Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the subpage "Current requests for edits to a protected page". Before listing a request here, please make a request on the protected page's talk page. Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here | |
Change the "mainly Hezbollah members" note on the casualties to "mainly civilians" as a large swath of Hezbollah casualties were apart of their political wing and considered civilians under international law, as well as ensuring the hundreds of medical staff who use pagers and were injured are not ignored. By simply stating that the majority of casualties were apart of Hezbollah, is suggests that the majority of casualties were non-civilian, which is inherently incorrect as stated above. It is imperative that this fact be clarified to prevent misinformation and further demonization of Lebanon.
Furthermore, it must be stated clearly and constantly that not only were the vast majority of the victims civilians, but that such an attack is, by definition and intent, a terror attack on Lebanon by israel (as israel has now confirmed they were behind it and had been planning it for an unspecified length of time). The severity of the attack in the context of international law must also be stated clearly as this is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and general international law that protects civilians from attack and prohibits the use of terrorism a a legitimate manner of warfare.
For evidence to the above claims, see https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/18/israels-war-on-gaza-live-thousands-injured-in-lebanon-pager-explosions in which multiple quotes from israel, Hezbollah, the Lebanese Health Ministry, the UN, and various other third-parties with weight on the issue can be found and used to validate the above claims. Against the Empire (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Mainly Hezbollah members" should be changed to "mainly civilians"
- I am not aware of a single reliable source that has confirmed that most of the casualties were civilian. This is also something that I doubt will come to light very quickly, since Hezbollah generally does not like publishing lists of their soldiers, so discerning who is and isn't a soldier is extremely difficult. Hezbollah themselves claiming that "most casualties were civilian" is not evidence, as Hezbollah is not a reliable source on this matter, since they are known to regularly lie for propaganda purposes.
- And suppose that we did have a reliable source claim that most casualties were civilian. This would still not change the fact that most reliable source primarily describe the casualties as "mainly Hezbollah members" and only talk about civilians second. The article must reflect the style of reliable formats, so it cannot assign more importance to their civilian status than their Hezbollah membership unless reliable sources also do so.
- Medical staff should not be ignored
- They are not ignored. Such information is mentioned under the "Casualties" section. Admittedly, this section could be expanded, and it probably will be with time.
- Calling casualties mainly Hezbollah members suggests they are not civilians
- No it doesn't. The interested reader is free to visit the Hezbollah article and read about their organization. It is not Wikipedia's job to correct every single possible misunderstanding that a reader might have at every possible moment.
- This demonizes Lebanon
- No it doesn't. There is no reason that the article's failure to clarify the exact makeup of the casualties should lead readers to conclude that Hezbollah is evil. And even if it does, this won't lead to the demonization of Lebanon, but that of Hezbollah.
- And besides, it's not Wikipedia's job to prevent demonization. And even if it were, the change you suggest would lead to much more demonization of Israel than it would prevent demonization of Hezbollah, so the net change would be more demonization in the world.
- It must be stated clearly and constantly...
- No it shouldn't. That would be annoying to read.
- Israel has now confirmed they were behind it
- Where did you read this? It's news to me. You should really cite a source here, it would make a great addition to the article.
- Dieknon (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
(I did not put the talk page by mistake in the page title field, that was intentional)
Add topic about the sentence "It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers" in the third paragraph of the article, with the next paragraph as the body of the topic:
The sentence "It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers" appears to contradict other pieces of information in the article, specifically that two children died from the explosions. Hezbollah doesn't seem to have a history of using child soldiers in any capacity. The reported ages of the children who died seem to be around the range of 8-11, so I think it's safe to assume that the children who died were not members of Hezbollah. The size of the explosions wouldn't of been enough to kill someone without being in close proximity to it (its not like the pagers had a blast radius of several hundred meters), which implies that the children were either holding the pager or in close proximity to the pagers. Therefore, it can be assumed that non-Hezbollah members were carrying pagers. Granted, I doubt these children were carrying around a pager wherever they went, but they must've been relatively close to it in order to be killed by the pager (as in, holding or carrying the pager).
The reason why I'm saying to add a topic to the talk page instead of just "remove this sentence from the article" is because it's debatable if it actually does contradict, and I'd prefer to get some consensus about it beforehand. I can't request an edit of the article on the talk page due to it being protected, so I can't just use the edit request to gauge consensus on this issue. This could also very well be considered WP:OR, I'm of the opinion that "the explosive that requires one to be close to it to hurt them implies that people who were hurt by it were close to it" would fall under WP:CALC, but I could see consensus going either way on this. AlexChillOut (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a source used two sentences later in the same article for the claim about the children who died: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7xnelvpepo
- Also, here is a source to show the range of the explosives, it can be seen in the video that they have a rather short range: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/lebanon-pagers-attack-hezbollah/index.html
- That video is already uploaded to Wikipedia, and can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CCTV_video_of_pager_explosion_in_a_Beirut_market.webm
- The rest is mainly these two pieces of information put together, a pager killing a child implies the child was close enough to it to be injured; based on the range shown in the video, they were likely holding it. The source that is cited for the sentence I believe should be removed adds that it was not *immediately* clear, not that it's unclear now (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dozens-wounded-after-pagers-detonate-lebanon-officials-point-113754464) AlexChillOut (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)