Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

Nasrallah is dead. Namnaam (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please put what changes you want made in a "change X to Y" format.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is this an article?

We still have very little information, the dust still hasn't settled. Either delete this article, rename it or merge it into another article. We still don't know if Nasrallah is dead or not apart from hearsay from the IDF. No evidence has yet been presented by either sides. Disregard this section, Nasrallah has been confirmed dead by Hezbollah themselves in a statement. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Operation named "New Order"

The assassination operation was named "New Order" (Hebrew: "סדר חדש")

Sources:

https://x.com/idfonline/status/1839945167354163378 (IDF Hebrew twitter account)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-operation-to-kill-nasrallah-was-code-named-new-order/ (Times of Israel news report) Redbeansoup (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible to mention the operation code name in the article? Redbeansoup (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very good piece of information to add. You can add it yourself or add it and let someone else polish it. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well unfortunately I'm not an extended confirmed user. But thanks. Redbeansoup (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone transliterate? Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Should be in the article now. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hebrew speaker here. I fixed - it's "Seder Hadash". Seder סדר = order, and Hadash חדש = new Galamore (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"intended target"

The term "intended target" is used in the sentence, "Media reports confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was the intended target of the airstrike."

This is redundant. When referring to a target, intention is understood. There is no such thing as an unintended target.

Recommend deleting the word, "intended" thus: "Media reports confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was the target of the airstrike" 67.188.128.95 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to change 5,000 to 2,000 reflecting consensus of more recent sources

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Change the 3 instances of "5,000-pound" to "2,000-pound" (specifically in lead, infobox, and attack sections). Also should remove the associated "created in 2001" in the body as 1-ton bunker buster is older.

It is probably good idea to note in body that the exact munition is unconfirmed (see NYTimes reporting) but that's not part of this request just an option. If editor desires, can leave a reference to 5,000 pound bombs attributed to Elijah Magnier. But all the major media today are saying 2,000 (and if there are 80 bombs, probably a mix with some smaller but going further than claiming that 2,000 pound was used and ~80 bombs dropped is pure speculation).

• Why it should be changed: Almost ever major paper is now reporting the strike was likely with 2,000 pound bombs, including surpisingly one of the 2 citations used to say 5,000 pound bombs in the lead (https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-israel-hezbollah-airstrikes-suburb-617575d9c5d7c711bc02e7b81d2ba4ad). See also the latest report from NYTimes using released videos likely of the plane along with multiple expert opinions (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/28/world/middleeast/israel-nasrallah-bunker-buster-bombs.html?smid=url-share), along with a consensus with AP news and every other source I've seen. The only place I'm seeing 5,000 pound is the Al Jazeera live blog only cited in the Wiki body, which attributes the statement to "Elijah Magnier, a military analyst". I could be missing another place but it's not presently in the article, and would contradict all major recent sources. If the statement is kept then it should definitely be POV to Magnier (and/or the Iranian FM) as it disagrees with the size quoted in most sources and also was a live-blog in-the-moment analysis (so no discredit to Magnier).

The refs below don't go with this, they seem to have been imported from some earlier section if someone wants to fix, sorry not sure how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceturtle1 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we even need that much detail? At least in the lede, that info could probably be removed altogether. If the majority of sources are now saying 2,000lb, then I'd be happy with that being changed. Lewisguile (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

First paragraph sentence including “Conducted by the Israeli Air Force's 119th Squadron using F-16I fighters” should read “F-15I fighters” instead. The plane ID is incorrect. CNYnative (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lewisguile (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Related requests

The attack was conducted by the 69th squadron using f15i, not f16i as currently stated in the lede. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/29/israel-bomb-beirut-nasrallah-death/ 77.137.79.61 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The attack: More facts

I have no permission to edit. A few more facts from a reliable Israeli source (Hevrat HaHadashot and reuters):

1. It was F15i jet fighters.
2. The bombs number was 83 1-ton bombs, not 15.
3. His body was found with no injuries or wounds. according to some estimates the cause of his death was suffocation.

Source: [1]. לידך, בלעדייך (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the direct link to Reuters confirming those details? That would probably be easier to use. I can't find a link in the article. Lewisguile (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the reuters link, a partial source: [2]. The other information by Nir Dvori, the military reporter of "Hevrat HaHadashot". He has his sources in the IDF. לידך, בלעדייך (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This backs up that his body has been retrieved without any injuries. If any other links come through, feel free to add them here (though I'm sure others will add them too).a Lewisguile (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Have added that the body has been found. Thank you! Lewisguile (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The first link in my original post backs up all. I didn't know that only sources in the english language are used. I remember i saw sources in many languages in English Wikipedia. לידך, בלעדייך (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We can use non-English-language sources, but rely on translations (sadly, my Hebrew skills are nonexistent and Google Translate can introduce errors). However, we generally prefer to find multiple sources to back up each source anyway, so if we'd found the original Reuters article confirming everything, we'd have had two sources to use instead of one, that's all.

I can see that the detail about the bombs has been added to the lede already (it says "more than 80"). I have also now made the change re: F15I fighters, as there are multiple other sources available now which back that up.

Thank you for your patience! Lewisguile (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hidden image

In the Israel (Reactions) section, I've hidden an image that was added, as I wanted to find out what the consensus on this is. The file in question is:

Graffiti of Hassan Nasrallah with pager in Tel Aviv, Israel, 29 September 2024

This seems to me to be ripe for contention and issues, but also mostly unrelated to the topic at hand and therefore WP:UNDUE. This image has been added by the same user to multiple broadly related pages, so I'm not sure how much attention has been paid to whether it's applicable to each of those pages or not. But it's also possible similar discussions are ongoing elsewhere, so if I've missed a discussion, please link me to it.

So: should we unhide it, delete it, or what? Lewisguile (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile: As per WP:NOTCENSORED, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. Are there other reasons you believe the image should be removed? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's tangential to the article and better images could probably be used. I doubt it has consensus. And it could be considered WP:NPOV without proper context, especially since it doesn't really add anything. And while WP:NOTCENSORED does apply, this is also a designated contentious topic, so extra care should be taken.

But that's why I've opened this topic—so other editors can discuss it and so we can be as careful as the topic needs. There's also WP:NORUSH to add things anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t relevant is the reason to remove it. nableezy - 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Concise as always, but right. Thank you. Lewisguile (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened on October 8?

Please see this discussion, and participate there, and then whatever is decided should be replicated here. Currently there is a WP:V violation in the article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there still any violations in September_2024_Lebanon_strikes#Background? If not, the first part of the Background here should almost be the same. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this looks good. We should also remove the POV tag from that article's background if there are no further objections.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent, I made a bold edit and transferred the relevant text from that article here. Everyone, please let me know if there are issues with this. Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was partially reverted in a way I don't agree with. Hezbollah had explicitly cited the killing of women and children as a reason for continuing its attacks. If we can say Israel's reasons for killing Nasrallah is his attacks on Israel, why can't we say what are Hezbollah's reasons for attacking Israel? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The reasoning that we could also talk about rape during Oct 7 doesn't follow because it isn't part of the stated justification for either party in this specific war. Not sure if I'm allowed to re-revert. I do appreciate trying to trim down Background though. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• PeleYoetz undid the changes and introduced WP:V errors in the article. This, in spite of constant discussion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  The source says "Hezbollah and Israel exchanged fire on Sunday, with Hezbollah firing missiles on Israeli positions in Shebaa Farms, which is claimed by Lebanon and was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, in “solidarity” with the Palestinians." So we should also state "solidarity with Palestinians" as per the source.

  Also PeleYoetz said "bombing not mentioned in the cited sources", but that's false. The AJ source given says "More than 500 Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed in Israeli air raids on Gaza since Saturday, with thousands of others wounded."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Selective removal of casualties

Galamore selectively removed the casualties from the article. The article said:

Health Minister Firass Abiad said the vast majority of those treated in emergency rooms were in civilian clothing and their Hezbollah affiliation was unclear. Qassim Qassir, a Lebanese expert on Hezbollah, said the attacks mostly struck civilian workers, leaving its military wing largely unaffected. Reuters reported that, according to an unnamed Hezbollah official, 1,500 Hezbollah fighters were taken out of action due to injuries, with many blinded or having lost their hands.

Galamore removed the sentences about civilian casualties, both of which are attributed to named sources, but left the part about military casualties, attributed to an unnamed source. This looks like an WP:NPOV violation.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC) VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I explained my edits in detail in the edit summaries. Not all verifiable content should be included - it's a question of weight as I wrote in the summaries. Please be nicer and refer to content instead of editors, thank you. Galamore (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

But why are you selectively removing mention of civilian casualties only? Can you explain why it is UNDUE to mention civilian casualties of Israeli attacks, while it is DUE to mention military casualties? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you further explain why unnamed sources should have more WP:WEIGHT than named sources, such as the Health Minister of Lebanon? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

But there is mention of civilians. The article now says: "injured at least 3,500, including civilians." All the rest (statistics, expert views, ways of identifiying people) was totally undue and should go to the explosions article, it is way too detailed for this article. Galamore (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that edit is okay. We don't need that much detail on the pager explosions. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator Would it also be then ok to remove the unnamed source for the military casualties too? AFAIK it is really only reported be Reuters.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it in as it's relevant to the escalating tensions between Israel and Hezbollah (in describing the effect of an action of one party on another party) which is what the background is covering. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also prefer to take it out as it's such a vague thing (an "unnamed source" is not quite the standard we need for an article such as this) but it has been used in other RSes. I think it isn't necessarily needed, since "including civilians" indicates some but not all are Hezbollah fighters. That's probably enough with vague sources involved. But it's not a hill I want to die on. I have reworded "including civilians" to "including many civilians". We could also go with "mostly civilians" instead, but that would add another ref to the sentence, so it may need rejigging a little to over-citing. Lewisguile (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Bitspectator. Such amount of details on the pager explosions really belongs at 2024 Lebanon pager explosions § Casualties, not here. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As many of you know, most editors despise list-formatted "Reactions" sections, especially the flag icons. These sections should be converted into prose—not a bulleted (flagged) list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets, and should have encyclopedic value. Abductive (reasoning) 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I second the no flags thing, as there's actual policy on that, but the list reactions at least are easy to navigate. Putting them in prose can have weird effects when you group countries together. Lewisguile (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

As much as possible, relevant reactions should be limited to countries in the affected region and others that stand to be significantly affected, not some island nation in the middle of the Ocean. Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to include the reaction of the "crowds from the Idlib region of northwestern Syria" - https://themedialine.org/top-stories/while-opposing-israel-syrians-in-rebel-controlled-idlib-celebrate-nasrallahs-death/ - because these groups of people in this region have been directly affected by Hezbollah over the years, therefore their reaction is relevant. 1.145.26.98 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"some island nation in the middle of the Ocean" (meaning, a nation with no interests involved in the middle-east dispute) is unlikely to voice an official comment about this or any other related incident. There's no need to filter opinions ourselves: if they have something to say, the conflict is relevant to them for whatever reason. Government officials are not common X users, even if they use X to release comments, and everything they say, they say because it serves their national interests somehow. Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Assassinated" or "killed"?

The article begins saying, in wiki voice, that the leader of Hezbola "was assassinated in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut." But should we say "assassinated" or "killed". An assassination is the murder of a public figure, and a murder is a killing that is both premeditated and unlawful. Public figure, premeditated, it fits. But unlawful? That's a can of worms that should better stay closed, in special in such a visible article (it's in the "In the News" section of the main page). There are plenty of arguments that may be mentioned as to why this death can be considered lawful or unlawful; but "killing" has no such subtle implications and can be used without any problem. I suggest changing "assassinated" to "killed". Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an RM in progress and the consensus appears headed in the direction of assassinated atm. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The RM is about the article being focused on the air strikes or the death of the terrorist leader, not so much on the specific wording. And even if the article was kept in its current name, the wording is still used within it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources mainly use assassination, that's why. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Most sources do not have a NPOV policy like we do. Cambalachero (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV IS what the balance of sources say? Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Kushner

@OdNahlawi I removed the bit on Kushner because he is a. a private citizen and b. somebody with no expertise on the topic. I dont think that merits inclusion in the article at all, and certainly not as "analysis". nableezy - 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. I mean yes, he is today a private citizen, but he also served in the highest areas of Middle Eastern diplomacy so he knows the scene pretty well. I also saw Aaron David Miller on the Analysis part of 2024 Israeli ground operation in Lebanon and thought it's quite similar, but, okay, I understand. OdNahlawi (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Kushner??...Please. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Miller is an actual analyst, with actual publications. I may not agree with what he says, but he has the credentials to be cited. Kushner, at best, was a political appointee with zero academic publications. nableezy - 16:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath: Other casualties

First sentence of second paragraph currently reads "Hezbollah also confirmed the death of Ali Karaki, Commander of Hezbollah's Southern Front, along with other senior commanders." The link on "Southern Front" links to a defunct group from the Syrian Civil War not tied to Hezbollah. I recommend the link be removed and "Front" be changed to "front" to indicate that he was a regional commander, not a member of a separate militia group. SadaharuWhoa (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Great catch, thanks. I have left the capitalization as is because that's what the source uses. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

Please change: "In July 2024, another senior Hezbollah military leader, Fuad Shukr, was also assassinated in Beirut.[45] Late on 16 September 2024, the Security Cabinet of Israel established a new Israel-Hamas war objective: the safe return to the north of residents displaced by the cross-border conflict with Lebanon. This goal was added to the two existing objectives: dismantling Hamas and securing the release of hostages taken during the 7 October attacks.[46][47]"

to: In July 2024, another senior Hezbollah military leader, Fuad Shukr, was also assassinated in Beirut.[45] Late on 16 September 2024, the Security Cabinet of Israel established a new Israel-Hamas war objective: the safe return to the north of residents displaced by the cross-border conflict with Hezbollah. This goal was added to the two existing objectives: dismantling Hamas and securing the release of hostages taken during the 7 October attacks.[46][47] Rspjr1234 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this text in the article? perhaps it was already changed? Rainsage (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox issues

Minor infobox note

Shouldn’t the little infobox blurb include that this was also a part of the September 2024 Lebanon strikes? The Wikimonger (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox civilian attack

Is there a more suitable infobox than "civilian attack"? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@St.nerol. The similar Killing of Osama bin Laden uses "Infobox historical event", do you want to make the transition? Galamore (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I just found the Infobox military operation, which is perhaps even better. We have the same issue at 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, military operation should be used. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Done.—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 10:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the attack flattened 6 civilian apartment buildings, I'd say the infobox is not inappropriate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Which infobox would you prefer, @Vice regent? What about the content of the infobox? The lede and infobox didn't originally mention civilian casualties at all, so have added those in, but is it explicit enough? Lewisguile (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Pezeshkian

Image shown does not depict Iranian President Pezeshkian, but another Iranian official. 128.233.10.200 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Does anyone know who that is? Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

He looks familiar tho I can't recall exactly in the hardliner camp. Borgenland (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it Ali Akbar Ahmadian? This source associates him with the photo in question. SadaharuWhoa (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

POV issues

Lead pov

Very much like, we currently have NPOV violations in the lead. If we're going to put in Netanyahu's comment that Israel "yearns for peace", we should also put the Lebanese PM's comment that "Israeli aggression on Lebanon is a war of extermination"[3]. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This war is between Israel and Hezbollah. We can put what Hezbollah leading officials say on this Galamore (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Israel destroyed 6 apartment buildings in the middle of the Lebanese capital. I think their reaction carries as much WP:WEIGHT as the Israeli one.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Lebanon's PM is severly weakened due to the massive influence of Hezbollah in his country (largest than the national army, a state within a state, etc.), I'm not sure how weight should be given for such statements. As a country, Lebanon is not really a side in the conflict, at least at this point. Galamore (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet his views are widely quoted[4][5][6][7][8] and republished even in Israeli newspapers[9]. Clearly the world — and most importantly RS — are interested in his reactions.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent it appears the POV tag was removed by @Prodrummer619 without any significant changes to the flagged section. -> Link to diff <- Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Background POV

Yemeni attacks

Yet again, the background is POV. It mentions Yemeni attacks on Israel, but says nothing about Israeli attacks on Gaza, where it has killed 40,000 people. We've been over this at Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes#More background issues.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The attacks are already mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:V and NPOV violation in the background again

I added the WP:V violation tag as there appears to be consensus that the claim that Hezbollah attacked Israel on October 8 is unverifiable. See Talk:2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike#What_happened_on_October_8 and at Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#WP:V_violation. The consensus version of the background is here, that Bitspectator and I agreed to and is based on discussion with Lewisguile and Selfstudier here and here. People should really not be adding unverifiable information into an article that is on the main page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Another option is to use the following as per my latest edit:

"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.

I've posted this on the other talk pages, too, for convenience. Lewisguile (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The recent version uploaded a few hours ago is much better than this. It is much better aligned with that the leading sources say on the war's development between Israel and Hezbollah, and context from Iran's crucial role in the actions of Hezbollah, its leading proxy HaOfa (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That one (which you have now reverted to) had some issues. I listed them briefly in my revert and also on the user's talk page (now deleted by them) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1248409627&markasread=327733742&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=User_talk

In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I have now edited the text to make it more acceptable. I have moved the op-ed down to Analysis and given it appropriate in-line attribution. Lewisguile (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @האופה and @EnfantDeLaVille re this. Take a look at the latest version:

In Background:

"The day after Hamas's 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, Hezbollah joined the conflict with Israel, claiming solidarity with the "Palestinian resistance". Nasrallah said Hezbollah aimed to "strain Israel’s resources" by forcing it to fight on two fronts." (Then continues as before.)

And in Analysis:

"Writing in The New York Times, Farnaz Fassihi said the assassination of Nasrallah eliminated a key figure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle, as Iran had spent forty years developing Hezbollah as a frontline defense against Israel. Fassihi said that Iran had, over time, activated a broader network of militant groups, including Hezbollah, to open multiple fronts against Israel, aiming to create regional chaos and pressure both the U.S. and Israel into negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas."

Hopefully this is more acceptable to everyone.

Lewisguile (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile the source, which says "Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, explained that the campaign was intended to strain Israel’s resources...Yet Nasrallah instead chose a middle-ground approach of incremental escalation". Also, importantly it doesn't seem to include Hezbollah's main reason that they've repeated stated as the reason for joining the conflict: to stop Israel's attacks on Gaza. They've explicitly laid that out as a ceasefire condition. Hezbollah's and Iran's messaging constantly revolves around the human death toll in Gaza. Hezbollah warned it would escalate "because Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children"[10].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add that in; I would support that. The source is an op-ed, and personally I wouldn't have relied on it at all, but its opinions do represent a significant subsection of people and someone else added that text in, so I was trying to iterate it rather than just reverting it. You can revert it if you'd prefer.

However, some of the things you mention about Hezbollah's aims are already in the background in one form or another. You don't need to refute the opinion in the Analysis section; just add other perspectives in there if you want. The reader can make their own conclusions. Lewisguile (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The section already says "Hezbollah has stated it will continue attacking Israel until Israel halts its operations in Gaza.", so the issue should be fixed now then. Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. I only pasted in the changed portion of the text, but that has been in there for a while. Lewisguile (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems we've agreed on a version. We are trying to harmonize the background versions across the article. I'd request any feedback on the version go here, so we can keep the discussion in one place.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And it seems the compromise was reverted. @Lewisguile can we stick to the agreed upon version? In the other discussion, I did provide evidence that Hezbollah explicitly stated Gaza casualties, including women and children, as justification. It seems POV to only include their "two front" statement (of which I can't find the actual quote), but not the explicit statement of "women and children", which was widely repeated in RS. Sources here again:

• 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
• in a BBC interview, Hezbollah's deputy leader warned Hezbollah would escalate because "because Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children."[11]
  • This statement was then widely cited in other sources, like: Ahram, L'Orient Le Jour, Voice of Nigeria etc.

Above, Bitspectator also agreed that their stated justification should be included.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to re-add that. I swung for a compromise to avoid a future revert but the original wording we agreed is, of course, better. Lewisguile (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore, can we get your eyes on this discussion too? I'd like to avoid constant back and forth, so if we can get you to agree to text, too, that makes it easier. Lewisguile (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, Ahram, Voice of Nigeria... I am sure we can find better sources. In those I have seen - NYT, TWP and the likes - they don't use casualities when describing Hezbollah's statements. They usually describe them as "standing with Hamas", "standing with the Palestinian resistance", etc. If we gonna start describing casualities we should describe those who died from Hamas terror attacks on October 7, and more. I don't think we really want to get into this. Galamore (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We had an RfC, and we found AlJazeera to be perfectly reliable. We can take this back to WP:RSN if you disagree. BBC is also a prolific source. Happy to take both L'orient le jour and Ahram to RSN too. And again I didn't remove the two front thing, rather I added the casualties thing. NYT saying "standing with Palestinian resistance" doesn't contradict Hezbollah saying "because Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What if we just mention the civilian casualties in Gaza and just leave it at that? I personally don't think the women and children part is essential, because it's the same as Israel saying they have a right to defend themselves—i.e., it's just the usual sloganeering combatants make when they want to bomb each other, and it doesn't really mean anything. But personally, I'd also remove that stuff from all sides, so we should be consistent. If we can maintain that balance throughout, it's enough to say that Hezbollah entered the conflict because they wanted to show solidarity with Palestine and the rising casualties (though the casualties weren't actually 40,000 at that point, so we can keep it brief). Lewisguile (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the 40,000 number wasn't around at that point, so sticking to statements, we can remove the 40,000 number and keep what Hezbollah said. We can even give the quote if need be.

I'm not at all opposed to mentioning Israel's right to self-defense. I interpret WP:NPOV as presenting all significant views, as opposed to removing all significant views. I think both Israel's and Hezbollah's views should be presented.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There are more sources. NBC News reports Hezbollah deputy leader cited the fact that Israel "kills civilians and children and destroys homes" as justification. This was cited by Sky News and Al-Arabiya

Hezbollah also vowed to retaliate against Israel's killing of civilians in Lebanon and this was covered by The Guardian, Reuters, SCMP, AJ, Ashram Al-Aqsat etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If we can do that without too much bloat, then I'm okay with it. Every consensus we've had so far has been overridden by someone else, so it's quite frustrating, but the discussion also seems quite scattered. Is it worth pinging all involved editors in a single thread to get this sorted? Lewisguile (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

, so here are some options. Previously we had:

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 more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.

Here's another that seems concise.

Hezbollah condemned the killing of civilians in Gaza, and 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.

I'll boldly add it and see what happens.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me and I doubt it could be seen as contentious. Lewisguile (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On Hezbollah's part the bottom option looks fine, though Iran's role is missing here.

On Israel part we should mention Israel's call for Hezbollah to go north of the Litani and comply with resolution 1701, and Israel's right of self-defense, as well as seeking to root out the possibility of another October 7 in the north, which has been planned by Hezbollah's Redwan Force for years. Galamore (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I would put what's relevant into an edit of similar length for balance. So about two sentences. I'd probably leave out the speculative part (another 7 October), and just go with the request to retreat north of Litani, the 1701 obligations, and defensive stuff (since the last largely covers the speculative part anyway). Though, the 1701 obligation stuff brings us back to Hezbollah's claims of Israeli violations of the same, so there is that. Lewisguile (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

In the #Attack section, the sentence According to The New York Times, the IDF used eight planes fitted with more than fifteen Mark 84 bomb (2,000 pounds (910 kg) each), including the US-made BLU-109 with a JDAM kit, to kill Nasrallah. is problematic. First, it is cited to The Washington Post (), and that WaPo story makes no mention of the NYT. Second, the Mark 84 bomb and the BLU-109 bomb are different bombs, although they both weigh 2,000 lb and both utilise the same JDAM guidance kit.

Request it be reworded to: It was reported the IDF used eight planes fitted with more than fifteen US-made {{cvt|2000|lb|kg}} [[JDAM]]-guided [[Mark 84 bomb|Mark 84]] and [[BLU-109 bomb|BLU-109]] bombs to kill Nasrallah. citing the same source, which should render as: It was reported the IDF used eight planes fitted with more than fifteen US-made 2,000 lb (910 kg) JDAM-guided Mark 84 and BLU-109 bombs to kill Nasrallah.. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done

The source given doesn't actually mention the Mark 84s at all. I've found a separate source which does (ABC News (Australia)) and have altered the wording to reflect that:

"US analysts believe the IDF dropped more than fifteen US-made "bunker bombs" (either BLU-109s or Mark 84s weighting 2,000 pounds (910 kg) each), with a JDAM kit, to kill Nasrallah." Lewisguile (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Lewisguile. The only slight problem is the Mark 84 is not a bunker buster. Instead I suggest US analysts believe the IDF dropped more than fifteen US-made bombs to kill Nasrallah, including JDAM guided 2,000 lb (910 kg) BLU-109s.. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC).

The source does refer to the Mark 84 as a "bunker buster": https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-30/us-2000-pound-bombs-used-to-kill-hassan-nasrallah-beirut/104412112. As there's been significant discussion about the exact type of bombs used already, and people couldn't agree, I've gone with:

"US analysts believe the IDF dropped more than fifteen US-made bombs (either BLU-109s or Mark 84s weighing 2,000 pounds (910 kg) each), with a JDAM kit, to kill Nasrallah." Lewisguile (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC).

No problem. Lewisguile (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

References