Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

Requested move 19 September 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Inching ever closer to consensus. Alright. The Frankenstein's monster close comes out to "2024 Lebanon electronic devices attacks". If I can be permitted to exercise some personal opinion here, I'd like to revise this to "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks", because "devices attacks" sounds horrendous and "device attacks" does not introduce confusion about there only being a single device involved. I find "Lebanon" superior to "Hezbollah" for Frankenstein's Close because the ambiguity that many participants worried about at various points of the discussion does indeed cause problems when we swap "Hezbollah" in, making it sound like this may have been an attack by Hezbollah instead of on Hezbollah.

Why is this "inching ever closer to consensus" instead of a close in favour of "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks"? Well, while I do think it's an accurate read of this discussion, I worry that perhaps what I've done here is created a title that everyone hates, and which no one ever got to explicitly agree with. Accordingly, what I propose is a simple run-off between 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks and 2024 Hezbollah device explosions. That's Franken-close pitted against an updated version of "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions", which was popular in the last, no-consensus RM. I strongly suggest leaving 2024 in both to simplify things. Let Wikipedians of the future argue about that one. asilvering (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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, 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)

  Support, do you know of any other pager explosions Afdshah (talk) 16:03, 9 October 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)
• Support per above. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:51, 25 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)
• Oppose Including the year is quite common for events and is much more descriptive of what event in question is being referenced. Not only now, but for the future as well. Silverseren^C 05:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCWWW, the time period the event occurred in is important factor. Considering pagers are mostly an antiquated technology. Cocoaguy (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:NOYEAR and WP:CONCISE. Unnecessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per NOYEAR and if there is ever any other similar attack that can be considered, not now. Andre🚐 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Gives immediate relevant information. Lova Falk (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose including the year helps with precision. This is not the first time in history that Israel has used an explosive hidden inside an electronic communications device, so we need to be clear and precise. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am aware of only one such case (the assassination of Yahya Ayyash, which is in the "See also" section of the article), and that case didn't target Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  The Engineer was a notable one as you mentioned; but far from the only one. Samir Malabi of Fatah was killed by an exploding cell phone in 2000. Mahmoud Hamshari of the PLO was killed in the 1970's by a bomb in his landline telephone as that was obviously prior to mobile devices. Osama Fatih al-Jawabra, Iyad Mohammed Hardan and Muhammad Ishteiwi Abayat were killed by rigged phone-booth bombs. Khaled Mashaal of Hamas survived a phone-based poisoning attack. There's probably others that I'm not thinking of but it is a documented history.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Khaled Mashaal's attempted assassination had nothing to do with phones (per the link you provided). Phone booth bombs are not "explosive hidden inside an electronic communications device" (your words). And none of the individuals you mentioned were Hezbollah operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I never said anything about a restriction specifically to Hezbollah operatives. Go bludgeon someone else, your strawman argument is not welcome here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:58, 10 October 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.

Changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah"

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.

---

• 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[1][2].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)

  I think Lebanon attack probably suggests an attack in Lebanon more than Lebanese attack does? The latter may suggest possession, and thus may imply an attack made by Lebanon. Hezbollah doesn't necessarily imply Hezbollah made the attack, but WP:NCWWW suggests when, where and what, rather than who, how and why, anyway. This is also why I prefer attacks to explosions, since explosions veers into the how rather than the what. Lewisguile (talk) 07:14, 25 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)

Extended content

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) So the female nurse who was killed: please inform me: was she a "Hizbollah operative" moonlightning as a "hospital worker"? Or a "hospital worker" moonlighting as a "Hizbollah operative"? Just wondering, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC) For the purposes of naming the article, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she was affiliated with Hezbollah and that's why she had a Hezbollah-issued pager on her. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) : "she was affiliated with Hezbollah": You have brought exactly zero proof of that statement, (= zero significance), Huldra (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC) The proof is the exploding pager that Hezbollah issued to her. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Again: you have brought zero proof of that. Also this is far into WP:FORUM, and by now you are just violating WP:BLUDGEON, good-bye, Huldra (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC) How else could she have gotten a Hezbollah issued pager? Those pagers were intended for internal communications by Hezbollah, and were not supposed to have been shared with non-Hezbollah members. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 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.[3] 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) 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) I think we're getting a little distracted – WP:NOTFORUM. GhostOfNoMan 22:03, 25 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. And that means that it is appropriate to put Hezbollah in the article's name. Only people with affiliations to Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) The sources don't obviously support the bald assertion that only Hezbollah members had the devices. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC) The sources all say that the pagers were issued by Hezbollah. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:15, 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 [4]. 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, such as WP:NCWWW. If we were going purely for accuracy and precision, we'd have a long name such as 2024 Israeli attacks on Hezbollah pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon and Syria. As it is, 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks seems fine, although I could accept pagers (and 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)
• Support I share the same opinion; the operation was directed at Hezbollah rather than Lebanon. There’s no ambiguity about that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is this based on what the reliable sources state or should the title change given your original research? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Mhhossein Check out the sources shared by others here, or this Washington Post article, and then check out WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: First, per naming conventions, "Lebanon" accurately reflects the location, whereas the group "Hezbollah" would misleadingly imply they were responsible for the attacks, which is not the case. Second, the attacks targeted a broad range of devices, including those belonging to civilians, medical personnel, and non-Hezbollah entities, in various public places like supermarkets. Renaming it to "Hezbollah" would obscure these facts and misrepresent the scope of the attacks, which affected many beyond Hezbollah. StarkReport (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The majority of RS are using Lebanon and the rest Hezbollah, somewhat reminiscent of the Gaza/Hamas debate except that the media are being more cautious about accepting the Israeli narrative, especially since they still have not admitted responsibility for what some are calling terrorism. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as explained in the previous RM. I see multiple users saying the title should change, only based on their original research that Hezbollah was the target. It was reported that people irrelevant to Hezbollah were targeted, as well. I think the title with Lebanon is a common name as per WP:TITLE. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neither status quo nor proposed change "Lebanon" isn't inclusive enough, "Hezbollah" is still controversial as there are arguments about targeting. Why not Middle East or some equivalent regional designation? Still precise enough to help people understand which event is mentioned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Including the location or country is standard practice. Lebanon is perfectly descriptive and I don't see how there would realistically be any confusion toward Lebanon being the perpetrators. That's not an actual issue. The fact that the explosions also affected many others outside of the group in question is another reason to not specify it only to the group. Silverseren^C 05:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per VR, the primary location of the events, Lebanon, should be in the title as stated in WP:NCWWW. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCWWW the location takes precident here in the naming conventions. There should likely be a redirect page with other names included. Cocoaguy (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. More precise name which is also used by RS BBC, Foreign Policy. Alaexis_¿question? 09:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - As has been noted, multiple sources including the BBC, have used Hezbollah device explosions. That is the most concise and accurate title. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. More specific. All Hezbollah is in Lebanon but not all Lebanon is in Hezbollah. Andre🚐 06:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I see no reason to deviate from naming conventions, it would only serve to introduce confusion in this case. Rail88 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Needlessly limiting/ exclusionary. Although they were the alledged target, the affected are not limited to Hezbollah nor the Hezbollah-affilated. This title swap would ignore explosion of devices owned by non-Hezbollah civillians including people in the medical field. The nature of the attacks were not contained to Hezbollah with collateral damage, but to the devices (many of which owned by Hezbollah, but not ALL). Plus article naming conventions of "when, where, what" would be followed.Mason7512 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Lebanon as a country was not the target of the attacks. Hezbollah pagers were. Whether non-Hezbollah members were caught as collateral damage is irrelevant; the devices they were using were still Hezbollah pagers. This is also the language that other RS are primarily using ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above, and to more accurately reflect reliable sources which report it as an attack on Hezbollah, not Lebanon. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 21 October 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.

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

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 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, but would settle for just pagers. as devices isn't as broad and suggests handheld devices rather than electronics equipment in general (such as solar panels). Devices attacks feels clumsy. My preferred title would be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks or 2024 Lebanon pager attacks. (!Vote modified now infobox updated to remove bad info.) 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)
• Support: "Electronics" should be the title, as the attacks encompassed a broader range of devices beyond pagers, including solar panels, car batteries, and radios, which fall outside the scope of communication devices. Given the second wave of attacks targeted various electronics, not just communication systems, "electronics" is the most precise and encompassing term. StarkReport (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, as the explosions involved more than just pagers. I think this is the easiest part of the RFC to resolve. What exploded? Pagers, radios, maybe other things. Electronic devices or electronics should be used. "Electronic devices" is clearest, but it does add a word making the title longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support either electronics or devices. The page's scope includes attacks involving more than just pagers. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It is the most known part about the incident. It is how the incident was described in the press and the average person is going to remember the pagers. Also it was the first part of the incident. Although other devices were involved I think the pagers are what stands out to most people. Cocoaguy (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Pagers is wrong. device would match what many sources are using, e.g. the BBC [5]. I do not understand the logic for keeping "pagers" just because that is better known than the walkie talkies (and is it?). The page is about both types of device. Move will leave an appropriate redirect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Andre🚐 06:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Pager is only the COMMONNAME for the pager attack. This page is about both attacks. I see no evidence that the combined Walkie Talkie and pager attacks are being commonly referred to as pager attacks. Why would they be? The current title fails WP:PRECISE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's true, but "pager and walkie-talkie attacks" are more common than "electronics"/"communications" Andre🚐 07:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• First choice: "pagers and electronics" but I recognize that just limiting it to "Pager" is more concise and still effectively communicates the event; so Second choice would be no-change here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:42, 7 October 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.

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

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 per my reason in the previous RM. WP:RS classify this as an "attack" including [6] [7] [8] 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)
• Support; I agree with the argument that an "explosion" could be accidental, while the term "attack" is more specific. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The title should be revised from "explosions" to "attacks," as sources consistently identify these incidents as deliberate, coordinated actions, rather than accidental explosions. The term "explosions" suggests unintended events, whereas "attacks" accurately conveys the intentional nature of these acts, with known perpetrators. This aligns with the terminology used for similar events, such as bombings, which are properly labeled to reflect their deliberate nature. Simple. StarkReport (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support (weak because of grammar issues) Attacks is more precise term. However, explosions clearly attaches to the device mentioned in the title, while attack is typically mentally attached to an animate actor (e.g., Hezbollah, Lebanon, etc.). The heading should be phrased to clarify that the devices were the agents of the attack, rather than Lebanon or Hezbollah.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Some editors are considering these sections entirely separately - and I think that puts us at risk of having a title that is very unclear/ambiguous. Pager attacks is pretty clear (attack on pagers), electronics explosions is clear (there were electronics that exploded), but electronics attack(s) is ambiguous. Was it an electronic attack (i.e. jamming)? Was it an attack on electronics infrastructure (i.e. cell phone towers or internet infrastructure)? Was it an attack that used electronics as the vector for the attack (this is the closest)? Does anyone have ideas for potential other words (other than explosions or attacks) that may be better? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can't think of much that isn't too wordy or problematic for other reasons – e.g. explosive electronics attacks introduces more problems than it solves. I don't honestly think electronics (plural) is that likely to cause confusion regarding electronic attacks (singular). A shame that something like 2024 explosive sabotage of Hezbollah communication devices is just so verbose... GhostOfNoMan 22:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  (I'm not suggesting that latter title; just an example of how lengthy a title can sometimes grow when the goal is to remove all ambiguity. Or it's just a display of the poverty of my imagination when it comes to naming things...) GhostOfNoMan 22:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Per my comment in the previous RM, RS describe the events as an attack. मल्ल (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sources are using "device explosions" and that is what has happened in both cases. Attacks is not wrong but explosions is more specific and equally concise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The device explosion was the attack, while both are accurate, it would appear that attack is the more common title. Andre🚐 06:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both "attack" and "explosions" are equally accurate descriptors in isolation, but when combined with "Lebanon" or "Hezbollah" in a title, "attack" is more prone to misreading that Lebanon/Hezbollah was the source rather than the target. jnestorius^(talk) 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Attack is not a *bad* descriptor per se, but it creates ambiguity that a reader unfamiliar with the event will think that this means throwing or bludgeoning with pagers, rather than them as a vector for an explosive. So would prefer "explosions" as that solves that ambiguity. I could live with "attacks" though if that was the consensus.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 7 October 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.

Including "Israeli sabotage attack"

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 - 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.

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

  [10] 12 current and former defense and intelligence officials who were briefed on the attack say the Israelis were behind it

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

  [12] 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)

• 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)
• Oppose sabotage, support attacks, ambivalent to Israeli. On the one hand, Israeli attacks is accurate, as far as we currently know, but WP:NCWWW means we should go with when (2024), where (Lebanon) and what (pager/electronics attacks), not who (Hezbollah or Israel) or how (explosions, sabotage). This also has the benefit of being immediately recognisable and being as close to a WP:COMMONNAME (as per recent RSes) as we're likely to get. So, it should be 2024 Lebanon electronics attacks, though I would settle for 2024 Lebanon pager attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not WP:CONCISE. Unnecessary lead detail, and the wording makes assumptions that are not clearly established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary and confusing, and potentially ambiguous. Andre🚐 06:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose -- sabotage is definitionally the wrong word to apply here for a supply chain explosive attack. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 7 October 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 raised the bot's edit limit for posting in subject-space from 0RR to 1RR. Hopefully will mitigate this issue in the future. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:17, 28 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)

Personally, I think the terms of the RM are too broad and we should have done it one title change at a time. E.g., I would have started with a proposed change to 2024 Lebanon pager attack first, then one for electronics, and so on. Alternatively, we should just have asked everyone to give their preferred title and any compromise titles they'd also accept and just gone with that. With multiple discussions each on one or two words in the title, you run the risk of the final title being nonsense like Israeli sabotage attacks Hezbollah devices attacks (to give one example). Lewisguile (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's also impossible to know if we should keep the year or remove it without knowing what the rest of the title will be. For example, I support the title Pager and walkie-talkie attacks, so I voted for removing the year. But many other titles are too broad without the year. FunLater (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. And trying to assess consensus

ll be a nightmare. I've tried to re-edit my !votes to clarify which options I'd like in every answer, but not everyone has done that.i

Lewisguile (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I like this format for a potential RM/name change with several potential permutations of possibilities. It allows us to quickly see where there is or is not consensus and in theory we should be able to make at least gradual improvements to the article's name. It's also much easier to figure out than a million "Option 1, Option 2, etc." variations. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:47, 7 October 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)

Note: WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Telecommunications, WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Computer Security, WikiProject Explosives, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, and WikiProject Israel have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 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.

Article 7(3) on booby traps

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

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

And:

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

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

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

Fuller quote form Boothby (emphasis is mine): "Of course, if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the paragraph 3 requirements are probably satisfied because the pagers issued to Hezbollah were likely “in the close vicinity” of the users to whom they were issued, thus satisfying sub-paragraph (a)." So, while he talks in probabilities, he is definitely more confident that 7(3)(a) is satisfied than it is not. Since his article is the main secondary source, omitting this relevant exception in Article is againts NPOV. So I think we should mention the relevant part either by quoting that part from Article 7(3) ("it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies [...] unless [...] they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective" [13]) or by mentioning Boothby opinion on evaluating targets as "military objectives" (he mentions this phrase a lot) and specifically on applicability of Art. 7(3)(a). --M5 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I forgot to subscribe to this topic.

You're missing the bit where he clearly says: "The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis." (At present, he thinks they were illegal, and that's his opinion.)

And: "Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps."

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

Which satisfies his "if" for now. Ergo, 7(3) is irrelevant because 7(2) is satisfied. 7(3) is only relevant if 7(2) is not satisfied. If we add in Article 7(3), we also have to explain that overall he still thinks the attacks were illegal as per 7(2) and that 7(3) is probably irrelevant, which is just wasted space.Lewisguile (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are the quotes from the source expanded for context:

"The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis. Further details as to the devices in later reports may, of course, affect this provisional conclusion. Note should also be taken of Article 7(3), which provides ... unless either: (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective. Of course, if later available information confirms the illegality of the weapons as such, the paragraph 3 provisions become potentially moot. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the paragraph 3 requirements are probably satisfied because the pagers issued to Hezbollah were likely “in the close vicinity” of the users to whom they were issued, thus satisfying sub-paragraph (a).

So, he clearly does not say, "my provisional opinion - that's illegal." His current opinion regarding the article is: "The event falls under Art. 7(2) but with Art. 7(3)(a) exception satisfied (unless some new information appears in the future)." Therefore, this quote alone does not support dropping the mention of Article 7(3). The other quotes are from the part that starts with "For completeness, mention should also be made of “other devices”..." which is merely his attempt to evaluate whether the pagers fall under "booby traps" or under the definition of "other devices" (which are "manually activated" and not booby traps) in Article 2. He concludes that they are indeed booby traps, but that does not invalidate his previous conclusion regarding the applicability of both Art. 7(2) AND Art. 7(3). So in Boothby opinion both Article 7(2) and 7(3)(a) are relevant and omission of 7(3)(a) is NPOV. M5 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps if there was consensus among RSes agreeing that the devices weren't illegal under 7(2), it might be, but there isn't. Which means, at present, that adding 7(3) means we would have to lay out the whole situation in detail with all the nuances (including that 7(3) may be irrelevant anyway if the devices were illegal), which is beyond the scope of this article, and giving it additional space is undue.

We aren't required to state a source's full point in all its detail, only to present the major viewpoints as a whole and any significant minority opinions. The first part of his argument (re: 7(2)) reflects the major viewpoints; almost no one else has mentioned 7(3), meaning it's not even a significant opposing viewpoint.

I think we're at an impasse unless anyone else can chime in to settle this for us? Lewisguile (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Qassim Qassir

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

Qassim Qassir came up again in the news cycle in September. In articles before September 24, the usual pattern holds, but from September 24 onward, reliable sources, including AP, instead elect to describe him as a "former Hezbollah member who wrote a book". This change in tone should probably be reflected in the article. As such, I propose that all descriptions of Qassim Qassir be changed to reflect more recent sources, with those sources cited^[14].

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

Dieknon (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Requested move 21 October 2024

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

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

---

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

• Too soon. Give time for the dust from the last RM to settle before proceeding with a new one. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are you sure? The last one had tapered off over the last couple of weeks anyway, so the responses were only coming in in drips and drabs. Most of us probably want to see this resolved (personally, I think the last closer should've just gone with the option they suggested anyway). But I'm happy to park this if you/others feel strongly that we need a break. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm happy to reclose it as the Frankenclose if that's what people would prefer - I was uneasy about doing that, as I said, because no one ever got the chance to actually agree that they liked that one as a unit. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  That may be the way to go. I would be fine with that title. Shall we see if anyone else responds to my RM? If there's crickets all around, it might mean there's no real passion to oppose the Frankenclose, and we can go with that. The last RM had people responding in their droves (at least initially), so I would expect people to do the same if they disagreed with it, at least. Lewisguile (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Happy with reclosing per the frankenclose. Or happy to proceed on this one. Don't see the point in waiting when the previous discussion did not fail, it was just to complex to complete. In which case this is all part of the same process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  That was my thinking, too. Lewisguile (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Supporting a move to 2024 Israel's pagers attack in Lebanon as there is no reason why we should avoid mentioning Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  After reconsideration, 2024 Israel's electronic devices attack in Lebanon is better as not only pagers were targeted. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your revised suggestion is better, but I oppose multiplying the options. Let's choose between 1 and 2. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It need not be the end state but 1 or 2 will be an improvement for the very reason you mention here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. We can always do an RM to add Israel's or Israeli later, but multiplying the options increases the likelihood we'll get no consensus again. I'd rather we get to a good title now than keep it where it is. Lewisguile (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks per arguments in last RM.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support moving to 2024 Israeli electronic devices attack in Lebanon, as I agree with @Makeandtoss that attribution of the perpetrator should be included in the title. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not split the vote. Any RM now won't prejudice and RM later. We can run an RM for Israeli later. Lewisguile (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, for the options you presented:

  Support Option 1 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. The phrase captures the scope and content of the page, and the addition of explosions isn't necessary. The inclusion of Hezbollah is problematic as it implies a targeted, discriminate attack, when the page cites high quality RS including the UN and Amnesty International saying it was indiscriminate. I also agree with your point that "Hezbollah attacks" is very clunky, not policy-based, and creates more problems that it solves.

However, the perpetrator is not in question in RS and presents no issues with the phrasing, so it should be included, but that's for a future discussion. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2024 Hezbollah pager and walkie talkie attacks. I prefer that to electronic device. If I have to choose a combination of the phrases given though, I think it should have "Hezbollah" and "attack." Andre🚐 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: And why do you think it should not have the perpetrator in the title? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  As raised in the prior RM, the major problem with this is that it could be read as an attack made by Hezbollah, not on Hezbollah. Lebanon was chosen per WP:NCWWW which suggests we should default to what, where and when, not who or why. Hence, 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. Electronic device was deemed preferable to pager and walkie talkie because it was more concise. Hezbollah was primarily suggested as an alternative since some devices exploded in Syria. Personally, though, I don't think Hezbollah attacks is policy-based, and creates more problems than it solves. Lewisguile (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose this suggestion. No point relitigating the previous discussion and multiplying the options. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support option 1, neutral option 2, oppose no action. WP:RS describe this as an "attack" as shown in the previous RM. The current title is horrendous as it is, so it should be removed and replaced with something more accurately reflected in sources. We finally converged on a couple titles that work. Awesome Aasim 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks in this run-off between only the two proposed titles for the reason of using active voice "attacks" rather than passive voice "explosions". Other titles may be better and should be brought up in future requested moves. Support doing this speedily per the outcome of the previous requested move. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it would be good to keep this on topic so we can resolve it quickly. Lewisguile (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support both options. Prefer 2. Reasoning in th eprevious discussion. Time to get this done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 26 October 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.

Casualties of the Israel-Hamas conflict

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

There was a prior discussion you may have missed. The Gaza casualties were added specifically because Hezbollah said this was a motivator for them joining the conflict, so it was considered relevant for that section. The point wasn't to rehash why Hamas and Israel are at war here, just why Hezbollah joined. Lewisguile (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)