Misplaced Pages

Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:34, 7 October 2024 editThe Mountain of Eden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,562 edits →Requested move 27 September 2024: Oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 20:55, 7 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,654 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike/Archive 1) (botNext edit →
Line 208: Line 208:
:::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. ] (]) 06:06, 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. ] (]) 06:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
{{talk-reflist}} {{talk-reflist}}

== Pezeshkian ==

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

:Good catch. Does anyone know who that is? ] ] 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::He looks familiar tho I can't recall exactly in the hardliner camp. ] (]) 04:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it ]? associates him with the photo in question. ] (]) 13:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:55, 7 October 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.

In the newsA 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
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLebanon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Requested move 27 September 2024

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default.

It has been proposed in this section that 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike be renamed and moved to 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2024 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" 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 WP:POVTITLE]), and instead pick the most neutral title. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:40, 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)
@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." 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)
@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)
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 />
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 11:55, 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)
  • 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 ". 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)
  • 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. — xDanielx /C\ 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 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 /C\ 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 /C\ 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 /C\ 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 /C\ 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. 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 /C\ 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 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 /C\ 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)
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)
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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. -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 /C\ 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)
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)

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". 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 and republished even in Israeli newspapers. 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/search/?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".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."

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

  1. Stroul, Dana (2024-09-23). "Israel and Hezbollah Are Escalating Toward Catastrophe". Foreign Affairs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  2. "Hezbollah bombards Israeli positions in disputed area along border with Syria's Golan Heights". AP News. 8 October 2023. Retrieved 27 September 2024.
  3. "Hezbollah Fires on Israel After Several Members Killed in Shelling". Al Jazeera. 9 October 2023. Archived from the original on 1 November 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2024.
Categories: