attacks". 4) "into" just doesn't feel appropriate for non-ground incursions. TL;DR I'd equally support September 2024 Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon or September 2024 Israeli attacks against Lebanon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like @Estar8806, I'd prefer different wording. I'd go for September 2024 Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon or September 2024 Israeli attacks against Lebanon. The use of into is awkward and strikes is imprecise. If nominator were to change this to one of the options above, I'd support it. Lewisguile (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_2024_Israeli_attacks_against_Lebanon&oldid=1255062464"