Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article title

While the strikes did happen in both Israel and Lebanon, it appears the damage is totally asymmetric. All of the deaths appear to be in Lebanon. This looks less like cross-border fire and more like a large-scale attack by Israel.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it's also important to mention that the IDF is totally indiscriminate (ie openly targeting civilians) and their military censors hide a lot. So it's unclear just how much damage israel has incurred on the other end as they don't let anyone report on it. 99.237.230.117 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources that say what you wrote above.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No need, WP:ARBECR applies as this is within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, so the IP should just restrict themselves to edit requests which their previous message clearly isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah Casualties vs Civil Casualties

As of now, Hezbollah only published the identity of a single member. The vast majority of the killed are civils. In some attacks, entire families were killed. InfiniteValrath (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that it's higly unlikely that Hezbollah would report their true losses, and thereby admit how hard Israel hit them. It is way easier to present such losses as "civilian casualties". — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That may well be true but at the moment we have no way of knowing how many civilians vs. militants were killed and it is highly likely that given the current death toll of nearly 500, at least hundreds of civilians were killed and injured. Of course we are limited to the numbers and details published by reliable sources. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is no denial that hundreds of civilians were killed and injured, but it would be ludicrous to accept the narrative of Hezbollah that they suffered only one casualty, while all the others are civilians. As you mentioned, only reliable sources can make those numbers more clearer, in days to come. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

192.15.119.255 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I'll mark this as answered. If you are the one who opened this discussion, you can open a new one and you must state what changes you want made. For example, "Change 1,835 injuries to 1,900. Source: example.com". The page Wikipedia:Edit requests has more information. FunLater (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Name of operation in Hebrew

The formal name of the operation is Northern Arrows, should that include a Hebrew translation? 70.26.38.100 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I would prefer putting it in a note (similar to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel) to avoid it cluttering the page. Do you have a source that states the official name in Hebrew? FunLater (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The announced name is "חיצי הצפון" and the transliteration (mine) is "Chitzei HaTzafun" --Scharb (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Added. FunLater (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Problematic infobox

The infobox currently lists all deaths and injuries in Lebanon on the side of Hezbollah, which is problematic for obvious reasons (we don't know how many of those killed were civilians or militants). Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If all the casualties were in Lebanon, maybe this infobox isn't even the best infobox to use. Template:Infobox military operation would be a better choice.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Good suggestion, VR. Lewisguile (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoice for Israeli claims

Please don't use wikivoice for Israeli claims that are not independently confirmed.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of these have now been removed, condensed or reworded. See what you think. Lewisguile (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Add French FM reaction to the Reactions>International section

Something like:

• France: France's FM, Jean-Noël Barrot, called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, stating: "I’m thinking of the men and women in uniform in Lebanon and the French contingent there. I’m thinking of the Lebanese people as Israeli strikes have just killed hundreds of civilians, including dozens of children. These strikes conducted on both sides of the blue line, and in the region more broadly, must immediately end."

Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears this has already been added in slightly condensed language. Thanks. Lewisguile (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Israel's aims in the lede

@Galamore: I moved this paragraph into the Reactions section because its inclusion in the lede is not neutral. While it is fair to include an attacker's operational aims, the paragraph contained this, which has nothing to do with operational aims: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Lebanese people, stating, "Israel's war is not with you, it's with Hezbollah. For too long, Hezbollah has been using you as human shields." Please at least remove this sentence from the lede. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why we need to include Netanyahu's claim of human shields in the lede. It isn't backed by reliable sources, isn't related to his operational aims, and just forces an unnecessary POV into the lede. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the article on the Israel-Hamas war outlines Hamas's stated motives for its attack on Israel: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's continued occupation, the blockade of Gaza, settlement expansion, disregard for international law, alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the general plight of Palestinians." The description of stated aims can be found in many articles similar to this.

In any case, this is an article about a military operation launched by a country. It makes perfect sense to explain what a country aims to achieve in such an operation in the lead of an article describing it. ABHammad (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Claims of human shield use are not relevant to the IDF's motives for the attacks. I very much doubt anyone here thinks the IDF conducted the airstrikes because of human shields. This feels like Wikipedia is justifying the civilian death toll in the lede; I see no good reason why those claims should remain there. So while I do agree that their motives should be included in the lede, some parts of the lede unnecessarily push a POV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue of human shields is indeed a significant one. For very long Hezbollah has used civilian areas to launch attacks and is deeply embedded in Shia villages in the south of Lebanon. They also try to establish a presence in Christian villages, and there have been multiple instances where locals have fought back and expelled them ( https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-17/the-lebanese-christian-village-on-the-border-with-israel-that-escapes-the-shelling-this-is-safer-than-beirut.html, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202403274605, https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/25/the-middle-east-has-a-militia-problem,). So since its true, if its also mentioned by sources as part of statements I think we should mention it too. EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nythar, the IDF did not conduct the strikes specifically because of human shields, but it did ask people to leave their villages during the attacks because Hezbollah uses homes to store weapons and launch them at Israel. So mentioning this context is important when describing the operational aims. Galamore (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should Israel's statements be mentioned in the lead alone? That seems like UNDUE. Especially at a time, when Hezbollah's aims are not just not mentioned in the lead, they are repeatedly being removed from the article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We have video evidence supporting Israel's claim that missile silos were disguised as civilian houses. Civilian houses don't have secondary explosions like an ablaze fireworks factory --Scharb (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we could use a better source, but the video is rather conclusive. Having said that, the idea that Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, have always used civilians and their schools, hospitals and homes as human shields and as a means to hide their terrorist activities should at this late date be nothing amazing. They are completely complicit in the deaths of civilians. If a sniper was shooting at people from inside a "civilian" home, I can't get too upset if that "civilian" home gets caught up in the crossfire – esp since the situation begs the question: Did the homeowner lend support, moral or otherwise, to the sniper? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to get into a discussion of anyone's views here, so I'd advise we move back onto the topic of RSes and consensus. This is WP:NOTAFORUM.

If RSes say that this is a crucial part of the conflict--enough to go in the lede--then please cite them and we can include it in a way that's WP:DUE. Otherwise, it shouldn't go into the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

POV to use the Israeli operation name as the title for the infobox

It is very biased to refer to this by the official IDF name, when we should be using a neutral voice and just call it what most of the more or less objective sources call it. Even using the "military operation" infobox presents the Israeli view as if Wikipedia's own voice. This is a conflict, not an "operation". FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. The infobox was previously different, but it implied all casualties were Hezbollah members, so we switched for the military ops one instead (which obviously had a problem of its own). It shouldn't be controversial now. Lewisguile (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Flags

Please don't add flags to the reactions section. I can't believe we have to go over this on every "current event" article. See MOS:FLAGCRUFT. C F A 💬 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree. There's no viable or pressing reason to remove the flags, which allow quick and easy identification of the nationals in this section, which is in list format. The article is stating the official national position on the airstrikes, and including the national flag in such instances is completely appropriate. Until such time where someone can present a viable reason to remove the flags, one which garners a clear consensus, the flags should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• MOS:FLAGCRUFT — "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride.". The flags are not included as a means of communicating "national pride". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I previously converted the list to a prose format to avoid the issue, instead categorizing international reactions by informal political blocs, however this has now been undone by another user. Would it be appropriate to open an RfC regarding this case? Mr. Lechkar (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2024

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Snow close; moved to September 2024 Lebanon strikes. (non-admin closure) (closed by non-admin page mover) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

---

23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes → 23–24 September 2024 Lebanon strikes – The strikes are still ongoing. FunLater (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: without getting into WP:CRYSTAL, it's hard to imagine that this situation will conclude today. To avoid having a repeat of this conversation tomorrow, maybe a title like September 2024 Lebanon strikes would be preferred. I do have some issues with the title as it stands, though. "Strikes" is rather imprecise, and it could be read as a labour dispute (e.g. 1973 Durban strikes). I think a more descriptive title would be September 2024 Israeli attack on Lebanon or Israeli attack on Lebanon (September 2024) WillowCity^(talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with September 2024 Lebanon strikes at the very least (which already redirects to here anyway). Procyon117 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks "strikes" is vague. Airstrikes is better and fits the lead. Sadly I also agree this may need to be moved to September 2024... ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  The rocket strikes and artillery strikes are also to be considered Waleed (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  In which case "attack" is more WP:CONSISTENT with Nabatieh attack, Majdal Shams attack, etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Strikes is also overly euphemistic. We should call a spade a WP:SPADE. Lewisguile (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Israeli attacks on Lebanon for the time being. I think it would honestly be best to wait on a permanent title for this page, as we don't know if these attacks are part of a larger, multi-week campaign or just for a few days. Jebiguess (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I support this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I too, think this is best for now. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) (Adding) We have previously August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes so in theory we should be consistent, tho as I write this the situation is more often being described as an "escalation" amid calls for deescalation/ceasefire.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support but I think that Operation Arrows of the North can also be used as a name unlike September 2024 Israeli Strikes on Lebanon as there have been multiple previous strikes including 400 strikes on 22 September. Waleed (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Lebanon Airstrikes While the increased scope is needed to cover what seems like it'll be a sustained bombing campaign, imo we should also shift to specify airstrikes at the same time so as not to confuse these with the pager attacks. BSMRD (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon per above on the date. "Strikes" and "attacks" are insufficiently WP:PRECISE to accurately reflect the scope of this article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Lebanon strikes and September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon. Viewsridge (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Move to September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon. Why on earth would we not have "Israeli" in the title? They're the aggressors! "Lebanon strikes" is vague and confusing. It implies Lebanon is involved militarily, but they aren't belligerents at all. Dhantegge (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support but better move to Operation Arrows of the North (or Operation Northern Arrows) as @M Waleed suggested above. This is not the first time there are strikes in Lebanon in September 2024 (see for example Assassination of Ibrahim Aqil). The article in fact refers to the operation that started on 23rd of September and it is unclear when will it end. Galamore (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also support Operation Northern Arrows or Operation Arrows of the North. Viewsridge (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes or September 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes. The second option would be in consistency with August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, strikes also unlikely to end today, so September 2024 Lebanon strikes to align with article's original title. Angusgtw (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Operation Northern Arrows per Waleed. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, specifically September 2024 Lebanon strikes, I do not support any title with any particular days. It is quite clear this will be continuing. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Would also support, in face prefer, a title with Israeli in the title such as 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon airstrikes could also be "attacks, "strikes", etc. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 14:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes or Operation Northern Arrows because it is probably going to continue for a while, although I do think that Scharb's comment above does bring up a good point. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes, this will prevent the title change from having to happen every day, and an end date can always be put in after the strikes end. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: What about "Bombardment of Lebanon (2024)" or "2024 Lebanon strikes"? Andrew012p (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support but wait what will happen, the name 23-XX september (or other months) can be also considered. Karol739 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes per reasons above Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Support either September 2024 Lebanon strikes or Operation Northern Arrows Braganza (talk) 08: or13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support either September 2024 Lebanon strikes or Operation Northern Arrows per the reasons stated above. IJA (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Operation Northern Arrows IDB.S (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We do not usually use names supplied by one side for NPOV reasons, preferring a descriptive title if there is no obvious commonname. Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Operation Northern Arrows There were many strikes in Lebanon in September... Eladkarmel (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 11:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — Can we close this discussion early? Enough people have participated, and I doubt waiting a few more days would lead to any new ideas. The new title will most likely have to be changed again anyway as things progress. FunLater (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Adding the day seems naive and strikes is too euphemistic as per WP:SPADE. Lewisguile (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Scuba 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support   September 2024 Lebanon airstrikes -- Yes, the title should indicate Airstrikes, —without— the day-date designation of 23–24, as there may be additional airstrikes forthcoming.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Move to 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon. The existing title is terrible for multiple reasons. Why on earth would we not have "Israeli" in the title? They're the aggressors? It's a bit like calling the Russian bombing of Ukraine "2022-24 Ukraine strikes". I know we're following up from August 2024 Israel–Lebanon strikes, but that's terrible too. Hezbollah, not Lebanon, is the co-belligerent.

  "Lebanon strikes" is vague and confusing. It implies Lebanon is involved militarily, but they aren't belligerents at all. It also could be confused with industrial action - the title is similar to 2022–present National Health Service strikes and 1975 Icelandic women's strike. That sounds like a silly point to make, I know, but still. The use of the passive voice is irritating and confusing.

  It's also unwise to add "September" because it's the end of the month, and we may have to change it to "October" soon enough. Dhantegge (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to September 2024 Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon or some variation thereof. Cremastra (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support move to September 2024 Lebanon strikes. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support September 2024 Lebanon strikes or something similar if these continue past September. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

"1,500 strikes" is now outdated.

The first figure in the lead, 1,500 strikes, is from the first two days. Are there any new numbers? Otherwise, I think we should remove it. FunLater (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead intro is quite poor, I think, should not be just a bunch of stats claimed by the IDF. It needs to take into account the background, what it is all about and so on. If it were only down to me, I would take the August and September strikes and merge them into Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present), that's what this is about and if there is no deescalation, only then an article Israeli invasion of... or whatever. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the number for now. FunLater (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede POV

Lede is in bad shape. Israeli claims are placed at the opening paragraph which must be kept neutral. More details on Israeli geographic regions affected by Hezbollah's response are given that on the 500 Lebanese people killed in one day by Israeli strikes. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Many sources are now referring to this situation as an "escalation" and calling for "deescalation" and/or cease fire. It's not just about some airstrikes. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Even worse is that this unchecked Israeli claim is amplified in the "In the news" section on the front page. Just because Israel claims their bombing campaign is against Hezbollah doesn't make it a fact. The source cited does not make this outlandish claim. --Fjmustak (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the attribution in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What claims specifically? What more detail would you like on the >500 killed specifically? Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a claim: "1,600 Hezbollah positions, destroying cruise missiles, long- and short-range rockets and attack drones." Claims do not belong in the opening paragraph.

Since this an article about the strikes on Lebanon, there should be details on the affected 500 people killed, the thousands injured, their regions of residency, the 14 ambulances that Israel hit, the displacement of half a million people and how they got stuck in traffic. This is the scope of the article, not how Hezbollah has responded. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The 1,600 number starts with "The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported that Israeli aircraft targeted". That isn't a claim in Wikivoice. As for the info about damage, yes, I agree that it should be included in the lead. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There are some articles today about civilian casualties and I think there some making the comparison with Gaza, "precision strikes", must not be another Gaza and so on. It does look very similar to the lead in to the Gaza invasion including the indiscriminate attacks. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I boldly rewrote the lead. I think it's a better summary of the article now, but it's obviously not perfect. If you can, improve it. FunLater (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the lede is looking good. I had held off doing a bold edit myself, but this seems much, much stronger than it was. Lewisguile (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)