Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

@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":

• "At least 14 dead and over 450 injured in new explosions of communication devices across Lebanon: Day 348 of the Gaza war - 10:28 Beirut Time", L'Orient Today, 18 September 2024 - [L'Orient's editorial stance: "a fierce line against Hezbollah"/ per our enWP article]

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)

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)

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)

Support for saying the target is "unknown" or "either Hezbollah members or civilians" Atubofsilverware (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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.

@Martinevans123: We already mention "simultaneous" so no need to be overspecific, especially in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

@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":

• "At least 14 dead and over 450 injured in new explosions of communication devices across Lebanon: Day 348 of the Gaza war", L'Orient Today, 18 September 2024 — Quote: "17:08 Beirut Time ⚡ At least one explosion was heard in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Reuters reported, noting that ambulance sirens were also heard."

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)

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)

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)

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)

Should be both, yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hezbollah and Israel have been teasing this war since, like, June. AmrAlWatan^{(🗣️|📝)} 20:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Shouldn't WP:2+2=4 apply? FunLater (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Many thanks. Have now requested an update at Main page errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Remove the year

• Support, this event is so unique, there is no need to include the year in the article name. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - no real reason to include, but also it adds 5 characters total, so not a big deal either way to me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - seminal geopolitical event, similar to what the King David Hotel bombing was in its day. Havradim leaf a message 04:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - have there ever been pager explosions in Lebanon before the year 2024? Brevity and succinctness in title is an age-old Wikipedia policy. The Oklahoma City bombing is not known as 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the Tokyo subway sarin attack is not called the 1995 Tokyo subway sarin attack. Let's apply some common sense here. Colipon+(Talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per above. EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal – It's not needed for wp:natural disambiguation. FunLater (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been attacks involving electronics in Lebanon previously. The year makes the article title precise.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can you name at least one other attack involving electronics in Lebanon? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  List_of_Israeli_assassinations has quite a few of them if you focus only on attacks in Lebanon. The attacks were car bombs, although one of them was remotely-controlled. Similar to this current attack, electronic devices were rigged with booby-traps that exploded.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  So what exploded were cars, not electronic devices. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the naming convention WP:NCE recommends the "When" in the majority of cases unless this event can be understood by the reader without the year, in historic perspective. We have no historic perspective here, and there is no certainty that this event will be remembered with standalone names that do not include the year, which is why I strongly believe we shouldn't remove the year, as it is ultimately useful for the casual reader. Pilaz (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  By your logic, all new events must contain the year in the article name, and the year can only be removed within a decade or two, when there is a "historical perspective".

  The key word in WP:NCE that you did not quote is "for disambiguation". I think you'll agree that the year is not needed in this case for disambiguation purposes. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - unnecessary dab. - Ïvana (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, unnecessary dab. Levivich (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Presence of the year in title gives a good historical context. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Useful historical context for readers. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no useful reason to remove it that I can see. If further attacks of this nature occur next year, we can retitle as needed. Naming policy says to include "what, where and when". Lewisguile (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOYEAR. Until we can judge the notability in historic perspective, its best to leave the year for clarity, similar to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.
• Oppose – It's far too soon to apply WP:NOYEAR. The year significantly improves clarity without sacrificing conciseness. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the title is descriptive as it is and fine. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - unique event, unnecessary dab. If further attacks of this nature re-occur, we can retitle as needed. Jay 💬 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support I don't think it makes a practical difference either way. WP:NOYEAR suggests that the month/year is only needed if the title would otherwise be too narrow. Unless someone can give another example of when Lebanon experienced pager explosions (NB: title could change if consensus appears correct to "Lebanon electronics explosions") AllPurposeScientist^blah 18:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom... Unless there are more, we shouldn't worry about year. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Nothing to disambiguate from. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The year might help some people find the article.DaringDonna (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah"

• Weak support as from what is gathered here, this attack primarily targeted the militant organization Hezbollah. But then, we don't always mention the intended target; so I would probably just say drop Lebanon/Hezbollah from the title, as a second option. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support They were the target. This also seems to be more of a COMMONNAME, the sources I've seen use Hezbollah instead of Lebanon. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support the explosions targeted Hezbollah, not Lebanon. Jehochman ^Talk 01:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons.
  • First, our guidelines (WP:NCWWW) suggest naming an article as "when, where and what". Lebanon is clearly the "where".
  • Secondly, writing "Hezbollah" makes the title ambiguous, as if Hezbollah carried out the attacks, when this is not true.
  • Finally, the attacks seem to include targets other than Hezbollah. While many of the pagers did belong to Hezbollah, did the solar panels also belong to Hezbollah? There are sources that indicate that pagers owned by non-Hezbollah civilians were also targeted[9][10].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Lebanon pager explosions" is ambiguous for the same reason - it could be interpreted as Lebanon carrying out the attack. Both seem unlikely in practice though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Lebanon" is a noun, the adjective is "Lebanese", whereas Hezbollah is both a noun and adjective. When we mention an actor like this, it usually implies they're a perpetrator: NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Israeli bombing of Gaza, October 7 Hamas attacks etc. When we mention a place, it implies the location it took place, not attribution of responsibility: 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2004 Madrid train bombings etc.

  This ambiguity is why we moved "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" to "Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be pedantic, "Hezbollah attack" would be valid not because Hezbollah is an adjective, but because it's a well-formed noun adjunct. Technically "Lebanon attack" is also a well-formed noun adjunct, although "Lebanese attack" is indeed more natural. So both proposed names are technically ambiguous. I expect readers will resolve any confusion by reading the first bit of text, rather than reasoning about why we likely chose a particular wording. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  @VR Charlie Hebdo shooting is an explicit example cited by WP:NCWWW, so the "where" doesn't necessarily have to be Lebanon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NCWWW says in that case the "where" is the "Offices of Charlie Hebdo", which are indeed a place. But Hezbollah is not a place, and its members or its pagers are also not a place.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - it was targeted against Hezbollah, not Lebanon. In fact, there were explosions outside of Lebanon. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons as stated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support target was Hezbollah and included explosions out of Lebanon. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vice regent (VR) and WP:CONSISTENT. This policy is probably why this is up for discussion — again. Just imagine if War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) was titled "Taliban eradication war". Havradim leaf a message 05:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose if attacks passes: Going from 'Lebanon pager explosions' to 'Hezbollah (pagers/electronics/communications) attacks' would imply that Hezbollah did an attack using or involving pagers/electronics/communications. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: As mentioned in the last RM, we use places to describe events by default per WP:NCE. This is also the natural and recognisable language. Furthermore, the suggestion has a fundamental flaw in that introduces ambiguity over whether Hezbollah is the target or actor – even if the wording were to work, merely switching positions in the manner suggested above would be no way to do it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as they literally were Hezbollah pagers, ordered by Hezbollah and issued to their members. Per Reuters, The senior Lebanese security source said the group had ordered 5,000 beepers made by Taiwan-based Gold Apollo, which several sources say were brought into the country earlier this year. NCWWW is a good default, but "Hezbollah" conveys the same information (obviously they operate in Lebanon) and more. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  But were they also "Hezbollah solar panels"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  If we were to update the title to include other purported devices, I agree that could complicate the matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Remove both – Titles like "Pager explosions", "Pager attack", and "Pager and walkie-talkie explosions", etc. unambiguously identify the subject. This avoids ambiguity over whether Hezbollah is the target or actor and avoids specifying that the attacks were in Lebanon when they were also in Syria. FunLater (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I've stated below. --JasonMacker (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR, Havradim, and Iskandar323's comments. Tule-hog (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Hezbollah was the target and most of the affected ones were its members, in Lebanon and Syria. MathKnight 21:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR and Iskandar, although one issue is that having Lebanon in the title implies it was against the Lebanese government Kowal2701 (talk · contribs) 21:24:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 
• Oppose a lot of people not associated with Hizbollah, also became victims, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but the electronic devices were distributed by Hezbollah to its operatives. The devices were not commercially available. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Two of the killed were children, and 2 were hospital workers, were they also Hizbollah "operatives"?. They might have targeted Hizbollah, but the fact is that they hit innocent people, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

    The children who died were probably children of Hezbollah operatives who played around with their parents' pagers, and the "hospital workers" who died were probably Hezbollah operatives who moonlighted as "hospital workers". But none of that is even remotely relevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the devices were issued by Hezbollah. Nobody who is not affiliated with Hezbollah, or affiliated with people affiliated with Hezbollah, would have had access to those devices. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    Erm, what about the people at funerals or supermarkets who happened to be near someone with a pager? Are they "operatives" too?

    RSes have said civil servants and charity workers also received those devices because Hezbollah is a political party as well as a paramilitary group. They're not "moonlighting" as anything.

    And of course other people would have access to those devices. There were 4,000 devices spread across two countries. People leave devices lying around, lose them, put them in cloakrooms, store them in lockers, etc.

    But regardless of all that, a child — even if their parents work for Hezbollah — isn't a valid target and their deaths shouldn't be shrugged off as "oh well, Hezbollah!" Let's not be glib, even accidentally, about the death of kids. Yikes. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    The children were not the target. The target was Hezbollah. It was the parents who put their child in harms way by choosing a dangerous line of work, and then on top of that, they brought their work home with them. Hezbollah is a paramilitary organization with representation in the Lebanese parliament.
    Anybody who freely chooses to associate with Hezbollah is putting themselves, as well as anybody they associate with, in harms way, even if the people who associate with the Hezbollah operatives are not even aware that they are associating with a Hezbollah operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    It was an unlawful boobytrapping of civilian communications devices that contravened all kinds of laws of war, including, not least, targeting devices also used by (non-Hezbollah) medical personnel. The devices also exploded in indiscriminate locations, such as supermarkets. Not surprising that all legal commentators call it A) a war crime, or B) a terrorist attack.[11] Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    Remember that these were communication devices that were purchased by Hezbollah and issued to its operatives. These devices were not available to civillians in any store within Lebanon. To receive one these devices, a person had to have either gotten it from Hezbollah, or, for whatever reason, were given the devices by an operative of Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    That's OR, and you're not a reliable source, but The Nation is. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    The Nation did not say that the pagers were widely available for the general Lebanese population. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    It said medical workers were killed after the words "but so", contrasting this with "Hezbollah members". A statement that OR alone cannot overwrite. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

    Are you being real? I can't figure out if you're a troll or not. In case it does actually need to be said: someone working for a charity or hospital doesn't deserve to die just because of who funds (or part-funds) that organisation. Taking pagers home isn't supposed to be a risk to your child. Nurses don't deserve to die. Neither do kids. Again, yikes! Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    Nurses who are Hezbollah operatives during their day job are absolutely legitimate targets, and parents who let their children handle their Hezbollah-issued pagers put the lives of their children at risk. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    So you think booby trapping a device used by a member or supporter of a party and making it explode without caring about who it harms or where the explosion happens is perfectly fine and legal and should be celebrated. We are not supposed to feel bad for the victims even if they were not the intended target cause they chose to be nearby other people so they were asking for it. Hopefully you'll apply the same logic if/when the target is Likud or any other Israeli or American political party. - Ïvana (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    You are losing focus here.
    I definitely think that booby trapping devices used by operatives of a paramilitary organization absolutely means that the article name should contain the name of the paramilitary organization whose devices were booby trapped. The fact that this paramilitary organization has representation in the Lebanese parliament or that the operatives of this paramilitary organization moonlight as nurses does not mean that the name of this paramilitary organization should not be in the article's name. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    Nurses are civilians, so that's a no. It doesn't matter what the political allegiance of medical personnel is; no one gets to murder medical personnel in cold blood and call it lawful. The civilian/combatant distinction doesn't magically evaporate because some countries call a group 'terrorist' – language that has zero bearing in international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

    Doesn't seem like you understand that just because a Hezbollah operative moonlights as a nurse and puts on a nurse uniform, that does not erase their affiliation to Hezbollah. It is not a contradiction to be a nurse and a Hezbollah operative. An that means that it is appropriate to put Hezbollah in the article's name.
    Nobody who doesn't have an affiliation with Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per above comments. Also, any concerns about target vs attacker are still applicable if Lebanon is used, not to mention that they can be entirely circumvented by using "against Hezbollah". Arcturus95 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR. WP:NCWWW is clear. Proposed alternatives are ambiguous and might allude to Hezbollah being the perpetrator instead of the target. A lot of victims are/were also civilians, and the only thing they had in common with Hezbollah members was the geographic location. - Ïvana (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I like the title "Hezbollah device explosions," as used by the BBC [12]. I don't think it suggests Hezbollah was the perpetrator, I think it suggests that Hezbollah's devices exploded, which is accurate. "Lebanon" isn't entirely accurate because there were also explosions in Syria, even if most of it happened in Lebanon. "Lebanon pager explosions" or "Lebanon device explosions" I find problematic because it makes it sound like they were Lebanese pagers or Lebanese devices, as in made in Lebanon, which does not appear to be the accurate. WP:NCWWW says "in the majority of cases," and I think this is one case where we should say "who" rather than "where." Levivich (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Although indeed Hezbollah pagers and communication devices, many civilians have been killed or injured either from the explosion or shrapnel. Most of the explosions took place in Lebanon. A change from Lebanon to Hezbollah would be misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The attacks were targeted at Hezbollah in more than one country. I agree with Levivich that a title such as Hezbollah device explosions suggests that Hezbollah's devices exploded, which is accurate. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per VR, Havradim, and Iskandar323. Policy should guide this decision. If we were going purely for accuracy and precision, we'd have a long name such as 2024 Israeli attacks on Hezbollah pagers, walkie talkies and solar panels. As it is, 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks seems fine (note that I also prefer attacks over explosions). Lewisguile (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - As spoken before, attacks targeted Hezbollah, also removes the geographic argument some had about Lebanon vs. Lebanon and Syria in title name. poketape (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Most of the explosions did take place in Lebanon, but some in Syria as well. The attack was targeted against Hezbollah, and as we have Israel–Hamas war we have precedent to use the intended target even if there are civilian side-effects.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by user VR. Macxcxz (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons mentioned by editors above. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support only if the exact title is established, and we have a revote. Changing one word to the other implying "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions" sounds like Hezbollah is the perpetrator. Jay 💬 14:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Regardless of the collateral damage, the target of the attacks was Hezbollah. Aria1561 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think pro-Israeli sources would describe the attack as targeting Hezbollah, while other sources would indicate attacks on objects used by civilians would indicate something broader Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Hezbollah was targeted across territories. More accurate and more precise. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support- I agree with the above. The incident did not target Lebanon, it was against Hezbollah, and there were pagers that exploded in other places besides Lebanon. DaringDonna (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support broadening as both pagers and handheld-radios are included in this. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support we can all agree on this. Mobile devices would be too specific and possibly exclude the (alleged) solar panels. Bremps... 02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support electronics; but people claiming solar panels and phones exploded should read this DW Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as it's become abundantly clear that pagers were not the only devices involved. GhostOfNoMan 00:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support mobile devices. Pagers is too specific. Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Day 1 was pagers. Day 2 was walkie talkies. Mobile devices is too broad and two vague. Cullen328 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you. That's why in my !vote I proposed "pagers and walkie talkies". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support electronics. Simple and covers solar panels, which are not communication devices.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Alternate: pagers and walkie talkies per WP:PRECISE. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics since the attack expanded beyond just pagers after the first round. It also wasn't solely communication devices that were targeted, and 'communications' could imply it was a cyberattack on communications systems rather than physical devices. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support to Electronics. "Communications" doesn't cover the solar panels we have reliable sources for. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pagers is the shortest title, the majority of the explosions were pagers, and I don't think either "electronics" or "comunications devices" is as eloquent as pagers. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I've actually been convinced to support "electronics explosions" - but I still oppose "electronics attacks" because that is very vague. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Easy support - much more electronics than just pagers have been affected at this point. More people were killed by handheld radios in the second wave than pagers in the first wave, so having pagers alone in the title is misleading. Havradim leaf a message 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since I am now seeing multiple sources mention the phrase pager and walkie-talkie in their reporting, I prefer that language (BBC, multiple NYT, AP, NBC, VOX, Foreign Policy, VOA, CNN, MSN, Algemeiner). Havradim leaf a message 02:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Alternate: Support pager and walkie-talkie per WP:AND. Electronics is way too broad and doesn't define the subject like "pagers and walkie-talkies" does. In other words, "Pager and walkie-talkie explosions" can be the title of this article but "Electronic explosions" cannot as it's too broad. Even "2024 Lebanon electronic explosions" and other similar variants are too broad and confusing. FunLater (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "electronics" Although at first the majority of explosions originated from pagers, the 2nd wave of attacks was from other electronic devices and it looks like we're not going to be having separate articles for each attack. For that reason, this article's title should reflect both attacks.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "electronics" or "devices" given the range of devices targeted. Tule-hog (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• I think "pagers and walkie-talkie" or "communication devices" are better. MathKnight 21:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, press sources such as the NY Times and NBC News seem to be using the common name "pager attacks". Whizkin (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics - infobox mentions "Pagers, walkie-talkies, solar panels, radios, intercoms, car batteries", etc. Some of these do not fall under "communications" but all are considered electronic devices. - Ïvana (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • FWIW I think the infobox is wrong and took that out; MSM seems to all say pagers and walkie-talkie. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Good to know, then I think devices or communication devices sounds better. - Ïvana (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Btw, Hezbollah has released a couple of statements since the attack describing the devices involved as "pager and wireless devices" and "communication devices". - Ïvana (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support 'devices' or 'pagers and walkie-talkies', as used by BBC and CNN respectively. Both "electronics" and "communications" strike me as too vague. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support devices, oppose electronics which is more about circuits rather than devices. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "communication devices" as pagers were not the only devices involved. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics as devices isn't as broad and suggests handheld devices rather than electronics equipment in general (such as solar panels). My preferred title would be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Solar panels weren't part of this attack. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I saw the clarification upthread after I made this post, though noted that the article itself and a few RSes mention other devices as "unconfirmed", so left it. In either case, I think "electronics" is more future-proof if any of these do turn out to be connected (even if it's unlikely). Lewisguile (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support because walkie-talkies were also involved. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 18:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronic devices, the main page of Wikipedia has been using …electronic devices used by Hezbollah members explode… for about a week. It works on the main page, so why not use Hezbollah electronic devices explosion as this article’s title? Ilenart626 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as more RS refer it to it as pager attacks, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "communications" devices as too technical, and less helpful than the current title. The first communications device that comes to mind is the mobile phone, which was not involved. Instead support FunLater's "pager and walkie-talke" suggestion. Jay 💬 15:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Either "electronics", "electronic device", or "device" would seem sufficient. Aria1561 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. In order of most preferred to least: "communicaiton devices", "electronic devices", "electronics" are all options that are more befitting of the circumstances as they stand now. AllPurposeScientist^blah 17:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - This might be most notable as pager explosions, though I am sympathetic to the broadening scope of the attack. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - This one actually seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• I would weakly support "electronics", and oppose "communications". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support electronics or devices. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It has widely been reported as the "pager" explosions. Keeping 'pagers' just makes it easier for readers to find the article. DaringDonna (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

• Support per my reason in the previous RM. WP:RS classify this as an "attack" including [13] [14] [15] and so we should just mirror what RS does. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with "attacks" in principle, but I'm a little concerned that, coupled with a Lebanon → Hezbollah change, the title "Hezbollah pager attacks" (or "Hezbollah electronics attacks" etc.) would be misleading – wouldn't a plain reading make it appear Hezbollah were themselves responsible, and not the target? Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I could easily see such a title causing confusion. GhostOfNoMan 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  We can use "attacks on ..." or "attacks in ..." if needbe. I do appreciate the concern as we do need to ensure this title is not misleading though. Awesome Aasim 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  But I think "Lebanon electronics attacks" would be fine and unambiguous.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  2024 Lebanon electronics attacks would be my preferred title, but I'm not immovable on the 2024 part. Lewisguile (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose That title makes it sound like Hezbollah committed an attack, not that they were attacked. Explosions is also more descriptive. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Opoose Explosions is more specific. Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Explosions seems more vague, because it includes accidents (eg 2020 Beirut explosion), whereas this was not accidental.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Attacks. Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Explosions" implies it was an accident. "Attack(s)" is clearer. Similarly, articles about bombings do not use "explosions" (eg Oklahoma City bombing). As for the confusion of who was the attacker and who was the target, there are ways around it. There were some ideas to resolve that in the previous RM. Saying "Attacks on/against Lebanon/Hezbollah" should suffice. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per above. 'Explosions' implies it could've been an accident; it was mostly definitely an attack and most RS support this. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Could cause someone to misinterpret Hezbollah/Lebanon (Lebanon is fine to use, check replies) as the perpetrator. Other than that, I support. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  @BerryForPerpetuity, based on my understanding of English (it is not my mother tongue), the word "Lebanon" is only a noun (whose adjective is "Lebanese"), whereas "Hezbollah" is both a noun and adjective. So "Lebanon electronics attack" should unambiguously indicate Lebanon as the location of the attack, not the perpetrator.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: You are correct. I've updated my support to clear that up. Thanks, — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Explosions is more specific - "attack" could mean an attack on pager infrastructure or similar. Further, if it's changed to Hezbollah, the title Hezbollah pager (or word) attack would imply they attacked pagers, rather than their pagers exploded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Clarifying my comment in relation to the above - I think that this needs to be considered together with the question over what the "items" that exploded/were attacked are called. I cannot support "electronics attack(s)" because that is ambiguous as to whether it was an attack on electronic infrastructure, an attack using electronic weapons, etc. So if it's changed to "electronics" (the shortest word that seems to include the various devices involved) then I still oppose changing to attacks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I am partial to Lebanon exploding electronics attacks; it is concise, precise, follows policy, and does a good job of explaining what happened and in what location. As others have said, having explosions alone omits the fact that this was a targeted attack, leaving open the possibility that it was instead a series of tragic accidents. And having attacks alone leaves too much open to interpretation: Was Lebanon / Hezbollah attacked or did they attack? And via the use of what kind of electronics warfare? Havradim leaf a message 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support "attacks", per what I've written below.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but care must be taken that the final outcome of this RM does not make it sound like Hezbollah was the one committing the attack. Therefore, the article name should be something like Attacks on Hezbollah's pagers and walkie talkies. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, "explosions" is more exact to describe what happened (pagers exploded) while "pager attack" may imply electronic espionage or disrupting communication. Also "...pagers attack" could imply active ("they attacked") instead of passive ("they got exploded"). MathKnight 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you on your second point. That's why I put a note in my !vote with a caution that if using the word "attacks", the word order would have to change (along with needing to add the prepesition "on").

  On your first point, because all the explosions happened at the same time (or within a ½ an hour or so), then it does constitute an attack (or more accurately "attacks" because there were two attacks on two different days). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support; "explosion" could be an accident, "attack" is what it was, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - an explosion might be unintended, an attack is not. - Ïvana (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for this title format - "Lebanon pager attacks" and "Hezbollah pager attacks" make it sound like Lebanon/Hezbollah are the perpetrators. I don't categorically oppose using "attacks" instead of "explosions" but it has to be as part of a title that phrases it in a way that doesn't confuse the perpetrator with the victim of the attack, so something different than any of the variations currently proposed. Levivich (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support as these specific "explosions" had a perpetrator, Israel. RS have confirmed Israel to be the perpetrator of this coordinated attack. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as explosions is more specific. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support attacks. Explosions is too vague and implies the devices just blew up, e.g., due to manufacturing issues or excessive heat. These were attacks, and RSes support that. This is why I also don't think Hezbollah should be in the title. It should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - because I support changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah", and 2024 Hezbollah pager attacks could mislead readers to believe the attacks were committed by Hezbollah rather than against Hezbollah.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as attack is what it was. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as "explosions" is more specific and exactly what happened. I would support "attack" if it was a weapon that was used. Pager is a harmless device, and its hard to visualize it as a weapon in "pager attacks". It sounds more like a virus attack that software devices are prone to. I do not mind "attack" if the nature of the attack is part of the title, such as "explosion attacks" or "explosive attacks". Jay 💬 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Feels more correct to include "attacks" in the title—considering that's what it was—particularly to avoid indicating that the devices exploded by themselves in some sort of accident. Aria1561 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Speaks to state of mind of the perpetrator. Likely an WP:NPOV issue. AllPurposeScientist^blah 17:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  ...you think they accidentally put explosives in thousands of pagers? Or that they did it intentionally but not with the intent to attack anyone? What other state of mind could the perpetrator possibly have had? (And does any RS suggest any state of mind other than attack?) Levivich (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – Clear enough that it was deliberate, but explosions is more descriptive and recognisable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Explosions is more descriptive, and "attack" is ambiguous, as said above, you cant tell who is doing the attacking. DaringDonna (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

• Support - a wide range of sources are saying as a fact this was an Israeli attack. The NYTimes has reported these were manufactured by Israel. Axios reports that "Israel decided to blow up the pager devices carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon and Syria on Tuesday out of concern its secret operation might have been discovered by the group, three U.S. officials told Axios." and that "A former Israeli official with knowledge of the operation said Israeli intelligence services planned to use the booby-trapped pagers it managed to "plant" in Hezbollah's ranks as a surprise opening blow in an all- out war to try to cripple Hezbollah." CNN reports that "CNN has learned Tuesday’s explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military." There are no sources that actually dispute that Israel was behind these explosions. nableezy - 01:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • nableezy what is the exact title you propose? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Attack on Pearl Harbor or Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor? Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm not in favor of this, but there is Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp, after all. Havradim leaf a message 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

        And 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. nableezy - 11:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

    2024 Israeli electronics sabatoge attack nableezy - 11:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Israeli electronics attack against Hezbollah?

  Kowal2701 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose- per WP:NPOV. Israel has not taken credit for the incident, and nobody has provided proof that it was Israel. All mentions of Israel as the culprit are allegations. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose clear NPOV violation. Even if there is a consensus they were Israeli or proven to be, this is a clear POV title intended to imply things that should not be implied in a title. Titles should not be disambiguated beyond what is necessary. Unless there is some other attack on Hezbollah pagers/walkie-talkies this year, there is no need for this. And if there's another attack in another year, a year is a NPOV disambiguation that will suffice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Where is the NPOV violation and what is it intended to imply? nableezy - 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, borders on original research at this point. Not at all clear if Israel acted alone on this one, so having this in the title is overreach. Havradim leaf a message 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose per what I've stated below. Identifying the perpetrators within the article title seems unnecessary. The first sentence of the article should explain that reliable sources believe Israel is the perpetrator of this attack.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, while Israel is the natural "prime suspect", it has not taken responsibility, and all we have so far is media speculations and Hezbollah's blame. MathKnight 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus by RS is that Israel was behind the attack. We should reflect that consensus. Arcturus95 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you read the references carefully, the consensus is that Israel is the only logical suspect. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  We also have Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus as a precedent, where Israel also didn't claim responsibility, but multiple sources identified it as the perpetrator. - Ïvana (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Israel is not a suspect by process of elimination. RS have evidence of Israel's responsibility and are fully naming them as responsible.

  [16] CNN has learned Tuesday’s explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military.

  [17] 12 current and former defense and intelligence officials who were briefed on the attack say the Israelis were behind it

  [18] Israel decided to blow up the pager devices carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon and Syria on Tuesday

  [19] Israel placed explosives inside thousands of pagers imported by Hezbollah months before Tuesday’s extraordinary attacks, according to sources cited by Reuters and US media. Arcturus95 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose, but in any case please take care when participating in Israel based discussions to be mindful of WP:NPOV, as your user page could suggest that you have a strong vested interest. I believe this would be a reckless edit in any case. If Israel is the perpetrator to comment on their intent is completely unknown. AllPurposeScientist^blah 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support There are other pages that include both the attacker and target's identities, as shown above. Plus, in doing so, all the concerns raised elsewhere in the RM about who was the attacker vs the target would be solved. Arcturus95 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As a comparison, even in terrorist attacks where known terrorist organizations claimed responsibilities, we never mention their names in the title. While the incident is clearly different, I think the same principle applies.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose 'sabotage' - Sabotage would be if they made the pagers and walkie talkies stop working. When you make a device like that explode, that's a booby trap, not sabotage. Neutral on the principle of including 'Israel' in the title; MSM is all more or less reporting that Israel is behind the attack or widely believed to be (also, it's kind of obvious that they are, even if they never admit it). Levivich (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure the NYT agrees with you here. nableezy - 16:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Journalists 🙄 NYT isn't the only one making this obvious mistake, either. If enough of them make it, it'll become "consensus of RS." But mark my words: "sabotage" is not the right word to describe booby trapping, and some day, the NYT and the rest will learn this. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's actually a meaningful distinction (in my view). "Sabotage" is the right word if we want to say that the purpose of putting explosives into personal communications devices was to impede communications. "Booby trap" is the right word if we want to say the purpose was to kill or injure people. Levivich (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  + 1 for "Journalists 🙄 NYT". António Guterres: "weaponization of civilian objects" here + "Israel used to drop baby toys that had booby traps, and they have small explosive devices. They used to drop them from military helicopters in the valleys, on the streets of the villages, where little kids used to pick them up, and then they would explode. That's why we have seen many people from my generation, from the ’90s, they are either arms are amputated or they are missing a leg, because of this illegal usage or illegal forms of warfare." here. NYT Journalists: sabotage of baby toys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.205.154 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)  Striking out comment made in violation of WP:ARBECR which this topic is subject to. Awesome Aasim 22:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have an RS that Israel booby-trapped baby toys? Please remove this newest antisemitic blood libel from this discussion. There is no reason to resort to hate-mongering in this discussion about the title of the article. DaringDonna (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unnecessary complication to title, if there were more than one group of pager explosions, then I could see the argument. poketape (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Multiple other pages describe the attacker in the title, and this would follow that precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewishIdeas (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)  WP:ARBECR Awesome Aasim 22:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per Nableezy. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support including Israeli - per nableezy and Arcturus95. Israel not taking responsability for anything as usual doesn't mean we can ignore the multiple RS rightly pointing them as the perpetrator. We already have articles where the attacker is named, regardless of whether they admit to their authorship or not. I don't really like the term "sabotage" - it generally means intentionally damaging or interfering with a device to stop it from functioning properly. I would prefer using "attacks" or similar terms that clearly indicate intent to harm or kill. - Ïvana (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Needlessly complex. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – Here we go again into the world of NPOV. The problem is not that Israel is in the title, since it is almost certain they carried out the operation. The problem is the word sabotage, which can mean anything. The specific nature of the incident needs to be included in the title, whether its pagers, communications devices, or electronics, but something about the method must be in the title. The best title would be "Israeli surprise precision attack against Hezbollah using pagers and other electronic devices." But of course that is too long. But please, sabotage is not the way to go. DaringDonna (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Leave title unchanged

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.

---

• Support - The title makes sense for now. Change it later if the media comes to a consensus on the name of this operation. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not the media's role to name the operation. That would be the perpetrator's role. Since the perpetrator has not publicly acknowledged the operation, the perpetrator would not make the name of the operation public. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:48, 20 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.

Other proposals

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)

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)

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)

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)

+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)

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)

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)

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)

?! 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Never mind, I found it. DaringDonna (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pinging Vice regent as requested. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Number of deaths

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

Unless you can provide a reference, this is useless information. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

We'd need to get an RS on that before anyone can make any changes. Lewisguile (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Thanks; and I agree "intended for use" might be more accurate. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented that now, too. Lewisguile (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed – that's a more accurate description. Thanks for that. GhostOfNoMan 12:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

It claims a death toll of 879. Obvious fake. Mporter (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Also, please review the discussion above: #Casualty figures in infobox -Super Goku V (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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. Seananony (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

See revision. Seananony (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

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

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)

See the discussion above called #Israeli denial. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)