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

Main image caption

The caption should probably be "munitions" not "ammunition" describing GBU-31 guided bombs. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, "bombs" is better than either of those words. See this edit. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "Bombs" is unambiguous. Lewisguile (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed as No consensus. I count 41 users who in some way participated in the discussion, and 16 of them either supported the version which got the most votes — Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah — or at least did not oppose it. Others explicitly opposed or preferred another version. I also do not see the arguments of any of the sides significantly stronger than others, all arguments are reasonable, and at the end of the day it is about personal preferences. At this point, I do not see consensus moving the article anywhere, nor keeping it at the current title. It might make sense to try again in a few months if somebody wants to.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike → 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks or 27 September 2024 Beirut attack – While Israel states it only targeted the Hezbollah headquarters, several RS say the attack lay waste to "Several apartment blocks"[12] or "multiple high-rise apartment buildings"[13]. Given such an immense destruction of civilian infrastructure, we should not put Israeli claims that this was a "precise strike" on just the Hezbollah HQ in wikivoice (violation of WP:POVTITLE]), and instead pick the most neutral title. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the suggested title is empty of meaning. A more relevant move would be to attempted assassination of Hassan Nasrallah or something similar Galamore (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Had the attack only killed/injured Nasrallah and those close to him, I'd have agreed with you. But the amount of collateral damage is immense and reducing it to one person, is quite POV. Also, there is precedent: consider the 1981 Iraqi embassy bombing in Beirut whose stated target was Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz or the Brighton hotel bombing, whose stated target was British PM Margaret Thatcher.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Consider the Israeli attempt to assassinate Muhammad Deif. The article is called 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack, based on consensus on the talk page. That event killed 90+ people and injured 300+, and it is quite likely that the death toll for this event might be similarly high.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: the proposed move strikes me as in line with existing practice, the wording in RS, and neutrality. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@AntiDionysius:, fyi, I have changed the proposed title from "27 September 2024 Beirut attack" to "27 September 2024 Beirut attacks" (notice the plural).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose with multiple additional attacks on Beirut weapons storage locations in the evening of the same day, but not on Hezbollah HQs, a better title might have to be the 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks (plural, not singular). This is going to take a few days to sort out what all these multiple attacks did, and how many Hezbollah & Iranian operatives may have been targeted in the attacks, before a WP:COMMONNAME can really be chosen for the longer term. N2e (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right about the plural: "The series of massive explosions sent huge clouds of smoke soaring above the densely populated Haret Hreik neighbourhood in Dahiyeh, southern Beirut, around dusk on Friday."[14] France24's headline is also "Terror, panic as Israeli strikes wipe out Beirut buildings". I'll change it.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be its own thing, the most notable thing here is the killing of Nasrallah, and that needs its own article. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This particular, single strike is going to be the notable one among many others which are part of the wider conflict. Ultimograph5 (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ultimograph5 can you clarify? It seems there were multiple strikes in the same location. For example, France24 says "The strikes killed at least two people and injured 76, Lebanon's health ministry said in a preliminary toll." Notice the plural.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent I suppose the word "strike" is confusing, France24 seems to be defining "strike" as one bomb while I was referring to the whole event which lasted like a minute. My definition is in line with other articles like Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus but I'm not sure there's any standard Ultimograph5 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ultimograph5 to clarify then, you'd be ok with "27 September 2024 Beirut attack" as opposed to "27 September 2024 Beirut attacks"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, it is not even confirmed he was killed yet. Also, given the nature of the bombings (attacking apartment blocks), it might be best to go with "attack" same as 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack as noted above. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 08:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that it is confirmed he is dead, it still matters that potentially hundreds are dead from airstrikes on apartment blocks in a densely populated suburb. This article probably should just be called Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah (as it actually was when I first replied, IDK why), as I can't think of a not-unwieldy title that incorporates the civilian casualties in it, however we should have another article that goes in depth on the potentially hundreds dead.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont />

• Support per above. We did not call Deif's attempted assassination "attempted assassination of Mohammed Deif". TwistedAxe [contact] 10:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Killing is confirmed now but still think we need a separate article on the bombings. Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be its own standalone article too, yes. Although I think we can incorporate both the attack and the assassination in the same article perhaps? Otherwise two separate articles are okay too IMO. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose he is dead. No need for more ambiguity which is not in line with alike articles DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, even if civilians were killed in the attack, absolutely the most notable thing here is that Nasrallah has been assassinated, confirmed by Hezbollah.[15] Personisinsterest (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong supporrt Wikipedia should not adopt a belligerent's rationale in the title for an attack that seems likely to have killed dozens Zellfire999 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah – With his assassination confirmed, it is now a forgone matter that the most notable event within the scope of this article, and the name by which this event will be known is as the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This was actually the title of the article when I first !voted, did someone move it and then it got reverted whilst this RfC was going on? </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the page was moved by a new user. We could just revert that but best to just let the RM work itself out. It appears we are approaching SPEEDY. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah – agreed, this is the major event and the relevant title. Afdshah (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, per Coffeeandcrumbs above. This is the single most notable and significant aspect of this event, and is commonly described as such by RS. ABHammad (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. I'm the creator and I used the current name 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike since this is what was known at the time of creation. The specific date + place title is bad 'cause it says nothing on the real topic here. Now that all related parties confirmed he is dead I think that's the main topic in this article and the title should mention that. EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Rename Killing of Hassan Nasrallah, in line with Killing of Osama bin Laden. To characterize it as an assassination is reflective of a minor point-of-view. Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Zaathras can you explain the difference? OdNahlawi (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  My personal opinion is that assassinations are politically motivated, and Nasrallah was a terrorist combatant, not a political target. The Wikipedia-based reason is that the majority of reliable sources appear to not use the A-word in their coverage, except to note that like-minded (to Nasrallah and his cause) individuals and groups may refers to it as that. Zaathras (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:DEATHS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting that you link to something that your own vote above does not adhere to. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  The NYTimes: The assassination, which Israel said hit the Iranian-backed militia’s underground headquarters, was a stunning escalation of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah in a conflict that has gone on for nearly a year.The Guardian repeatedly calls it an assassination. BBC: Israel’s assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the long-standing leader of Hezbollah, is a major escalation in its war with the Lebanese militant group.

  The claim that the majority of reliable sources appear to not use the A-word in their coverage, except to note that like-minded (to Nasrallah and his cause) individuals and groups may refers to it as that is completely made up. nableezy - 00:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah . It's a better name considering we can now confirm the death of Secretary-General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah. Also, it's a much more recognizable name opposed to 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks . TheFloridaMan (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah - and the claim that is a minor POV is emphatically untrue. Basically every story I see about this calls it an assassination, NYT, The Guardian, Foreign Policy for example all call it an assassination. Claiming it is a minor point-of-view is something that requires substantiation, not just bald assertion. nableezy - 15:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, this is why this airstrike was worth an article in the beginning, and after the confirmation that would be the most precise way to describe the event. OdNahlawi (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, per what was said above and the example of Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, neutral on Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, as the attack was aimed at Hezbollah headquarters and Nasrallah. It's perfectly true that civilian infrastructure was also destroyed, but that was a necessary and undesirable side-effec resulting from Hezbollah making their headquarters under said civilian infrastructure. Animal lover |666| 22:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed as it far less clear what the attack was about. As for "Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah" that's somewhat better than the proposed yet still inferior to the present name. As I understand it, this was an attack on the entire Hezbollah leadership. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah in line with Ismael Haniyeh and other notable figures. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination since the attacks in Lebanon generally, including the one here, are being dealt with at September 2024 Lebanon strikes Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks, since more than the intended target were killed. This also meets WP:NCWWW. Lewisguile (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. A bombing attack or any kind of hit that kills and injures many people among whom happened to be a well known military, political, ideological person could never be named "assassination [of that person]". Here, however, the overwhelmingly evident target was one single person, Nasrallah, a fact confirmed by both sides; no one argued that his death was incidental to a bombing attack against Beirut. What it all quite clearly came down to was an organized attack against the life of one specific person, an assassination effort that also resulted in a significant number of collateral casualties. This was an assassination, albeit a very bloody one. We should make of "2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike" a Redirect to the Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the main argument against this is the fact that other militants were killed, but assassination of Rafiq Hariri had multiple other officials killed as well. Prodrummer619 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Snow close and move to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah; the original rationale makes no sense anymore after the current news. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: the attack was to Hezbola, not to Beirut. That's the focus of all news headlines. Cambalachero (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Per above comments. Spilia4 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. as proposed. Weak support Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah per above comments. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike is a good and appropriate title. The target was Hezbollah, Nasrallah and his subordinates. AideDésintéressée (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - no reliable sources that I'm aware of are actually disputing the stated Hezbollah targets. Damage to many buildings doesn't imply much about what the targets were. The neutrality argument seems based on a hypothetical controversy about targeting which hasn't actually occurred. Also oppose Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah - my understanding is that assassination doesn't have a standard definition in IHL, but generally implies unlawful killing. A title focused on Nasrallah could make sense, but I would suggest Killing of Hassan Nasrallah, which seems more clearly accurate and neutral while also matching Killing of Osama bin Laden etc. Edit: Neutrality and others convinced me that the current title is best, rather than a narrower title about Nasrallah. The same strike killed Ali Karaki and Abbas Nilforoushan. I don't see a reason to further narrow the scope, which is already limited to one specific strike. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you think it implies unlawful killing and what of the any number of reliable sources that has assassination? Who said this was an international law topic anyway? nableezy - 03:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I guess there's plenty of precedent for both in reliable sources. Most sources seem to say both "assassination" and "killing" at some point. I did notice [16] [17] [18] which say "killing" only; I didn't notice any which say "assassination".

  It seems prevalence leans slightly toward "killing". I still feel "killing" is preferable since it's unquestionably precise, whereas there could be questions about whether "assassination" is precise. Is there a particular concern with "killing"? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Precision. nableezy - 09:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding is that assassinations are only illegal under national laws, but not always illegal under international law. In this case, I highly doubt it was legal under Lebanese law to kill Nasrallah. If you want examples of articles called "assassination" when they targeted the leader who was at war, here are some: Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Assassination of Lord Mountbatten, Assassination attempts on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler etc. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  There does seem to be plenty of precedent for both, both in the media and in related article names. Do you have a particular concern with "killing" though? Unless there's some problem with it, I think we should prefer the name whose accuracy is beyond doubt. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  What source is doubting the accuracy of assassination? I have seen none questioning it. nableezy - 18:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, AFAIK there's simply zero analysis in reliable sources of what language most precisely describes this particular subject. So that doesn't favor any particular name, it just means that we're on our own here. So yes, my argument is original research, but original research is okay in naming discussions, and is often unavoidable.

  Let me elaborate on what my OR argument is. While I don't believe there's any formal legal definition, this article by Michael N. Schmitt can help us see how "assassination" is generally understood in the context of armed conflict specifically (rather than peacetime assassinations). Schmitt defines an assassination as a "treacherous" and "perfidious" killing; it's not clear Nasrallah's killing fits that.

  I'm sure there can be arguments that Schmitt's definition is not universal, or that perhaps Nasrallah's killing was in fact perfidious, or what not. But this seems like a good enough reason to prefer "killing", the accuracy of which is beyond question. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  What source disputes Nasrallah specifically was assassinated? Not what source do you feel defines the term to not include what you feel happened. nableezy - 23:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  As I said we're on our own here, and must use original arguments, as there's no reliable source (as far as I'm aware) which takes any explicit position on what language is most appropriate to describe the event. That doesn't weigh in favor of either name. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  no, that makes no sense. If several reliable sources outright say he was assassinated and no source disputes that then on Wikipedia it is a fact that he was assassinated. nableezy - 01:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like you're trying to invoke WP:V here, but in naming discussions we evaluate arguments on their merits, not based on the technicalities of content policies which we're not bound to here.

  I would argue that Schmitt's in-depth expert analysis of the term "assassination" carries much more weight. Journalists' use of a word in passing, with no discussion of its meaning, isn't compelling evidence that the usage was precise and not subtly wrong.

  In any case, your argument cuts both ways, with at least as many sources using "killing", so it doesn't weigh in either direction. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  all assassinations are killings, so no that doesn’t cut both ways, and absent any source that disputes this was an assassination it is an undisputed fact that it was an assassination. And no, a 2021 article has literally nothing to do with this article or its title. The idea that an RM has nothing to do with what the sources actually say and can instead revolve around editors individual views on esoteric topics loosely related to the article is not one I can really wrap my head around, so I’ll stop trying to. nableezy - 12:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose suggested title, but okay with moving to Assassination/Killing of Nasrallah poketape (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any moving. The strike was on the headquarters, and is a significant event in and of itself. There is nothing to stop other pages from linking to this page with a different heading, or to put in a redirect, but the strike was on the headquarters. This wasn't a sniper on a grassy knoll somewhere. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope. The strike was indeed on a specific place but the stated target, per sources, was a specific person: Namely, Nasrallah. One can trivially locate numerous statements by the Israeli government and the IDF explicitly and clearly confirming this. You will find not one single claim to the effect that the attack targeted Beirut in general or the Hezbollah headquarters in general. None, and we cannot have an article bearing a title that is not supported at all by our sources. On the other hand, we have a plethora of sources stating that this was an operation planned and executed to assassinate Nasrallah. (And there was no sniper on the grassy knoll). -The Gnome (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, ToI did write Israeli strikes targeted the Hezbollah military headquarters. They don't explicitly attribute that to the IDF, so maybe it's just their interpretation. The majority of sources do seem to describe Nasrallah as the (purported) target. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The statements made by Israeli members of the government along with the statements made by IDF's Chief of the General Staff are quite clear and leave no doubt or uncertainty about the intended target. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: per above comments. Craig Davison (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose original RM, support moving to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah; The suggested title focuses on civilian casualties, unlike most sources -- a potential breach of WP:NPOV. The current title is fine in that sense, but isn't the most important part of this event (what's more important: that Nasrallah was killed, or that the strike hit Hezbollah headquarters in 2024?), and is ambiguous with countless other Israeli strikes on Lebanon, even if this is the only one that hit Hezbollah HQ directly. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even one of the sources mentioned by u:VR in his initial statement calls it a bid to kill Hezbollah leader. More sources have been provided by other editors, for example u:Personisinsterest. Killing of Hasan Nasrallah could be an option but I'd like to see a case made for it. If many more Hezbollah militants were killed then the current title is better. Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Many more Hezbollah militants were indeed killed. Yet, this was an operation intended to kill Nasrallah, a fact overwhelmingly supported by sources. The current title, as well as the suggested alternative title in this RfC, are both misleading in that they ignore what all officials of Israel, Iran, Lebanon, as well as all media are stating. These titles present the event as some random bombing operation that happened to kill Nasrallah and other militants. But that is not what went down. -The Gnome (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any move - current title seems fine, and well-reflected in the sources. Neutrality^talk 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It is the opposite of "fine." All the media has presented and keeps reporting on the operation having front and center the image of Nasrallah. What is well-reflected in the sources is the fact asserted by everyone concerned, i.e. Israel, Lebanon, Iran: An operation targeting Nasrallah. It's downright silly to be even debating this. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nobody disputes that Nasrallah was the principal target. But many other senior Hezbollah leaders were also killed; the airstrike was on the gathering at headquarters. "Assassination of..." (to my ears at least) implies a strike at one or a small number of people. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality, imagine this: Suppose Lee Harvey Oswald, instead of using that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in Dealey Plaza to kill JFK, had fired an automatic weapon at the president when the whole entourage was coming off the plane. Further imagine that his spray of fire had taken out not just the president but also Jackie Kennedy, governor John Connally, and many other dignitaries present. A veritable massacre; but job done. Now, aside from how all the media denotes the Israeli operation as targeting Nasrallah, how would you title the report from Dallas in my example? "JFK assassinated/killed" or "1963 gunfire attack in Dallas airport"? -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting counterfactual, but not really relevant. The situation really requires far less creativity. There are two possible titles, which for shorthand I'll describe as A (2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike) and B (assassination of Hassan Nasrallah). Both A and B (1) are factually accurate and (2) have substantial support in the sources (although I'll note that terms like "airstrike" and "headquarters" are used in virtually every source, while the specific word "assassination" is used in just a subset). And both titles are in fact are inseparable (Associated Press: "The Israeli military ... struck Hezbollah's headquarters ... in a series of massive explosions that targeted the leader..."). Under these circumstances, where A is inclusive of B, it makes good sense to go with the slightly broader title rather than the narrower title. (This seems especially appropriate when the strike is not a random one-off, but part of a larger decapitation strategy.) Neutrality^talk 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The comparison with another, more famous, assassination is not apt for casual dismissals, unless one chooses to avoid the trivial conclusion drawn from it. In almost every source under the sun, the words "killed", "assassinated", or even "taken out" (e.g. in Haaretz, here), are used. The sources that initially, i.e, before details about the target came out, titled their reports as "bombing", "attack", and the like, have all subsequently inserted in the title the name of the target and what was done to him. No party claimed, and especially not the Israelis, that this was a "decapitation" attack, either, in which by lucky chance Nasrallah was also killed. This was an attack on Nasrallah's life with collateral, human damage.

Now, at the moment, whether we move this article to "Killing of" or to "Assassination of Nasrallah" is unimportant. What is unacceptable, except as a burial of reality, is to keep the generic, uninformative titles of the RfC options, using the laughable argument that are all "factually accurate." Yep, and the title "Shots fired in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, TX" would be "factually accurate " on the JFK assassination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But the circumstances of the events differ quite markedly. When JFK was shot, it didn't level buildings and kill dozens of other people. I don't think anyone here is motivated by an attempt to hide the fact Nasrallah was assassinated, but a title that focuses entirely on him doesn't do justice to the scale of the operation or casualties caused. I think that's the point being made. Neutrality is right that option A includes B, but B doesn't include A. Since the article's scope is necessarily broader than B, the WP:PRECISE name is the one that encompasses that scope. Lewisguile (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would honestly like to know which Wikipedia guideline or policy suggests that an article's title should be throwing the widest possible net and capturing all related events. (Note my correct use of hyperthetic: Suppose A is the title that encompasses events X1, ..., Xn. There will always be a title B for events X1, ..., Xn, Xn+1.) The killing of Rajiv Ghandi was achieved through a bombing that took the lives of sixteen people; yet, the article is correctly titled Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. One could list a large number of articles like that. You are invoking WP:PRECISE, which, wisely, asks that "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." Emphasis added. Nowhere in that policy is a demand to have titles as inclusive as possible.

The trivially evident direction is found in WP:COMMONNAME. Sources rule in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any indication that Rajaratnam intended to target any of the other sixteen people? If not, then the cases are not really comparable. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Gnome, arguably the quote you give supports my statement: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." An attack on the Hezbollah HQ is unambiguous. Narrowing it to Nasrallah is more precise in terms of being more specific, but less precise in that it doesn't define the topical scope of the article. So it's precision that isn't needed given that the scope of the article is broader than that.

I'm not arguing for a further broadening of the article, BTW—I don't agree with the OP's suggestion for a new title based on Beirut. But it should still describe the article as it currently is. That's why I think 2024 Hezbollah headquarters attack, or some variation thereof, is the better name. Lewisguile (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose While I agree the name should be changed, I think it should be 27 September 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike NotQualified (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Move to 2024 Hezbollah Headquarters airstrike. I find the name to be more inclusive of both the mentioning of the deaths of Hassan Nasrallah and the other Hezbollah Officials, especially given the fact that an IRGC Commander Died. Just a reminder to everyone that we had an article named 2020 Baghdad Airport Airstrike before renaming it to Assassination of Qassem Soleimani; also soley discussing Nasrallah does not mention nor discuss the deaths of the other Hezbollah and IRGC Commander. A word of note is that the IRGC Commander Killed is of a similar rank to Zahedi in Syria as both are heads of foreign operations given both title and rank, so it is not a good idea to leave information out. It is vital to account facts from as many sources as possible. Personisgaming (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose nominated title; support move to 2024 Hezbollah headquarters attack instead. This is unambiguous and meets WP:NCWWW, since Nasrallah and all other casualties fit the scope of Hezbollah. But the existing scope of the article is broader than Nasrallah alone, so Assassination of... is too narrow as per WP:PRECISE. Lewisguile (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  What’s the source that this was Hezbollahs headquarters? nableezy - 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are you kidding me? The article's current name contains the word "headquarters" w/ lots of references saying that it was a Hezbollah headquarters. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the current article title says that, but what sources actually say this was Hezbolllah's headquarters? nableezy - 15:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  AP News The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  AP only supports that Israel says that’s Hezbollahs headquarters. nableezy - 18:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't see that anybody is disputing it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The airstrike was specifically targeted at the Hezbollah headquarters. The fact that nearby buildings were damaged (or even destroyed) does not mean that the headquarters was not the target. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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