Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:September 2024 Lebanon Strikes
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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!

"unprovoked"

@Galamore, you added that Hezbollah made "unprovoked" attack on Israel[1]. 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[2]. 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)[reply]

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

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.[3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Vice regent I think you're good to. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's all OK now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree. I tried to fix these issues, which were reverted by @EnfantDeLaVille: claiming "consensus in edit history and talk page". [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
+1 on "they're now called attacks on both sides, not strikes." VR (Please ping on reply) 01:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A bit better, still needs work. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be changed to make it satisfactory, @Makeandtoss? Lewisguile (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I’ve already made a few and they were reverted, that’s why I am here. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/25/world/israel-gaza-hamas-hezbollah
  2. ^ https://news.sky.com/video/israel-hezbollah-there-will-easily-be-500-000-people-displaced-due-to-israeli-strikes-says-lebanese-minister-13221843

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

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)[reply]
On a relisten I think your interpretation is correct actually. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think this article should say "hundreds of thousands". FunLater (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks. :) FunLater (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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."[5] 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)[reply]
It's not symmetrical. Israeli POV = targeting Hezbollah; not targeting Lebanon. Lebanese POV = targeting Hezbollah; targeting Lebanon. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 /C\ 22:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 /C\ 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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/key/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)[reply]
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 /C\ 04:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 /C\ 15:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your argument about Dahiya doctrine doesn't relate to the aforementioned issues with the source, which doesn't mention the doctrine. — xDanielx /C\ 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 /C\ 23:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 /C\ 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_2024_Lebanon_strikes&oldid=1248682062"