Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Confusing language in 'injuries section'

Hi

I've found something in the injuries section which are unclear. I don't know much about the topic so I'm leaving my comments here and hopefully someone who knows more can address it. It currently reads "An unnamed Hezbollah official told Reuters 1,500 Hezbollah fighters were taken out of action by injuries". 'Taken out of action' isn't a very clear way of describing the injuries, the source states 'many having been blinded or had their hands blown off', so perhaps 'maimed' would make more sense?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the source says they were put out of commission [1]. Alaexis_¿question? 22:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how DUE this is to include given we its an anonymous tip. By contrast the 4,000 civilians statement was publicly made by a Lebanese cabinet minister[2][3].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Misleading description of "civilians" in lead paragraph leaving out important info

"The attack killed at least 42 people, including at least 12 civilians, and injured around 4,000 civilians, according to the Lebanese government."

This is misleading and leads the reader to assume 4000 Lebanese civilians, unaffiliated with Hezbollah, were injured. It should be edited to state that according to the Lebanese government, the attack injured 4,000 members of Hezbollah, including those who held various non-combatant roles within the organization. Those who were issued pagers, were affiliated with Hezbollah in some shape or form. This should be made clear instead of plainly stating "4000 civilians". The citations throughout this page supports this assertion, and in fact is stated clearly in other later parts of this article.2600:4808:6395:1200:CCB4:B7BD:DC89:DABA (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not possible to know what readers assume from a statement attributed to the Lebanese government so there is no point talking about that. And the statement "The citations throughout this page supports this assertion, and in fact is stated clearly in other later parts of this article" does not appear to be consistent with the Deaths and injuries section. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I concede that the statement is attributed to the Lebanese government, and as such does not need any context provided the direct citation. On that, I stand corrected.

However, for the wiki page to not further inform the reader that pagers were held by members of hezbollah is withholding factual, accurate, and reported information and should be provided to the reader as much as the statement by the Lebanese government was provided to the reader.

Here are two citations from respected news sources stating pagers were held by hezbollah members: https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-hezbollah-israel-exploding-pagers-8893a09816410959b6fe94aec124461b

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/middleeast/israel-pager-attack-hezbollah-lebanon-invs-intl/index.html 2600:4808:6395:1200:792:1B82:6AF7:1FAC (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead could be better. But given that WP:ARBECR limits you to making specific edit requests per WP:EDITXY and given that the lead is just a summary of the article body, what I suggest is that you focus on one or more edit requests that amend the body of the article to include the information that you think is missing or not covered adequately. Then editors can re-summarize the article to incorporate that information in the lead. The lead is dependent on the article body. A valid reason to change a lead section is that it does not properly summarize the article body, not that it doesn't say what you want. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

4000 civilians injured - lead

There should be a caveat added to this statement that the lebanese government does not distinguish between hezbollah fighters and civilians in casualty tallies. 2A13:54C2:F000:CA9A:BD1:90A0:F62:49C7 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

As stated in the previous edit request, no one disputes that the pagers were held by Hezbollah members. So the correct caveat/qualifying statement here is to clarify that the 4000 injured were Hezbollah members - a mix of combatants and non-combatants, not 4000 ordinary Lebanese civilians. Citations (as stated in above edit request): https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-hezbollah-israel-exploding-pagers-8893a09816410959b6fe94aec124461b

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/middleeast/israel-pager-attack-hezbollah-lebanon-invs-intl/index.html 2600:4808:6395:1200:F9F4:1CA6:4AF1:55DC (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Pagers are NOT Booby Traps

""Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act"

-Article 2 of the Protocol II to the 1980 Convention. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.40_CCW%20P-II%20as%20amended.pdf.

This wikipedia page citing Protocol II's prohibition without its definition is odd and misleading. The pagers cannot be considered to be 'booby-traps' as the above definition clearly states that the mechanism functions 'when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object ..........'. The pagers were likely remotely detonated, and manually at that, all at the same time. This means that at the very least, there is room to argue that the attacks do NOT meet the definition of being by booby-traps. Or at worst the statement that it has anything to do with the protocol is outright misinformation. 103.138.49.150 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, there is potential space for someone to debate whether the 'beeping' counts towards the above for some, but it seems to me that the natural interpretation would be that it is an automatic mechanism that functions on the person without outside input, thus the 'functions unexpectedly when'. 103.138.49.150 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It meets Art. 7(2). which reads "It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material."

Ergo, the pagers were booby traps since Art. 7 specified such.

80.212.144.89 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It would still not meet the definition of booby-trap and all references to it being booby-trapped should ideally be removed. I reread the Protocol and came to the conclusion the pagers met the definition of 'other devices', but not pagers, as stipulated in Article 2(5). So to walk back my statement, it is not a booby-trap, but rather 'other devices'.

Also, Art. 7 did not specify as such, I don't see how using or suddenly means it is now a synonym. 103.138.49.150 (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)