iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks
Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

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

Requested move 19 September 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: Inching ever closer to consensus. Alright. The Frankenstein's monster close comes out to "2024 Lebanon electronic devices attacks". If I can be permitted to exercise some personal opinion here, I'd like to revise this to "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks", because "devices attacks" sounds horrendous and "device attacks" does not introduce confusion about there only being a single device involved. I find "Lebanon" superior to "Hezbollah" for Frankenstein's Close because the ambiguity that many participants worried about at various points of the discussion does indeed cause problems when we swap "Hezbollah" in, making it sound like this may have been an attack by Hezbollah instead of on Hezbollah.

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

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

Remove the year

[edit]
REMOVE IT, MAYBE
This one is pretty evenly split. Given the lack of clear consensus and the general ambivalent feeling of many of the arguments, the ultimate decision to retain or lose the year will depend on how ambiguous the title looks when the other components are decided on. asilvering (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support as per nom FloridaMan21 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah"

[edit]
IT'S COMPLICATED
Support has the numerical majority. However, I find oppose to have a clearer grounding in convention, following WP:NCWWW, and I see concerns from a minority of participants about the WP:NPOV issue that "Hezbollah" favours the Israeli narrative. Concerns about using "Hezbollah" in the title having the potential to mislead also seem more relevant in light of the other sub-discussion closes, which leave us with something like "2024 Hezbollah electronic device(s) attacks". asilvering (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extended content
  • Perhaps, but the electronic devices were distributed by Hezbollah to its operatives. The devices were not commercially available. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of the killed were children, and 2 were hospital workers, were they also Hizbollah "operatives"?. They might have targeted Hizbollah, but the fact is that they hit innocent people, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The children who died were probably children of Hezbollah operatives who played around with their parents' pagers, and the "hospital workers" who died were probably Hezbollah operatives who moonlighted as "hospital workers". But none of that is even remotely relevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the devices were issued by Hezbollah. Nobody who is not affiliated with Hezbollah, or affiliated with people affiliated with Hezbollah, would have had access to those devices. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about the people at funerals or supermarkets who happened to be near someone with a pager? Are they "operatives" too?
      RSes have said civil servants and charity workers also received those devices because Hezbollah is a political party as well as a paramilitary group. They're not "moonlighting" as anything.
      And of course other people would have access to those devices. There were 4,000 devices spread across two countries. People leave devices lying around, lose them, put them in cloakrooms, store them in lockers, etc.
      But regardless of all that, a child — even if their parents work for Hezbollah — isn't a valid target and their deaths shouldn't be shrugged off as "oh well, Hezbollah!" Let's not be glib, even accidentally, about the death of kids. Yikes. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The children were not the target. The target was Hezbollah. It was the parents who put their child in harms way by choosing a dangerous line of work, and then on top of that, they brought their work home with them. Hezbollah is a paramilitary organization with representation in the Lebanese parliament.
      Anybody who freely chooses to associate with Hezbollah is putting themselves, as well as anybody they associate with, in harms way, even if the people who associate with the Hezbollah operatives are not even aware that they are associating with a Hezbollah operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was an unlawful boobytrapping of civilian communications devices that contravened all kinds of laws of war, including, not least, targeting devices also used by (non-Hezbollah) medical personnel. The devices also exploded in indiscriminate locations, such as supermarkets. Not surprising that all legal commentators call it A) a war crime, or B) a terrorist attack.[3] Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember that these were communication devices that were purchased by Hezbollah and issued to its operatives. These devices were not available to civillians in any store within Lebanon. To receive one these devices, a person had to have either gotten it from Hezbollah, or, for whatever reason, were given the devices by an operative of Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's OR, and you're not a reliable source, but The Nation is. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Nation did not say that the pagers were widely available for the general Lebanese population. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It said medical workers were killed after the words "but so", contrasting this with "Hezbollah members". A statement that OR alone cannot overwrite. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In case it does actually need to be said: someone working for a charity or hospital doesn't deserve to die just because of who funds (or part-funds) that organisation. Taking pagers home isn't supposed to be a risk to your child. Nurses don't deserve to die. Neither do kids. Again, yikes! Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nurses who are Hezbollah operatives during their day job are absolutely legitimate targets, and parents who let their children handle their Hezbollah-issued pagers put the lives of their children at risk. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you think booby trapping a device used by a member or supporter of a party and making it explode without caring about who it harms or where the explosion happens is perfectly fine and legal and should be celebrated. We are not supposed to feel bad for the victims even if they were not the intended target cause they chose to be nearby other people so they were asking for it. Hopefully you'll apply the same logic if/when the target is Likud or any other Israeli or American political party. - Ïvana (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting a little distracted – WP:NOTFORUM. GhostOfNoMan 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are losing focus here.
      I definitely think that booby trapping devices used by operatives of a paramilitary organization absolutely means that the article name should contain the name of the paramilitary organization whose devices were booby trapped. The fact that this paramilitary organization has representation in the Lebanese parliament or that the operatives of this paramilitary organization moonlight as nurses does not mean that the name of this paramilitary organization should not be in the article's name. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nurses are civilians, so that's a no. It doesn't matter what the political allegiance of medical personnel is; no one gets to murder medical personnel in cold blood and call it lawful. The civilian/combatant distinction doesn't magically evaporate because some countries call a group 'terrorist' – language that has zero bearing in international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Doesn't seem like you understand that just because a Hezbollah operative moonlights as a nurse and puts on a nurse uniform, that does not erase their affiliation to Hezbollah. It is not a contradiction to be a nurse and a Hezbollah operative. And that means that it is appropriate to put Hezbollah in the article's name.
      Only people with affiliations to Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The sources don't obviously support the bald assertion that only Hezbollah members had the devices. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The sources all say that the pagers were issued by Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

[edit]
NOT "PAGERS"
Consensus is clearly against retaining "pagers". Editors concerned about readers being able to find the article are of course welcome to make titles including "pagers" as redirects to the title that is decided from this move discussion. "Electronic devices", "electronics", and "devices" all have enough support to be plausible outcomes; it looks to me that "electronic devices" satisfies the issues brought up in this discussion the best. asilvering (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

[edit]
CHANGE TO "ATTACKS"
I see a consensus that "attacks" is more appropriate, with much of the opposition relating to possible ambiguities that will need to be taken into account when deciding the full title. asilvering (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Support per my reason in the previous RM. WP:RS classify this as an "attack" including [6] [7] [8] and so we should just mirror what RS does. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with "attacks" in principle, but I'm a little concerned that, coupled with a Lebanon → Hezbollah change, the title "Hezbollah pager attacks" (or "Hezbollah electronics attacks" etc.) would be misleading – wouldn't a plain reading make it appear Hezbollah were themselves responsible, and not the target? Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I could easily see such a title causing confusion. GhostOfNoMan 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can use "attacks on ..." or "attacks in ..." if needbe. I do appreciate the concern as we do need to ensure this title is not misleading though. Awesome Aasim 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think "Lebanon electronics attacks" would be fine and unambiguous.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2024 Lebanon electronics attacks would be my preferred title, but I'm not immovable on the 2024 part. Lewisguile (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That title makes it sound like Hezbollah committed an attack, not that they were attacked. Explosions is also more descriptive. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opoose Explosions is more specific. Jehochman Talk 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Explosions seems more vague, because it includes accidents (eg 2020 Beirut explosion), whereas this was not accidental.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Attacks. Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Explosions" implies it was an accident. "Attack(s)" is clearer. Similarly, articles about bombings do not use "explosions" (eg Oklahoma City bombing). As for the confusion of who was the attacker and who was the target, there are ways around it. There were some ideas to resolve that in the previous RM. Saying "Attacks on/against Lebanon/Hezbollah" should suffice. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. 'Explosions' implies it could've been an accident; it was mostly definitely an attack and most RS support this. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Could cause someone to misinterpret Hezbollah/Lebanon (Lebanon is fine to use, check replies) as the perpetrator. Other than that, I support. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BerryForPerpetuity, based on my understanding of English (it is not my mother tongue), the word "Lebanon" is only a noun (whose adjective is "Lebanese"), whereas "Hezbollah" is both a noun and adjective. So "Lebanon electronics attack" should unambiguously indicate Lebanon as the location of the attack, not the perpetrator.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: You are correct. I've updated my support to clear that up. Thanks, — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Explosions is more specific - "attack" could mean an attack on pager infrastructure or similar. Further, if it's changed to Hezbollah, the title Hezbollah pager (or word) attack would imply they attacked pagers, rather than their pagers exploded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying my comment in relation to the above - I think that this needs to be considered together with the question over what the "items" that exploded/were attacked are called. I cannot support "electronics attack(s)" because that is ambiguous as to whether it was an attack on electronic infrastructure, an attack using electronic weapons, etc. So if it's changed to "electronics" (the shortest word that seems to include the various devices involved) then I still oppose changing to attacks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am partial to Lebanon exploding electronics attacks; it is concise, precise, follows policy, and does a good job of explaining what happened and in what location. As others have said, having explosions alone omits the fact that this was a targeted attack, leaving open the possibility that it was instead a series of tragic accidents. And having attacks alone leaves too much open to interpretation: Was Lebanon / Hezbollah attacked or did they attack? And via the use of what kind of electronics warfare? Havradim leaf a message 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "attacks", per what I've written below.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but care must be taken that the final outcome of this RM does not make it sound like Hezbollah was the one committing the attack. Therefore, the article name should be something like Attacks on Hezbollah's pagers and walkie talkies. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "explosions" is more exact to describe what happened (pagers exploded) while "pager attack" may imply electronic espionage or disrupting communication. Also "...pagers attack" could imply active ("they attacked") instead of passive ("they got exploded"). MathKnight 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on your second point. That's why I put a note in my !vote with a caution that if using the word "attacks", the word order would have to change (along with needing to add the prepesition "on").
    On your first point, because all the explosions happened at the same time (or within a ½ an hour or so), then it does constitute an attack (or more accurately "attacks" because there were two attacks on two different days). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; "explosion" could be an accident, "attack" is what it was, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - an explosion might be unintended, an attack is not. - Ïvana (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for this title format - "Lebanon pager attacks" and "Hezbollah pager attacks" make it sound like Lebanon/Hezbollah are the perpetrators. I don't categorically oppose using "attacks" instead of "explosions" but it has to be as part of a title that phrases it in a way that doesn't confuse the perpetrator with the victim of the attack, so something different than any of the variations currently proposed. Levivich (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as these specific "explosions" had a perpetrator, Israel. RS have confirmed Israel to be the perpetrator of this coordinated attack. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as explosions is more specific. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support attacks. Explosions is too vague and implies the devices just blew up, e.g., due to manufacturing issues or excessive heat. These were attacks, and RSes support that. This is why I also don't think Hezbollah should be in the title. It should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - because I support changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah", and 2024 Hezbollah pager attacks could mislead readers to believe the attacks were committed by Hezbollah rather than against Hezbollah.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as attack is what it was. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as "explosions" is more specific and exactly what happened. I would support "attack" if it was a weapon that was used. Pager is a harmless device, and its hard to visualize it as a weapon in "pager attacks". It sounds more like a virus attack that software devices are prone to. I do not mind "attack" if the nature of the attack is part of the title, such as "explosion attacks" or "explosive attacks". Jay 💬 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Feels more correct to include "attacks" in the title—considering that's what it was—particularly to avoid indicating that the devices exploded by themselves in some sort of accident. Aria1561 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Speaks to state of mind of the perpetrator. Likely an WP:NPOV issue. AllPurposeScientistblah 17:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...you think they accidentally put explosives in thousands of pagers? Or that they did it intentionally but not with the intent to attack anyone? What other state of mind could the perpetrator possibly have had? (And does any RS suggest any state of mind other than attack?) Levivich (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Clear enough that it was deliberate, but explosions is more descriptive and recognisable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Explosions is more descriptive, and "attack" is ambiguous, as said above, you cant tell who is doing the attacking. DaringDonna (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I agree with the argument that an "explosion" could be accidental, while the term "attack" is more specific. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: The title should be revised from "explosions" to "attacks," as sources consistently identify these incidents as deliberate, coordinated actions, rather than accidental explosions. The term "explosions" suggests unintended events, whereas "attacks" accurately conveys the intentional nature of these acts, with known perpetrators. This aligns with the terminology used for similar events, such as bombings, which are properly labeled to reflect their deliberate nature. Simple. StarkReport (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support (weak because of grammar issues) Attacks is more precise term. However, explosions clearly attaches to the device mentioned in the title, while attack is typically mentally attached to an animate actor (e.g., Hezbollah, Lebanon, etc.). The heading should be phrased to clarify that the devices were the agents of the attack, rather than Lebanon or Hezbollah.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some editors are considering these sections entirely separately - and I think that puts us at risk of having a title that is very unclear/ambiguous. Pager attacks is pretty clear (attack on pagers), electronics explosions is clear (there were electronics that exploded), but electronics attack(s) is ambiguous. Was it an electronic attack (i.e. jamming)? Was it an attack on electronics infrastructure (i.e. cell phone towers or internet infrastructure)? Was it an attack that used electronics as the vector for the attack (this is the closest)? Does anyone have ideas for potential other words (other than explosions or attacks) that may be better? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of much that isn't too wordy or problematic for other reasons – e.g. explosive electronics attacks introduces more problems than it solves. I don't honestly think electronics (plural) is that likely to cause confusion regarding electronic attacks (singular). A shame that something like 2024 explosive sabotage of Hezbollah communication devices is just so verbose... GhostOfNoMan 22:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm not suggesting that latter title; just an example of how lengthy a title can sometimes grow when the goal is to remove all ambiguity. Or it's just a display of the poverty of my imagination when it comes to naming things...) GhostOfNoMan 22:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per my comment in the previous RM, RS describe the events as an attack. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sources are using "device explosions" and that is what has happened in both cases. Attacks is not wrong but explosions is more specific and equally concise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The device explosion was the attack, while both are accurate, it would appear that attack is the more common title. Andre🚐 06:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both "attack" and "explosions" are equally accurate descriptors in isolation, but when combined with "Lebanon" or "Hezbollah" in a title, "attack" is more prone to misreading that Lebanon/Hezbollah was the source rather than the target. jnestorius(talk) 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: Attack is not a *bad* descriptor per se, but it creates ambiguity that a reader unfamiliar with the event will think that this means throwing or bludgeoning with pagers, rather than them as a vector for an explosive. So would prefer "explosions" as that solves that ambiguity. I could live with "attacks" though if that was the consensus.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[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.

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

[edit]
NO ACTION
Consensus is against both "sabotage attack" and "Israeli". asilvering (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Discussion

[edit]

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

The User:RMCD bot must have broke. @Wbm1058? Fix? Or maybe someone can add the tag manually. Awesome Aasim 11:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?! Edit failed due to a recent RMCD bot edit (0RR) is what I saw on my bot's console. Sorry, imposed a 0RR restriction on the bot to mitigate possible edit warring, and did not anticipate that a new RM would open within four hours of the close of another. If you had waited 24 hours to open the new RM, the bot would have been fine with it. My bot hasn't yet found the intelligence to distinguish between its short-term edits to two different requested moves on the same page. Frankly, the whole world is watching this one; I don't think an article notice is really necessary to draw more participation. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the hatnote serves not merely to invite editors to participate in the debate, but also to alert non-editors that the current title may not reflect a settled consensus of editors. jnestorius(talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the bot's edit limit for posting in subject-space from 0RR to 1RR. Hopefully will mitigate this issue in the future. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen an RFC before that has been divided into multiple sections with separate votes. Is this proper practice? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an RFC; this is an RM. Sdkb suggested subsections for each part of the title, so I just did that. I don't find anything unusual about this, it helps a lot with discussion organization for complex and contentious article title discussions. If this was cut and dry then the proposed title would have been speedy moved in the last RM discussion. Awesome Aasim 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen an RM doing these subdivisions for each word in the move. But anyway, I will participate in the move discussion tomorrow, if no other editor finds this also unconventional other than myself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It's also impossible to know if we should keep the year or remove it without knowing what the rest of the title will be. For example, I support the title Pager and walkie-talkie attacks, so I voted for removing the year. But many other titles are too broad without the year. FunLater (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. And trying to assess consensus
ll be a nightmare. I've tried to re-edit my !votes to clarify which options I'd like in every answer, but not everyone has done that.i
Lewisguile (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Courtesy ping

[edit]

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

Pinging editors who commented in the previous WP:RM, but have yet to comment in this WP:RM.
MathKnight, Eastwood Park and strabane, Nice4What, Whizkin, Thuresson, RisingTzar, Makeandtoss, Kowal2701, मल्ल, DaringDonna, David O. Johnson, Mk17b, Borgenland, Pilaz, Spilia4, Hogo-2020, Mhhossein, Nishidani, Oathed, Martinevans123
Apologies if I missed anybody. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy ping, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I do not think the name of the article is that overwhelmingly important, as long as it is neutral and can be found easily by someone looking for it. Also, it looks like the RM is closed anyway. If you cant figure it out, 2024 Lebanon pager explosions seems just fine. DaringDonna (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RM closed w/o a consensus. In lieu of the RM that closed, a new RM was opened in which the question of how to rename was broken into smaller questions. If you'd like to participate in the new RM you can. If you don't that's fine. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, but I don't see this new "trainwreck" of an RM. Help please so I can add my useless opinion, maybe. DaringDonna (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I found it. DaringDonna (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Telecommunications, WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Computer Security, WikiProject Explosives, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, and WikiProject Israel have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[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.

Article 7(3) on booby traps

[edit]

I removed the longer quote about booby traps from Article 7(3) and wanted to flag it in case anyone else wants to query this. The secondary sources provided for the current statement don't mention Article 7.3 at all, so it required a stronger citation anyway. The edit summary did mention Boothby; however, he says:

"...if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot"

And:

"The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon."

Ergo, Article 7(3) is probably not relevant unless there are multiple RSes arguing the opposite point. But Boothby doesn't seem to support its inclusion as it was.

Source: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/ Lewisguile (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller quote form Boothby (emphasis is mine): "Of course, if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the paragraph 3 requirements are probably satisfied because the pagers issued to Hezbollah were likely “in the close vicinity” of the users to whom they were issued, thus satisfying sub-paragraph (a)." So, while he talks in probabilities, he is definitely more confident that 7(3)(a) is satisfied than it is not. Since his article is the main secondary source, omitting this relevant exception in Article is againts NPOV. So I think we should mention the relevant part either by quoting that part from Article 7(3) ("it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies [...] unless [...] they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective" [13]) or by mentioning Boothby opinion on evaluating targets as "military objectives" (he mentions this phrase a lot) and specifically on applicability of Art. 7(3)(a). --M5 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I forgot to subscribe to this topic.
You're missing the bit where he clearly says: "The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis." (At present, he thinks they were illegal, and that's his opinion.)
And: "Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps."
And: "The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon." (Again, he's expressly saying it's illegal.)
Which satisfies his "if" for now. Ergo, 7(3) is irrelevant because 7(2) is satisfied. 7(3) is only relevant if 7(2) is not satisfied. If we add in Article 7(3), we also have to explain that overall he still thinks the attacks were illegal as per 7(2) and that 7(3) is probably irrelevant, which is just wasted space.Lewisguile (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the quotes from the source expanded for context:
"The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis. Further details as to the devices in later reports may, of course, affect this provisional conclusion. Note should also be taken of Article 7(3), which provides ... unless either: (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective. Of course, if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the paragraph 3 requirements are probably satisfied because the pagers issued to Hezbollah were likely “in the close vicinity” of the users to whom they were issued, thus satisfying sub-paragraph (a).
So, he clearly does not say, "my provisional opinion - that's illegal." His current opinion regarding the article is: "The event falls under Art. 7(2) but with Art. 7(3)(a) exception satisfied (unless some new information appears in the future)." Therefore, this quote alone does not support dropping the mention of Article 7(3). The other quotes are from the part that starts with "For completeness, mention should also be made of “other devices”..." which is merely his attempt to evaluate whether the pagers fall under "booby traps" or under the definition of "other devices" (which are "manually activated" and not booby traps) in Article 2. He concludes that they are indeed booby traps, but that does not invalidate his previous conclusion regarding the applicability of both Art. 7(2) AND Art. 7(3). So in Boothby opinion both Article 7(2) and 7(3)(a) are relevant and omission of 7(3)(a) is NPOV. M5 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Perhaps if there was consensus among RSes agreeing that the devices weren't illegal under 7(2), it might be, but there isn't. Which means, at present, that adding 7(3) means we would have to lay out the whole situation in detail with all the nuances (including that 7(3) may be irrelevant anyway if the devices were illegal), which is beyond the scope of this article, and giving it additional space is undue.
We aren't required to state a source's full point in all its detail, only to present the major viewpoints as a whole and any significant minority opinions. The first part of his argument (re: 7(2)) reflects the major viewpoints; almost no one else has mentioned 7(3), meaning it's not even a significant opposing viewpoint.
I think we're at an impasse unless anyone else can chime in to settle this for us? Lewisguile (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qassim Qassir

[edit]

Qassim Qassir, who is mentioned in this article three times, is described each time as an "expert", or "analyst". This does align with the way reliable sources described him circa June.

Qassim Qassir came up again in the news cycle in September. In articles before September 24, the usual pattern holds, but from September 24 onward, reliable sources, including AP, instead elect to describe him as a "former Hezbollah member who wrote a book". This change in tone should probably be reflected in the article. As such, I propose that all descriptions of Qassim Qassir be changed to reflect more recent sources, with those sources cited[14].

^ Though most of those sources are probably just copying their homework from AP without independently verifying facts.

Dieknon (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While I think you're right, I don't think AP's characterisation of him actually contradicts what's written and doesn't add much to the article at this time. A former Hezbollah member who wrote a book on the subject would indeed be an expert on, or analyst of, Hezbollah. I suspect any change would likely be contentious anyway, since we previously had "an analyst close to Hezbollah" (also AP wording, I believe) and this was deemed irrelevant at the time.

So, I would suggest we park this for now. We can always come back to it if it becomes relevant to include this extra detail later on. After all, there's WP:NORUSH. Lewisguile (talk) 07:26, 21 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. Thanks, everyone. I take this as "consensus that the solved-in-individual-pieces title was not so objectionable everyone immediately moved to oppose it". asilvering (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lebanon pager explosions → 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks – Please pick EITHER 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks OR 2024 Hezbollah device explosions, and state it clearly in your response. Per last RM close, I am setting up the "simple run-off between 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks and 2024 Hezbollah device explosions". I'll also explain where I think we're at: The former is more recent, fits WP:NCWWW better and maintains WP:NPOV. The latter is based on words which had some support ("Hezbollah" and "explosions") and technically also covers attacks in Syria, but possibly ignores civilian casualties and leaves out that these were orchestrated attacks. A prior RM also found consensus not to include Syria. I'm hoping we can get a quick WP:SNOW close on this, especially as the first option is so recent and this is the third RM in so many weeks. I'd also like to avoid it becoming a Franken-monster like the last one. We're so close I can feel it. Lewisguile (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too soon. Give time for the dust from the last RM to settle before proceeding with a new one. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? The last one had tapered off over the last couple of weeks anyway, so the responses were only coming in in drips and drabs. Most of us probably want to see this resolved (personally, I think the last closer should've just gone with the option they suggested anyway). But I'm happy to park this if you/others feel strongly that we need a break. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to reclose it as the Frankenclose if that's what people would prefer - I was uneasy about doing that, as I said, because no one ever got the chance to actually agree that they liked that one as a unit. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the way to go. I would be fine with that title. Shall we see if anyone else responds to my RM? If there's crickets all around, it might mean there's no real passion to oppose the Frankenclose, and we can go with that. The last RM had people responding in their droves (at least initially), so I would expect people to do the same if they disagreed with it, at least. Lewisguile (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with reclosing per the frankenclose. Or happy to proceed on this one. Don't see the point in waiting when the previous discussion did not fail, it was just to complex to complete. In which case this is all part of the same process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thinking, too. Lewisguile (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to 2024 Israeli electronic devices attack in Lebanon, as I agree with @Makeandtoss that attribution of the perpetrator should be included in the title. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not split the vote. Any RM now won't prejudice and RM later. We can run an RM for Israeli later. Lewisguile (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, for the options you presented:
    Support Option 1 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. The phrase captures the scope and content of the page, and the addition of explosions isn't necessary. The inclusion of Hezbollah is problematic as it implies a targeted, discriminate attack, when the page cites high quality RS including the UN and Amnesty International saying it was indiscriminate. I also agree with your point that "Hezbollah attacks" is very clunky, not policy-based, and creates more problems that it solves.
However, the perpetrator is not in question in RS and presents no issues with the phrasing, so it should be included, but that's for a future discussion. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2024 Hezbollah pager and walkie talkie attacks. I prefer that to electronic device. If I have to choose a combination of the phrases given though, I think it should have "Hezbollah" and "attack." Andre🚐 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: And why do you think it should not have the perpetrator in the title? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As raised in the prior RM, the major problem with this is that it could be read as an attack made by Hezbollah, not on Hezbollah. Lebanon was chosen per WP:NCWWW which suggests we should default to what, where and when, not who or why. Hence, 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. Electronic device was deemed preferable to pager and walkie talkie because it was more concise. Hezbollah was primarily suggested as an alternative since some devices exploded in Syria. Personally, though, I don't think Hezbollah attacks is policy-based, and creates more problems than it solves. Lewisguile (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose this suggestion. No point relitigating the previous discussion and multiplying the options. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1, neutral option 2, oppose no action. WP:RS describe this as an "attack" as shown in the previous RM. The current title is horrendous as it is, so it should be removed and replaced with something more accurately reflected in sources. We finally converged on a couple titles that work. Awesome Aasim 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks in this run-off between only the two proposed titles for the reason of using active voice "attacks" rather than passive voice "explosions". Other titles may be better and should be brought up in future requested moves. Support doing this speedily per the outcome of the previous requested move. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it would be good to keep this on topic so we can resolve it quickly. Lewisguile (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both options. Prefer 2. Reasoning in th eprevious discussion. Time to get this done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 26 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.

Casualties of the Israel-Hamas conflict

[edit]

They are only tangentially related to this event. However, if we're to mention the total number of Palestinian casualties and the fact that most of them are women and children, we should also mention the number of casualties on the Israeli side. Also, 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel is a better wikilink since Hezbollah attacked Israel right after the Hamas attack. Alaexis¿question? 14:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a prior discussion you may have missed. The Gaza casualties were added specifically because Hezbollah said this was a motivator for them joining the conflict, so it was considered relevant for that section. The point wasn't to rehash why Hamas and Israel are at war here, just why Hezbollah joined. Lewisguile (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks&oldid=1254425040"