Jump to content

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

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

Article 7(3) on booby traps

[edit]

I removed the longer quote about booby traps from Article 7(3) and wanted to flag it in case anyone else wants to query this. The secondary sources provided for the current statement don't mention Article 7.3 at all, so it required a stronger citation anyway. The edit summary did mention Boothby; however, he says:

"...if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot"

And:

"The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon."

Ergo, Article 7(3) is probably not relevant unless there are multiple RSes arguing the opposite point. But Boothby doesn't seem to support its inclusion as it was.

Source: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/ Lewisguile (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller quote form Boothby (emphasis is mine): "Of course, if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the paragraph 3 requirements are probably satisfied because the pagers issued to Hezbollah were likely “in the close vicinity” of the users to whom they were issued, thus satisfying sub-paragraph (a)." So, while he talks in probabilities, he is definitely more confident that 7(3)(a) is satisfied than it is not. Since his article is the main secondary source, omitting this relevant exception in Article is againts NPOV. So I think we should mention the relevant part either by quoting that part from Article 7(3) ("it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies [...] unless [...] they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective" [1]) or by mentioning Boothby opinion on evaluating targets as "military objectives" (he mentions this phrase a lot) and specifically on applicability of Art. 7(3)(a). --M5 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I forgot to subscribe to this topic.
You're missing the bit where he clearly says: "The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis." (At present, he thinks they were illegal, and that's his opinion.)
And: "Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps."
And: "The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon." (Again, he's expressly saying it's illegal.)
Which satisfies his "if" for now. Ergo, 7(3) is irrelevant because 7(2) is satisfied. 7(3) is only relevant if 7(2) is not satisfied. If we add in Article 7(3), we also have to explain that overall he still thinks the attacks were illegal as per 7(2) and that 7(3) is probably irrelevant, which is just wasted space.Lewisguile (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the quotes from the source expanded for context:
"The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis. Further details as to the devices in later reports may, of course, affect this provisional conclusion. Note should also be taken of Article 7(3), which provides ... unless either: (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective. Of course, if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the paragraph 3 requirements are probably satisfied because the pagers issued to Hezbollah were likely “in the close vicinity” of the users to whom they were issued, thus satisfying sub-paragraph (a).
So, he clearly does not say, "my provisional opinion - that's illegal." His current opinion regarding the article is: "The event falls under Art. 7(2) but with Art. 7(3)(a) exception satisfied (unless some new information appears in the future)." Therefore, this quote alone does not support dropping the mention of Article 7(3). The other quotes are from the part that starts with "For completeness, mention should also be made of “other devices”..." which is merely his attempt to evaluate whether the pagers fall under "booby traps" or under the definition of "other devices" (which are "manually activated" and not booby traps) in Article 2. He concludes that they are indeed booby traps, but that does not invalidate his previous conclusion regarding the applicability of both Art. 7(2) AND Art. 7(3). So in Boothby opinion both Article 7(2) and 7(3)(a) are relevant and omission of 7(3)(a) is NPOV. M5 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Perhaps if there was consensus among RSes agreeing that the devices weren't illegal under 7(2), it might be, but there isn't. Which means, at present, that adding 7(3) means we would have to lay out the whole situation in detail with all the nuances (including that 7(3) may be irrelevant anyway if the devices were illegal), which is beyond the scope of this article, and giving it additional space is undue.
We aren't required to state a source's full point in all its detail, only to present the major viewpoints as a whole and any significant minority opinions. The first part of his argument (re: 7(2)) reflects the major viewpoints; almost no one else has mentioned 7(3), meaning it's not even a significant opposing viewpoint.
I think we're at an impasse unless anyone else can chime in to settle this for us? Lewisguile (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qassim Qassir

[edit]

Qassim Qassir, who is mentioned in this article three times, is described each time as an "expert", or "analyst". This does align with the way reliable sources described him circa June.

Qassim Qassir came up again in the news cycle in September. In articles before September 24, the usual pattern holds, but from September 24 onward, reliable sources, including AP, instead elect to describe him as a "former Hezbollah member who wrote a book". This change in tone should probably be reflected in the article. As such, I propose that all descriptions of Qassim Qassir be changed to reflect more recent sources, with those sources cited[2].

^ Though most of those sources are probably just copying their homework from AP without independently verifying facts.

Dieknon (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While I think you're right, I don't think AP's characterisation of him actually contradicts what's written and doesn't add much to the article at this time. A former Hezbollah member who wrote a book on the subject would indeed be an expert on, or analyst of, Hezbollah. I suspect any change would likely be contentious anyway, since we previously had "an analyst close to Hezbollah" (also AP wording, I believe) and this was deemed irrelevant at the time.

So, I would suggest we park this for now. We can always come back to it if it becomes relevant to include this extra detail later on. After all, there's WP:NORUSH. Lewisguile (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 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: moved. Thanks, everyone. I take this as "consensus that the solved-in-individual-pieces title was not so objectionable everyone immediately moved to oppose it". asilvering (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lebanon pager explosions → 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks – Please pick EITHER 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks OR 2024 Hezbollah device explosions, and state it clearly in your response. Per last RM close, I am setting up the "simple run-off between 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks and 2024 Hezbollah device explosions". I'll also explain where I think we're at: The former is more recent, fits WP:NCWWW better and maintains WP:NPOV. The latter is based on words which had some support ("Hezbollah" and "explosions") and technically also covers attacks in Syria, but possibly ignores civilian casualties and leaves out that these were orchestrated attacks. A prior RM also found consensus not to include Syria. I'm hoping we can get a quick WP:SNOW close on this, especially as the first option is so recent and this is the third RM in so many weeks. I'd also like to avoid it becoming a Franken-monster like the last one. We're so close I can feel it. Lewisguile (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too soon. Give time for the dust from the last RM to settle before proceeding with a new one. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? The last one had tapered off over the last couple of weeks anyway, so the responses were only coming in in drips and drabs. Most of us probably want to see this resolved (personally, I think the last closer should've just gone with the option they suggested anyway). But I'm happy to park this if you/others feel strongly that we need a break. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to reclose it as the Frankenclose if that's what people would prefer - I was uneasy about doing that, as I said, because no one ever got the chance to actually agree that they liked that one as a unit. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the way to go. I would be fine with that title. Shall we see if anyone else responds to my RM? If there's crickets all around, it might mean there's no real passion to oppose the Frankenclose, and we can go with that. The last RM had people responding in their droves (at least initially), so I would expect people to do the same if they disagreed with it, at least. Lewisguile (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with reclosing per the frankenclose. Or happy to proceed on this one. Don't see the point in waiting when the previous discussion did not fail, it was just to complex to complete. In which case this is all part of the same process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thinking, too. Lewisguile (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to 2024 Israeli electronic devices attack in Lebanon, as I agree with @Makeandtoss that attribution of the perpetrator should be included in the title. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not split the vote. Any RM now won't prejudice and RM later. We can run an RM for Israeli later. Lewisguile (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, for the options you presented:
    Support Option 1 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. The phrase captures the scope and content of the page, and the addition of explosions isn't necessary. The inclusion of Hezbollah is problematic as it implies a targeted, discriminate attack, when the page cites high quality RS including the UN and Amnesty International saying it was indiscriminate. I also agree with your point that "Hezbollah attacks" is very clunky, not policy-based, and creates more problems that it solves.
However, the perpetrator is not in question in RS and presents no issues with the phrasing, so it should be included, but that's for a future discussion. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2024 Hezbollah pager and walkie talkie attacks. I prefer that to electronic device. If I have to choose a combination of the phrases given though, I think it should have "Hezbollah" and "attack." Andre🚐 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: And why do you think it should not have the perpetrator in the title? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As raised in the prior RM, the major problem with this is that it could be read as an attack made by Hezbollah, not on Hezbollah. Lebanon was chosen per WP:NCWWW which suggests we should default to what, where and when, not who or why. Hence, 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. Electronic device was deemed preferable to pager and walkie talkie because it was more concise. Hezbollah was primarily suggested as an alternative since some devices exploded in Syria. Personally, though, I don't think Hezbollah attacks is policy-based, and creates more problems than it solves. Lewisguile (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose this suggestion. No point relitigating the previous discussion and multiplying the options. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1, neutral option 2, oppose no action. WP:RS describe this as an "attack" as shown in the previous RM. The current title is horrendous as it is, so it should be removed and replaced with something more accurately reflected in sources. We finally converged on a couple titles that work. Awesome Aasim 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks in this run-off between only the two proposed titles for the reason of using active voice "attacks" rather than passive voice "explosions". Other titles may be better and should be brought up in future requested moves. Support doing this speedily per the outcome of the previous requested move. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it would be good to keep this on topic so we can resolve it quickly. Lewisguile (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both options. Prefer 2. Reasoning in th eprevious discussion. Time to get this done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 26 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.

Casualties of the Israel-Hamas conflict

[edit]

They are only tangentially related to this event. However, if we're to mention the total number of Palestinian casualties and the fact that most of them are women and children, we should also mention the number of casualties on the Israeli side. Also, 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel is a better wikilink since Hezbollah attacked Israel right after the Hamas attack. Alaexis¿question? 14:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a prior discussion you may have missed. The Gaza casualties were added specifically because Hezbollah said this was a motivator for them joining the conflict, so it was considered relevant for that section. The point wasn't to rehash why Hamas and Israel are at war here, just why Hezbollah joined. Lewisguile (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks&oldid=1259004849"