Jump to content

Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 27 September 2024

[edit]
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)[reply]


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"[1] or "multiple high-rise apartment buildings"[2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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."[3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [5] [6] [7] 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)[reply]
    Precision. nableezy - 09:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What source is doubting the accuracy of assassination? I have seen none questioning it. nableezy - 18:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.) Neutralitytalk 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Main image caption

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Agreed. "Bombs" is unambiguous. Lewisguile (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike&oldid=1253323070"