Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon

Infobox

The infobox is currently bloated; I think there is no need to place UNIFIL and Lebanese army in separate columns; they should be placed below Hezbollah, but with clear dealination to avoid implying they are fighting together, but rather all being hit by the invading Israeli army. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to this or some other alternative to the current crowded situation. Mason7512 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. Can we move the LAF to the footnote because they are not even a belligerent in the conflict? ByteBaldur (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of the LAF is currently justified by this, I believe. Just putting the reasoning out there, not saying it is logical or illogical. Mason7512 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done what you've suggested. Please let me know what you think. Personally, I do think that this is a better format, since all three of the belligerents listed in that column (Hezbollah, LAF, UNIFIL) are being attacked by Israel and haven't fought each other. JasonMacker (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the casualty counts for Lebanon and Hezbollah overlap. The Lebanese Ministry of Health includes all Lebanese casualties (including Hezbollah). Likewise, RS include Hezbollah medics[1] among total medics killed.

Secondly, UNIFIL's mandate is to be neutral. I don't think we should put them under Lebanon/Hezbollah, rather they should indeed be in a third column.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't alter any of the content of the infobox. I only moved around what was already in it. Lebanon and Hezbollah's casualties were already overlapping before I slimmed it down from 4 columns to 2. So that has nothing to do with me changing the number of columns.

The fact that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and UNIFIL are in the same column does not imply that they are on the same "team". They have those horizontal divisions that separate them. What they have in common is that all three have been attacked by Israel. For comparison, see the infobox of War_against_the_Islamic_State that puts the United States, Iran, Russia, Egypt, Israel, and Nigeria all in the same column, but uses the same horizontal divisions to show the "teams." JasonMacker (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and UNIFIL are in the same column does not imply that they are on the same "team"" - Maybe not to you, but definitely to our readers. This is ridiculous and urgently needs to be changed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Both Lebanon and UNIFIL have clarifying hatnotes explaining their positions in this conflict. Using that dividing line is standard for infoboxes. You're demanding changes based on hypothetical readers when you've provided no evidence for their existence in the first place. JasonMacker (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither Lebanon or UNIFIL belong in the infobox. If they absolutely must be there, there is no reason to keep them in the same column as Hezbollah. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please address the arguments already presented. As I pointed out, War against the Islamic State has the United States, Iran, Russia, Egypt, Israel, and Nigeria all in the same column, but uses the same horizontal divisions to show the "teams." Has there ever been a reader complaining that it's confusing that these different parties are in the same column? Do you want that article, and countless other articles that use similar infoboxes, to instead make a whole bunch of columns for every separate fighting group rather than use the horizontal division lines? As I explained, it actually makes sense to put Hezbollah, LAF, and UNIFIL in the same column because all three of them are being attacked by Israel, while little, if any, fighting is taking place between those three belligerents. To put LAF and UNIFIL in separate columns could falsely imply that Hezbollah is targeting LAF and UNIFIL too, and reliable sources make no mention of that happening. This war is primarily between Israel and Hezbollah, and by having only two columns, the infobox reflects that fact. But it also has hatnotes explaining why LAF and UNIFIL are involved in this conflict and listed in the infobox.

The reason why I made the edit in the first place was because three users in a row said that they disapproved of having 4 columns in the infobox, so I went ahead and got bold. Would you prefer if we have an RFC for editors to decide which infobox format they prefer? JasonMacker (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The comparison with the War against the Islamic State doesn't hold up. These countries/factions were not allied, but nevertheless fought against the same enemy (ISIS). Whereas both UNIFIL and the LAF are neutral, a fact recognized by the warring parties. Including them at all sets a problematic precedent, and we should at the very least not create an impression that it's Israel vs. co-belligerents Hezbollah/UNIFIL/LAF. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Israel has engaged in combat operations against both LAF and UNIFIL, multiple times. That's the whole reason they're even listed in the infobox in the first place. Take a look at Template:Infobox_military_conflict's description of when to use "combatant3":

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional –the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion).

This, I think, is very clear guidance on what we should do here. This conflict is primarily between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon and UNIFIL don't really have a distinct "side" in this conflict. And if they do, they're not fighting against Hezbollah. Contrast this with the Aerial incidents in Switzerland in World War II article, where Switzerland is listed as a separate combatant because both they returned fire on both the allies and the axis. However, here, LAF are not engaging in hostilities with Hezbollah (or UNIFIL, for that matter), so I don't think it's appropriate to list them completely separately. Again, if you're not satisfied with this explanation, feel free to start your own RFC on the format of the infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You correctly point out that the LAF and UNIFIL side with neither Israel and Hezbollah, which is expected, as both are formally neutral. Isolated incidents with the IDF do not render this point moot, although some editors have tried to push the narrative that the LAF is a party in this war (although the IDF has even apologized for hitting them on one occassion). In short, listing Lebanon and UNIFIL is problematic in the first place; listing them in Hezbollah's column makes it even worse. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but we also this infobox at Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) which lists Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, neither of which recognize Israel, as Israeli allies against the Palestinians (although Pakistan was recently removed from the box). How would you configure that infobox? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@JasonMacker: Those horizontal divisions only work as a separation as long as one knows that they should indicate the non-togetherness of these factions. But 99 % of our readers don't know this and this interpretation also is not intuitive. Chaddy (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Both LAF and UNIFIL have hatnotes explaining their stances and this is in addition to the main text of the article that makes their stances clear. If someone is unfamiliar with the format of the infobox, then they should learn it. Wikipedia doesn't have to cater to the most ignorant & misinformed people in its articles. This article is written for a general audience that has literacy & enough intelligence to read the article before reaching any conclusions. Wikipedia deals with a lot of complex topics and if it really needs clarification, then we have articles like Introduction to evolution or Introduction to Quantum mechanics that explain these concepts in a more elementary way. What you're saying is that this subject is too complicated for the average lay person. If that really were the case, then that necessitates one of those "Introduction to..." articles, and not to dumb down this article for the sake of people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter to such a great extent that they don't understand that a UN peacekeeping force is not actually taking sides in this conflict (as the hatnote literally explains in one sentence!). So in other words, you want this article to cater to people who are not only ignorant of the political dynamics of the Middle East and the world order, but also are so absentminded as to not bother looking at the hatnotes or the rest of the article. That's not a sustainable view. And definitely not a view that this article should cater to. JasonMacker (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"If someone is unfamiliar with the format of the infobox, then they should learn it." - This is not how it works. We are responsible to design it intuitively. And your further arguments also don't consider the basic idea of an infobox: An infobox should give a fast and brief overview of the topic. Of cource, an infobox never can replace reading the article. But by reading the infobox one should be able to comprehend the basic facts correctly.

And that is the problem in this case: The current formats is capable of being misunderstood. It even can lead to misinformation. This is not the right way.

I can fully understand that in your mind the current design totally makes sense, because you designed it. But please look at the infobox and try to put yourself in the mind of someone other. E. g. in the "Belligerents" part, below "Hezbollah" there stands "allies:". And in the next two lines there stands "Lebanon" and "UNIFIL". Of course, there are thoese lines and of course right to "allies:" there stands "[show]". But even though, the format is confusing and it implies, that Lebanon and UNIFIL would be allies of the Hezbollah. Furthermore, in the "Commanders and leaders" part it seems that all those commanders from France, Spain, Germany and so on would be on the same side as the Hezbollah. Yes, there are these horizontal lines. But it is not intuitively understandable that all those persons do not belong to the same team. And this also applies to the other parts of the infobox.

In the current form the infobox is very confusing and could even spread misinformation. We cannot leave it like this and if you don't want to improve the infobox then I will do. I am sure there could be a solution to make it clearer without bringing back a 3rd or 4th column. Chaddy (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Israel is currently attacking three different groups in Lebanon: Hezbollah, LAF, and UNIFIL. This is what the article describes. But, these three groups are not in an alliance, so we use the horizontal separators to indicate this. Using your logic, using the horizontal separator is never justified in infoboxes. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Horizontal dividers are used in a lot of different infoboxes. See First Congo War, and how, like this article, it uses the horizontal separator, and even includes a hatnote explaining the situation. You can also see horizontal dividers being used in Insurgency in the North Caucasus. In addition, we can consider articles such as War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2021), whose infobox is much more complicated. As far as infoboxes go, this conflict is fairly simple, because there are really only 4 different groups. You might think that it's "confusing" that LAF and UNIFIL are placed on the same "side" as Hezbollah, but the reality is that what those three groups have in common is that all three have been targeted by Israel, and those three groups aren't fighting each other. And again, I reiterate, the hatnotes explain both LAF and UNIFIL. Why are you ignoring that?

You tell me, what is your alternative here? What should we do? To remove LAF and UNIFIL from the infobox entirely would be to minimize the repeated, consistent attacks against them by Israel. JasonMacker (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks to whoever changed this. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, this looks much worse now. Now we state, that UNIFIL would be an ally of the Hezbollah and that Israel would fight e. g. against a German admiral. This is ridiculous. We cannot leave it like this. Chaddy (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think UNIFIL should be moved to a third column. Hezbollah and Lebanon should remain in the same column, for a variety of reasons, one of them being that Lebanon counts deaths of Hezbollah members among total Lebanese deaths. And many Hezbollah-affiliated institutions, like hospitals, also have significant non-Hezbollah Lebanese presence.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Also, as I argued more than a month ago, several sources have written that an "International Armed Conflict" (IAC) exists between Lebanon and Israel, even before the invasion. "IAC" is a specific term in international law that has implications on how parties must behave, and is contrasted from "NIAC" (Non-International Armed Conflict). None of these sources deny that a NIAC exists between Israel and Hezbollah, but argue an IAC also exists between Israel and Lebanon. Hence, Lebanon should be listed in the infobox.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

NPOV issue(?)

I am new to Wikipedia but I fail to see how the inclusion of an Al-Jazeera article as a source for using the extremely weighed wording in "Although UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force and is not actively engaged in hostilities, its positions have been targeted and its peacekeepers have suffered casualties." when the same reference only uses the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media as a source. The vague implication from the UN that Israel may have targeted caterpillar lines near the Lebanese border is not at all enough of a confirmation to simply place an objective statement that Israel committed a war crime in this supposedly neutral medium of information i.e by stating Israel targeted UN peacekeeping installations in Southern Lebanon. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

UNIFIL itself has stated multiple times that its positions have been targeted. This has also been reported on by secondary sources. Just look at the rest of the references in the article:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do you want all of these references in the infobox? I choose that Al Jazeera reference for the infobox because the title very clearly says that Israel targeted UNIFIL, but also has statements from the UNIFIL, the Israeli military, the Lebanese government, Hezbollah, the UN Secretary General, the Russian government, Human Rights Watch, the Chinese government, and several other governments. I don't know how you're claiming that the Al Jazeera article only cites the Lebanese government and its state-affiliated media. The article has statements from a wide variety of sources, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only giving one side of the story, I don't know what your expectation of a "neutral medium" is, but WP:NPOV doesn't say we're not allowed to report that Reliable Sources have said that Israel has committed war crimes. JasonMacker (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do you want all of these references in the infobox? I choose that Al Jazeera reference for the infobox because the title very clearly says that Israel targeted UNIFIL"

All 6 references lack a definitive statement that Israel targeted UNIFIL -- the only reason why Al-Jazeera is the sole organization that actually used the weighted term "targeted" is because of it's notorious conflict of interest on topics revolving around Israel.

"The article has statements from a wide variety of sources, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only giving one side of the story"

The article only has statements from the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media, which is not a reliable source on UNIFIL casualties to any degree -- that's not it's jurisdiction and Israel which has published directly contradicting claims is essentially as credible as the government of Lebanon. The UN itself is cited in the article but as is common with the UN they have avoided making a definitive statement on accusations of war crimes and Al-Jazeera does not cite a deliberate statement from them -- Al-Jazeera is using an unreliable source i.e. the anti-Israeli Lebanese government to make the objective claim.

WP:NEWSORG clearly states that individual articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis and although I disagree with the idea that Al-Jazeera is a "reliable source" for this topic, even if it was it'd have to come under scrutiny for individual articles and this only is clearly not reliable.

Overall, using "targeting" specifically implies that Israel is executing premeditated attacks on UN positions when the UN has not stated this is the case and the only reliable source you have to substantiate this are those that are themselves referencing the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media, which inherently should make this article unreliable. I suggest changing all references to "target", "targeted" and "targeting" to neutral terms such as "fired at", "assaulted" or "attacked" that indicate the reality of the scope of evidence thus far on alleged war crimes committed by Israel and Hezbollah against UNIFIL as the premeditation implicit in "targeting" is simply extrapolated and assumed to be true for whatever personal reason you may have to frame Israel as an evil state. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"All 6 references lack a definitive statement that Israel targeted UNIFIL -- the only reason why Al-Jazeera is the sole organization that actually used the weighted term "targeted" is because of it's notorious conflict of interest on topics revolving around Israel."

First of all, these are not 6 references. These are links to 6 different sections of the article, each of which has multiple references. Did you even bother looking at them?

The first reference is a Reuters article that states: "The United Nations' peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, said two of its personnel were injured when an Israeli tank fired at a watchtower on Thursday at the force's main headquarters in Ras al-Naqoura, hitting the tower and causing the peacekeepers to fall. There were no casualties in two other incidents, a U.N. source said.

The two peacekeepers were from Indonesia's contingent and were in good condition after being treated for light injuries, Indonesia Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said in a statement.

The safety of more than 10,400 U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon is "increasingly in jeopardy" and operations have virtually halted since late September, U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix told the Security Council. That coincides with Israel's escalation of its conflict with Lebanon.

UNIFIL called attacks on peacekeepers "a grave violation of international humanitarian law."

The White House said the U.S. was deeply concerned by reports that Israeli forces fired on U.N. positions and was pressing Israel for details."

It is UNIFIL itself saying that an Israeli tank fired at their watchtower. There's no indication that the Israeli tank randomly targeted this watchtower. It was apparently deliberately targeted by the Israeli soldiers operating the tank. And then the second source in that section, also Reuters, says that "Israeli troops opened fire at three positions held by U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon on Thursday, according to a U.N. source who was not immediately able to specify the type of fire." The third source in this section is also Reuters.

The 2nd section has two sources: a UNIFIL press release, and a Times of Israel article. The ToI article states "Working is “very difficult because there is a lot of damage, even inside the bases,” UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Tenenti tells AFP. “Just last night, on the position of the Ghanaian peacekeepers, just outside, the blast was so strong that it destroyed some of the containers inside very badly.” So while it doesn't directly mention an Israeli attack, it does seem likely that Israel was behind the destruction inside the UNIFIL bases, as was the case in many other instances.

The 3rd section has 1 source: a BBC live report blog, which states: "Unifil says that two cameras were destroyed and the tower was damaged in what they call "direct and apparently deliberate fire on a Unifil position" (emphasis mine). The same article says "On Sunday, Unifil has also said two Israeli tanks destroyed the main gate of a post in Ramyah, and "forcibly entered the position" (Again, emphasis mine). You're falsely claiming that it's only Al Jazeera stating that Israel is targeting UNIFIL when it's obvious that you haven't looked at the sources that suggest otherwise.

The 4th section has 1 source: a UNIFIL press release that says that "...an IDF bulldozer deliberately demolished an observation tower and perimeter fence of a UN position in Marwahin" (emphasis mine).

The 5th section has two sources: a UNIFIL press release and Reuters. The press release says "On 22 October, peacekeepers on duty at a permanent observation post near Dhayra were observing IDF soldiers conducting house clearing operations nearby. Upon realizing they were being observed, the IDF soldiers fired at the post. The duty guards withdrew to avoid being shot" (Emphasis mine).

The 6th section has 1 source, an Al Jazeera live report blog, which actually doesn't say that the IDF targeted the UNIFIL soldiers. Instead, it says that "...peacekeepers were in the vicinity of a drone strike, lightly injuring five of them."

So in total, there are 10 sources here, and only 1 of them is Al Jazeera, and in fact the Al Jazeera live blog doesn't mention targeting. However, the UNIFIL press releases, the BBC live report blog, and the Reuters articles, all mention that Israeli forces engaged in deliberate hostile action towards UNIFIL positions.

"Overall, using "targeting" specifically implies that Israel is executing premeditated attacks on UN positions when the UN has not stated this is the case"

They have literally stated this is the case. Read the sources. What do you think "Direct and apparently deliberate fire on a Unifil position" means? Or the other example of IDF soldiers noticing that their house clearing operations were being observed, and upon noticing this began firing at the UNIFIL post observing them?

Please spend time reading these sources (as well as other sources listed in the article that aren't in the 6 links) and familiarize yourself with the content matter. That will help you avoid making false claims. JasonMacker (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Literally none of this engages with my point, you have just provided legion more examples of quote "apparent" targeting of UN facilities and other vague implications of possible Israeli malintent. The only source you've used here that actually directly accuses Israel of targeting of UNIFIL positions is in reference to Israeli forces removing a barrier and watchtower near Marwahin which does not corroborate the incredibly weighted wording in "It's positions have been targeted and its peacekeepers have suffered casualties." hence it should be removed. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think "targeted" means here? When Israeli soldiers see UNIFIL observing them, and then Israeli soldiers point their guns at UNIFIL and begin firing, that means that UNIFIL was targeted. You seem to be confusing "targeted" with "specifically stated by the Israeli high command that they are attacking UNIFIL." This article is not a notepaper for Israeli public relations. It's detailing the facts of Israeli soldier conduct. UNIFIL facilities being "targeted" means there have been incidents where they were deliberately attacked. In other words, it's not an Israeli soldier randomly sneezing and firing his weapon accidentally and it just so happened to hit a UNIFIL observation tower. These attacks, per UNIFIL themselves, were "direct and apparently deliberate." I'm sorry, but Israeli violations of international humanitarian law are not an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It's a rather mundane claim at this point. I just added the attacks on hospitals & health workers to the war crimes section a few hours ago. Are you going to complain that despite over 280 Israeli attacks on health facilities & health care workers, Israel isnt "targeting" Lebanon's hospitals because the Israeli high command hasn't come out stated directly that they're targeting hospitals? No shit, because they aren't going to admit to war crimes. Their targeted attacks on UNIFIL are they same thing. And besides, it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to play guessing games on what the Israeli high command's intentions are. We just go with what reliable sources say. Al Jazeera, Reuters, UNIFIL, BCC, etc. are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. That Al Jazeera article in the infobox directly says that Israel is targeting UNIFIL. You haven't provided an alternate reliable source suggesting otherwise. There's really not much else to say. JasonMacker (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Note to readers: JohnmayorNZ is not WP:XC and has a total of 6 edits to Wikipedia, 5 of which are edits to this talk page. JasonMacker (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, Jason. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear enough, I think this NPOV issue is resolved by the movement of UNIFIL into a third infobox for belligerents. In this manner it retains at the very least an impartial if not technically inaccurate status -- would Wikipedia have kept UNIFIL in the same belligerent box as Lebanon and still included the notation claiming Israel targeted UNIFIL positions against all definitions from reliable sources, it would absolutely be a transgression. But at the very least this inclusion of UNIFIL as a separate party acknowledges a level of fault on both Hezbollah and Israel for the exchanges that occur at or nearby UNIFIL positions. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

War Crimes section is incredibly thin

If you read this article you'd come away thinking that only 3 Lebanese civilians had been killed in the conflict. On the 23rd of September alone there 550 deaths amongst Lebanese civilians including 50 children. HamNCheeseSandwich (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that section could use some expansion. I'm going to add a section about Israel targeting Lebanese medical facilities, using this source. JasonMacker (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added a bit more, and because Israel has committed so many war crimes, it seems like the section can only get even bigger. JasonMacker (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

@Drt1245: Can you elaborate how what you removed was a redundant sentence here? [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The intro already contains the sentence "The ground campaign marks the fifth invasion of Lebanese territory by Israel, following incursions of varying scale in 1978, 1982 and 2006." drt1245 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drt1245: I think that sentence should be deleted instead of the other one; it should be placed in the opening paragraph either way since it should establish notability and context per MOS:OPEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drt1245: If you don't have objections to replacing the two sentences, I will be restoring it to the opening paragraph, and removing the bit at the end of lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

UNIFIL in the same column as Hezbollah

Now that UNIFIL has taken casualties from Hezbollah rocket fire [3], it's time to move UNIFIL to a different column and make the infobox less laughable. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

The Associated Press and other sources such as ABC News have just reported that a ceasefire deal has been negotiated between Israel and Hezbollah. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

8th October

Image for the 8th of October is of a Namer IFV incorrectly titled as a Merkava. 2603:800C:4001:26A8:2835:352A:DCF5:EBEF (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

Update the IDF casualties and losses box to the below per Hezbollah's official statement (copied verbatim):

"The cumulative toll of losses incurred by the Israeli enemy army since the start of the ground invasion in Lebanese territory on 01-10-2024 until the date of issuing this statement is:

– More than 130 soldiers and officers killed and more than 1250 wounded.

– 59 Merkava tanks destroyed, 11 military bulldozers, 2 Hummer vehicles, 2 armored vehicles, and 2 personnel carriers.

- 6 'Hermes-450' drones shot down, 2 'Hermes-900' drones, and a quadcopter.

It should be noted that this toll does not include the losses of the enemy in its military bases, sites, barracks, settlements, and occupied cities inside Israel." 196.129.63.25 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the statement online, or another reliable source that we can cite? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

not casting doubt as many losses have been documented, but to implement this edit request we will need citations, for example of the Hermes drones and vehicular losses, as well as the claimed death toll within Israel proper The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The AP (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

Hello all. I just read an article from an official Lebanese source stating the numbers of losses they claim they inflicted upon Israeli forces. The source is as follows: https://english.almanar.com.lb/2279829 78.86.169.34 (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2024 (2)

Add how the refugees coming from the south of Lebanon were put in public schools or would also be with host families all over Beirut.

Change Additionally, at least 1.2 million Lebanese civilians have been displaced as a result of Israeli bombings and evacuation orders, which the United Nations described as "the largest wave of displacement Lebanon has seen in decades".

to Additionally, at least 1.2 million Lebanese civilians have been displaced as a result of Israeli bombings and evacuation orders, which the United Nations described as "the largest wave of displacement Lebanon has seen in decades". A lot of those displaced were put in public schools across Beirut, while other stayed with host families which are often already very crowded.

Source: https://www.savethechildren.net/news/lebanon-shelters-struggling-house-families-unprecedented-one-million-people-move-and-new Onana947 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Casualties

Sorry but "three [anonymous] sources familiar with Hezbollah" according to the Times of Israel do not equate to an official Hezbollah claim or estimate. This is very poor. The last figure Hezbollah provided, which I believe was a week or so ago, was 521 (519 strictly speaking). As of now, the Lebanese government claims 3,800 people (combatants and civilians) were killed since October 2023. Name me a single Israeli war in which the vast majority of casualties were not civilians? Either way, whether Hezbollah's figure is accurate or not, the "4,000" figure is NOT official and should be deleted. 2A01:4B00:AB15:E900:F403:D489:E64D:D279 (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)