Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:45, 14 October 2024 editLewisguile (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,901 edits →Extended-protected edit request on 12 October 2024: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:26, 30 December 2024 edit undoLewisguile (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,901 edits →Semi-protected edit request Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
(36 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 18:		Line 18:
	}}		}}

			== Semi-protected edit request ==
	== Requested move 27 September 2024 ==
	{{RM extended confirmed\|a-i\|other=RfC}}
	{{requested move/dated\|27 September 2024 Beirut attacks}}

			{{Edit semi-protected\|2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike\|answered=y}}
	] → {{no redirect\|27 September 2024 Beirut attacks}} or ''']''' – While Israel states it only targeted the Hezbollah headquarters, several RS say the attack lay waste to "Several apartment blocks" or "multiple high-rise apartment buildings". 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 ]]), and instead pick the most neutral title. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
			In the intro and other casualties, where it mentions the ], please add Iranian (I.e. “the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”). Since this attack took place in Lebanon, it’s important to note that the IRGC is part of the Iranian Armed Forces. ] (]) 03:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

			:It is common knowledge, I believe, that IRGC refers to Iranian corps; additionaly the article has been wikilinked, so I don't see any reason to include "Iranian" here. I am not closing this and would let another editor do so. ] (]) 19:37, 7 December 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 ] (]) 22:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
			:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> per {{u\|TheAstorPastor}}. ] (]) 11:57, 12 December 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 ] whose stated target was Iraqi PM ] or the ], whose stated target was British PM ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
	*Consider the Israeli attempt to assassinate ]. The article is called ], ] 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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

			<strike>This is not necessarily common knowledge and should be stated in the case of confusion. A lot of people are just now paying attention to this conflict as they are looking into Israel-Palestine.] (]) 15:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> <small>Struck per ]. ] (]) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Support''': the proposed move strikes me as in line with existing practice, the wording in RS, and neutrality. ] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 23:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
	::<small>{{ping\|AntiDionysius}}, fyi, I have changed the proposed title from "27 September 2024 Beirut attack" to "27 September 2024 Beirut attacks" (notice the plural).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)</small>

			== The word "assassination" ==
	*'''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 ] (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 ] can really be chosen for the longer term. ] (]) 00:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	::You're right about the plural: "{{tq\|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.}}" 's headline is also "{{tq\|Terror, panic as Israeli strikes wipe out Beirut buildings}}". I'll change it.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	::@] can you clarify? It seems there were multiple strikes in the same location. For example, France24 "The strike'''s''' killed at least two people and injured 76, Lebanon's health ministry said in a preliminary toll." Notice the plural.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] 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 ] but I'm not sure there's any standard ] (]) 04:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	::::@] to clarify then, you'd be ok with "27 September 2024 Beirut attack" as opposed to "27 September 2024 Beirut attacks"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*<del>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 ] as noted above. </]> <] /><] /> 08:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)</del>
	::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.</]> <] /><] />
	*'''Support''' per above. We did not call Deif's attempted assassination "attempted assassination of Mohammed Deif". <span style="font-family: Courier New; background-color: green; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] </span>]]</span> 10:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	::Killing is confirmed now but still think we need a separate article on the bombings. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family: Courier New; background-color: green; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] </span>]]</span> 11:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' he is dead. No need for more ambiguity which is not in line with alike articles ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong supporrt''' Misplaced Pages should not adopt a belligerent's rationale in the title for an attack that seems likely to have killed dozens ] (]) 12:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ] – 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 ]. --- ]&]]) 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? </]> <] /><] /> 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. --- ]&]]) 22:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah – agreed, this is the major event and the relevant title. ] (]) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ], per Coffeeandcrumbs above. This is the single most notable and significant aspect of this event, and is commonly described as such by RS. ] (]) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ]. 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. ] (]) 13:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

			I have recently replaced the several instances of the word "assassinate" and its variants (the adjective "assassinated", the noun "assassination", etc) with variants of "kill". The problem is that it is a word that introduces bias: an assassination is the murder of a public figure, and a murder is a killing that is both intentional and unlawful. And given that this public figure is a terrorist leader, killed during explicit military hostilities, saying that it was unlawful can be controversial at best. "Kill", on the other hand, only means to take a life, and does not include any criminal or unlawful intent in the definition, so it is a better and more neutral word to use. See for example .
	*'''Rename''' ], in line with ]. To characterize it as an assassination is reflective of a minor point-of-view. ] (]) 14:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] can you explain the difference? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages-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. ] (]) 20:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*:::See ]. --- ]&]]) 22:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Interesting that you link to something that your own vote above does not adhere to. ] (]) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*:::The : {{xt\|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.}} repeatedly calls it an assassination. : {{xt\|Israel’s assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the long-standing leader of Hezbollah, is a major escalation in its war with the Lebanese militant group.}}<p>The claim that {{tq\|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. ''']''' - 00:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

			The change was reverted, citing ], which is meaningless here. This is not about a mainstream and a fringe view, this isn't even about opposing views, but about ]. The previous RM is meaningless as well, because the main point in discussion was whether the article should be about the bombings in general or the death of Hassan Nasrallah in particular.
	*'''Move''' to ] . It's a better name considering we can now confirm the death of ] ]. Also, it's a much more recognizable name opposed to ] . ] (]) 14:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ] - and the claim that is a minor POV is emphatically untrue. Basically every story I see about this calls it an assassination, , , for example all call it an assassination. Claiming it is a minor point-of-view is something that requires substantiation, not just bald assertion. ''']''' - 15:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ], 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. ] (]) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ], per what was said above and the example of ]. — ] ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' as proposed, '''neutral''' on ], 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 01:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

			And I found it a bit strange that a reference used multiple times used the tag "Israel assassin", I change it to something less provocative, and that was reverted as well. Just because the <nowiki><ref name="name" /></nowiki> is invisible to readers does not mean it can be used for flamebait. ] (]) 18:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to ] in line with Ismael Haniyeh and other notable figures. ] (]) 09:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move''' to Assassination since the attacks in Lebanon generally, including the one here, are being dealt with at ] ] (]) 09:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

			:@], you'll note I specifically changed the name of the reference because you flagged it, after I otherwise reverted the article. In all likelihood, I think it received that name because someone couldn't be bothered to write out "Israeli assassination" in full every time (it was probably me!) rather than out of any malicious intent.
	*'''Support''' 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks, since more than the intended target were killed. This also meets ]. ] (]) 09:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			:Re: "assassination", this is a term used in multiple other, related articles on Misplaced Pages, and it's also used in a list of killings specifically attributed to Israel here: ].
			:"Assassination" is not included in the list of words that introduce bias, either; though, incidentally, "terrorist" is (which you use to justify "killing") at ]. (It's also mentioned in the article ], whereas "assassin" isn't.)
			:According to our page on ]s: {{tq\|Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important. It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, personal, financial, or military motives. Assassinations are ordered by both individuals and organizations, and are carried out by their accomplices. Acts of assassination have been performed since ancient times. A person who carries out an assassination is called an assassin.}}
			:There's no mention of ''murder'' here, as opposed to ''killing''. However, I note that many "assassination of..." pages have it in their short description while some don't. That suggests to me that it's a matter of taste how individual articles describe their specific assassinations. "Assassination" in itself doesn't imply, in my view, anything other than a killing of a high-profile individual, as per the above description.
			:I actually favoured not using "assassination" in the title because of the "collateral damage" involved, but it was very popular nevertheless. I'd be keen to hear what others think? ] (]) 19:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			::] is clear in the lead: "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be". It does not matter is if they didn't specifically mention a certain word, as long as it can be explained how that word introduces bias, which I just did. And just because a word is used in other articles does not mean it's fine if the discussion was never held in the first place, see ]. ] (]) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support move''' to ]. 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 ". Here, however, the ] 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 ] came down to was an <u>organized attack against the life of one specific person</u>, 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 ]. -] (]) 11:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::You did, and I disagreed with you that it showed bias, citing my reasons as you did. Bias can also occur via omission/removal (''why is'' this ''assassination so objectionable to label as such?'' for instance). Let's see what others have to say. ] (]) 20:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::I should also add, it's the ] for his specific killing too. Across sources both left and right, and more or less obviously biased:
	*'''Support''' ], the main argument against this is the fact that other militants were killed, but ] had multiple other officials killed as well. ] (]) 11:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::* BBC:

			:::* Chatham House:
	*'''Snow close''' and '''move''' to ]; the original rationale makes no sense anymore after the current news. ] (]) 15:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::* Ynet:

			:::* Socialist Worker:
	*'''Oppose''': the attack was to Hezbola, not to Beirut. That's the focus of all news headlines. ] (]) 15:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::* Atlantic Council:

			:::* Prospect:
	*'''Strong Oppose''': Per above comments. ] (]) 23:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::* ITV:

			:::* The Spectator:
	*'''Oppose'''. as proposed. '''Weak support''' ] per above comments. ] (]) ] 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::Etc. ] (]) 20:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			::::"Killing" is pretty common in headlines as well, maybe more so, e.g. just to name some big ones. If we look at article bodies, many sources use both words at some point, making it a bit hard to compare.
	*'''Strong Oppose''': ''2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike'' is a good and appropriate title. The target was Hezbollah, Nasrallah and his subordinates. ] (]) 02:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::As with the related RM ], my position is it's not entirely clear that "assassination" fits precisely, considering the various definitions (I cited one by Schmitt); "killing" seems ideal since there's no question about its applicability. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::::I have no objection to switching it if multiple people feel it's inaccurate. I got the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) from the RM that many people wanted that word in there, though? (I personally voted against it for the title.) ] (]) 10:31, 14 December 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''' ] - 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 ], which seems more clearly accurate and neutral while also matching ] etc. '''Edit''': Neutrality and others convinced me that the current title is best, rather than a narrower title about Nasrallah. The same strike killed ] and ]. I don't see a reason to further narrow the scope, which is already limited to one specific strike. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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? ''']''' - 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 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"? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Precision. ''']''' - 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: ], ], ], ], ] etc. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	*:::What source is doubting the accuracy of ''assassination''? I have seen none questioning it. ''']''' - 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 by ] 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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. ''']''' - 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages it is a fact that he was assassinated. ''']''' - 01:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::::It seems like you're trying to invoke ] 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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. ''']''' - 12:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''' suggested title, but '''okay with moving''' to Assassination/Killing of Nasrallah ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	::Nope. The strike was indeed on a specific place but the ''stated'' target, ], 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 ]). -] (]) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::For the record, did write {{tq\|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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::The statements made by Israeli members of the government along with the statements made by ] are quite clear and leave no doubt or uncertainty about the intended target. -] (]) 10:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''': per above comments. ] (]) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong oppose''' original RM, '''support''' moving to ]; The suggested title focuses on civilian casualties, unlike most sources -- a potential breach of ]. 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. ] (]) 20:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose'''. Even one of the sources mentioned by u:VR in his initial statement calls it . More sources have been provided by other editors, for example u:Personisinsterest. ] 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 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 ] by ]. 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. -] (]) 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' any move - current title seems fine, and well-reflected in the sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. -] (]) 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::], imagine this: Suppose ], instead of using that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in ] to kill ], 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 ], governor ], and many other dignitaries present. A veritable massacre; but job done. Now, aside from how ], how would you title the report from Dallas in my example? "JFK assassinated/killed" or "1963 gunfire attack in Dallas airport"? -] (]) 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'' (]) and ''B'' (]). 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 (: "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 ].) ]<sup>]</sup> 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 '']'', ), 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. -] (]) 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 ] name is the one that encompasses that scope. ] (]) 14:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::I would honestly like to know which Misplaced Pages 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 ]. One could list a large number of articles like that. You are invoking ], 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 ] is a demand to have titles as inclusive as possible.
	:::::::::The trivially evident direction is found in ]. '''Sources rule in Misplaced Pages'''. -] (]) 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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''' ] (]) 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

	*'''Move''' to ]. I find the name to be more inclusive of both the mentioning of the deaths of ] 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 ] before renaming it to ]; 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 ] 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. ] (]) 02:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

	:<small>Note: ], ], ], ], and ] have been notified of this discussion. ] (]) 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)</small>

	*'''Oppose nominated title; support move to ''2024 Hezbollah headquarters attack'' instead.''' This is unambiguous and meets ], 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 ]. ] (]) 14:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
	*:What’s the source that this was Hezbollahs headquarters? ''']''' - 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. ] (]) 20:32, 7 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. ] (]) 20:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Main image caption ==

	The caption should probably be "munitions" not "ammunition" describing ] guided bombs. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

	:In my opinion, "bombs" is better than either of those words. See ]. ] (]) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Extended-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 ==

	{{Edit extended-protected\|2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike\|answered=no}}
	In the ] section, the sentence
	{{tqq\|According to ''The New York Times'', the IDF used eight planes fitted with more than fifteen ] ({{Convert\|2000\|lb\|kg}} each), including the US-made ] with a ], to kill Nasrallah.}} is problematic. First, it is cited to ] (<ref>{{Cite news \|last=Cheeseman \|first=Abbie \|last2=Kelly \|first2=Meg \|last3=Piper \|first3=Imogen \|date=2024-09-30 \|title=Israel likely used U.S.-made 2,000-pound bombs in Nasrallah strike, visuals show \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/29/israel-bomb-beirut-nasrallah-death/ \|access-date=2024-10-08 \|work=Washington Post \|language=en-US \|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>), and that WaPo story makes no mention of the NYT. Second, the ] and the ] are different bombs, although they both weigh 2,000 lb and both utilise the same ] guidance kit.

	Request it be reworded to: {{tq\|<nowiki>It was reported the IDF used eight planes fitted with more than fifteen US-made {{cvt\|2000\|lb\|kg}} ]-guided ] and ] bombs to kill Nasrallah.</nowiki>}} citing the same source, which should render as: {{tqq\|It was reported the IDF used eight planes fitted with more than fifteen US-made {{cvt\|2000\|lb\|kg}} ]-guided ] and ] bombs to kill Nasrallah.}}. ] (]) 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 ]s or ]s weighting 2,000 pounds (910 kg) each) with a ], to kill Nasrallah." ] (]) 08:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

	{{Reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 11:26, 30 December 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

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

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

A news item involving 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 September 2024.

Misplaced Pages

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Israel Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Lebanon Low‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request

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

In the intro and other casualties, where it mentions the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, please add Iranian (I.e. “the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”). Since this attack took place in Lebanon, it’s important to note that the IRGC is part of the Iranian Armed Forces. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:8155:A751:3DBB:848E (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It is common knowledge, I believe, that IRGC refers to Iranian corps; additionaly the article has been wikilinked, so I don't see any reason to include "Iranian" here. I am not closing this and would let another editor do so. The AP (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done: per TheAstorPastor. M.Bitton (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not necessarily common knowledge and should be stated in the case of confusion. A lot of people are just now paying attention to this conflict as they are looking into Israel-Palestine.2600:100C:A21D:971A:B1ED:D707:631B:874B (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR. Lewisguile (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The word "assassination"

I have recently replaced the several instances of the word "assassinate" and its variants (the adjective "assassinated", the noun "assassination", etc) with variants of "kill". The problem is that it is a word that introduces bias: an assassination is the murder of a public figure, and a murder is a killing that is both intentional and unlawful. And given that this public figure is a terrorist leader, killed during explicit military hostilities, saying that it was unlawful can be controversial at best. "Kill", on the other hand, only means to take a life, and does not include any criminal or unlawful intent in the definition, so it is a better and more neutral word to use. See for example here.

The change was reverted, citing WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is meaningless here. This is not about a mainstream and a fringe view, this isn't even about opposing views, but about Words that may introduce bias. The previous RM is meaningless as well, because the main point in discussion was whether the article should be about the bombings in general or the death of Hassan Nasrallah in particular.

And I found it a bit strange that a reference used multiple times used the tag "Israel assassin", I change it to something less provocative, and that was reverted as well. Just because the <ref name="name" /> is invisible to readers does not mean it can be used for flamebait. Cambalachero (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cambalachero, you'll note I specifically changed the name of the reference because you flagged it, after I otherwise reverted the article. In all likelihood, I think it received that name because someone couldn't be bothered to write out "Israeli assassination" in full every time (it was probably me!) rather than out of any malicious intent.

Re: "assassination", this is a term used in multiple other, related articles on Misplaced Pages, and it's also used in a list of killings specifically attributed to Israel here: List of Israeli assassinations.

"Assassination" is not included in the list of words that introduce bias, either; though, incidentally, "terrorist" is (which you use to justify "killing") at MOS:TERRORIST. (It's also mentioned in the article Loaded language, whereas "assassin" isn't.)

According to our page on assassinations: Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important. It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, personal, financial, or military motives. Assassinations are ordered by both individuals and organizations, and are carried out by their accomplices. Acts of assassination have been performed since ancient times. A person who carries out an assassination is called an assassin.

There's no mention of murder here, as opposed to killing. However, I note that many "assassination of..." pages have it in their short description while some don't. That suggests to me that it's a matter of taste how individual articles describe their specific assassinations. "Assassination" in itself doesn't imply, in my view, anything other than a killing of a high-profile individual, as per the above description.

I actually favoured not using "assassination" in the title because of the "collateral damage" involved, but it was very popular nevertheless. I'd be keen to hear what others think? Lewisguile (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:WTW is clear in the lead: "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be". It does not matter is if they didn't specifically mention a certain word, as long as it can be explained how that word introduces bias, which I just did. And just because a word is used in other articles does not mean it's fine if the discussion was never held in the first place, see Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus. Cambalachero (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You did, and I disagreed with you that it showed bias, citing my reasons as you did. Bias can also occur via omission/removal (why is this assassination so objectionable to label as such? for instance). Let's see what others have to say. Lewisguile (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I should also add, it's the WP:COMMONNAME for his specific killing too. Across sources both left and right, and more or less obviously biased:

BBC: "Thousands visit site of Hassan Nasrallah's assassination"
Chatham House: "Hezbollah faces an uncertain future after the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah"
Ynet: "Nasrallah assassination site becomes pilgrimage center"
Socialist Worker: "Israel says it plans more slaughter in Lebanon after Hassan Nasrallah assassination"
Atlantic Council: "The countdown to Nasrallah’s assassination began with Majdal Shams"
Prospect: "In Beirut, after Nasrallah’s assassination"
ITV: "The White House backs Nasrallah's assassination - but faces major new questions"
The Spectator: "How will Iran respond to Nasrallah’s assassination?"

Etc. Lewisguile (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"Killing" is pretty common in headlines as well, maybe more so, e.g. Reuters WaPo CBS Al Jazeera CNN NPR just to name some big ones. If we look at article bodies, many sources use both words at some point, making it a bit hard to compare.

As with the related RM discussion, my position is it's not entirely clear that "assassination" fits precisely, considering the various definitions (I cited one by Schmitt); "killing" seems ideal since there's no question about its applicability. — xDanielx /_C\ 21:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to switching it if multiple people feel it's inaccurate. I got the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) from the RM that many people wanted that word in there, though? (I personally voted against it for the title.) Lewisguile (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: