Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

A few points

First of all, some of the English language sources that I've reviewed do not state that ONLY Hezbollah militants were injured. Secondly, the "Background" section contains multiple past attacks involving Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel, while many of the sources have nothing to do with the pager explosions (not including the defense official issue). This is likely a violation of WP:SYNTH, where editors try to connect multiple events together because they believe the events are related even when no reliable source made a connection. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There is currently no indication that the car explosion in Syria had anything to do with the pager explosions in Lebanon. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both. 1. This is isolated to lebanon and 2. apparently Iran's ambassador was also wounded, along with civilians.Sportsnut24 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 17 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: not moved. Editors found consensus against including Syria in the title, given that the vast majority of the explosions occurred in Lebanon.

Several other suggestions for changes to the title were made, including replacing "Lebanon" with "Hezbollah" (which had general, although not universal, support among those who commented on it), replacing "pager" with "communications" or "electronics", and replacing "explosions" with "attack(s)". The discussion about these was too lost in the shuffle to produce a clear consensus, but there is no prejudice against a renomination focusing on them. For organizational purposes, I would suggest that any future RM be split into sections so that each change can be considered independently. Sdkb ^talk 20:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Lebanon pager explosions → 2024 Lebanon–Syria pager explosions – Reports on pager explosions in Syria with multiple confirmed deaths: Times of Israel Prodrummer619 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – It appears that most sources are focusing on Lebanon as this was the primary site of the explosion, with significantly less in Syria. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – it appears the overwhelming majority of injuries took place inside Lebanon. Reliable sources report 3,000 injuries in Lebanon, and only 14 in Syria (BBC). These numbers may change, but as it stands this seems primarily a Lebanese event – which is exactly how it's being discussed and headlined in most reliable sources. Including Syria in the infobox and lead is enough, IMHO. GhostOfNoMan 18:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral – I would propose a rename to 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions (or similar), since that seems to be the central association between the explosions. Nearly half of those killed were in Syria. Here's an example of the BBC using the name "Hezbollah pager explosions" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz04m913m49o Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I tend to agree with GhostOfNoMan; the overwhelming majority of this incident happened within Lebanon. Whizkin (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be renamed 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions because it were Hezbollah's pagers that exploded (not restricting geographic range). MathKnight 19:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea Whizkin (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I very much support this. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions, per MathKnight and Eastwood Park and strabane. - Sebbog13 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - Although the majority of the explosions occurred in Lebanon, the number of explosions in Syria was more than a handful (so far it's in the double-digits), and (as of this writing) the death toll in Syria is similar to the death toll in Lebanon. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing my !vote in light of recent developments: to rename to Coordinated attacks on Hezbollah's mobile communication systems.

1. No need to disambiguate with the year, since it's so unique
2. Covers both the pagers and walkie talkies
3. Covers all geographic locations of the explosions.

The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Jerusalem Post reports that "operatives" are also wounded in Iraq (link). Thuresson (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Jerusalem Post does not report a specific number of explosions in Iraq, nor any injuries or deaths in Iraq. Therefore, I would treat all information about explosions in Iraq as "unconfirmed" until we get more specific information. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - There are relatively fewer mentions of explosions in Syria in the media and the target remains Lebanese Hezbollah (not to be confused with Iraqi Hezbollah). The fact that Lebanese Hezbollah has a presence in Syria and as such some pager explosions also happened in Syria, is insignificant and likely a coincidence caused by the explosions being indiscriminate. RisingTzar (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose for this proposed title; the overwhelming majority of the pagers were in Lebanon, as RS coverage has proven. I strongly support this article's move to the title of 2024 Lebanon pagers attack; this is a state-terrorist attack, not an "explosion." Makeandtoss (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss Apart from Twitter who else is calling it a state-terrorist attack? Prodrummer619 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Scholars will eventually describe it for what it is, a state-terrorist attack. Aside from the description, the proposed title of 2024 Lebanon pagers attack is currently supported by RS: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don’t go off of what you or anyone here thinks will “eventually” happen. If you’re going to continue calling it a “terrorist attack” here that shows you don’t want to contribute in good faith but only to push your POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No one said we will or we should; I clearly and explicitly differentiated between the descriptor (terrorist attack), and the title (attack); the latter is the topic of discussion here. As for the lack of assumption of good faith and the ad hominem, I will not respond to that. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I am wary of titles with the word 'attack' in them because it is not always clear if the subject was attacked, or was doing the attacking; explosions rings more like the former. Havradim leaf a message 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See my comment below, where I suggest using both terms. Havradim leaf a message 02:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are more RS that use the word "attack": Guardian,Axios, WSJ.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose proposed title, would support a title similar to 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions to remove the country (since it occurred in at least 2 countries) as recommended above, but there’s unlikely to be enough emphasis on that proposed title here to prevent another RM from being necessary for that title specifically. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Support this. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title, it should probably be something along the lines of 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions Scuba 21:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support the title as it accurately reflects the countries where this took place. Also support calling this "attack" as WP:CONSISTENT with other events in this conflict: Nabatieh attack, Majdal Shams attack etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and second other suggestions of 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions, a simple descriptive title that avoids this particular controversy. LjL (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions" as there is significant evidence that civilians unaffiliated with Hezbollah were killed and wounded in the attack.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  • The devices doing the exploding are Hezbollah pagers. There is generally significant evidence of collateral damage in targeted attacks, that doesn't mean we need to use vague titles. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    Whether this is a targeted attack at all is disputed by some RS. Many have called it "indiscriminate"[8][9][10]. Pagers belonging to healthcare workers might also be affected[11].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Some mainstream outlets may have got it wrong that only Lebanon was targeted. Syria was targeted too. Dympies (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions is a better title, though this suggested title is better than the current one. Raskuly (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support No reason to exclude Syria from the title. Bremps... 03:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Probably something like "mobile device explosions" now that handheld radios are involved. Bremps... 05:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as Syria wasn't affected as nearly severe as Lebanon. — -kgoodluck- /// ✉️ 05:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: It should be named 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions, the attack was not specifically targeted at Lebanon or Syria geographically or governmentally, it was targeted at Hezbollah, some of them just happened to also be in Syria.MarkiPoli (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Per recent developments regarding exploding walkie-talkies, I would also support 2024 Hezbollah wireless device explosions. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: - I oppose renaming to 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions per VR. Tule-hog (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for simplicity and clarity. The event overwhelmingly affected Lebanon more than Syria. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and second other proposals to rename this to 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions. While there were explosions in Syria and Iraq, this batch of pagers were ordered specifically for Hezbollah operations and handed out to Hezbollah members annd involved officials.

Amayorov (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose moving to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. Support something like 2024 Hezbollah pager attack, which reflects the targeted nature of the incident and focuses on Hezbollah as the primary entity affected while acknowledging the broader implications of the attack beyond just Lebanon. Mooonswimmer 11:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment:

  19 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members were killed after their pagers had exploded in Deir ez-Zur in eastern Syria, Saudi news source Al-Hadath reported Wednesday afternoon. (The Jerusalem Post)

  "15 people killed on September 17 across Syria" (Syrian Observatory For Human Rights) Mooonswimmer 14:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose requested move as not very concise; suggest move to Hezbollah pager explosions per reliable sources. I don't see why the date qualifier is needed — was there ever another co-ordinated Hezbollah pager attack? Even if IRGC was also affected, it is because they were acting in support of Hezbollah; i.e. they were not systematically attacked nor the main target. Havradim leaf a message 14:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Reaffirming my preference below for Lebanon exploding electronic device attacks after re-reading this discussion. See AP: "... fears of a greater war rise after hundreds of electronic devices exploded in Lebanon ..." Reports suggest not only pagers are involved but an array of other electronic devices including walkie talkies, solar panels, laptops, and radios. Havradim leaf a message 12:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support 2024 Hezbollah wireless device explosions — Per recent developments. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support 2024 Hezbollah wireless device explosions or 2024 Hezbollah communication device explosions per the recent developments. Arab News The Guardian Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But few sources are calling it "wireless device explosions", they are instead referring to the second wave as "walkie-talkies"[12] or "handheld radios"[13]. Maybe September 2024 Lebanon explosions?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There are now reports of solar systems exploding[14] in homes.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support new title; "2024 Hezbollah pager explosions" It's clear these attacks are targeting a group and not a country. Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Explosions of different devices (mostly communication devices) are now being reported. It might be ideal to wait until the reports are more concrete, as I think one page covering both incidents would make more sense, and a different title would be needed to accurately reflect the subject. Mooonswimmer 15:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It occurred on a larger scale in Lebanon and was directed at Hezbollah, which is headquartered there. EpicAdventurer (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and it should instead be renamed to 2024 Lebanon pager attack Lebanon electronics attack (with or without year), as WP:RS are stating that Israel was the active perpetrator of this attack. Using the word explosions in the article title is akin to renaming the September 11 attacks article to "September 11 explosions." JasonMacker (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, instead Support something similar to Lebanon electronics attacks. Date qualifier is not needed since this is the first time an attack has occurred through such a vector. Electronics due to recent developments of various other devices, including walkie talkies, radios, and solar systems, exploding.[15][16][17] Attacks per Makeandtoss and JasonMacker. RS describe the events as an attack by Israel.[18][19][20][21][22] Articles with explosion in the title are typically limited to accidents such as the Halifax Explosion or 2020 Beirut explosion. मल्ल (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is better than mine and I have updated my comment to reflect that.--JasonMacker (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Lebanon electronics attack seems like the best title at this time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

मल्ल and Vice regent, this title leaves out Syria. Anyway, the countries of Lebanon and Syria per se were not the intended targets, although that is where the attacks occurred. Your title is a bit ambiguous, as though Lebanon could be the one conducting the electronics attack against another party. I could see maybe Attacks on Hezbollah electronic device users (see the redirect Attacks on Hezbollah leaders). 'Hezbollah' casts a wide net, including fighters, politicians, party members and social workers, whether the latter groups were specifically targeted or not. I believe all reliable sources mention the Hezbollah angle in their reporting. Havradim leaf a message 21:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Though a little wordy, this seems to be the best suggestion so far. Arcturus95 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Its not about who the target was - which is disputed anyway - but about where it happened. Can you take a look at WP:NCWWW? It suggests we name an event by "when, where, what" happened. There "where" is primarily Lebanon.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Leaving out Syria in the article's title is fine. Vietnam war leaves out the fact that the war also took place in Cambodia. The goal of the article title is simply to refer to the primary location of the subject, and in this case its Lebanon. JasonMacker (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

After re-reading WP:NCWWW, I think Lebanon exploding electronic device attacks might be appropriate. Attacks without some mention of explosions — a term that is highly mentioned in sources — seems a bit vague. Electronic devices do not simply attack people, so exploding in the title is a useful term for this highly unusual and unlikely to be repeated in Lebanon anytime soon event, per WP:CRYSTAL. Electronic covers solar panels, which as of now seem to have been involved (otherwise, mobile device would be better). See the following sources:

• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/lebanon-rocked-by-2nd-wave-of-exploding-device-attacks-targeting-hezbollah
• Lebanon is rocked again by exploding devices as Israel declares a 'new phase' of war
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pager-new-device-explosions-lebanon-hezbollah-rcna171637
• https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-condemns-attacks-lebanon-involving-exploding-communications-devices-2024-09-18/

Havradim leaf a message 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which one between Lebanon exploding electronic device attacks or Lebanon exploding electronics attacks sounds better, but I'd support either. मल्ल (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose:The best title suggested so far is 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions. The explosions targeted members of Hezbollah, whether they were in Syria or Lebanon. This is the essence of the event. DaringDonna (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Walkie talkies and other devices have also exploded. See here:

  [23] David O. Johnson (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just came here to say that. | MK17b | (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. It's better to title it as 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions, which takes into account both Syria and Lebanon. Mentioning Syria in title is not as important because the explosions were majorly in Lebanon. Waonderer (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and instead go for electronics explosion attack against Hezbollah, for a multiple reasons: not all electronics that exploded were wireless (it includes solar panels), it takes into consideration both countries, includes the name of the prime target of the attack, does not include the year because this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware and it makes clear that Hezbollah is not the perpetrator. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I support a proposed new title of " 2024 Hezbollah communication device explosions". The attacks were targeted at the group Hezbollah and not just one specific country. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Waonderer, Kind Tennis Fan, and PhotographyEdits: Take a look at this search results which shows the title including Lebanon is the WP:COMMONNAME. We don't select the titles based on original research. Plus it is known that civilians were also targeted by the attack. -- Mhhossein ^talk 09:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think @Kind Tennis Fan's title is perfect. FloridaMan21 22:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: our naming convention WP:NCWWW suggests we name things according to "when, where and what", although sometimes we can drop the "when" if not needed. In this case, the "where" is either "Lebanon" or "Lebanon-Syria" and this is simply undisputed. Replacing the where with "Hezbollah" is problematic for a few reasons:
  • If there was a target, then the intended target of the first round of explosions alone is disputed (see Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Target below). No one officially claimed responsibility. In the second round of explosions, it becomes even more tenuous to say the solar panel explosions were targeted against Hezbollah.
  • Multiple RS have reported that the explosions were not targeted but "indiscriminate"[24][25][26].
  • "Hezbollah device explosions" is ambiguous, as if Hezbollah was the perpetrator, which is false.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, location is preferred precisely because having an organisation name is always ambiguous as to whether it it subject or object. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title, but support 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions, which is still the WP:COMMONNAME in the media as of right now. Removing the year is an exception rather than the norm per the naming convention WP:NCWWW, and we lack the historical perspective mentioned in the guideline to have the year removed. Usually we try to keep the year unless the event can easily be described without it, which only a handful of articles for well known world events usually end up qualifying for. Pilaz (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  But WP:NCWWW, the policy you quote, says we should use the place, which would indicate either "Lebanon" or "Lebanon-Syria".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very minor spillover of operatives in Syria doesn't justify a name change.Spilia4 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this, but also support the alternative of a move to 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions — The Anome (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• We can dodge the Lebanon vs. Syria question by specifying "Hezbollah" since that was the target, regardless of which country the victims were in. Since the second wave of the attack involved other mobile devices, I suggest changing "pager" to "mobile device." We don't need a year in the title because it's a unique event. If it happens again we can add a year to disambiguate. Perhaps Hezbollah mobile device explosions would be most accurate. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The current title is perfectly adequate at this stage, and reflects the natural and recognisable language that people will be searching for. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: We want people to easily find the page, right? Keep it succinct. There's a case for using the word 'attack' in lieu of explosions. Oathed (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:, but support 2024 Hezbollah pager explosions as was suggested by others. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't think the title should include other areas since Lebanon was the major target. Had an overview of the comments and realized some users are suggesting to include Hezbollah in the title which I oppose. To prove it, I made a quick search without including Lebanon in my keywords and the result is indicating that the tile with Lebanon is the WP:COMMONNAME in the media. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment pager is outdated. Oppose inclusion of Syria as it appears Lebanon is primarily affected. Borgenland (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – It appears that most sources are focusing on Lebanon as this was the primary site of the explosion, with significantly less in Syria. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rename: Whilst I initially would've supported the matter in question given the direct correlation of events - hence WP:WM - it should be acknowledged that the events are somewhat, albeit debatably, distinguished since the first incident extended towards the Syrian region, and thus relating to WP:LGL. Therefore as an alternative compromise, be it considered that this is renamed 2024 Hezbollah communications attack; Both incidents should be listed with their own respective infoboxes detailed separately. Furthermore, granted that these infiltrations impacted two separate communicative means, the proposed rename should be recognised as an adequate juncture, in contrast with identifying them as two distinct events under a merged or even different article, as per WP:MOS. TheRevisionary (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Israeli 2024 (exploding) pager attack on Hesbollah.No geography. The group targeted, the targeter. You don't need anything else.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The first word, "Israeli", would be a violation of WP:NPOV because Israel has not acknowledged the attack, and nobody has been able to prove that Israel is the culprit. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is not what NPOV means. nableezy - 14:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Really? About WP:PRECISE? The article says that Israel is the allegeded perpetrator. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Actual reliable sources are very clear that it was an Israeli attack. nableezy - 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which "reliable sources are very clear that it was an Israeli attack"? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The NY Times for one. nableezy - 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  You may want to go back and re-read the NY Times. Here is what it actually says: "Israel has neither confirmed nor denied any role in the explosions, but 12 current and former defense and intelligence officials who were briefed on the attack say the Israelis were behind it." That's not a proof. That's allegations. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  You don’t need Israel’s confirmation for it to be widely reported as being an Israeli operation. We aren’t an organ of the Israeli government, their confirmation or their denial is cute but unimportant. nableezy - 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  (e/c) Have all counties/ organisation agreed that Israel was the perpetrator? I can think of one which hasn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no evidence of Israeli involvement and most sources continue to only call them the alleged perpetrator. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  No part of that is true. NYTimes: How Israel Built a Modern-Day Trojan Horse: Exploding Pagers. AP: An American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel briefed the U.S. on the operation — where small amounts of explosives hidden in the pagers were detonated. There are a ton of sources that say Israel was behind this, and none disputing it. nableezy - 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this title, support Israeli pager sabotage attack. nableezy - 14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. The title we have came up immediately editors responded to a reports of widespread pager explosions. Since sources could only speculate that was a logical choice. Since the obvious is now documented, and inside intelligence leaks provide a detailed reconstruction of how Israel organized the operation - the New York Times is describing it neutrally as an established fact (Sheera Frenkel, Ronen Bergman and Hwaida Saad, 'How Israel Built a Modern-Day Trojan Horse: Exploding Pagers,' New York Times 18 September 2024) and they are usually extremely cautious, we have no reason to hold the use of the descriptor 'Israeli' in the title. We do so commonly, as in Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel. Even the very wording and its variations - 'Hezbollah pager explosions' - could technically read as pagers, owned by who?, Hezbollah blew up. Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I instead support something along the lines of 2024 Lebanon electronics attack (or replace attack with explosions, electronics with communications) given that "Smartphones, solar panels, radios, intercoms and car batteries were amongst other devices that reportedly also exploded on that day." Having the title only include "pagers", to me, does not seem like it reflects current reliable sources. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any title without "attack" because WP:RS has described it as an attack. [27] [28] [29]. I am still unsure about what the rest of the title should be, but I think it should be something along the lines of "2024 ... attacks" or "2024 attacks on ...". Awesome Aasim 16:13, 19 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.

lithium batteries

We're currently speculating that the lithium batteries exploded, but that's contradicted by the cited AP article which says: “A lithium ion battery fire is one thing, but I’ve never seen one explode like that. It looks like a small explosive charge” Maybe we should remove the speculation about lithium batteries. Uhoj (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a source that mentions lithium batteries as source for the explosion. Until we have information to rule this out, it should stay. PS. Reports are that the exploding pager is a "Gold Alpha Pager 924" from "Apollo Systems".[30] This device is powered by AAA batteries.[31] The compromised device would still need to work until detonated, which speaks in favor of a battery explosion. If the AAA batteries are lihium ion and compromised to e.g. be made without pressure relief vents, and to start a thermal runaway if their charging current exceeds a given threshold, then this could well lead to the observed effect. At least, this cannot be ruled out at this stage. Lklundin (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to keep the news media speculation about batteries in the article at present, but no, it's impossible. All the devices exploded nearly simultaneously, with seemingly the same strength. Did everybody keep their pagers fully charged? Also, editors here should keep in mind that is is to the benefit of whoever pulled this off that plenty of misinformation floods the zone. Abductive (reasoning) 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Our article claims the pagers were also recently imported there might have been limited time to notice mild unexpected behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, your link states that the 924 has a "lithium battery backup" that presumably would be kept fully charged by the AAA batteries. Warren Platts (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, it's looks pretty definite now according to a NYT article [32]. The pagers are from Taiwan and Israel tampered with them adding 1-2oz. of explosive material near the battery plus a switch. At 3:30pm, a message was sent out that activated the switch causing all of them to explode, according to some "anonymous US officials." They also report that cyber security experts say it probably was explosives.

For what it's worth, CNN is quoting cybersecurity experts who are doubting the lithium battery theory and are theorizing that explosives were somehow inserted into thousands of pagers. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for the battery drivel, anyway? It's shown as "citation needed" now, but if I'm not mistaken, before it was indicating the AP News article, which just doesn't mention any of that. I think it should be removed, sources get old quickly with these events. LjL (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Background

The article currently connects the Israel-Lebanon conflict to the Israel-Hamas war in a very one-sided way. It mentions the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, but doesn't mention the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip and the invasion. The statement selectively quotes the source, as the source itself says Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has stressed the armed group is ready, but not eager, for war. He says if there is a ceasefire agreed in Gaza, Hezbollah will cease fire too, immediately. Indeed in another source, "If there is a ceasefire in Gaza, we will stop without any discussion," Hezbollah's deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Kassem, said in an interview with The Associated Press at the group's political office in Beirut's southern suburbs.[33]. That article, written in July, also points out that that 37,900 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's invasion. This is probably the most salient aspect of the Israel-Hamas war.

I added the death of 40,000 Palestinians, but this too was removed. Other RS have also mentioned the Palestinian death toll when mentioning Hezbollah's rationale for fighting. For example: Hezbollah says its attacks aim to support the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where nearly 18,000 people – most of them women and children – have been killed by Israel in two months. Al Jazeera Dec 2023 A war between the militant Palestinian group and Israeli forces that so far has killed more than 19,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to Gaza's health ministry. Israel says about 1,200 people were killed in the Oct. 7 attack. After the Gaza war started, Hezbollah responded by attacking Israeli targets in northern Israel. NPR December 2023 Indeed, in a BBC interview, Hezbollah's deputy leader has referred to "Israel is increasing its aggression against civilians and killing more women and children" as his rationale for fighting.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

As a side note – it was, at one point, completely incorrect about the timeline: it incorrectly suggested Hezbollah began their attacks in response to Israel's ground invasion of Gaza, when in reality Hezbollah began their attacks against Israel on 8 October, one day after Hamas' incursion, in "solidarity".

Right now, that section is essentially just a summary with the same information as the lead of Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Does adding death counts from Gaza really make that section more neutral? GhostOfNoMan 21:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip encompasses all Israeli attacks against Gaza on and since October 7 (check the article please). And certainly the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip started on Oct 7 itself. Hezbollah has repeatedly called for "solidarity" with Palestinians, including women and children, as sources show above. Omitting the death count does make the section non-neutral and just because NPOV is violated elsewhere, doesn't mean it should be violated here too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah obviously weren't reacting to an invasion that hadn't begun yet. See Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Invasion, the invasion didn't begin on October 7 no matter what the infobox date is, hence the note attached. If the article said Hezbollah were reacting to the "Israeli invasion" that's incredibly misleading to readers. There was no invasion on the 7th or 8th. The article did say something like that when I looked earlier. Now it's a clear timeline 2A04:4A43:52BF:ECDE:782E:7BC6:9B97:57B7 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip not a prelude to the invasion? In any case, would you support the change with term "bombing" instead of "invasion"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Still can't retcon in a death toll that didn't exist on October 8. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is trying to do that, but rather indicate a death toll that was true on the eve of the pager attack.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant to the reason Hizballah began attacking Israel on October 8. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But its relevant to why the Israel-Hezbollah conflict continues.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"According to the ACLED, from 7 October 2023 to 6 September 2024, Israel attacked Lebanon 7,845 times. Hezbollah and other Lebanese forces attacked Israel 1,768 times." I can't see a rationale for putting this in the article, other than to make Israel look bad. "Attack" isn't defined, and the sentence doesn't explain why the conflict continues, or any reason for this attack. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think its there to make Israel look bad, but rather indicates the scale of the attacks that have been taking place since October 8? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Trim the background. All the details can be in the other article. no need for expansive "context" that triggers disupute when the real article is about yesterday's events.Sportsnut24 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's one paragraph on the background, summarized from the main article and hardly seems excessive. And the last line's "6,124 Israeli vs. 1,258 Lebanese attacks" (yes, sourced) casts as much bad light on Israel as is necessary. Remove the tag. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Provocation

"...Hezbollah, then unprovoked, joined the conflict in support of Hamas... declaring that it would not stop attacks against Israel until Israel stops military operations and attacks in Gaza" - Does this not imply that Israel's "military operations and attacks in Gaza" provoked Hezbollah? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It is very, very POV to say that attacks on Israel are unprovoked, given its 56 year long occupation of the Palestinians. Hezbollah has specifically stated its acting in solidarity with Palestinians.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to address provocation in Wikipedia voice because that's not our job. Our statements should be dry, free of moral judgement. We can report what each each side has said, and what other countries have said, with proper attribution. This is how disputed things can be rendered into indisputable facts. For example, "Hamas said X" is a fact when properly verified, whether or not X is true. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not our place to judge provocation, and doing so clearly violates NPOV. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"unprovoked" seems to have since been removed.[34] —Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 19 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[35] "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"[36]. 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."[37]

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."[38] 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.[39]

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)

Is security camera footage public domain in Lebanon?

If so, adding a video would improve this article. FunLater (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. And if it's not, then we should consider adding one under WP:NFCC. Sdkb ^talk 22:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There's probably a discussion about this somewhere on Commons. Sdkb ^talk 22:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:MCQ is an excellent place to ask. Plenty of knowledgeable people there. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I started a discussion there. FunLater (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2024

I believe the explosive behind the explosion was Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (PETN). [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]. Cyrogigabyte (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. That may well be true, or maybe not. But the sources listed above are either speculating or are unreliable (Daily Wire in particular). Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: how many people are in critical condition due to the pager explosions. Various news sources report the number as approximately 200 or "hundreds." 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV tag

@Nice4What: you removed the NPOV tag saying "NPOV issue has been resolved – background section was shortened". But the discussion regarding NPOV is still ongoing and the contested content is still in the background section, whereas the content that some want to insert is still not in the background. Furthermore there are two other NPOV discussions above on the targets and whether to include the death of a child, esp in the infobox.

Can you please self revert?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the tag, as evidenced by ongoing NPOV issue discussions both above this section and below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you remove the NPOV tag now? It seems like the issue has been resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 02:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan comment

[44]Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Already has been added. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

However, should it be shifted to the responses rection? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's more an investigation. Albeit Taipei did comment. Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Attack

The fact that this is an Israeli attack is now confirmed by RS like CNN: Israel behind deadly pager explosions that targeted Hezbollah and injured thousands in Lebanon => "Hezbollah has vowed to respond to an Israeli attack.." and "CNN has learned the explosions were the result of a joint operation between Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military. While the Israeli military has said it will not comment on the explosions, both Lebanon and Hezbollah have blamed it for the attack." So why was attack removed from the opening sentence? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, pretty much all RS are treating as an attack, including the famous Israeli journalist Barak Ravid[45].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Also emphasis on an Israeli attack and not just attack. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: There is no need for attribution, this has been accepted as fact by CNN, to cite one example. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

As this article is under "active arbitration", do I need to self-revert? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has now slightly altered it, so I will leave it as it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: There are no restrictions on self-reverting. The slight altering by the other editor did not change the presence of the redundant attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's still there. So some other editor(s) must think it's useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Not necessarily, and even if that was the case, they would have joined in on this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong view. I was simply trying to improve what was there before. If you think it's unnecessary, you could remove it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I will remove it given that there is no opposition. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this had to do with the original subject of this discussion thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Iran

Why is the Iranian reaction under "Other governments", when its diplomatic staff were among the victims? Can a Farsi speaker please look at sources in that language, for more?

Have other countries or organisations commented on this specific aspect of the attack? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Gold Apollo AR924 article

There's a section on this incident on Gold Apollo AR924. Please watch-list it, and see that facts and statistics are updated as necessary, when updated here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

When did the pager deliveries occur?

Perhaps this is not known. But it seems to be a key detail in the entire story. If this is known, I think it belongs in the lead and I am somewhat baffled as to why the {when} tag has been removed, with the edit summary: "it is not needed to specify when this was discovered, because the NYT was asking around people when it happened. Remove template." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We now have: "in months prior to the explosion", which seems to add very little, i.e. any time in the 7 months between February, when the warning over cell phones was issued, and when the explosions occurred? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We now have: "which were recently imported into Lebanon", which is very similar to the previous. I assume this has not been reliably reported, but may be in the coming days. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

IRGC may have been killed

Should this article be trusted? https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-820674 NesserWiki (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

JP not listed at WP:RSP and is described as centre, so probably safe. But source is Israeli Army Radio? So not too sure about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The linked item in the Jerusalem Post explicitly states the source of the information as "Saudi news source Al-Hadath." As for the reliability of the JP, it's a mainstream English-language Israeli daily newspaper whose print edition predates the founding of the State. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That was my concern in terms of neutrality.

Are the 19 IRGC deaths now included in the death toll? NesserWiki (talk) 22:30, 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.[46] 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)

Icom V82

That model was discontinued in 2014.(Rtrs) Icom has an advisory about counterfeits, calling "special attention" to the discontinued V82.(Icom) So it sounds like they bought Chinese counterfeits, which are readily available from disreputable internet sellers.[47] Pending confirmation in a WP:RS, we should reword the references to the radios more carefully. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

“I can guarantee you they were not our products,” said ... a senior sales manager for Icom’s amateur radio division, in an interview Wednesday. (AP) Moscow Mule (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition of possible IP protected material

This edit by @Acratopotes is potentially an IP violation and also potentially slanderous (if the depicted individual survives) given no RS have positively identified the person as a Hezbollah member. I removed the image for now, but I hope that someone with more expertise can step in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acratopotes Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn I am moving the file to another title on commons per Criterion 5 for now, and filing a CSD as well. – robertsky (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And RevDel'ed per RD2 here, [48]. – robertsky (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What exploded in the second wave

There are multiple reliable reports of other electronics explosions other than walki talkie:

Home solar panels : National News Agency (lebanese government official news agency)

Fingerprint biometric devices: BBC

cars and homes radios: Asharq News

yet,for some reason two editors removed the sourced contents purely based on personal preferences or their own OR without providing any reliable source that counters or denies these sources.

@PrimaPrime removed the content report by the lebanese government official news agency that states that explosions of home solar panels took place arguing: “ Solar water heater incident looks unrelated” (Pure OR)

While @David O. Johnson removed the report by Asharq News arguing: “Removed poorly sourced YouTube ref and related info” (probably didn’t notice that this youtube source was from Asharq news Agency)

I am pretty sure this is not how wikipedia works.

Stephan rostie (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I just watched the Asharq News video and, from what I understand, they were talking about these walkie-talkies being inside cars and homes when they exploded, not that other models of household or car radios were exploding. Could you provide a time-stamp in case I missed it? Moscow Mule (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There is a Neutrality tag that has been added to the top of the article, yet nothing here on the Talk page that is articulating what is non-neutral about the current article. If there is something specific, then a section tag or inline tag would help other editors know what the concern is. But if nothing is identified that can be addressed, then the tag should be removed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The #NPOV Background and #Targets discussions both raise separate neutrality concerns. GhostOfNoMan 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, it seems the main concerns in both discussions have been addressed or are no longer immediately relevant. "Hezbollah members" seems to have stuck in the latter discussion, and in the former we no longer refer to attacks as "provoked" or "unprovoked" and the section has been rewritten. GhostOfNoMan 16:51, 19 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)

Scope

What is the scope of this article? Is it only the attacks on the first day, or the second one as well, or (god forbid, for civilians' sake) a possible third one today? If it is not just the first day, then maybe the article's title, and scope which is defined in the opening sentence and paragraph, should be changed accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just pagers, was it? So I am surprised you've said, in the move discussion above, that you "strongly support this article's move to the title of 2024 Lebanon pagers attack. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing surprising, my comment on the move was made on the first day of the attacks, when only pagers were used. Now, the second day having passed, we have confirmed reports of the attacks including walkie-talkies, and allegedly, even solar panel parts. So not sure yet how RS will come to describe the whole series of attacks. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is still open? You're still happy with the current title? We might have to wait 24 hours from 15:30 EEST, to see if there's a third wave. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is why I opened this discussion, to see first what would make sense best for the move discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I suspect that both days will remain in this one article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 19 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.

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[49][50].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)

• 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)

• 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 [51]. 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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Support because walkie-talkies were also involved. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 18:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing "explosions" to "attacks"

• Support per my reason in the previous RM. WP:RS classify this as an "attack" including [52] [53] [54] 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)

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.

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

  [56] 12 current and former defense and intelligence officials who were briefed on the attack say the Israelis were behind it

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

  [58] 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [59]
• Jacobin: "Israel carried out two terrorist attacks across Lebanon this week, bringing the entire region ever closer to the brink of all-out war." [60]

Governments have also used this term:

• BBC: "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he told his Lebanese counterpart that he "strongly condemned Israeli terrorism"." [61]
• AJ: "Belgium’s deputy PM denounces ‘terror attack’ in Lebanon and Syria" [62]

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)