Talk:September 2024 Israeli attacks against Lebanon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article title

While the strikes did happen in both Israel and Lebanon, it appears the damage is totally asymmetric. All of the deaths appear to be in Lebanon. This looks less like cross-border fire and more like a large-scale attack by Israel.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it's also important to mention that the IDF is totally indiscriminate (ie openly targeting civilians) and their military censors hide a lot. So it's unclear just how much damage israel has incurred on the other end as they don't let anyone report on it. 99.237.230.117 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources that say what you wrote above.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No need, WP:ARBECR applies as this is within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, so the IP should just restrict themselves to edit requests which their previous message clearly isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah Casualties vs Civil Casualties

As of now, Hezbollah only published the identity of a single member. The vast majority of the killed are civils. In some attacks, entire families were killed. InfiniteValrath (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that it's higly unlikely that Hezbollah would report their true losses, and thereby admit how hard Israel hit them. It is way easier to present such losses as "civilian casualties". — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That may well be true but at the moment we have no way of knowing how many civilians vs. militants were killed and it is highly likely that given the current death toll of nearly 500, at least hundreds of civilians were killed and injured. Of course we are limited to the numbers and details published by reliable sources. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is no denial that hundreds of civilians were killed and injured, but it would be ludicrous to accept the narrative of Hezbollah that they suffered only one casualty, while all the others are civilians. As you mentioned, only reliable sources can make those numbers more clearer, in days to come. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

192.15.119.255 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I'll mark this as answered. If you are the one who opened this discussion, you can open a new one and you must state what changes you want made. For example, "Change 1,835 injuries to 1,900. Source: example.com". The page Wikipedia:Edit requests has more information. FunLater (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Name of operation in Hebrew

The formal name of the operation is Northern Arrows, should that include a Hebrew translation? 70.26.38.100 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I would prefer putting it in a note (similar to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel) to avoid it cluttering the page. Do you have a source that states the official name in Hebrew? FunLater (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The announced name is "חיצי הצפון" and the transliteration (mine) is "Chitzei HaTzafun" --Scharb (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Added. FunLater (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Problematic infobox

The infobox currently lists all deaths and injuries in Lebanon on the side of Hezbollah, which is problematic for obvious reasons (we don't know how many of those killed were civilians or militants). Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If all the casualties were in Lebanon, maybe this infobox isn't even the best infobox to use. Template:Infobox military operation would be a better choice.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Good suggestion, VR. Lewisguile (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoice for Israeli claims

Please don't use wikivoice for Israeli claims that are not independently confirmed.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of these have now been removed, condensed or reworded. See what you think. Lewisguile (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Add French FM reaction to the Reactions>International section

Something like:

• France: France's FM, Jean-Noël Barrot, called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, stating: "I’m thinking of the men and women in uniform in Lebanon and the French contingent there. I’m thinking of the Lebanese people as Israeli strikes have just killed hundreds of civilians, including dozens of children. These strikes conducted on both sides of the blue line, and in the region more broadly, must immediately end."

Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears this has already been added in slightly condensed language. Thanks. Lewisguile (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Israel's aims in the lede

@Galamore: I moved this paragraph into the Reactions section because its inclusion in the lede is not neutral. While it is fair to include an attacker's operational aims, the paragraph contained this, which has nothing to do with operational aims: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Lebanese people, stating, "Israel's war is not with you, it's with Hezbollah. For too long, Hezbollah has been using you as human shields." Please at least remove this sentence from the lede. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why we need to include Netanyahu's claim of human shields in the lede. It isn't backed by reliable sources, isn't related to his operational aims, and just forces an unnecessary POV into the lede. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the article on the Israel-Hamas war outlines Hamas's stated motives for its attack on Israel: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's continued occupation, the blockade of Gaza, settlement expansion, disregard for international law, alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the general plight of Palestinians." The description of stated aims can be found in many articles similar to this.

In any case, this is an article about a military operation launched by a country. It makes perfect sense to explain what a country aims to achieve in such an operation in the lead of an article describing it. ABHammad (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Claims of human shield use are not relevant to the IDF's motives for the attacks. I very much doubt anyone here thinks the IDF conducted the airstrikes because of human shields. This feels like Wikipedia is justifying the civilian death toll in the lede; I see no good reason why those claims should remain there. So while I do agree that their motives should be included in the lede, some parts of the lede unnecessarily push a POV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue of human shields is indeed a significant one. For very long Hezbollah has used civilian areas to launch attacks and is deeply embedded in Shia villages in the south of Lebanon. They also try to establish a presence in Christian villages, and there have been multiple instances where locals have fought back and expelled them ( https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-17/the-lebanese-christian-village-on-the-border-with-israel-that-escapes-the-shelling-this-is-safer-than-beirut.html, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202403274605, https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/25/the-middle-east-has-a-militia-problem,). So since its true, if its also mentioned by sources as part of statements I think we should mention it too. EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nythar, the IDF did not conduct the strikes specifically because of human shields, but it did ask people to leave their villages during the attacks because Hezbollah uses homes to store weapons and launch them at Israel. So mentioning this context is important when describing the operational aims. Galamore (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should Israel's statements be mentioned in the lead alone? That seems like UNDUE. Especially at a time, when Hezbollah's aims are not just not mentioned in the lead, they are repeatedly being removed from the article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We have video evidence supporting Israel's claim that missile silos were disguised as civilian houses. Civilian houses don't have secondary explosions like an ablaze fireworks factory --Scharb (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we could use a better source, but the video is rather conclusive. Having said that, the idea that Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, have always used civilians and their schools, hospitals and homes as human shields and as a means to hide their terrorist activities should at this late date be nothing amazing. They are completely complicit in the deaths of civilians. If a sniper was shooting at people from inside a "civilian" home, I can't get too upset if that "civilian" home gets caught up in the crossfire – esp since the situation begs the question: Did the homeowner lend support, moral or otherwise, to the sniper? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to get into a discussion of anyone's views here, so I'd advise we move back onto the topic of RSes and consensus. This is WP:NOTAFORUM.

If RSes say that this is a crucial part of the conflict--enough to go in the lede--then please cite them and we can include it in a way that's WP:DUE. Otherwise, it shouldn't go into the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

POV to use the Israeli operation name as the title for the infobox

It is very biased to refer to this by the official IDF name, when we should be using a neutral voice and just call it what most of the more or less objective sources call it. Even using the "military operation" infobox presents the Israeli view as if Wikipedia's own voice. This is a conflict, not an "operation". FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. The infobox was previously different, but it implied all casualties were Hezbollah members, so we switched for the military ops one instead (which obviously had a problem of its own). It shouldn't be controversial now. Lewisguile (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Flags

Please don't add flags to the reactions section. I can't believe we have to go over this on every "current event" article. See MOS:FLAGCRUFT. C F A 💬 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree. There's no viable or pressing reason to remove the flags, which allow quick and easy identification of the nationals in this section, which is in list format. The article is stating the official national position on the airstrikes, and including the national flag in such instances is completely appropriate. Until such time where someone can present a viable reason to remove the flags, one which garners a clear consensus, the flags should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• MOS:FLAGCRUFT — "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride.". The flags are not included as a means of communicating "national pride". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I previously converted the list to a prose format to avoid the issue, instead categorizing international reactions by informal political blocs, however this has now been undone by another user. Would it be appropriate to open an RfC regarding this case? Mr. Lechkar (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 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: moved. Snow close; moved to September 2024 Lebanon strikes. (non-admin closure) (closed by non-admin page mover) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

---

23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes → 23–24 September 2024 Lebanon strikes – The strikes are still ongoing. FunLater (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: without getting into WP:CRYSTAL, it's hard to imagine that this situation will conclude today. To avoid having a repeat of this conversation tomorrow, maybe a title like September 2024 Lebanon strikes would be preferred. I do have some issues with the title as it stands, though. "Strikes" is rather imprecise, and it could be read as a labour dispute (e.g. 1973 Durban strikes). I think a more descriptive title would be September 2024 Israeli attack on Lebanon or Israeli attack on Lebanon (September 2024) WillowCity^(talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with September 2024 Lebanon strikes at the very least (which already redirects to here anyway). Procyon117 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks "strikes" is vague. Airstrikes is better and fits the lead. Sadly I also agree this may need to be moved to September 2024... ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  The rocket strikes and artillery strikes are also to be considered Waleed (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  In which case "attack" is more WP:CONSISTENT with Nabatieh attack, Majdal Shams attack, etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Strikes is also overly euphemistic. We should call a spade a WP:SPADE. Lewisguile (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Israeli attacks on Lebanon for the time being. I think it would honestly be best to wait on a permanent title for this page, as we don't know if these attacks are part of a larger, multi-week campaign or just for a few days. Jebiguess (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I support this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I too, think this is best for now. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) (Adding) We have previously August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes so in theory we should be consistent, tho as I write this the situation is more often being described as an "escalation" amid calls for deescalation/ceasefire.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support but I think that Operation Arrows of the North can also be used as a name unlike September 2024 Israeli Strikes on Lebanon as there have been multiple previous strikes including 400 strikes on 22 September. Waleed (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Lebanon Airstrikes While the increased scope is needed to cover what seems like it'll be a sustained bombing campaign, imo we should also shift to specify airstrikes at the same time so as not to confuse these with the pager attacks. BSMRD (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon per above on the date. "Strikes" and "attacks" are insufficiently WP:PRECISE to accurately reflect the scope of this article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Lebanon strikes and September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon. Viewsridge (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Move to September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon. Why on earth would we not have "Israeli" in the title? They're the aggressors! "Lebanon strikes" is vague and confusing. It implies Lebanon is involved militarily, but they aren't belligerents at all. Dhantegge (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support but better move to Operation Arrows of the North (or Operation Northern Arrows) as @M Waleed suggested above. This is not the first time there are strikes in Lebanon in September 2024 (see for example Assassination of Ibrahim Aqil). The article in fact refers to the operation that started on 23rd of September and it is unclear when will it end. Galamore (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also support Operation Northern Arrows or Operation Arrows of the North. Viewsridge (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes or September 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes. The second option would be in consistency with August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, strikes also unlikely to end today, so September 2024 Lebanon strikes to align with article's original title. Angusgtw (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Operation Northern Arrows per Waleed. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, specifically September 2024 Lebanon strikes, I do not support any title with any particular days. It is quite clear this will be continuing. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Would also support, in face prefer, a title with Israeli in the title such as 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon airstrikes could also be "attacks, "strikes", etc. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 14:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes or Operation Northern Arrows because it is probably going to continue for a while, although I do think that Scharb's comment above does bring up a good point. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes, this will prevent the title change from having to happen every day, and an end date can always be put in after the strikes end. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: What about "Bombardment of Lebanon (2024)" or "2024 Lebanon strikes"? Andrew012p (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support but wait what will happen, the name 23-XX september (or other months) can be also considered. Karol739 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes per reasons above Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support either September 2024 Lebanon strikes or Operation Northern Arrows Braganza (talk) 08: or13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support either September 2024 Lebanon strikes or Operation Northern Arrows per the reasons stated above. IJA (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Operation Northern Arrows IDB.S (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We do not usually use names supplied by one side for NPOV reasons, preferring a descriptive title if there is no obvious commonname. Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Operation Northern Arrows There were many strikes in Lebanon in September... Eladkarmel (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 11:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — Can we close this discussion early? Enough people have participated, and I doubt waiting a few more days would lead to any new ideas. The new title will most likely have to be changed again anyway as things progress. FunLater (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Adding the day seems naive and strikes is too euphemistic as per WP:SPADE. Lewisguile (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Scuba 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support   September 2024 Lebanon airstrikes -- Yes, the title should indicate Airstrikes, —without— the day-date designation of 23–24, as there may be additional airstrikes forthcoming.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Move to 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon. The existing title is terrible for multiple reasons. Why on earth would we not have "Israeli" in the title? They're the aggressors? It's a bit like calling the Russian bombing of Ukraine "2022-24 Ukraine strikes". I know we're following up from August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes, but that's terrible too. Hezbollah, not Lebanon, is the co-belligerent.

  "Lebanon strikes" is vague and confusing. It implies Lebanon is involved militarily, but they aren't belligerents at all. It also could be confused with industrial action - the title is similar to 2022–present National Health Service strikes and 1975 Icelandic women's strike. That sounds like a silly point to make, I know, but still. The use of the passive voice is irritating and confusing.

  It's also unwise to add "September" because it's the end of the month, and we may have to change it to "October" soon enough. Dhantegge (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon or some variation thereof. Cremastra (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Lebanon strikes or something similar if these continue past September. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 08:12, 26 September 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.

"1,500 strikes" is now outdated.

The first figure in the lead, 1,500 strikes, is from the first two days. Are there any new numbers? Otherwise, I think we should remove it. FunLater (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead intro is quite poor, I think, should not be just a bunch of stats claimed by the IDF. It needs to take into account the background, what it is all about and so on. If it were only down to me, I would take the August and September strikes and merge them into Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present), that's what this is about and if there is no deescalation, only then an article Israeli invasion of... or whatever. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the number for now. FunLater (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede POV

Lede is in bad shape. Israeli claims are placed at the opening paragraph which must be kept neutral. More details on Israeli geographic regions affected by Hezbollah's response are given that on the 500 Lebanese people killed in one day by Israeli strikes. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Many sources are now referring to this situation as an "escalation" and calling for "deescalation" and/or cease fire. It's not just about some airstrikes. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Even worse is that this unchecked Israeli claim is amplified in the "In the news" section on the front page. Just because Israel claims their bombing campaign is against Hezbollah doesn't make it a fact. The source cited does not make this outlandish claim. --Fjmustak (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the attribution in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What claims specifically? What more detail would you like on the >500 killed specifically? Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a claim: "1,600 Hezbollah positions, destroying cruise missiles, long- and short-range rockets and attack drones." Claims do not belong in the opening paragraph.

Since this an article about the strikes on Lebanon, there should be details on the affected 500 people killed, the thousands injured, their regions of residency, the 14 ambulances that Israel hit, the displacement of half a million people and how they got stuck in traffic. This is the scope of the article, not how Hezbollah has responded. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The 1,600 number starts with "The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported that Israeli aircraft targeted". That isn't a claim in Wikivoice. As for the info about damage, yes, I agree that it should be included in the lead. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There are some articles today about civilian casualties and I think there some making the comparison with Gaza, "precision strikes", must not be another Gaza and so on. It does look very similar to the lead in to the Gaza invasion including the indiscriminate attacks. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I boldly rewrote the lead. I think it's a better summary of the article now, but it's obviously not perfect. If you can, improve it. FunLater (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the lede is looking good. I had held off doing a bold edit myself, but this seems much, much stronger than it was. Lewisguile (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Request re: POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number displaced

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

I agree. I tried to fix these issues, which were reverted by @EnfantDeLaVille: claiming "consensus in edit history and talk page". [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Vice regent @Nythar Are your issues resolved?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"unprovoked"

@Galamore, you added that Hezbollah made "unprovoked" attack on Israel[4]. But this is quite POV language. Already on Oct 7 Israel had begun Israeli bombing of Gaza. Already on October 7, there were reports that Israel had killed 413 Palestinians, including 78 children[5]. On Oct 9, Al-Jazeera described Hezbollah's reasons as "solidarity with the Palestinians" and also pointed out that Hezbollah's fire was on Israeli soldiers occupying Shebaa farms (either occupied Lebanese or occupied Syrian territory).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More background issues

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

NPR says "If there is a ceasefire in Gaza, we will stop without any discussion," Hezbollah's deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Kassem, said in an interview with The Associated Press at the group's political office in Beirut's southern suburbs.[6]. That article, written in July, also points out that that 37,900 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's invasion. This is probably the most salient aspect of the Israel-Hamas war. Other RS have also mentioned the Palestinian death toll when mentioning Hezbollah's rationale for fighting. For example: Hezbollah says its attacks aim to support the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where nearly 18,000 people – most of them women and children – have been killed by Israel in two months. Al Jazeera Dec 2023 A war between the militant Palestinian group and Israeli forces that so far has killed more than 19,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to Gaza's health ministry. Israel says about 1,200 people were killed in the Oct. 7 attack. After the Gaza war started, Hezbollah responded by attacking Israeli targets in northern Israel. NPR December 2023 Indeed, in a BBC interview, Hezbollah's deputy leader has referred to "Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children" as his rationale for fighting.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or even:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also adding hare for convenience:

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

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

Target in infobox

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

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

We should either mention both Israeli and Lebanese POVs, with attribution, or neither. For example, "Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati yesterday slammed the ongoing Israeli “war of extermination” on villages and towns in southern Lebanon."[7] So from a Lebanese government perspective, Lebanon itself is the target. Of course, Israel would deny that. But we shouldn't be taking sides.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

So I'd propose under targets writing:

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

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

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

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

• Hezbollah

and

• Lebanese civilians (per Lebanon, denied by Israel)

or

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

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

I'd also prefer:

• Hezbollah

and

• Lebanese civilians (per Lebanon, denied by Israel)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are quite a few issues with the current sourcing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Under any reasonable definition..."

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

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

• Egyptian Foreign Minister: "targeting innocent civilians in Lebanon."[8]
• Hezbollah: "a Hezbollah spokesman accused Israel of targeting civilians."[9]
• Witnesses in southern Lebanon: "We evacuated our homes because Israel is targeting civilians and attacking them.”[10]
• Researcher at Doha Institute for Graduate Studies: "The claim by Israeli officials that the army is not intentionally targeting civilians but instead carrying out precise strikes on Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon is “nonsense”".[11].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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