Jump to content

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iskandar323 (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 24 September 2024 (→Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Death of a child

  • Aside from the fact that civilians were injured, we also know that a girl was killed[1]. But this keeps getting removed. Why? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ABC News says[2] "killing at least nine people – including an 8-year-old girl -- and wounding several thousand, officials said." So it doesn't seem like only a Hezbollah claim.
    • We also have: "The 10-year-old daughter of a Hezbollah member was killed in Lebanon's east when his pager exploded on Tuesday, her family and a source close to the group said. "A 10-year-old girl was martyred in the Bekaa Valley after her father's pager exploded while he was next to her," her relatives told AFP."" So we seem to have sufficient confirmation.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AP confirmed the death of an 8-year-old girl: At least 9 people killed in pager explosions
  • I see claims above of 8-year old, 9-year old, and 10-year old, with no reliable source. There's not enough substance here to put it in the article.
How is AP now a reliable source? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources agree that a child died and disagree on the age, it is still enough to include. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be mentioned even if we can't confirm her age. Just say, "a girl aged 8–10". Lewisguile (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At what point (under Casualties) do we just say "including children"? I see reports of an 8-, 9-, 10-, and 11-year-old killed. I don't think we need to list each—and it isn't always abundantly clear whether these are different children; the "daughter of a Hezbollah member", for example, has been cited as various ages, so a source stating an 8-year-old girl died could easily be referring to the same child but with an erroneous age. And to be clear: this belongs in the Casualties section, not the infobox. GhostOfNoMan 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we don't need to mention them individually, we should just say "including 3 children" in the infobox. The "daughter of Hezbollah member" might be useful to the reader as it explains how the child was killed/why they happened to be close to an exploding device.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with "including children", though I think "including at least three children" with the option to update as more info comes in is better. The first is more future-proof, but the second is more accurate. I strongly object to "child of a Hezbollah member", as it's WP:BIAS/WP:TE, victim blaming and unnecessary (the article already makes it abundantly clear who the intended targets were). Lewisguile (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent:,@Super Goku V:,@Lewisguile:,@GhostOfNoMan: Editors might like to note that three children were killed on 18 September 2024. As reported in Lebanon in the French-language daily newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour. Here a link for easy accessibility and convenience to its English-language edition "L'Orient Today":

Please, note the time: "10:28 Beirut Time", this was before the "Second wave".--91.54.12.244 (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Targets

Currently the infobox says the target was "Hezbollah militants". I'm not sure if this is accurate as Hezbollah is comprised of both militants and civilians (it is also a political party). Further, Hezbollah has said the attack also targeted civilians and this allegation is notable enough to have been quoted in several reliable secondary sources: ABC News, Global News, Washington Post etc. So the infobox should also say "Civilians (per Hezbollah)".VR (Please ping on reply) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, ABC News itself is cautious on the targets[3] "It appeared that many of those hit were members of Hezbollah, but it was not immediately clear if others also carried the pagers."
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the UN special coordinator for Lebanon also condemned the attack, justifying her condemnation by adding, "In accordance with international humanitarian law, she reminds all concerned actors that civilians are not a target and must be protected at all times. Even one civilian casualty is one too many"[4]. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for saying the target is "unknown" or "either Hezbollah members or civilians" Atubofsilverware (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't include "or civilians" based on a Hezbollah claim alone. We would need an independent source, preferably one without clear biases. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We generally include IDF claims if they have been presented in multiple reliable, secondary sources, and we should do the same thing here. WP:NPOV means we don't take sides, but explain them.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any source has really disputed that Hezbollah was the target? Some sources seem to suggest that the attack did not specifically target Hezbollah militants, but some broader group of Hezbollah members including some civilians.
So listing the target as "Hezbollah" seems pretty uncontroversial. Hezbollah's accusation of targeting civilians lacks elaboration and seems much more dubious, but yes it's fine to mention somewhere in the body with attribution. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the corroboration by other sources in Lebanon mentioned below: the Lebanese Health Ministry, Dyab Abou Jahjah and Mohammad Barakat? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of them explained why they believe that? If not, it just seems like unfounded speculation from partisan sources. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hezbollah militants" is certainly questionable. Are we to believe only militants carry pagers? Hezbollah has teachers, medics, social workers, news crews and journalists, etc. I don't know to what extent this attack was indiscriminate (perhaps Israel intercepted communications and filtered targets, but I doubt it), but to list the target as "Hezbollah militants" right out of the gate seems wrong, to me. "Hezbollah members" is more fitting, and covers both militants and civilians. GhostOfNoMan 22:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are to believe that only militants carried a special pager. Why would a teacher or a social work need a pager, rather than using an ordinary smartphone? Perhaps if you can think of a rationale for them to need this kind of security you can change it, otherwise militants is accurate. Ariel. (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These pagers are apparently also carrier by healthcare workers: The Lebanese Health Ministry "has also urged healthcare workers and others with pagers to discard them."[5]
The Lebanese Health Minister also stated "The vast majority of the people who are presenting to the emergency rooms are in civilian clothes, so it's very difficult to discern whether they belong to a certain entity like Hezbollah or others But we are seeing among them people who are old or people who are very young, like the child who unfortunately died... and there are some of them who are healthcare workers".VR (Please ping on reply) 04:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Author Dyab Abou Jahjah pointed out that many of the pagers that exploded were not just owned by Hezbollah fighters, but civilians that are employed by Hezbollah's institutions."[6] VR (Please ping on reply) 05:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence just keeps piling up: Mohammad Barakat, a journalist known for his strong opposition to Hezbollah...shared a clip from one of his appearances on VDL 24, where he stressed that the attack targeted not only Hezbollah members but also civilians, in an indiscriminate manner.[7]
Professor Toby Walsh of the UNSW School of Computer Science and Engineering points out that it is impossible for the IDF to track a pager, thus "It's a very indiscriminate attack, because you might put the pager down in your desk, and as we have heard from reports there were various innocent people who were injured by this". VR (Please ping on reply) 05:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar panels, etc

I just added this to lead paragraphs, but it is not yet confirmed that any reports of solar panel or other device explosions are actually self-detonating, or just catching fire from walkie talkie explosions.[8] The fog of some people thinking this is the case is very understandable, but I'm not seeing videos of such devices exploding on their own yet in any reporting.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention from the lead, pending better sourcing: a single breaking news report claiming solar panels exploded isn't sufficient to say that they were targeted. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solar panels explosion was stated by the Lebanese government official news agency:
https://www.nna-leb.gov.lb/ar/justice-law/722390/اصابة-فتاة-في-المروانية-جراء-انفجار-نظام-الطاقة-ال Stephan rostie (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanon: 37 Dead, 3,400+ Injured in Wave of Explosions in Electronic Devices Booby-Trapped by Israel, Democracy Now!, 19 September 2024 → "Lara Bitar (editor-in-chief of The Public Source, a Beirut-based independent media organization): So, as you can imagine, the events of the past two days have caused a lot of panic, a lot of fear and, to a large extent, paranoia, which was aided by a disinformation campaign, to a large extent. Over the past couple of days, or at least yesterday, for the most part, people were receiving messages over different WhatsApp groups, on social media platforms, that any and every electronic device can be detonated by the Israelis. So people were scared of using their cellphones. People were hearing that even kitchen appliances were exploding, solar panels, laptops and so on. Thankfully, for the most part, this turned out to be a disinformation campaign, and it did not really — was not really materializing on the ground as was being reported across different channels. That may be the only solace from the events of the past couple of days, where we saw civilian areas and civilians being targeted."
Here the is an other clarification: Did solar power energy systems explode during Wednesday's attack? According to the state-run National News Agency, solar energy systems exploded in homes in several areas of Beirut and the south on Wednesday, but the reports remain unconfirmed., L'Orient Today, 19 September 2024 21:30. --93.211.221.30 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsche Welle: Fact Check: No iPhones or solar panels exploded in Lebanon The article also debunks one of the photos used in the ref titled "Chaos in Lebanon as Home Solar Systems, Appliances Explode" in the Second Wave section.
The 961: Fact Checking What’s True & Untrue From The Pager Attack "No solar panels, phones, laptops, or any other electronic devices have exploded."
It's understandable in the immediate aftermath of an attack like this (particularly the second): mass panic & hysteria, the fog of war, unedited rolling news coverage, etc. But it's also telling that none of the major news outlets are talking about solar panels, fingerprint readers, smartphones et al. two days down the line. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're spreading misinformation here in the infobox. I just see MSM talking about pagers and walkie talkies. Not car batteries, not solar panels, etc. I'm going to remove it from the infobox and article until we get real confirmation from high-quality RS. Levivich (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

@Martinevans123: Why do you think the timing is so important as to be in the opening sentence? 9/11 page does not mention the timing in the first sentence or first paragraph, and MOS:OPEN highlights that the opening should be as general as possible without giving too much details. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could find many examples of disasters' attacks where the time of day is included in the first sentence, but then WP:OSE. I'd suggest that the simultaneity of such a widespread series of explosions confers added significance to a single time. But perhaps it could be moved down slightly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: I can't think of any; and MOS:OPEN states: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". Mentioning the time of day in the hours and minutes is too specific and distracts the reader. Also MOS:FIRST: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." I already had moved it down to the second lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, so you did. Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. the September 11 attacks didn't happen all at once, so I'm not surprised a single time is not given there.[reply]
@Martinevans123: We already mention "simultaneous" so no need to be overspecific, especially in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we certainly should mention "simultaneous". I don't see the time of day as being "overspecific". I see it as a fundamental fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. you need not add a ping to me every time you reply here. I have this page watchlisted, I can see from the indent you are replying, no one else is in this discussion, and I'm sure any responses aren't time critical. Thanks.[reply]
I disagree on the need to mention the time in hours and minutes because it overloads the opening sentence without providing any value. Will wait for the input of other editors. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It provides no value? It's just a basic fact. It overloads? It's four words, with 20 characters. But I'm also happy to hear the views of other editors. Perhaps the total time that it took all the devices to explode should also be mentioned somewhere, although I suspect this may not have been accurately reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:, @Super Goku V:, @Huldra:, @Lewisguile:,@GhostOfNoMan:, @Nishidani:, @Moscow Mule:, @Nableezy:, @Levivich: The First Wave went off around 15:30 EEST, the time when parents pick up their children from kindergarten and school, when everyone is out and about, when everyone is running errands. We saw people in street-markets and supermarkets and stores being exploded. The Second Wave started around 17:00 EEST, the time for funerals. If someone is acquainted with Lebanese society and wants to have the maximum impact on the civilian population, he would pick those times. So, yes! I agree with Martin that it is important to have the time in the lead. And we should add the time of the Second Wave.
Here a link for easy accessibility and convenience to the French-language daily newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour in Lebanon [L'Orient's editorial stance: "a fierce line against Hezbollah"/ per our enWP article] to its English-language edition "L'Orient Today":
Those two points in time have been widely discussed and reflected upon in the news over the last few days. Please, note the Second Wave detonations were stronger. --91.54.12.244 (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no objection to including the time. It's relatively brief. If anyone has a strong objection, we could move it out of the lede. The lede is already fairly detailed, though, so I don't think it's out of place.
There is, of course, a discussion to be had about whether the lede is too long/detailed in general. If that were the case, then the existing lede could be moved down into an Overview section, and we could replace it with a shorter summary.
But in an article such as this, I suspect there will always be too much info that people want to put into the lede, so it will tend to be longer than usual anyway. I think that's okay in these circumstances—especially if it prevents protracted debates. Lewisguile (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

"alleged" should be removed from infobox, as this has been confirmed by RS, including CNN. Also, the perpetrator in the infobox should be described as a joint operation between and the Israeli military and Mossad, per CNN. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Mossad be mentioned somewhere in the main body text, with appropriate sources, if it is to appear in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be both, yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The word "Mossad" appears only twice in the article - once in the infobox and once in the headline of the single BBC source which supports it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brace yourselves

Don't do it yet, but be prepared to create a 2024 Israel-Lebanon war page. Hassan Nasrallah (leader of Hezbollah) announced that he considers the explosions to be an "act of war", or casus belli. Bremps... 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah and Israel have been teasing this war since, like, June. AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 20:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(2023–present) already exists, since the armed conflict started on 8 October 2023. Dotyoyo (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures in infobox

The numbers of those killed and injured ought to appear in the main body text, if they are to be used in the infobox? Currently the total number of those injured "3,450+" doesn't seem to be supported by the two sources there. The report on ITN Main page is showing "more than 3,200". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I previously reverted it to the figure found in both references (2,750 at the time), but it was added back with an edit summary stating that the figure was based on adding casualties together for both waves – even though neither reference mentioned any figure besides 2,750. I didn't revert it a second time, even though I couldn't find any reliable source that cited a total figure. But if that 3,200 is now being reported, then it should be updated, so we can avoid the current WP:SYNTH. GhostOfNoMan 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't WP:2+2=4 apply? FunLater (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably! I didn't revert it a second time for that very reason, once I saw the edit summary. But where we have a single source providing a reliable total, I feel that's preferable to our own calculations – especially considering the wildly different figures being reported (f.i. one edit summed 2,750 + 400, but a later edit used 3,000 + 400 based on a separate source). GhostOfNoMan 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Pachu Kannan arrived at the current 3,450+ number as 2,750 + 708. The math itself is certainly within what WP:CALC allows, but the available sources for 708 don't seem very reliable (Al Jazeera's WP:NEWSBLOG or Morocco World News).
More importantly, it doesn't seem entirely clear that 2,750 + 708 is a proper aggregation with no double counting. Al Jazeera says 708 were injured while on Tuesday, 12 people were killed and 2,323 injured, so we could reasonable combine them to get 3,031, aside from the WP:NEWSBLOG issue. It's less clear how 2,750 relates to the other numbers - it seems like an early estimate by the health minister, while the other numbers seem like specific cases recorded by hospitals. WP:CALC is normally reserved for cases where it's more obvious what the proper calculation is. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx:, so do we need a source in the infobox for the "2,750+"? The ITN item on Main page currently says "more than 3,400 others injured". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the source. @Stephen: it looks like you did the ITN update, could you change it to 2,750 for now? (This is probably a short-term change, pending a reliable source with a total figure.) — xDanielx T/C\R 15:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Have now requested an update at Main page errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Hezbollah Pager Use ?

From the seemingly out-dated information at Pager it seems that pagers had mostly gone out of use (outside of Hezbollah) at the time of the explosions. For context, I think it would be helpful if it could be stated to what extent pagers are/were being used in Lebanon at the time of the attack (and not counting Hezbollah). Technically, pagers work only in the presence of a paging provider (that broadcasts the actual paging signal according to a dedicated paging standard). It seems difficult to imagine that there should exist a paging service only for Hezbollah, rather such a service would be expected to have non-Hezbollah customers. But who could such customers be? I couldn't find any info for e.g. Beirut, but maybe someone with better (Arabic or maybe French) skills can do better. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that already in the article in the first sentence of the section named "Use of pagers"?
Some Hezbollah members had used pagers for years prior to the 7 October attacks, but more members began using them after the attacks, as Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah claimed Israel had penetrated their cellphone network. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. With Non-Hezbollah Pager Use I mean how much are pagers used (in Lebanon) other than by Hezbollah? The relevance of this context is to what extent if any pager use can be seen as specific to Hezbollah. Lklundin (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Lebanon explosions raise a question: Deep into the smartphone era, who is still using pagers?". AP News. 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2024-09-19. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to various sources, hospital workers often use pagers and at least two of them were killed when their pagers exploded. It seems journalists were also using pagers (perhaps to get the latest scoop on Hezbollah?) and one pager of a journalist from Al Mayadeen exploded. The Iranian ambassador to Lebanon also seems to be using a pager.
Also, there are indications that some pagers were simply misplaced. For example, one pager was in a kids' room with no adults when it exploded, killing one kid and injuring another. VR (Please ping on reply) 02:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2024

2024 Lebanon pager explosions → ? – Following up from last RM, the options for this RM will focus on the specific language in the title. Keep the arguments on WP:TITLE policy. We can always propose additional changes to the title in this section. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the year

Support as per nom FloridaMan21 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah"

Changing "pagers" to "electronics"/"communications"

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

Leave title unchanged

Procedural close. Per the format of this RM, the way to express opposition to changes is to oppose them individually in their respective sections. Sdkb talk 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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.

Other proposals

Obsolete: Proposal has been incorporated into other sections. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I support a name like 2024 Lebanon electronics attack, and I oppose a name that includes "Hezbollah", "Syria", or "explosion". I don't feel like writing a bunch of separate responses for each piece of the article name, so I've put my thoughts here and it should be clear what my piecewise position is. I'm choosing this based on WP:CRITERIA. To review it:

1. Recognizability: From what I understand, there have been attacks involving the use of rigged electronic devices in Lebanon in the past. For this reason, putting the year disambiguates and makes it recognizable as a specific attack. 2. Naturalness: The title is very straightforward and describes (in order) When (2024), Where (Lebanon), & What (electronics attack). Sounds natural to me. Putting Hezbollah in the title will make it unnatural and may seemingly imply that Hezbollah was the perpetrator. 3. Precision: My suggested title is precise in that it zeroes in on exactly this event. 4. Concision: We don't need Syria in the title because this primary location of the attack was Lebanon, and anybody referring to the event will primarily be referring to Lebanon. Obviously, it should be noted that some of the attack took place in Syria, but as far as the article title goes, it's not necessary to include that in there. For example, the Pacific war article makes it clear in the very first sentence of the article that the war was also fought in the Indian Ocean. I draw inspiration from that, and I think that omitting the Syrian attacks from the article's title but mentioning it in the first sentence is the right way. 5. Consistency: The article title I'm proposing is very consistent with many other articles such as 2024 France railway arson attacks, 2022 Erbil missile attacks, and countless other articles with this style of (Year, location, method, "attack")

As far as alternatives go, the only one that comes to mind is 2024 Israeli electronics attack, which would instead include the perpetrator rather than the location, but I would only be willing to support such a title as a compromise, because I think that having the location of the attack is more important than having the perpetrator. Derivatives of this could also be considered that mention the location, such as 2024 Israeli electronics attack in Lebanon, but as I point out in the consistency point, the usual way is not to mention the perpetrator, and instead just have the location. For that reason, I would only support article titles that have the perpetrator if I was forced to give up on my main article title that I propose.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I mentioned my opposition to "explosion" in the previous move discussion, but I didn't mention it here so I'll reiterate it. Using the word "explosion" in the title implies that the motive behind this event was ambiguous and unclear. However, mainstream media sources are directly implicating Israel in this attack (See New York Times). For that reason, it makes more sense to refer to it as an attack. JasonMacker (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to move this comment to the section that directly deals with this question. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to commenting in the section #Changing "explosions" to "attacks", you may also want to comment in the sections #Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah" and #Changing "pagers" to "electronics"/"communications" since your propsal touches on them too. The reason the Requested Move has been broken down into sections is that no consensus could be reached when the question was too broadly construed as to how to rename the article. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. @JasonMacker, I don't feel like writing a bunch of separate responses for each piece of the article name is not a valid reason to break the format of this RM. Sdkb talk 17:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "break" the format of anything. But sure, if you want, I can !vote every section. However, my reasoning for multiple of them were similar and related and I wanted to avoid redundancy. JasonMacker (talk) 18:34, 20 September 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.

Discussion

Is there a reason there is no RMCD hatnote on the article page? jnestorius(talk) 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The User:RMCD bot must have broke. @Wbm1058? Fix? Or maybe someone can add the tag manually. Awesome Aasim 11:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?! Edit failed due to a recent RMCD bot edit (0RR) is what I saw on my bot's console. Sorry, imposed a 0RR restriction on the bot to mitigate possible edit warring, and did not anticipate that a new RM would open within four hours of the close of another. If you had waited 24 hours to open the new RM, the bot would have been fine with it. My bot hasn't yet found the intelligence to distinguish between its short-term edits to two different requested moves on the same page. Frankly, the whole world is watching this one; I don't think an article notice is really necessary to draw more participation. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the hatnote serves not merely to invite editors to participate in the debate, but also to alert non-editors that the current title may not reflect a settled consensus of editors. jnestorius(talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen an RFC before that has been divided into multiple sections with separate votes. Is this proper practice? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an RFC; this is an RM. Sdkb suggested subsections for each part of the title, so I just did that. I don't find anything unusual about this, it helps a lot with discussion organization for complex and contentious article title discussions. If this was cut and dry then the proposed title would have been speedy moved in the last RM discussion. Awesome Aasim 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen an RM doing these subdivisions for each word in the move. But anyway, I will participate in the move discussion tomorrow, if no other editor finds this also unconventional other than myself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is effectively several move requests wrapped into one and seems like an inevitable WP:TRAINWRECK for that reason.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trainwreck was the previous move request from Sept 17, which could not reach a consensus, other than the article needs to be renamed. In this format, in which the questions on how to rename is broken down into simple questions, it'll be possible to reach a consensus. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping

Can someone get a courtesy ping for this? I think it would be very helpful. I wish there was an automated way for this. Awesome Aasim 00:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who commented in the previous WP:RM, but have yet to comment in this WP:RM.
MathKnight, Eastwood Park and strabane, Nice4What, Whizkin, Thuresson, RisingTzar, Makeandtoss, Kowal2701, मल्ल, DaringDonna, David O. Johnson, Mk17b, Borgenland, Pilaz, Spilia4, Hogo-2020, Mhhossein, Nishidani, Oathed, Martinevans123
Apologies if I missed anybody. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy ping, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I do not think the name of the article is that overwhelmingly important, as long as it is neutral and can be found easily by someone looking for it. Also, it looks like the RM is closed anyway. If you cant figure it out, 2024 Lebanon pager explosions seems just fine. DaringDonna (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RM closed w/o a consensus. In lieu of the RM that closed, a new RM was opened in which the question of how to rename was broken into smaller questions. If you'd like to participate in the new RM you can. If you don't that's fine. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, but I don't see this new "trainwreck" of an RM. Help please so I can add my useless opinion, maybe. DaringDonna (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I found it. DaringDonna (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identities of the injured

Of the thousands who were injured, how many were Hezbollah members, civilians or both (many Hezbollah members are civilians)? We seem to have conflicting reports:

  • The Lebanese Health Minister said The “vast majority” presenting to emergency rooms are in civilian clothes, Abiad told the broadcaster, adding that this makes it “very difficult to discern whether they belong to a certain entity like Hezbollah or others”. He added: But we are seeing among them people who are old or people who are very young, like the child who unfortunately died, and there are some of them who are health care workers."
    • The Health Minister says during a CNN interview: "vast majority of them [casualties] were civilians" in response to a CNN interviewer's question on how many were un-affiliated with Hezbollah.
  • BBC journalist at Hotel Dieu Hospital said the patients there were "mainly members of Hezbollah."
  • The Washington Post reported "According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry...Among the casualties were women, children and the elderly, as well as medical workers and civil servants."
  • The Guardian quoted an unnamed source saying "A senior security source said pagers all over the country exploded, primarily wounding members of Hezbollah."
  • ABC News says "The dead and injured included people who are not members of Hezbollah." The claim isn't surprising, but it also doesn't cite the claim other than point out children killed.

I think we should mention both views: the Health Minister's view that most appear to be civilians, and other reports that most might be Hezbollah members. The lead should probably just mention that "many casualties were Hezbollah members, including civilian members of the organization, while others were unaffiliated civilians."VR (Please ping on reply) 05:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that Hezbollah membership is highly secret excerpt at the highest levels and the membership of individual rank and file members only becomes public after their deaths, I think the "civilian dress" metric is of zero value. Is there any evidence that Hezbollah does not use women and health care workers and the elderly as operatives? I could be proven wrong as more evidence emerges, but it looks to me at this time that the percentage of casualties that were Hezbollah operatives was exceptionally high, and the percentage of totally uninvolved civilian collateral damage injuries was exceptionally low. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for saying "that the percentage of casualties that were Hezbollah operatives was exceptionally high"? What exactly do you mean by the word "operatives"? It has been pointed out many Hezbollah members are, in fact, civilians. Al Jazeera points out "Some of the blasts struck members of Hezbollah who are not combatants, according to Lebanese media accounts. For example, Tuesday’s attack killed a medic who worked at Al Rassoul Al Azam Hospital, which is linked to Hezbollah-associated charities." VR (Please ping on reply) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence that Hezbollah strictly diffentiates between its "civilian clothed" military Jihad Council members and its "civilian clothed" "non military" Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc members? Are you saying that it is impossible that a medic by day could be a rocket launch site combatant in civilian clothes at night? If there is such a strict differentiation, then why were both groups issued the same set of command and control electronic devices? Are the "civilians" free to do what they want and say what they want, or are they always commanded to follow military orders, upon pain of death? As for unnamed Lebanese media accounts, which of them in particular are considered reliable sources for use on Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Vice regent as requested. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Certainly anything is possible. But civilians must not be targeted under International Humanitarian Law unless the attacker has specific evidence of them taking part in hostilities. Is there evidence that the medic killed at Al Rassoul Al Azam Hospital was also launching rockets? From what I understand, the devices were fairly regular pagers; there was nothing specifically military about them. They could be used to communicate with soldiers and civilians alike. Hospital staff in the Middle East (and across the world) use pagers all the time. I agree we don't directly quite unnamed WP:PRIMARY sources, but when a reliable WP:SECONDARY source like Al-Jazeera relies on them, we can quote that secondary source's reporting.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there was something specifically military about the exploded pagers: they were ordered and issued by Hezhollah to its members (per a source we cite here, Hezbollah "said 4,000 pagers carried by Hezbollah members exploded"). So it becomes a question of when is a Hezbollah member (not) taking part in hostilities? In some countries every member of Hezbollah is deemed a terrorist, i.e. not a civilian, so the question only makes outside of those countries. Lklundin (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hezbollah members" is incredibly vague. Does it mean a doctor employed by a Hezbollah-run hospital or someone in the group's paramilitary wing? Can it mean both? How can we know?
None of us, here, can possibly know which of the killed and injured people were civilians or combatants based merely on whether they're described as "members" of Hezbollah or not. So all we can do is rely on RSes and reflect the consensus.
And if RSes disagree, then we can lay out that disagreement in broad strokes, as is WP:DUE. Lewisguile (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin can you cite a source which says who exactly believes every Hezbollah member is a combatant? For example, we know the US designates entire Hezbollah organization, but can you cite a source that suggests this terrorist designation leads to US military lawyers advising that every Hezbollah member is a legitimate military target? VR (Please ping on reply) 14:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lebanese Health Minister's claim can be mentioned, but shouldn't affect how we describe the events in wikivoice, since it's both a primary and non-independent source. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine to include attribution. Keep in mind that ultimately, the most comprehensive casualty counts have come from government sources (the Israeli social security data for the October 7 Hamas attacks, the Gaza Health Ministry for the Israeli invasion of Gaza etc.).VR (Please ping on reply) 17:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A useful source

I think that this source is useful to expand this article. Source is https://newsable.asianetnews.com/world/lebanon-pager-explosions-probe-turns-toward-kerala-man-malayali-company-financial-dealings-under-scrutiny-anr-sk3n1w. If this source is useful, please add content sourced to it. Source is from Asianet News. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a very reliable source. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive

It's good to see not even informed speculation about which explosive or explosives were used; we await the results of forensic examination. And when we do get that acronym or whatever we'll be plugging it into the article a lot...! kencf0618 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

RS have either used or reported on this attack being a form of terrorism by the Israeli state:

  • Washington Post: "Numerous international law experts, including a U.N. panel, accused Israel of violating international law and carrying out a form of terrorism, no matter that it was an attempt to weaken a known terrorist organization." [20]
  • Jacobin: "Israel carried out two terrorist attacks across Lebanon this week, bringing the entire region ever closer to the brink of all-out war." [21]

Governments have also used this term:

  • BBC: "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he told his Lebanese counterpart that he "strongly condemned Israeli terrorism"." [22]
  • AJ: "Belgium’s deputy PM denounces ‘terror attack’ in Lebanon and Syria" [23]

Maybe there are other RS I have missed, but clearly this should be highlighted in this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is a value-laden and generally non-objective term. We can report on what significant people say, but Wikipedia should be very restrained in calling anything terrorism, or anyone a terrorist. We can say organization X designated Y a terrorist, but that's different from stating it as a conclusion. Obviously this is a high profile article and there's a lot at stake for people to try to sway this article away from NPOV. We should resist those efforts. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It "should be highlighted in this article," does not imply that Wikipedia should call it anything or that is is a fact or conclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Choose any military event. We can scour the sources and find some that call it terrorism. The question is whether these claims are significant enough to deserve mention, or WP:FRINGE. I read a lot of news every day and haven't seen this claim featured prominently. I think the article should have a discussion about whether these attacks are within the laws of war or not, presenting all sides in fair proportion. This is a fair question. Jehochman Talk 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous international law experts, including a U.N. panel, are obviously significant sources, and they deserve a mention, as they were reported by RS. That has no bearing on whatever other material that might be added. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman I removed a link under See Also to list of terrorist incidents in 2024 because this attack is not on that list. Seananony (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss what is the basis for the terrorism claim? It is terrorism under Lebanese law? Under International law? I've been adding in the section "International law" a detailed basis for this being a war crime. But if there is no basis for the terrorism claim, maybe you can mention it in the Reactions section, but I wouldn't give it much more WP:WEIGHT than that. VR (Please ping on reply) 17:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t a reaction, it’s a characterization. It doesn’t necessarily have to be under law, it can be made as a description by experts, which a UN panel and international law experts are. It can be added in body with attribution; it shouldn’t be controversial to reflect RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss terrorism is a legal term. Under which law, is this act considered terrorism? Is there a detailed analysis that considers this terrorism, or do the sources just accuse Israel in passing? VR (Please ping on reply) 13:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should mention it in the form of the WP and state that numerous international law experts have characterised it as an act of terrorism. That is uncontroversial. Many have, including also, separately, Geoffrey Nice on Middle East Eye. It was textbook state terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are enough RSes calling this terrorism, so it should be noted, at least in the Reactions section, as per WP:DUE.
I also agree with the stance that WP probably shouldn't be describing things as terrorist in general. I'm actually surprised we have an actual list of terrorist attacks on here, since that seems to be using Wikivoice to label things that way. But that's another can of worms.
So, as others point out, we should note this but we shouldn't say it in Wikivoice. Putting it in Reactions, and ascribing it to the relevant RS, seems the natural thing to do. It can always be added to the lede later on if major players (e.g., the UN) describe it in that way. Lewisguile (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Terrorism is a concept; that is of the deliberate targeting of civilians for political or other purposes. Whoever chooses to label a certain incident as terrorism, can do so either by matter of checking the applicability of this concept and/or how it violates international law. Either way WP reflects RS; if the Guardian reported it, so should we. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the UN experts' comments, BTW. All of the other notable people calling this terrorism were already quoted in the article (e.g., the Belgian politician). I'm not sure anything else needs to be added, but feel free to take another look and add anything I might've missed. At the very least, those RSes might be useful for showing the notability of those existing comments if anyone were to remove them later on. Lewisguile (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, on checking, most of the articles upthread are either op-eds or repeat claims of terrorism which this article already covers. As such, I haven't added most them.
I have added the UN experts' comments to the legality section. They carefully echo the wording of the UN description of terrorism without coming out and saying it directly. Because of that, I've simply quoted the experts directly, since it would be WP:OR to conclude what the UN means by that wording until RSes start interpreting it one way or another. (The Washington Post article does appear to interpret the wording as rebuking Israel for "a form of terrorism", but it's an op-ed, so isn't strong enough to support that reading yet, I don't think.) Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to background section

The background section is more about the Israel-Hamas war than it is about pagers in Lebanon.

According to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/world/middleeast/israel-exploding-pagers-hezbollah.html) the pagers were sent to Lebonon two years ago, well before October 7 Rmacleod18 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current Israel-Lebanon conflict is very much rooted in the Israel-Hamas war.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of deaths

An Iranian news agency has reported the total death toll has reached 41. Aminabzz (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a reference, this is useless information. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need to get an RS on that before anyone can make any changes. Lewisguile (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who said?

"Sky News reported a Lebanese security had said...." (Final paragraph of "Use of pagers" section.) What is a "Lebanese security", and how does it say things? 67.231.67.253 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the observation. I have fixed it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

I think the definition of Hezbollah should be trimmed from the opening sentence. Whoever is not familiar with Hezbollah can simply access its WP article. This would be on par with the lack of definition of Al-Qaeda on September 11 attacks, Nazi Party on Kristallnacht, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I see no issue with changing "used by members of the Lebanese political party and paramilitary group Hezbollah" → "used by Hezbollah". I've already seen the lede switch between "militant group", "political party and militia", "armed political group", etc. etc. and this change nicely does away with the bickering over wording. GhostOfNoMan 01:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change made. Personally, I would say "intended for use by Hezbollah", since at least some of the devices may have been in the possession of civilians at the time. But for now, I've changed as suggested, and will leave as is unless the consensus shifts. Lewisguile (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and I agree "intended for use" might be more accurate. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented that now, too. Lewisguile (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed – that's a more accurate description. Thanks for that. GhostOfNoMan 12:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

change title from "2024 Pager Explosions" to "2024 Pager Attacks"

reasons:

1. "attacks" more precises describes this event as "explosions" could be referring to a spontaneous or unplanned event. 2. for 9/11 we have (in English) "September 11th attacks" and for Oct7 we have: "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel". To call this "explosion" and not "attack" would go against Wikipedia's stated goal of neutrality. Mx.rezazadeh (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: ongoing RM discussion above, feel free to participate Cannolis (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Hezbollah document about casulates

Has anyone seen this Hezbollah document? If this document is real, then the casulates must be changed.Source 109.197.206.119 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link is dead, but I've seen it. If you have a RS giving any weight to that document then we might want to consider publishing it but until then, it's all unverified and speculative. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a fixed link: https://x.com/VividProwess/status/1837028598177239383 (/status/ was /status+/ in the above URL). I have no idea as to its authenticity. GhostOfNoMan 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It claims a death toll of 879. Obvious fake. Mporter (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention 1,735 injured in “reproductive organs.” – that screams bogus, to me. The only 'major' source I've been able to find reporting on this ostensible Hezbollah document is OpIndia; I can't even link the article here as OpIndia is a blacklisted domain. Per OpIndia, it is an "Indian right-wing news website known for frequently publishing misinformation". No WP:RS seems to have taken any interest in this document one way or another. GhostOfNoMan 01:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, so does Asia Net News. But I agree this is likely a hoax.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

When I published my edit on the injuries, I put 780 instead of 708. The adding is correct, I just put the wrong numbers in the edit publish note. Sorry Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H:SUMMARYONLY - a slight change in a page's wikitext that has no effect on the rendered page but allows an editor to save a useful edit summary. Though at this point, I would leave it as is. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please review the discussion above: #Casualty figures in infobox -Super Goku V (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Least important comment on misspelling

I was looking for how the Hungarian relations are featured and noticed a misspelling in the name of the company: the company form in the name of a company is spelled Kft., i.e. with capital K but small f and t, and always followed by a period; the spelling KFT with all-caps and without the period belongs to the band. You who find it important and can edit protected articles, please, correct it! Thank you in advance! CERBERUS - ii iv iii (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in the article body and in the references. Let me know if I missed anything. Lewisguile (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli denial

The lead and elsewhere say this was an Israeli attack, which seems obvious, but... On 22 September 2024, Israeli President Isaac Herzog denied any Israeli involvement in the explosions.[1] Seananony (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth reporting that he said that, not for the truth of the matter, but to document what he said. Jehochman Talk 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can deny the earth is round, but that doesn't mean my statement should be inserted at the opening paragraph of the earth. I have moved it down to reactions paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it, if we're going to include claims that Israel perpetrated this attack in the lead but bury their denial somewhere in the body that seems awfully WP:UNBALANCED. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a difference between refuting a fact and denying it. So far no one has refuted it, so there is no balance to be made. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss So, guilty until proven innocent? Why not quote a source that claims Israel is responsible rather than stating it as fact in Wikivoice? Seananony (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See revision. Seananony (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Israel-Lebanon latest: Israel had 'no connection' with deadly exploding pager attack, president claims". The Independent. 22 September 2024.

Extended confirmed edit request

Note the pager model allegedly used by hezbolah is not listed on Gold Apollo website. Nitsanbar6502 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gapollo.com.tw/ is geoblocked, maybe anyone from Taiwan can acsess? Nitsanbar6502 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly by Israel

Hey, it's says the attack was made by Israel, Israel never took responsibility of the attack, further more they denied been part of it, where is the source that confirms Israel was behind it? I mean yes Israel probably was behind it but u can't write something like that if it hasn't been proved yet.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-pager-attack-haifa-latest-b2616933.html (Israel denied)

I brought some source thats says Israel denied doing it, but actually the writer need to prove that Israel did it, I don't need to prove that they didn't. innocent until proven otherwise. 2A00:A041:E196:DB00:7514:C6AE:815E:5F91 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above called #Israeli denial. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks&oldid=1247400319"