This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | â | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | â | Archive 35 |
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?
United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah
Option 1 â Add X
Option 2 â Do not add X
Option 3 â Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)
RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The ArabâIsraeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents.is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents,as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly
None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they wonât start a war". An expert is quoted saying:
âHezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,â said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut(italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
sits on the sidelines of the conflictand
will enter the war if...(future tense). That's from yesterday.
inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war(hypothetical)
The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah(implying they are not yet involved).
âAll Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,â said a senior Lebanese official(implying they haven't entered the war yet)
Israelâs military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah âis mainly in the contact line.â Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called ârules of engagement,â which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel(as explicit as can be)
Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamasâ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
If itâs a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war](future tense).
Hizbollahâs entry into the war would have profound implications, and
Hizbollahâs participation could also trigger, and
Joining the war would be(all hypotheticals).
if Hezbollah were to enter the war(hypothetical)
Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamasâ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.
- From
AP
While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.
- From
BBC
In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah â which has previously vowed to destroy Israel â has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollahâs next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesnât more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza â but also has the power to stop it.
Vox
Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a âneutral.â
Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. â Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
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.No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Bsherr and WMSR, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire? nableezy - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza."I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb ( talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?
United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah
Option 1 â Add X
Option 2 â Do not add X
Option 3 â Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)
RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The ArabâIsraeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents.is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents,as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly
None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they wonât start a war". An expert is quoted saying:
âHezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,â said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut(italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
sits on the sidelines of the conflictand
will enter the war if...(future tense). That's from yesterday.
inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war(hypothetical)
The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah(implying they are not yet involved).
âAll Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,â said a senior Lebanese official(implying they haven't entered the war yet)
Israelâs military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah âis mainly in the contact line.â Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called ârules of engagement,â which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel(as explicit as can be)
Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamasâ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
If itâs a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war](future tense).
Hizbollahâs entry into the war would have profound implications, and
Hizbollahâs participation could also trigger, and
Joining the war would be(all hypotheticals).
if Hezbollah were to enter the war(hypothetical)
Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamasâ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.
- From
AP
While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.
- From
BBC
In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah â which has previously vowed to destroy Israel â has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollahâs next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesnât more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza â but also has the power to stop it.
Vox
Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a âneutral.â
Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. â Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
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.No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Bsherr and WMSR, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire? nableezy - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza."I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb ( talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
A ref name <ref name=":3"> is used for different sources. Please stop using only numbers for ref names, per MOS. Use professional ref names that use unique identifiers. These usually use the author name(s) and date of publication.
This needs to be sorted out, but the high rate of editing and edit conflicts renders this a difficult task. Please work on it. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There have been some reports that Israel used bulldozers to bury Palestinians alive in Gaza hospital. [23] Could someone please look into it, and if enough reliable sources are available then add it to the relevant article. Thank you. Crampcomes ( talk) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
As the war progressed, the United States' involvement in the war on Israel' side against Hamas has become more and more glaring. The US just recently skipped congressional review to approve emergency supply of tank shells to Israel [25], while simultaneously threatening Iran and others not to arm or replenish Hamas. The US has been shooting down Yemen's missiles and drones that were fired toward Israel. [26] [27]. Hezbollah and Houthis are already included on Hamas's side in the infobox. I believe it's about time we included the US on Israel's side for the sake of keeping Wikipedia' neutrality. Crampcomes ( talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There are other, wider indications of the IDFâs problems. Official casualty figures have shown more than 460 military personnel killed in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and about 1,900 wounded. But other sources suggest far greater numbers of wounded. Ten days ago, Israelâs leading daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, published information obtained from the ministry of defenceâs rehabilitation department. This put casualty numbers at more than 5,000, with 58% of them classed as serious and more than 2,000 officially recognised as disabled. There have also been a number of friendly fire casualties, with the Times of Israel reporting 20 out of 105 deaths due to such fire or accidents during fighting. Paul Rogers, 'Israel is losing the war against Hamas â but Netanyahu and his government will never admit it,' The Guardian 22 December 2023
Nishidani ( talk) 00:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | â | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | â | Archive 35 |
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?
United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah
Option 1 â Add X
Option 2 â Do not add X
Option 3 â Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)
RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The ArabâIsraeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents.is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents,as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly
None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they wonât start a war". An expert is quoted saying:
âHezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,â said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut(italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
sits on the sidelines of the conflictand
will enter the war if...(future tense). That's from yesterday.
inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war(hypothetical)
The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah(implying they are not yet involved).
âAll Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,â said a senior Lebanese official(implying they haven't entered the war yet)
Israelâs military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah âis mainly in the contact line.â Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called ârules of engagement,â which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel(as explicit as can be)
Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamasâ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
If itâs a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war](future tense).
Hizbollahâs entry into the war would have profound implications, and
Hizbollahâs participation could also trigger, and
Joining the war would be(all hypotheticals).
if Hezbollah were to enter the war(hypothetical)
Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamasâ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.
- From
AP
While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.
- From
BBC
In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah â which has previously vowed to destroy Israel â has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollahâs next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesnât more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza â but also has the power to stop it.
Vox
Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a âneutral.â
Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. â Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
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.No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Bsherr and WMSR, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire? nableezy - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza."I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb ( talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?
United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah
Option 1 â Add X
Option 2 â Do not add X
Option 3 â Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)
RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The ArabâIsraeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents.is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents,as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly
None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they wonât start a war". An expert is quoted saying:
âHezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,â said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut(italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
sits on the sidelines of the conflictand
will enter the war if...(future tense). That's from yesterday.
inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war(hypothetical)
The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah(implying they are not yet involved).
âAll Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,â said a senior Lebanese official(implying they haven't entered the war yet)
Israelâs military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah âis mainly in the contact line.â Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called ârules of engagement,â which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel(as explicit as can be)
Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamasâ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
If itâs a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war](future tense).
Hizbollahâs entry into the war would have profound implications, and
Hizbollahâs participation could also trigger, and
Joining the war would be(all hypotheticals).
if Hezbollah were to enter the war(hypothetical)
Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamasâ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.
- From
AP
While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.
- From
BBC
In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah â which has previously vowed to destroy Israel â has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollahâs next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesnât more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza â but also has the power to stop it.
Vox
Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a âneutral.â
Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. â Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
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.No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Bsherr and WMSR, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire? nableezy - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza."I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb ( talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
A ref name <ref name=":3"> is used for different sources. Please stop using only numbers for ref names, per MOS. Use professional ref names that use unique identifiers. These usually use the author name(s) and date of publication.
This needs to be sorted out, but the high rate of editing and edit conflicts renders this a difficult task. Please work on it. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There have been some reports that Israel used bulldozers to bury Palestinians alive in Gaza hospital. [23] Could someone please look into it, and if enough reliable sources are available then add it to the relevant article. Thank you. Crampcomes ( talk) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
As the war progressed, the United States' involvement in the war on Israel' side against Hamas has become more and more glaring. The US just recently skipped congressional review to approve emergency supply of tank shells to Israel [25], while simultaneously threatening Iran and others not to arm or replenish Hamas. The US has been shooting down Yemen's missiles and drones that were fired toward Israel. [26] [27]. Hezbollah and Houthis are already included on Hamas's side in the infobox. I believe it's about time we included the US on Israel's side for the sake of keeping Wikipedia' neutrality. Crampcomes ( talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There are other, wider indications of the IDFâs problems. Official casualty figures have shown more than 460 military personnel killed in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and about 1,900 wounded. But other sources suggest far greater numbers of wounded. Ten days ago, Israelâs leading daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, published information obtained from the ministry of defenceâs rehabilitation department. This put casualty numbers at more than 5,000, with 58% of them classed as serious and more than 2,000 officially recognised as disabled. There have also been a number of friendly fire casualties, with the Times of Israel reporting 20 out of 105 deaths due to such fire or accidents during fighting. Paul Rogers, 'Israel is losing the war against Hamas â but Netanyahu and his government will never admit it,' The Guardian 22 December 2023
Nishidani ( talk) 00:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)