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

Hamas in Lebanon

Is there a reason that the Hezbollah "allies" in the infobox includes the PFLP but not Hamas in Lebanon? Hamas were still in Lebanon in late November. Israel was conducting airstrikes against them in Lebanon. Only one is on the page, "Hamas confirmed the death of Saeed Atallah Ali, one of its military officials, along with his wife and two young daughters in an Israeli drone strike in Beddawi refugee camp". But there were others earlier in the war, and more recently listed on various list pages. The PFLP also have only one casualty on this page. Hamas seems too notable to exclude accidentally, so are they excluded for a reason? (tag me if you want me to see replies) Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Note on map, and also new coloring on tge detailed map

A note is needed to indicate that the map stands at the 26 Movember cease fire. If not, the color of Syria should be chamged from red to light green, because the Syrian Ba'athist Goverment (Assad) ended on early December. Also IDf capture more territory on South Syria. Mr.User200 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2024 Kursk offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)