The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

• You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
• You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

On 30 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2024 Israeli ground operation in Lebanon to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The result of the discussion was moved.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-third-lebanon-war-between-israel-and-hezbollah-has-begun-whats-next/

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/middle-east/lebanon/israel-launches-the-third-lebanon-war/2024/09/30/

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/09/22/israel-deliberately-raises-stakes-against-hezbollah/

https://anglican.ink/2024/09/26/urgent-letter-from-anglican-bishop-of-cyprus-and-the-gulf-on-the-third-lebanon-war/

https://wavellroom.com/2024/09/04/on-the-brink-of-a-third-lebanon-war-can-israel-overcome-hezbollah-this-time/

Already widely used and technically correct 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:38FF:A30A:5A13:E402 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC) WP:ARBECR Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with third Lebanon war or maybe just 2024 Invasion of Lebanon. HuntersHistory (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all either Israeli or pro-Israeli sources, so hardly neutral. Calling it the Third Lebanon War removes any reference to Israel in the invasion, and suggests that Lebanon's official armed forces are involved, both of which are misleading Little Professor (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage with non EC editors that are only permitted to make edit requests, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to retain the "invasion of Lebanon" part, it should be preceded by "Israeli" for clarity; as far as I can see, "Israel", "Israeli tanks" and other similar terms are universally used by reliable sources. I don't think this is too controversial, but at the moment 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon is a redirect. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, would make more sense. Someone coming across the page wouldn't actually know the invaders until they look at the text. SK55555 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. HuntersHistory (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HuntersHistory@Nythar@SK55555. Our procedures require that if a bold move is reverted then it must be conducted via a formal RM. I have started one below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A background section should be added once the article's initial edits that are fleshing out the breaking/current events that this article focuses on are done. It should probably include references to immediate events (such as 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike, etc.) and past events (such as 2006 invasion of Lebanon). I know this article is really new, so I do not want to disrupt the current construction occurring. Mason7512 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/1/us-out-of-step-as-world-reacts-to-israels-ground-offensive-into-lebanon Seems like Japan, the UAE, and the Us have responded now aswell. Rad da writer (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be handy to add some kind of map for the conflict? Berobalkan (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the invasion just started, we dont know yet how the frontline is, once we know, a map will be made Lucasmota0975 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support someone should make a map once the front lines are known. HuntersHistory (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The good editors in my opinion are @Glrx and @Physeters. They are both skilfull and have edited Ukraine war map. Berobalkan (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current background version is incorrect (eg it claims Hezbollah attacked northern Israel on Oct 8, which is not true). The same incorrect material keeps getting replicated across many articles. There was a consensus version here and I suggest we use that. It is:

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

After this we'd write about the pager attacks, assassination of Nasrallah, and other bombings. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC) VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" to "2024 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon following 8,000+ rocket attacks on civilian targets"

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4893654-hezbollah-has-fired-more-than-8000-rockets-toward-israel-since-october-7-ambassador/

Source: Danny Danon, Israel Ambassador to UN, in a speech to the UN 2601:189:4100:1FD0:28FC:7342:ADC7:C09C (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cannolis (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about the current attacks in Tel Aviv? Web-julio (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not relevant to the topic of this article. 2024 Iran–Israel conflict would be better suited for this Mason7512 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of Italy's reaction is somewhat deceptive as it leaves out the key detail that it would only be offering military support in a situation supported by Israel.

Also, I've searched for the original source of the quote attributed to the Danish Prime Minister, but have been unable to find it on either English and Danish sources. At best I've found one Danish and one Swedish publication that quotes other publications as having quoted her as saying such, but have found no original sources. Additionally the quote appears to have little to no traction in other reliable sources especially in English language media, and the sources I have been able to find are of questionable reliability and sometimes offer different summary of her apparent words. Something that certainly seems odd. Consequently I suspect Al Jazeera got duped by a fake quote and therefore more reliable sources, and ideally the original source of the quote, should be added. ChristofferItzakah (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Iranian missile attack today on October 1st was a result of the Israeli aggression in Lebanon, any casualties and damage from the missile attack should be included, as well as the involvement of Iran and other Axis of Resistance members in the "belligerents" section since an attack on Hezbollah would mean an attack on the alliance itself Mauzer's random BS (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the israeli side some of the commander names are given, yet not all. add the names of hezbollah commanders in the belligerents not just the leader. also if possible, add iran/irgc and axis of resistance/other islamic terror groups present in south lebanon. 2A02:2908:4101:8F7F:6182:F8F4:FD7E:8164 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

change it to: 2024 israeli invasion of south lebanon or, israel-hezbollah war or, 2024 israel-hezbollah conflict or, 2024 israeli invasion of hezbollah or, 2024 israeli invasion of hezbollah controlled lebanon

reason for request: israel has not declared war against lebanon, only hezbollah General Phoenix (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a formal move request, see instructions at WP:RMCM. However, keep in mind that there was very recently a recent RM that had consensus to move the page title to what it currently is. ArkHyena (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The strength is compromising of 4 divisions, the Israeli army has put in 70K troops. 2A02:8109:B607:5000:2582:1E0C:F105:76A8 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made further improvements to lede that I have not been able to instate due to 1RR:

On 1 October 2024, Israel invaded Lebanon as part of the ongoing Israel–Hezbollah conflict.

The ground invasion followed a week of major Hezbollah setbacks in September that degraded its capabilities and devastated its leadership, that began with an Israeli attack that detonated their communication devices, and culminated with the assassination of its leader Hassan Nasrallah on 27 September. Throughout that week Israeli airstrikes targeted Hezbollah's infrastructure across southern Lebanon.

The Israeli military declared parts of Israel's northern border are a closed military zones. Israel states that the operation seeks to root out Hezbollah's forces and infrastructure that pose a threat to civilian communities in the north of the country Israel. The country also stated that Hezbollah was preparing for an attack similar to Hamas' 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.

On the same day, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) withdrew from the Blue Line. Hezbollah denied that the Israeli military had entered Lebanon. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has lost 3 merkava tanks in the invasion as of now per hezbollah

https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/lebanon-news/801167/hezbollah-says-destroyed-three-merkava-tanks-advancing-on-lebanon-vill/en

https://en.abna24.com/story/1490939 217.150.82.145 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as of 10/2 since the invasion the death toll is 8 not 14 [1]https://idfanc.activetrail.biz/ANC0212024124457 https://www.idf.il/%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%94/Aqwsf (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewsridge I'm beginning to see a pattern here but I won't comment on it.

I do not see that sky news arabia is considered a depreciated or otherwise unreliable source. Part of me wants to say that an Arabic source is immediately deemed unreliable when no previous review of it concluded such a thing suggests bad faith but that's neither here nor there. Basically my question is, is there any reason you consider sky news arabia to be an "unreliable source" Genabab (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would reccomend adding on the infobox the https://commons.wikimedia.org/key/File:Israel-Lebanon-Syria-border-Conflict-2023.svg since its the map, also it has to be updated since some reports and footage show Israeli troops are already in Lebanese territories. Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these deserve to be added to the article, let alone, to the infobox. During the Gaza conflict Hamas falsely claimed destroying hundreds of Israeli tanks. And Hezbollah has made similar ludicrous claims during its conflict, claiming to have killed 2,000 Israeli soldiers, while the real tally is less than 25. Viewsridge (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, its already got the "Hezbollah claim" disclaimer. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 22:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. furthermore, cites a reliable source, as does the "2,000 Israeli soldiers" claim viewsridge removed earlier today. In my opinion, both ought to be included under the heading Per Hezbollah Genabab (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real casualties are definitely higher than 25, which is the IDF claim 185.127.127.29 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBECR. Viewsridge (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally impossible for the IDF to lie about it's casualties, since the number is so small, all the soldiers have phones, and every death is made public; A family member is bound to say something if they notice their family member's death was not made public, especially if it's 2,000 additional deaths like Hezbollah claims. 2A0D:6FC7:43C:CAB5:A78:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBECR. Viewsridge (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the Gaza War Israel claims to just have 800 casualties Braganza (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah doent claim 2,000 deaths but casualties Genabab (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theres something called israeili military censor, if the losses are high they will find a way through, they did this in the south lebanon conflict, gradually citing losses 185.127.127.29 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBECR. Viewsridge (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean here? the IDF can't lie? these are delusional claims, like for example: the IDF claims that the number of Palestinian fighters killed is 17,000, while sources like the Euro-Med monitor, a Non-profit Human Rights Organisation headquartered in Geneva, reported a number close to 3,000 fighters dead, you can't say the IDF claims are the most reliable, what we should do is to write what both sides claims and opinions. Fares3195 (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBECR. Viewsridge (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ViewsridgeWhat does that even mean ?_? Genabab (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non extended confirmed editors cannot participate in ecp article disputes, see the move page discussion above. Viewsridge (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

woah.. Genabab (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd like info to be changed based of your assumption? Do you have any contradicting information or proof to back your assumption? 108.45.148.183 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBECR. Viewsridge (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In order to differentiate between the reports and claims made on both sides, could someone please add the disclaimer "IDF claim" or "per IDF", same thing for Hezbollah. Fares3195 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been done already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Change the israeli casualties to 14 soldiers

https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/middleeastnews/801118/sky-news-arabia-14-israeli-soldiers-dead-in-clashes-on-the-ground-in-s/en AlMuslim17 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: The Sky News Arabia article that this appears to be citing was recently removed as an unreliable source - is there consensus on this? WP:RSP says they are partially owned by Sky News UK, which is generally reliable, but its unclear if this applies to Sky News Arabia too. Jamedeus (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's analysis section emphasizes the Israeli invasion of Lebanon demonstrates the US losing influence over Israel. This case is made because the US administration publicly urged restraint, however, there are reports of the US privately pushing Israel to invade.

I think adding a sentence or two about this public vs private stance may paint a fuller picture of the situation.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797 72.50.213.39 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox reference cites this sentence

“I made it clear that the United States supports Israel’s right to defend itself,” Austin said.

This does not make the US a belligerent to the conflict at all, I suggest US gets speedily removed from the campaignbox. Viewsridge (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the Lebanese Armed Forces is now a belligerent and should be added to the infobox. According to the Lebanese Army "the Israeli enemy targeted an army post in the Bint Jbeil area - in the south, and the personnel at the post responded to the sources of fire"[2].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had earlier added this with a note too,[3] looks like @Mikrobølgeovn: reverted this. I would appreciate if you could restore the note. Viewsridge (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single clash does not mean that the Lebanese Army has entered the fight. There was a deadlier skirmish between Israeli and Egyptian forces along the Egypt-Gaza border. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Israel did not invade Egypt, but Israel is in fact invading Lebanon here. Not a fair comparison. Viewsridge (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the clash, but the statements associated with the clash. After the Egyptian-Israeli clash both sides worked to de-escalate. By contrast, Lebanon claims Israel "targeted" it (implying this was deliberate) and there's no attempt to de-escalate. Viewsridge correctly points out that Israel is still pressing ahead with the invasion of Lebanon's territory.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has Israel named the LAF as a target alongside Hezbollah? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: To fire back when fired upon is pretty standard behavior. Even UN peacekeepers would presumably do that. To say that the LAF has now entered the war is at best original research, at worst a fabrication. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not OR, its based on reliable sources. Whether Israel declares or not, is not relevant. Israel is invading their territory and firing on them and they are firing back. All of this is supported by RS and makes them a belligerent.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say that the LAF clashed with the IDF (which, by the way, also happened in 2006). They do not say that the LAF has joined the war. It is misleading to list the LAF as a belligerent based on single incidents. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firing on each other and invading ones territory is very much what belligerency is about. Here is another source that considers LAF to be a belligerent.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn makes some good points. This was one incident, and neither Israel nor Lebanon have said that they're at war with eachother. The source you cite is an American political magazine. We'd need something from Israeli or Lebanese officials, or from mainstream news outlets. – Asarlaí 08:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon be renamed and moved to Third Lebanon War. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon → Third Lebanon War – reliable sources that say 3rd Lebanon War:

1. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-third-lebanon-war-is-underway-what-you-need-to-know/ "Here’s what to know about Israel’s incipient Third Lebanon War."

2. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-third-lebanon-war-between-israel-and-hezbollah-has-begun-whats-next/ "The Second Lebanon War lasted for thirty-four days in 2006. The length of the third war will depend largely on how quickly Hezbollah will come to the table."

3. https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-822644 "Here’s what to know about Israel’s incipient Third Lebanon War." (for some reason, identical to imes of Israel page? but doesnt change what it says)

4. https://thedispatch.com/article/has-the-third-lebanon-war-begun/ No mention of third war in the main body, but the title does.

5. https://wavellroom.com/2024/09/04/on-the-brink-of-a-third-lebanon-war-can-israel-overcome-hezbollah-this-time/ Ditto Genabab (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wouldn't Israel-Hezbollah conflict (2023-present) be better for the renaming. Waleed (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The names "First-", "Second-" and "Third Lebanon War" are only used from an Israeli point-of-view. There have been several other Lebanon Wars, and this one would actually be the fourth or fifth involving Israel, following its 1978 invasion, 1982 invasion, the South Lebanon conflict and the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. – Asarlaí 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good point.

I would "counter" by asking, should we at least include "Third Lebanon War" in the Lede? Perhaps by saying "also called by Israeli sources The Third Lebanon War" or something along those lines? @Asarlaí Genabab (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough good sources, we could include it as an alternative name in the lead, noting that it's primarily used by Israeli sources. – Asarlaí 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asarlaí Aren't the listed sources enough for that? Genabab (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This might be appropriate in the future but seems premature at the moment. An article title "Has the Third Lebanon War Begun?" can hardly be used as evidence for this name change, per Betteridge's law. The final source says the countries are on the brink of war, but does not assert it's an actual war, and I'm insure if the Israeli sources are considered WP:NPOV in this context. 0xchase (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, but I can't find any source that said that about the conflict pre-invasion. so if something is to be changed, it should be here. Genabab (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. At this point, the sourcing is too weak for a name change. Cortador (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Only a few sources calling it "Third Lebanon war" WP:COMMONNAME is still called the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Viewsridge (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Only Israeli sources have mentioned this and its not third war in Lebanon's POV so its a clear WP:NPOV violation. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: Third Lebanon war

Support: Israel–Hezbollah war or the current title of 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon HuntersHistory (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying the Vietnam War was actually the American War from Vietnam's perspective. That's true, but not the standard applied anywhere else. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference here is that the US perspective tends to dominate English language media and publications; by contrast, Israel-preferred terminology is usually not adopted by most English language media outlets and publications, with the exception of the minority who identify as particularly pro-Israel. We see other examples of this – for example, what Israel wants to call "Judea and Samaria", most English language sources call "the West Bank" instead. "Third Lebanon War" is another example of Israel-centric terminology that the global English-language media are likely to ignore. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose Links provided are cherry-picked (pro) Israel-centered sources. Most media does not use this terminology, (at least not yet) and the term is almost solely used by one 'side', some Israelis. '2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon' is way more accepted, specific, and clearly understandable. Mason7512 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Wait: Oppose at this time, seems premature. Support above notion of Israel–Hezbollah war rename. In the coming days, should reassess to see if Third Lebanon War is more appropriate.Spilia4 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. ToI and JPost are Israeli and are known for not being neutral, ACUS is a pro-Israel source, The Dispatch is a conservative news outlet that is also pro-Israel (despite claiming to be non-biased), and the Wavell Room is a British military think tank (the UK being an Israel ally as well). I can't find anyone else calling it the 'third Lebanon war' or anything along those lines, not to mention the NPOV issues discussed in the last RM. So until more sources from both sides start calling it as such, I think it's best to stick with the current title since it's simply when and what. Aydoh8 02:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The "Third Lebanon War" terminology is primarily used by Israeli sources. Yes, you can come up with examples of some non-Israeli/neutral sources using it, but those are a small minority. Most major global English-language media outlets – such as the BBC or New York Times – aren't using that phrase. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait : Conflict hasnt escalated to proportions like Israel vs Gaza. - shJunpei :3 07:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose POV title exclusively used by Israeli sources, as it is the "third" only from Israel's point of view. The current title is more factual. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I noticed that the ISW has started releasing maps on the ground invasion, similar to how they do for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm wondering are we able to use those maps here as we do elsewhere? It's very helpful for us visual learners. Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC) https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-2-2024[reply]

I'm not sure if it meets Wikipedia's non free content policy. If someone can find a valid rationale, I guess there wouldn't be any problems. We do have to remember Wikipedia is subject to U.S. copyright law. Aydoh8 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISW is a hawkish neoconservative NGO of questionable reliability, with most of its references on the war uncritically sourced from the Israeli military. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amal announced deaths of two of its militants. Shouldn't we include it as a party to the conflict? Gorgedweller (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Share the source. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://abualiexpress.com/en/en35949/ Gorgedweller (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally wait for a better source. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a link and all, but I haven't seen the claim 60+ casualties on the Hezbollah side anywhere other than here? 60? Am I living under a rock? I checked the IDF twitter account and it says nothing about it, surely they would say something if they had killed 60 of them? Someone double-check this please, I am very skeptical of this info. Fishthatflies (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF is not a reliable source when it comes to casualties, particularly on the non-Israeli side (Palestine, Hezbollah or what not), as it is in their best interest to lowball the numbers. I know throughout this conflict people have been taking issue at Al Jazeera as well due to it being funded by the government of Qatar, who has a close relationship with Iran, who Hezbollah (along with Hamas, the PFLP, the Houthis and Syria) are generally regarded as proxies of. It's not clear whether either (or both) source/s are toying the numbers to make it seem better or worse than it is, we just have to take it at face value. Aydoh8 02:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus you link to shows that Al Jazeera is considered reliable, although biased, for the purposes of the conflict. We can't draw an equivalence with using the IDF itself as a source, and this certainly doesn't justify taking these numbers "at face value". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]