Wikipedia

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 41

< Talk:2006 Lebanon War
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Italiavivi in topic Requested move
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Next move

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I am re-opening the name change plan to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War/war. All of the sources were very strong, and it included from the Lebanese government's "Lebanon Under Siege" website. It included what international polling services referred to it as when surveying the general public (most common/identifiable name). Before anyone responds with unsupported/irrelevant statements, I will answer some of them first.

  1. "We just changed the name."--Yes, several times and without ANY sources to help prove the case for either. What difference does it make anyway?
  2. "But that war is called the Iraq War..."--Yes, so please rename the Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, the Spanish-American War,... (while at it, the Six-Day War, Cold War)
  3. "But Israel attacked Lebanon..."--The people who have been fighting for this one have put a lot of political sympathy, rather than reality, into it. Lebanon took no official stance during the war. Yes, Hezbollah is based there and was attacked (or counter-attacked) and Lebanon suffered, but this title does not have to include it because they in some way suffered. And according to Israel, anything attacked was either in some way of use to Hezbollah or a mistake. Again, not the place for it. Also, if it were to be called Israel-Lebanon War, that would infer that the war was between Israel and Lebanon. That is not a matter of dispute.
  4. "I believe this is the common/proper term."--Then bring up a source! I have been hunting for sources for a long time. I got sources from two government websites, from the public policy research arm of the United States Congress, Human Rights Watch, BBC, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Time (magazine) and scholarly sources. That is not to mention the many others newspapers that use the term but none consistently. These sources are either from the main page of coverage of the war or are consistent.

Please, no personal opinions. Go with the sources. If not, I have no problem with a mediator. --Shamir1 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Per my original request in the introduction, please don't derail the discussion. Your proposed move was rejected not 24 hours ago. I fully support your re-entering it at a later point in time, but I would first like to get the "War" versus "war" issue out of the way, as it applies to almost all the naming alternatives considered recently. — George Saliba [talk] 06:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How can we get to that if we cannot even cover the general name? Anyway, the proposal was either not voted by supporters or the people who opposed brought no source. One in particular just said, "I believe..." Others thought they had the opportunity to name it themselves, saying they think it should be named after the location. Rather than what us individuals think, can we look at the sources? --Shamir1 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, each of these discussions lasts for 5 days or so. Once this one is resolved, then you can repost your request for page move again if you want (provided there isn't a waiting period to request a page move after it has been rejected – that I don't know). If we get this move resolved, then it will also give you an idea of what to propose if/when you re-propose your preferred title, as maybe you'll want to use a lowercase w (or not, if this move is rejected). — George Saliba [talk] 06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Shamir, you really should let this drop for a while. No amount of asking (by my count four times in the last month, by Kendrick and you) is going to change people's opinions. The last one only ended yesterday! I respect that you care about the title, but please, consider waiting a little while before trying again. This debate is about whether it should be capitalised, not whether it should be Israel-Hezbollah. Iorek85 07:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and where was your wait policy when this move was made? I dont see how waiting is an appropriate argument. Not a single legitimate reason was brought up, not one. (Saying: "because we moved it xxx time ago" is not an argument.) I am not trying to change people's opinions, I dont want opinions, I want people to have an open mind and pay attention to sources. Some seem to be spending too much time on what they "think" or what they would name it themselves. The naming policy is very clear, and the sources I brought up very easily support that. A user countered it with nothing other than what he "believes." That is not serious. I hardly see how there is a debate when even the Lebanese government's website uses the term "Israel-Hezbollah war" in the sub-headline for its main page, as well as its other pages. So Iorek, you really should drop this. Consider sources and have an open mind.
I also never said anything about changing the "War" to "war" or ending this dispute. This can continue, although I am nonetheless re-opening the move proposal. I invite any party to review the sources in the "Naming Talk" discussion. --Shamir1 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait policy? My point isn't that we should wait a certain time between moves, but that you should wait between unsuccessful attempts to get people to agree to move the page. Opinions are not going to change overnight, and they aren't going to change when there is no new information between proposals. I also never said anything about changing the "War" to "war" or ending this dispute - exactly my point.
I don't want to sidetrack the discussion any further, and I appreciate you moving your request to a separate section. Iorek85 08:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I might as well add to this discussion, so I'll explain where I'm coming from;
  1. Agreed. Whether we just changed is irrelevant to whether we should change again.
  2. Location is a perfectly valid reason for a name. Just because some wars are named after the combatants, some after the location, and some for others is no reason why 2006 Lebanon war is wrong.
  3. I don't support Israel-Lebanon war either. As you say, it would give the incorrect impression that Lebanon was a direct combatant. But I don't understand why not wanting to give a false impression of the combatants is a valid reason, but not wanting to give a false impression of where the primary damage occurred isn't.
  4. I don't think this is the proper term. But I do think this is a perfectly valid term that follows the conventions set forth in the 1982 Lebanon War, and is a perfectly accurate description for now. If a later consensus emerges, I'll be happy to change it. If that name is the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, I will support it. But for now I don't think there is a consensus, or that the majority of people call it that. I also don't think there is any harm in waiting. Anyone who wants to find this article can.
I'm probably not going to reply here; I'm only listing these so you understand my reasons for opposing the move, not so we can have the debate. As you may have guessed, I'm tired of it. Iorek85 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is quite accurate to my current view also, at least for now. The only thing that I would add is what we would call this changes if there is consensus among scholars for a specific name, but, despite the list of sources Shamir1 has found, I still haven't seen a consensus emerge. — George Saliba [talk] 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I will correct the parts you misunderstood.
2. "Location is a perfectly valid reason for a name. Just because some wars are named after the combatants, some after the location, and some for others..." You are absolutely correct, and i made the same exact point earlier. I also said that Israel-Lebanon war would be incorrect, not Lebanon war, at least per se.
3. It is not my choice. Wars are not typically named because so and so was damaged. If that were the case, the Spanish-American War would be called the Phillipines War. Some arguers for this were using this as some sort of propaganda campaign, saying that Israel attacked Lebanon. Israel did not attack the state of Lebanon (which is a separate issue than the title anyway), and Lebanon was not a combatant nor did the have any official stance. I really dont know why this is the case, because searching the Internet I found several anti-Israel sites that call it the Israel-Hezbollah war and a several pro-Israel ones that call it the Lebanon war. There is no trend for either side. --Shamir1 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
One interesting thing to note is that I believe the name "Israel-Hezbollah" is more likely to be favored by Hezbollah itself, as it bolsters their claim for "defeating" Israel, and by pro-Israel groups, as it supports their claim to have targetted Hezbollah, and only Hezbollah. The term "Israel-Lebanon" is more likely to be favored by groups in Lebanon who oppose Hezbollah, and want to play down Hezbollah's political gains after their "victory" last summer, as well as groups opposed to the war in both countries (and around the world), who see the burden of destruction as being on the Lebanese people, and not Hezbollah alone. I'm pretty happy with the generic term "2006 Lebanon war" for now, since it's more specific than "Summar war" or "July war", and it doesn't explicitly support any of these POVs, not to mention that it can be clearly tied to something tangible – the location where most of the fighting took place. — George Saliba [talk] 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I hunted this down. I found pro-Israel groups like the Shalem Center, who say Lebanon war. I found anti-Israel ones, a few, and off the top of my head I recall one from Norman Finkelstein. I didnt consider any of these to be prominent enough. So I repeat that I found absolutely no trend among pro-Israel or pro-Arab groups. There is no POV involved (please be careful when using that word), as it is used by several prominent sources (I really dont need to repeat them all) including the Lebanese government's website. I would be happy with the term that BBC seems to feel is the most identifiable term for it among the general public, or the one that Time (magazine) uses, Human Rights Watch in their completed country report for Lebanon, and it does not support any POV. No one disputes where most (not all) of the fighting took place, that is not the point at all. Location is not the prime consideration to name the war, as I demonstrated above, and it is not up to you to decide, and I certainly dont see how you think what is tied to the two combatants is less tangible. Basically, according to you, you say that the term is supported by Hezbollah and pro-Israels (the two involved in war). In addition, I repeat that gov.lb uses the term too, so it sounds like we are getting close to consensus... --Shamir1 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, a bit odd that you're reasoning out consensus by agreeing with your own assertions, most of which I still disagree with. Anyways, I was making a general qualitative analysis of the things I've read, not a quantitative one. Also, there is nothing wrong with using a POV title, per policy, if they meet the criteria outlined there. By the way, where on the HRC site (or whichever Lebanese government page you're refering to) do they use the term "Israel-Hezbollah war"? I was looking for this yesterday, but couldn't find it. — George Saliba [talk] 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sub-headlines are not included in the text, although are written by the group. You can see it when searching Google [1], as well as a few others there too. On other pages it publishes, the term pops up as well.[2][3][4][5][6] [7] [8] [9][10] The Lebanon Monitor Report had a few articles (i included 1) that used it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago111 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


It is proposed that this page be moved to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War.

I urge editors and administrators to thoroughly review the past discussions.Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/Archive39#No_consensus_with_name_of_war, Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#Article_name After careful review please be sure to be familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) and be aware that, like all WP articles, it must be supported by sources and credentials.

Once again, please thoroughly review the past discussions. It would be a shame for this to be stalled by issues that have already been dealt with. --Shamir1 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As discussed before, please include sources for another name that proves your argument. (What does the 1982 war have to do with naming this one?) I have included plenty to meet the criteria for the naming policy (something no one else has been able to do). Also see: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F. --Shamir1 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Citing sources that use the term you favor does not, by itself, meet the requirements outlined by naming policy. Furthermore, sources are not required to maintain a status quo consensus. Lastly, the essay you noted to "also see" deals with deletion discussions, and deletion discussions alone, and has no bearing in this case. — George [talk] 07:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
George, I'm trying to evaluate whether or not I should implement this move, and I have to say, I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments against "2006 Israel-Hezbollah War". Could you state your strongest ones here? Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We've gone over this many times before in similar discussions and proposals (and there have a lot of both), but I'll reiterate here briefly. Let us assume for a moment that this name fails to meet rules #1 and #2 of the naming policy (as I feel it does). This leaves us rule #3, which states "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." Both the terms "Lebanon war" and "Israel-Hezbollah war" might be argued to meet this criteria. So, why do I prefer the former to the later?
  1. Israel released a statement officially calling this the "Second Lebanon war" – not the "Second Israel-Hezbollah war", or any such variation. Neither Israel, nor Lebanon, officially dubbed this any variation of "Israel-Hezbollah war".
  2. The article talking about the "First Lebanon war", which led to term "Second" in the name chosen by the Israeli committee, is listed on Wikipedia as the 1982 Lebanon war. Consistency isn't mandatory, but it is nice to have.
  3. As stated by the current article infobox, while Hezbollah was the largest combatant on the Lebanese side, it wasn't the only one, and the proposed title also doesn't take into account the possibility of foreign influences, on either side. When you start listing involved parties, the mix gets much more complicated.
  4. I believe that the name "Israel-Hezbollah war" could have POV implications. For instance, it may support the Israeli POV that the war was against Hezbollah and Hezbollah alone. This would be a controversial implied statement, as it minimizes the impact on Lebanon, and the non-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians – the parties that bore the brunt of the war from a death toll and dollars of destruction standpoint.
As the name "Lebanon war" describes a location and not a party, I do not believe it carries the same POV implications. The term "Israel-Lebanon war" would be more encompassing of the location, but at that point it would likely be confused with listing parties rather than location, which could have it's own POV implications. Hence, my support for keeping the current title. — George [talk] 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer George.Saliba:
  1. Okay, that is not disputed, nor does it help your case for Lebanon war.
  2. Your reasoning is your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with consistency. Israel, and only Israel, has called this war the Second Lebanon War, and has called the 1982 war the First Lebanon War only since this war. There is nothing to be consistent about. You can base your reasoning the Franco-Prussian War. That was a totally different war. Moreover, it is not a convincing argument and has no basis from Wikipedia policy.
  3. That is not true that it leaves anything out. (I can give you a taste of your own medicine and say 2006 Lebanon War leaves a vital location out as well. Obviously I can recognize that that reasoning is unlogical, so I am not.) You saw all those news sources who simply called it "the war between Israel and Hezbollah." Dont make this difficult.
  4. You say: "For instance, it may support the Israeli POV that the war was against Hezbollah and Hezbollah alone." That does not make it support the Israeli POV, you need to get your facts straight. I guess the LA Times, SFChronicle, and Washington Post are all advancing Israeli "POV" on their full reports. You say "it minimizes the impact on Lebanon," (how so? get real) and "the non-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians – the parties that bore the brunt of the war from a death toll and dollars of destruction standpoint." That political sympathy is very beautiful. This is not the place for it and it is not the basis of naming a war. You may want to think about sources for a try. --Shamir1 06:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I still believe no consensus has emerged in the press or popular media over the name of the war, and that this name will do until one emerges. I don't doubt some sources call it the Israel-Hezbollah war, but many do not. 3 minutes of google news; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, and I've tried not to include too many Israeli media. I am not arguing the war should be named any of these titles (they are all slightly different) but that I still do not believe that there is a consensus about the name. I'm not even sure there is a majority. I don't think the name should be changed for at least six months, perhaps longer, until a a clear consensus emerges.Iorek85 06:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Until a consensus emerges among the general public, or scholars – the first two options provided for us by naming policy – I see no reason to rename the article. — George [talk] 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Iorek, I will reiterate: Once again, please thoroughly review the past discussions. It would be a shame for this to be stalled by issues that have already been dealt with. If you had read the discussions at least a little bit, you would see that here I brought up dozens of news stories (way more than you did) that say Israel-Hezbollah war, some even from the sources you just used. That does not mean anything, since George.Saliba rightfully pointed out that they use other names with other news stories they publish. (As to why George then does the same thing, I dont know.) We are not using news stories anymore. They just cover one event of the war and do not help either of us due to lack of consistency. That is why I found newspapers that have made separate pages for entire coverage of the war in general. All of them use Israel-Hezbollah war without exception. George.Saliba, doesnt there need to be consensus among scholars for Lebanon war? Yes, that is what I am going against. There isnt enough, at least not enough to measure up to the scholarly and other strong sources I have brought up. The current name was changed for no scholarly reason and no sources. So both of you, I will repeat myself: No news stories (per George.Saliba's own reasoning in the past discussion), and if you want to fight against this name then do it correctly. Pick a name and go at least half as far as I did. Then, we'll have something to talk about. --Shamir1 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I brought up dozens of news stories (way more than you did) that say Israel-Hezbollah war, some even from the sources you just used - exactly. If the very news agencies can't decide themselves what to call it, how can there be a clear consensus as to the name? doesnt there need to be consensus among scholars for Lebanon war?. (I know this is addressed at George, but I thought I'd clear up my position) No, not at all. I've never claimed this is the consensus name among news/academic/other sources. What I'm saying is that we should leave it with this name, which describes the conflict based on location and fits with previous naming, until a consensus emerges. There is no urgency in moving the article because if you search google for 'Israel-Hezbollah War', this article is the second result. If that consensus is '2006 Israel-Hezbollah war' then I will support it wholeheartedly. But right now, I don't think there is a consensus as to the name of the conflict. And exclusively? I don't think (google summary: "Ynet News: 24/7 coverage of Israel-Lebanon War real time") so. Iorek85 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, wow, wow are u behind in this discussion. Before making me repeat myself for the 180432739th time, read, re-read, and re-read the past discussions. There is no consensus among news stories, that is a fact. But how does the fact there is no consensus make you "wholeheartedly" support Lebanon war? How does not having consensus bring us to Lebanon war? It doesnt. Those are not Wikipedic reasons to remain on a name that was chosen. We've been through this. Lebanon was not the location of the conflict, and it is not your job to name the war. Bring up sources--not a google search count where you make your own baseless conclusion-- sources. Strong sources--not inconsistent news stories that I, you, and George have brought up-- strong sources/publications about the war. So far, 3 major newspapers have published pages online for information about the war, all of them entitled Israel-Hezbollah War. Seriously, is it that hard? Have you (or anyone) done anything close to that? I don't think so. --Shamir1 05:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple quick points. You state that "there is no consensus among news stories," and Iorek85 appears to agree. He's just stating that we should wait until a consensus emerges before we move the article for the umteenth time. Also, he didn't state that he "wholeheartedly" supports the current title. He stated that he would "wholeheartedly" support your proposal if a concensus for it ever emerges in the future, as required under naming policy. However, currently no such consensus exists, among either "English speakers," nor "scholars". I'm curious – do you have any proposals for naming the conflict after the location where you do think that the conflict took place? — George [talk] 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Since we all know this I do not see Iorek85's point in keeping on bringing up just a couple of news stories. How does that help anybody? I have done everything there is to make my case for the naming policy. No one else has. No one. Not a single other editor. No one. If that is his opinion then there is a no reason to oppose. Consensus is not achieved by polling. How does the fact that no consensus existing translate into naming it Lebanon War? It just as much translates into naming it Israel-Hezbollah War. So, instead let's go after sources.
(You misunderstand the last part. Iorek85 said it is based on location, but Lebanon was not "the" location, meaning it does not describe the only one location. There is no Wikipedia policy that tells us to go with the location, and his reasoning could just as much show how the combatants would be appropriate to go with (not my reasoning, but just saying). Bottom line: the fact that there is no consensus does not bring us to Lebanon War or any other name in the world. If you are trying to hold on to this name then actually get to it! --Shamir1 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Policy discussion

You've agreed there's no consensus, so that leaves, from WP:NAME: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. And that's where I stand. The current name is descriptive, and doesn't carry any POV implications. Iorek85 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict P.S) - I appreciate all the work you've done. I do. You have done more than any editor here to try and get the name change. That doesn't make you right though. I've shown, and you agree, that there is no common name for the conflict. Therefore, we choose a non POV, descriptive title. And this is what I think (yes, think) is a perfectly acceptable NPOV, descriptive title. For this, all the research in the world is pointless. If you want to argue that 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War is more NPOV and descriptive, go ahead. But as far as I can tell, you're not. Iorek85 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm fully up for considering the POV implications of one name versus the other under rule #3 (as I've told you in the past), but to try to claim that your proposal meets the naming critera set forth for consensus, when you yourself admit there is no such consesus, is a bit ludicrous. — George [talk] 05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Dont get ahead of yourself Iorek85. Common and generally accepted does not mean consensus. Secondly, because I said there is no consensus among different news stories on one name does not mean anything. There is consensus among news agencies with Israel-Hezbollah war, as almost all of them have used it at one time or another. There is also consensus with other names. That does not make them dispute the name. Three major newspapers have published full coverage reports on the war, and they have consensus on Israel-Hezbollah war. The current name is based on 0 outside influence (which is extremely unencyclopedic) and can carry POV implications. The support for 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War (which appears to be far more generally accepted in the media, is used more among scholarly sources, is used by major news agencies, and used in general information articles) is much stronger. So we go with the most common one, and I believe that does make me right. The most common and the strongest. The sources brought up appear that Israel-Hezbollah War is the most commonly settled name. And yes, that brings us to the naming policy. Hardly anything for Lebanon war passes the naming policy, while 2006 Israel-Hezbollah yells pass, pass, pass. --Shamir1 06:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm, from policy: "a generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus", and "a common name... exists if most English speakers... call it the same thing". Also, why don't you try to find sources that disagree with your POV? Generally, before making proposals like this, which you (and only you) continue to push, it's best to evaluate all options. Given the abundance of counter-examples to all of your sources, it's obvious that you haven't done so, prima facie. Here, without wasting everyones time and cherry picking to support a single POV, a quick, 30 second search for 2006 "Lebanon war" returns over half a million results, while a search for 2006 "Israel-Hezbollah war" returns less than fifty thousand. A news article search for 2006 "Lebanon war" nets 416 results in the last month, while one for 2006 "Israel-Hezbollah war" yields a whopping 7. Your "research" is inherently flawed. Furthermore, your cherry-picking of articles and blatantly fallacious analysis are very close to POV-pushing. You're not just, you're wrong by a factor of ten or more. — George [talk] 06:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
To be sure, I actually did what you just mentioned above. Most if not all have already been mentioned. In actuality, you are wasting time. The Google count is your own baseless conclusion. Here are the problems (they are so simple I cant believe I have to do this): a) Google is not searching for "Lebanon war", Google is searching for pages that contain the words "Lebanon" and "war". it may not necessarily be referring to this at all. b) in fact, many of the sites that pull up are ones that refer to the 1982 war. c) there are many variations of Hezbollah. d) it does not mean anything. How many times does it count each source? What is the value of each source. It is also searching through blogs and Wikipedia talk pages. Lastly, do it yourself. It is not my job to pull up sources for Lebanon War, as I stated, most have already been mentioned. If it cannot be done, it only proves that the support for Israel-Hezbollah is stronger. --Shamir1 07:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Policy talks about what "most English speakers" use. A Google query that encompasses news articles, blogs, and nearly every site on the internet is a far better indicator of this than your relatively tiny collection of sources. Regarding your individual points:
  1. You need to research more on how Google queries operate. A search for "Lebanon war" will search for any sites containing the exact phrase "Lebanon war", not words including both separately. This is what the double quotes mean. A page that uses "war in Lebanon", but does not use "Lebanon war" will not be returned. The search that you (incorrectly) claim would return over 8 million results.
  2. In fact, if you were to actually check, 480,000 of the half million sites do not mention the year 1982. Yes, you in fact can write queries of this, and they look like this.
  3. You go ahead and list every spelling of Hezbollah you can think up, and I'll add the figures together for you. The spelling "Hezbollah" is by far the most common, and if you add together the most common variations (which I actually queried for), you get up to somewhere on the order of 60,000 results. Still far, far lower than those for "Lebanon war".
  4. This means absolutely everything. You're using a shotgun argument approach, spewing forth as many websites as you can scrounge up, in an attempt to just waste more time looking than everyone else, regardless of the accuracy of your claims. Pushing harder doesn't make things that aren't true become true. Google provides us with a fabulous way to encompass more information than any of us could ever individually catalog. — George [talk] 08:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. All it proves is that "Lebanon war" is more found on the Internet through Google. It does not prove that it most common among English speakers referring to this war, it does not mean the articles it links to refer to this war, it does not prove anything. Whether or not 1982 is written on any given page doesnt mean anything either. Get real. Take some time, use Google if you wish, and actually bring up legitimate sources. Enough excuses. This is not a "shotgun approach", it is common sense. You push a baseless conclusion over a search. I on the other hand am going ahead with the process in accord with WP policy. --Shamir1 08:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Until such time as you establish why all the new articles and websites on the internet are less indicative of what "most English speakers" use than the far fewer articles that you've found, I consider the matter closed. I'm not going to fall into the trap of wasting any more time than I have to on a POV-pusher's war of attrition. — George [talk] 08:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
To waste my time with this, when I type "Lebanon war" on the first page of search results: 2 out of the 8 articles (not including WP) actually include Lebanon War referring to this war. There are another 2 Israeli news stories that call it the second lebanon war. On the second page only 2 of 10 say Lebanon war and refer to this one, and they are both editorials. (2 others, including israeli news story, say second lebanon war.) I cant believe I actually did that. I am not going to pick and choose which have value furthermore. --Shamir1 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead you should probably try the query I suggested. — George [talk] 09:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Enough. To give you a single example this page and many others refer to the past Lebanon war but the word "1982" is not found on the page. Again, find sources that actually prove something and show them. --Shamir1 09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this obviously accounts for half a million results - websites that refer to the 1982 war, but happen to not mention the year. Brilliant. /sarcasm — George [talk] 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Quit flattering yourself. If you actually read, I said "To give you a single example". That is just one I found on the first page. I am sure it appears on others. That is something called an "example" of how your conclusion is not logical since those are some of the problems that are still included with that search. --Shamir1 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and it's a pointless example unless you're claiming that it accounts for 90% of the results. — George [talk] 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Dont be stubborn. That search is flawed and that is just one of a few examples I already mentioned. As much as you talk it up or try to get around it, it does not eliminate the problems. Actually show the articles it brings up and we can see exactly what says what and what it is. That is how Wikipedia works. --Shamir1 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I fully admit that the search results are not perfect. However, I don't believe that anyone can seriously suggest that 400,000 of the results, or 90% of them, are incorrect. That's ridiculous. I view a broad indexing performed by a web crawler across literally billions of websites, a machine which cannot carry the same personal POV that individuals may, to be a far better indicator of what "most English speakers" use than hand picking articles. I've actually changed my views to some degree - initially I felt that the current title was better under rule #3 of naming policy, and rule #3 alone. I now believe the current title is in fact preferable under both rules #1 and #3. — George [talk] 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said anything about 90%, I did give a few examples about the very serious flaws of your own conclusion of the search. It is your own conclusion, not supported by any facts. That does not indicate anything. It does not even indicate that the results have anything to do with this war or the name for this war at all. So if the results are not perfect, make it perfect. Find the valuable results and show them here, because as of now, you have nothing for the current title. You havent brought up anything, nothing, zilch, zero. So when you actually want to get to work, we can act like serious Wikipedians. --Shamir1 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The 90% is a result of ten times as many websites using the term "Lebanon war" compared to "Israel-Hezbollah war". I'm pretty tired of the nonsensical rambling, so I'm just going to trust other editors to look into the search results and your sources for themselves. — George [talk] 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there were several problems and many did not even say Lebanon War and many did not even refer to this war. Sure, let editors click and see. Let them see the ordinary news stories I collected here from all mass media agencies, as well as the full reports of war coverage from newspapers above. Let them click on the WP articles of my sources and see whether or not their research is significant. Other than that, dont make any conclusions on your own that are not based on reality. --Shamir1 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Further name discussion

I'll ask here again, in the hopes that you see it this time. Do you have any proposals for possible comprises of an NPOV title that involves where the war took place? — George [talk] 08:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does the name need to involve where the war took place? The Six-Day War was not fought on Six-Day. 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War is a perfectly NPOV title. It's not like I am trying to plant "Israel" in the title because I feel it was damaged and deserves sympathy. This is the title I believe most accurately reflects the war per outside sources. (Any compromise of a title that involves the combatants?) I believe that the three newspapers that created full reports of the war were doing so in respect to neutrality and accuracy. I believe we should follow their example. (To answer your earlier suggestion, there is only one other newspaper I have found with a general information page on the war. It is The Jerusalem Post, which naturally calls it the Second Lebanon War.) --Shamir1 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be where the war took place. I'm looking to see if you have any proposals for possible compromises in general, in an effort to avoid the same discussion coming up every two weeks. I'm really hoping you're not stuck in a single POV, but I've only seen you push this title, and this title alone, while I wasn't even the one who proposed the current title (I initially favored a different title altogether). I honestly don't have much in the way of proposals involving combatants, because, as stated, I feel the issue of who was involved is too complex to state in an short manner (2006 Israel-Hezbollah/Amal/LCP/PFLP-GC war in Lebanon and Israel, with possible influences from Syria and Iran??). So do you have any other proposals, in the interest of possible compromise? — George [talk] 09:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First step is recognition of your reasons. Are your reasons based on Wikipedia policies? If so, you have not proved it. My guess is that for you anything that includes the word Lebanon in it is reasonable. Thats not wikipedic. Ive worked around so many of your arguments (i stopped using news stories [while others have continued to do so]), and i have found sources that pass the Naming conventions. Where are the sources for any opposing side? Certainly you would need some to prove it passes. Top-notch thinktanks use it the titles of their publications. Full reports from newspapers use it. If you were to go with the flow, go with the one that newspapers have settled on for their full reports. That is my suggestion. I am sorry if that is not considered a compromise, but compromises are not always necessary or correct. --Shamir1 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my reasons are based entirely on Wikipedia's naming conventions. I don't care if it has the word Lebanon per say, I care whether or not it meets policy, which includes being NPOV. You may remember that at times I favored both "Summer war" and "34-day war" over either variant. I also formerly preferred "Israel-Lebanon war" when it was "Israel-Lebanon conflict". I'm very disturbed when you make statements like "compromises are not always necessary or correct" when I see you supporting only one stance, blowing the credentials of the sources you do cite way out of propportion, and never compromising. This is the very definition of POV-pushing in my mind. — George [talk] 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case you have not proved it. You have not named sources, any sources. Why have The Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Los Angeles--the three newspapers that have published full reports online--all used Israel-Hezbollah War? Your reasons were: "it minimizes the impact on Lebanon, and the non-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians – the parties that bore the brunt of the war from a death toll and dollars of destruction standpoint." Yes, I have been consistent with my stance. I think you are the one that needs to compromise. I have done my share of work, bringing up sources, something you still STILL (come on!) STILL are not able to do. I have gone so far, researched the most scholarly of the scholars on the subject, checked up on major newspapers. That is a compromise. You on the otherhand are simply calling me after all this a pov-pusher and "never compromising." No, i do not believe this needs to be compromised, especially since there is no viable opposing viewpoint. (To answer the "blowing credentials" nonsense: It is you who has routinely shot down any name that does not say "Lebanon".) Per the name found in the media and among scholars, this is it, and i say that confidently. --Shamir1 10:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For the umteenth time, the burdern of proof does not lie in maintaining the status quo, and no matter how much you talk up weak sources, they do not get any stronger. I have faith that nearly any editor who actually reviews your sources, or does any independent research, will see the failures in your source-spamming logic almost immediately. I absolutely, full encourage others to review both all the sources you've cited, and to look for other articles themselves, as good editors do. The reason you quote is one of the reasons that the current article title is more appropriate under rule #3 of naming conventions than your proposal (which is the only rule that I see you could possible make a case for it under, though you choose not to). You're entitled to not compromise, of course, it's just too bad you can't put all of your efforts and hard work into more meaningful endeavors. — George [talk] 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, America's major newspapers and prominent thinktanks are weak sources, yep ok, glad were all on the same page, George. I must really be talking up the Washington Post or the good ol' Brookings Institution. I can and have made the case under several of the rules, I use Rule #3 theoretically, and it fits. I am not hiding anything or lying. All editors are welcome to visit the sites I have listed and visit the WP article of the publisher to see how much i am talking up these weak old sources to be. And George, I dont appreciate you talking as if you are the one that is compromising. You're not and you havent. (Talk about talking up a weak assertion) --Shamir1 10:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You're fully aware by now that the Washington Post also uses the term you oppose,[11] as does almost every single source you cite. I do not claim you hide or lie, but I do claim that, at the very least, you're wearing blinders. Compromise means seeking alternatives. I listed 3 others titles that I found suitable, while you explicitly stated that you do not want to compromise. I have no idea what you're talking about. — George [talk] 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we are not using news stories (per your own reasoning). What I am fully aware of is that the Washington Post has settled on Israeli-Hezbollah War for the full report of the war. That is a general information page of coverage of the war. You are fully aware of that as well. --Shamir1 11:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you still referring to this page, which uses a different title entirely, and was only linked to with the title you mention in articles that were published in the days and weeks immediately following the war? Or is there some other page that you're referring to? — George [talk] 11:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(Continuing [Edit conflict]) There is only one full report for the war by each source, so your comment makes no sense. Yes, it is the name that appears on the title of the conflict box and the link that directs to that page (Conflict in the Middle East). If you have a problem with the date, you have to prove that more recent articles with that box use something different, that argument has no merit George, and you as a Wikipedian know it. What is the argument to seek alternatives? How can I compromise with the uncompromiseable. I have worked around your arguments (I stopped using news stories, something some people havent grown out of. I found scholarly sources.) Your excuses, hypocrisy, and finding any possible way to blind out my undisputedly helpful sources (or even accuse me of things that are not true: WINEP ordeal, misrep of sources) have brought us nowhere, and have ended a great admiration I once had for you. (It wasnt too long ago that I messaged you explaining my problem with the name change, nor has it been long since I consulted with you over every Lebanon issue.) I have let you know which sources are valuable without any bias, using the same standards I have used myself based on your own concerns. Unfortunately, you have hardly brought any up. What alternatives have you suggested? I suggest one that is not alternative to Wikipedia. To use sources. Even in the world of inconsistency I found what newspapers have settled on for their final reports (do i really need to go over this?) Its about time we settle down too. --Shamir1 11:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(De-indenting) So, you don't see any problem with making the claim that the Washington Post has elected to term the conflict the "Israel-Hezbollah war", based on a couple links from articles dated between July and September of 2006, which point to an page with a completely different title? That is precisely what I mean by exaggerating your sources. This doens't have to do with finding the most recent article, but it falls entirely in the realm of recentism. Two links on old articles do not speak for the Washington Post, and myself and others have pointed this out to you. There is nothing wrong with using news sources or scholarly sources, but they have to prove the point you're trying to prove, and you cannot wear blinders to alternatives based solely on your POV.
I'll be 100% honest with you. My biggest, absolute biggest issue with your proposal is that you, and you alone, continue to push for it, despite illustrations that your case is flawed. I believe that you're too intelligent to honestly believe that the sources you've cited are as good as you claim. We've gone over them way too many times. I also refuse to believe that you're so unreasonable as to completely ignore summary statistical data, such as Google search results. If you disagree, find similar statistical data (query page counts, for instance) that illustrate your point, rather than challenging other editors to build a bigger wall of mediocre sources than you. Playing the war of attrition card is literally useless to improving Wikipedia. Is it by chance that nobody else is pushing for the same name as you? You haven't suggested any possible alternatives or compromises (for instance, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, or 2006 Israel-Hezbollah/Lebanon war, or 2006 Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah war). I've actually seen all of these used in articles, but you're set in your opinion, and refuse to budge. How can I view this proposal, which you continue to push for every couple weeks like clockwork, to be anything other than POV-pushing, when no matter what anyone tells you or suggests, no matter what your sources or other peoples sources say, you continue to push for it. I will fervently oppose any attempts to infuse anyone's POV into any article - your POV, or anyone elses. — George [talk] 12:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My biggest problem is that no one, absolutely no one, has given a reason per Wikipedia policy. Just by saying "per the naming conventions", George, doesnt cut it. You have to actually show that that is among scholars, among such media, etc. I pointed out very legitimate problems with your Google search idea (I still cant believe youre serious), and you just answered with sarcasm. That case is flawed. Mine is not George, not at all. I have done all that is necessary, and all of my sources say what they represent.
To answer your stubborn approach to the Washington Post, you cannot just speculate that later articles relating to the subject include a box says otherwise, you have to proof! Dont be stubborn and incredibly ridiculous (thats another big problem, those stubborn excuses), do you have more recent articles with that BBC box? (I am not going to be ridiculous and seriously ask you that) So dont just speculate, PROVE THAT IT IS REASONABLE. And Geoge, I do believe my sources are strong. We have gone over this. You told me not to use news stories, so I stopped. I found full reports (theres only one of them) from some newspapers, and George, guess what, they have chose the name you opposed. Is it that hard to admit? I am citing the most prominent research institutes in the U.S. and yet I am just "talking them up", eh? Find a better idea, and ill go for it. Meanwhile you havent even considered this, despite the fact that you know my case is a good one.
The most laughable of your claims (seriously, I am laughing out loud) is your calling Google searches "statistical data." Please. And you were the one oh so concerned about editorial oversight? I pointed out the significant flaws George, the fact that you still cannot find any sources to prove your point is starting to say something.
I actually did long ago think about 34-day war and summer war, but the fact is that this is not found among scholarly sources, and the idea that in years from now it would still be called that is not very realistic.
No, George, I havent suggested those titles (and neither have you till now), and why should I? I dont believe those are nearly as common in the media or among scholars. And stop talking up this "statistical data". Couldnt you at least find (at least) some sources through this "statistical data"? Psh, I cant believe you actually called it that, you are wayyy smarter than that and have been here wayyy longer than that. I did the work for you and it was a tiny fraction.
George, read your last paragraph and say it to yourself. I am the only editor to have gone through the correct process of a name change. Its about time you do too if you want to keep this one. --Shamir1 19:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious you have no interest in compromise or neutrality, and simply intend to push your POV until you get your way. Scholarly sources are required for rule #2 of naming conventions. News articles are fine for rule #1, but a Google search is in fact more representative of "most English speakers" than news articles, and a one sided cherry picking approach to either is absolutely horrible. We'll see if neutral editors and Wikipedia's policies can hold up against your POV onslaught yet again. — George [talk] 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, enough nonsense put on me, and stop trying to make yourself appear like you are all for compromise. You have tried to squelch any sources for Israel-Hezbollah War. As for news sources, I accurately displayed in the "Naming Talk" archive that it is ubiquitous in the news world, more so than others. The results of the Google search do not even all refer to this war, and your conclusion that it reflects what English speakers call this is completely baseless and a very irresponsible conclusion. As for scholarly sources, you have to admit, I got it in the bag. I cited the Congressional Research Service too. Here is a list of the most commonly cited thinktanks by members of Congress.[12](Page 19) I cited #1 and #3. I also cited "the most influential of the Middle East thinktanks, and the one that the state department takes the most seriously" Washington Institute for Near East Policy (according to The Guardian). So dont throw this boloney at me that my sources are weak. That is a lame excuse supported by no facts (but hey what else is new with you). As for cherry-picking, dont be a hypocrite. I have searched for full reports and in-depth coverage pages from news media outlets all over. Here is what I found. Many of them (The New York Times, CBC, ABC (Australian)) do not help us since the page is not about this war specifically and also covers the conflict in the Gaza Strip at the same time.[13][14][15] Once again, I am not hiding anything, please do not make speculations. As for the ones that are about this war specifically, it is Complete coverage: Israel and Lebanon from Newsday and Israel at War from Ynetnews, in addition to The Jerusalem Post one I pointed out earlier. So yes, actually I found six others. How much they help either of us is apparent. I am gladly searching for more, and have also occasionally added to the list for Israel-Hezbollah War above. --Shamir1 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no "squelched" anything. I fully admit that some sources use the term "Israel-Hezbollah war" - some good sources even! I'm not blind, however, to the fact that in the case of both news articles and scholarly sources, the sources that use this term are in the minority, and, by your own admission, no consensus for it currently exists. (As an aside, I wouldn't promote the idea of think tanks as good sources, if I was in your position. Scholarly sources are great, but think tanks and other advocacy groups are inherently biased.) — George [talk] 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont know what you mean by inherently biased more so than any human is, or more specifically, any scholar is, and I dont what it has to do with the title they use. That is a baseless conclusion, not supported by any facts, when you say in the case of both news articles and scholarly sources it is a minority. A baseless conclusion. I used publications from the best research institutes there are, as I showed above. You can keep on arguing that they are weak, you're only talking to a wall and ignoring the obvious facts around you. You have not proved your news article conclusion, in fact, you have hardly showed any news articles. You have hardly showed anything, cannot even find a single scholarly source apparently. I have showed much more news articles (many of the sources use Lebanon war as well), and full reports from news media. The news story deal is undisputed. Just about all use Lebanon war, and just about all use Israel-Hezbollah war, the same agencies, just different stories. There is nothing to argue about with that. The sources I used are scholarly, much more than you and I, and are from prominent political figures and scholars on the subject. That also is nothing to argue about. I have also done more searches for other news special reports, and found Crisis in the Middle East (I accept Israel/Lebanon Conflict also) from The Boston Globe. Still, no Lebanon War. --Shamir1 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore your rambling and patent nonsense for a moment (which I can barely follow or understand), and focus on a key point you made: "Just about all use Lebanon war, and just about all use Israel-Hezbollah war". This is exactly the point. Case closed. — George [talk] 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, case is still open whether you like it or not. So far, most full reports/in-depth coverage/summary of events use Israel-Hezbollah war to name the war, while 0 use Lebanon War to name it. (Case closed) You can ignore anything you want to (youve apparently been good at it), including the strength and prominence of the Congressional Research Service, and other research institutes and scholarly sources. (Funny how when you named your weak sources, you insisted on calling them "scholars", but as the trend among prominent scholarly sources for another name becomes more and more apparent, you are just denouncing the idea.) You can cherry-pick my key points. None of that changes anything. None of that changes that "Lebanon War" has very little scholarly support. None of that changes the fact that PBS and other major news media outlets have called it Israel-Hezbollah in their war summaries, while not a single one uses Lebanon War. None of that changes the fact that you are making your own conclusions without sourcing a single one of them. --Shamir1 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick note, Google's index of scholarly sources shows an equally wide margin in favor of "Lebanon war" to "Israel-Hezbollah war" (23 scholarly sources in favor of the former; 4 in favor of the latter) as does popular media, biased or otherwise. — George [talk] 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick note, It would help if you actually click each source. Really, it would. No more of this ridiculousness. If you see a good source from it, pick it out. (To do your work, the first page of searches gives 0 out of 10 articles refer to this war or are actually scholarly. (2 were from the same israeli medical group that used israel-lebanon war in the context of a medical review. the rest didnt mention a thing.) I am not going to do this again for you. It would help if you can actually name and show the sources you speak of. --Shamir1 09:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is intended as a randomly sampling, not a definitive listing. I don't really see the point in wasting the next month of my time, as you have your last month, when a lot of what you're stating is false prima facie. I generally dislike having to waste time, when there are so many more important things that we could be cleaning up, but its rather difficult to avoid when someone just pushes the same view, over and over, for weeks and months. — George [talk] 09:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK George.Saliba, i guess its just that hard to find a source that proves your point. if that makes u feel better. =) --Shamir1 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow up - I just reviewed Shamir1's claims regarding these article. With the exception of 2 or 3 scholarly sources that use "Israel-Lebanon war", his claims are demonstrably false. I encourage everyone to review the articles in order to judge for themselves. — George [talk] 10:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I encourage you to prove it. --Shamir1 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I just said that people should review the results themselves. Let them draw their own conclusions whether what you said is true or not. — George [talk] 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New survey answers

  • Support per Shamir1's reasoning. Humus sapiens ну? 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per George. Title as is is NPOV, descriptive and popular -Delad 09:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for move per Shamir1. I think this is quite obvious and simple case. The sources clearly point for the name change. Current name makes absolutely no sense, and obviously the original move should never have taken place in the past. The best solution now is to move it to the permanent name that Shamir1 has suggested. Amoruso 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. George Saliba has illustrated exactly why the current name is preferable until a common name appears. Italiavivi 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Agree with George Haliba, Italiavivi, etc. Also, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanon government's official cabinet, so the name "Lebanon War" makes sense also from a pro-Israel perspective.--Sm8900 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that must explain why the Shalom Center and Anti-Defamation League have called it Lebanon war, and why several other veryyy pro-Arab sources called it the Israel-Hezbollah war, as already pointed out above. There is no trend among any perspective. The LA Times and Washington Post are not advancing "Israeli POV." --Shamir1 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
that does explain those groups' positions. thanks for providing that useful information about various uses of both names. Appreciate it. See you. --Sm8900 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind all suggestions should be accompanied with outside support. And even if your assertion is true, that does not make Lebanon a combatant.
It's in the article itself - see July 17th under Israeli action. If Israel attacks the Lebanese army, then Lebanon is the target of Israel. 132.205.44.134 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
that's a really good point. perhaps you'd like to change that article's name too? It must be really frustrating, to know that all historians and academics are wrong. :-) --Sm8900 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The Lebanon War (1982) was also internal, unlike this one. Sm89000, your comment does not make sense in reference to this.
What is neutral about it? (Ottoman-Safavid War, French and Indian War, Ottoman-Habsburg War, Anglo-Cherokee War, Second Anglo-Maratha War,... its also not a matter of it being seen. See below) --Shamir1 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
hmm maybe I would support it if someone starts a bid here to call 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict as the First Israeli-Hezbollah War (First better than 1982-2000) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So I have to vote again? It's getting tricky to make sure I'm counted in the innumerable proposals. If so Strong Oppose (strong because I'm simply getting tired of this debate). If not, the above oppose still stands. Iorek85 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New comments

  • Comment I personally tend to agree with Iorek85's reasoning (mostly because I'm too lazy to engage in all this research ;] ), but perhaps it would be best if this discussion was put on hold for 24 hours to allow cooling down. There is far too much information above for me to follow; maybe each side could just reproduce a 2-3 line summary succinctly representing their case? TewfikTalk 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to put this as briefly as I can (excuse my 3 long sentences). "Lebanon war" meets Wikipedia policy better than "Israel-Hezbollah war", as it is doesn't carry POV implications, and is used by "most English speakers". Queries of Google, MSN, AOL, and Yahoo – together 90% of all internet searches – show a 9-to-1 higher usage of the term "Lebanon war" than "Israel-Hezbollah war" across the billions of sites they index, even accounting for variations in spelling, and negating any references to the 1982 war or the civil war. I believe that this accurately indicates what "most English speakers" use, however Shamir1 feels that this decision should be based on how many articles he's able to cite, so in order to appease him (and hopefully end this pointless bickering), here are some sources that use the term "Lebanon war", from every corner of the globe. — George [talk] 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]

[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51519][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]

I am very disappointed with what George is doing. Other than the fact that some of the sources he cites do not even prove what he is talking of, WE ARE NOT USING NEWS STORIES. I never said it should be based on how many news story articles we can cite. In fact, George, it was YOUR idea NOT to use them. Yours. George, I too have already used dozens of news stories from every corner of the globe (I think I've collected more even) that use the term Israel-Hezbollah War.[] I told you this 2917940985 times, and you have already seen it. Even with all of the ones I found there are soooo many more I can still find, but I stopped after YOUR concerns. Would you like me to find more from every corner of the globe? You're only stalling, George, it's not helping. Israel-Hezbollah War is found all throughout the media. How many actually use it for the title of the war--by that I mean the article is solely about the war, (in this case, the article is called Lebanon War and presents a summary of the war, not just an event)? Tewfik, I will prepare a short, easy-to-follow case of some of my points.
  • If you did not already gather, I long ago collected news stories from some of the biggest names in media. I cited the name that appears in the text. While I am sure that if I wanted I could make the list even larger, I am not going to because different stories published use different terms. (most I've seen say ...the war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas", "...Israel's war against the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah") (Note: the sources I cite actually include the "-", anyway)
  • Many news agencies provide links to full coverage of a conflict. This is more significant as it actually gives the war a title over a summary of the conflict itself, not reporting on a single event; somewhat like brief encyclopedia articles. I encourage you to take a look

I encourage you to click and view each link, and see the document, title, author, etc., I think it would help. Some background info on some of them: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a leading international politics and economics center that also publishes Foreign Policy. The Iraq Study Group was made possible by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the United States Institute of Peace, the latter of which was established by and maintains ties with Congress. Thanks so much for helping out. --Shamir1 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What you have shown is exactly what George Saliba and others have demonstrated, that there is a lack of common name currently. Combined with the obvious lack of WP:CONSENSUS for this move and POV concerns about the "Israel-Hezbollah" phrasing, we should leave the article at its current location. Italiavivi 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you kind of went beyond the two to three sentences Tewfik requested us to limit ourselves to there. :P Please note: I have no problem with news articles. If you actually read the discussion we had earlier, I told you specifically that after checking out your news article references, and comparing them with articles with other names (something you apparently failed to do), you were falling far short of what I felt would be requisite to change the name under rule #1 of naming conventions. As such, I suggested that you look into rule #2, which requires scholarly sources. That is all - there is nothing wrong with using news articles, only with the lack of consistent news articles that support your viewpoint. — George [talk] 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the methodology was, but I'm not sure that a plain Google test is the best way to assert notability, but maybe title searches in Google scholar or Google news? My understanding, though, was that we use the current name because of a lack of an established name, instead following the directives of descriptive naming, though correct me if I am mistaken. I agree that there is no POV issue in either name (I couldn't find it, but I recall George making that case on Talk :-] ). Regardless, it seems to me then that the naming conflict is between a descriptive and common naming. Perhaps the best thing to do is to put all this on hold for a bit, as Iorek suggested, since there doesn't seem to be consensus for a move right now. I also believe that any future discussion might benefit from a dedicated mediator, obviously contingent on all sides agreeing though. Cheers to all, and remember to stay cool - no angry mastodons allowed. TewfikTalk 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to stay out of discussions in general, per Sm8900's request, and since I feel that I've covered everything with Shamir1 that I care to. I would, however, like to address some of Tewfik's questions here (as they seem directed at me). Initially, given the lack of an established name, and when considering the options for descriptive names, I did indeed favor "Lebanon war" over "Israel-Hezbollah war", for various reasons I listed when responding to Jayjg earlier, including consistency, brevity, and neutrality (these are all my personal opinions, and subject to debate of course). Shamir1 made the case that "Israel-Hezbollah war" was the more common name – something that would trump the descriptive name if true – so I started digging through sources to try to decide if this was true. The question I ended up asking myself is how to determine what "most English speaker" use (the criteria set forth under policy)? This isn't the same test as adding a sentence to an article, which requires reliable sources, verifiability, attributability, and the like – it's a broad question of what people commonly use. Given that there are thousands of articles that use both terms (and others), the best way I could think of to determine whether or not there was a common name was to do a broad search. The best tool I could think of to do so was to use a search engine that covers a billions of pages, and lo and behold I found that the common name was not "Israel-Hezbollah war", or any other names I could think up, but instead "Lebanon war". I also checked the Google Scholar and Google News searches (using the same reasoning), and again, they seemed to favor "Lebanon war" with similar, wide margins. Hence, I came to the conclusion than "Lebanon war" was not just a better descriptive name, but, in fact, appeared to be the common name. That was my line of reasoning, if it helps at all. Cheers. — George [talk] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I believe you've made a convincing case for the current title as a notable and specific title, chiefly because a Google search doesn't just reflect encyclopaedic information (scholarly work, new-media, literature), but any website of any [non-]notability. If that is the argument, then the both of you should probably settle this in a point-by-point mediation examining encyclopaedic sources. While the case for the current name is strong, I think that that is only under the criterion for descriptive naming. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't really trying to convince you of anything, just trying to explain my viewpoint. Remember that naming policy criteria calls for what "most English speakers" use, not what "most reliable sources" use (this is what I was trying to explain earlier). This is why I actually prefer Google – it does not indicate what reliable sources call it (except for Google scholar and Google news), but it does reflect what most English speakers do, and that's what we're looking for here. Again, this is just my line of reasoning, and I think we both agree that it's a descriptive name, so I don't want to muddle the issue with how I reached my conclusions too much. Cheers. — George [talk] 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with George and Italiavivi, in the comments above. --Sm8900 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What all three of you have failed to do is explain how we arrive at Lebanon War. If you oppose it, state your reasons. I will address your individual claims shortly.
Italiavivi, even if your claim were true ("a lack of a common name") how does that bring us to Lebanon War? How? You did not state a single reason. I showed every full report and indepth coverage page from nearly every mainstream media source that has it; not a single one of them has a title of Lebanon War. So please, I presented all of those above in the interest of being fair. No more than 1 called it the Israel-Lebanon conflict. As I showed above, most used Israel-Hezbollah. A few others had no titles for the war, and a few more also included the then-ongoing Gaza crisis with it. The strongest and most common used Israel-Hezbollah war. Even with the fact that just a few use something else, that itself is not an argument stay for Lebanon War, especially since none of them use it. There are no NPOV concerns about Israel-Hezbollah War, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim. You are within your rights to oppose, but crying concerns that are beyond unreasonable is just bad form. There is no and has not been consensus with any name, that is why we are going through this process, Italiavivi. And that itself, again, is not an argument for the title Lebanon War.
George, I just made it simple for Tewfik to read, thank you, I explained each group of sources briefly (couple sentences) and presented them. Everything you say about the news article ordeal to me fits the same way with you. I gave samples of just a few articles from many mainstream news agencies, as I said, I am sure I can find more, although I am not sure what it would prove. (Also note that ordinary news stories are reporting on one event of the war.) Explain to me why not a single summary of the war by news media writes Lebanon War? Why should we on ours when they do not? --Shamir1 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you actually claiming that you have not been told the reasons that some people wish to keep the current name? What the heck was this whole discussion about then? I think that a fairly large number of reasons have been provided for both sides. --Sm8900 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer you, Sm8900, you said you agree with Italiavivi, so I'll take that. His thesis is that he believes that the sources above (I was fair and included all media sources that have such special reports on the war) do not all say the same thing, and therefore we stay here. But that is not a convincing argument against Israel-Hezbollah War. That does not explain how we arrive from that conclusion to naming it Lebanon War, especially since none of them call it that. It only proves that some people are wearing blinders (to quote George), since they seem to be oblivious to the content of other sources. --Shamir1 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If you don't find his reasons convincing, that is fine. That is your prerogative. however, you asked him how he feels about this issue, and he told you, and he also gave you some of his reasons. So that pretty much covers the issue.
that is how things work around here. At some point, the issue is not how much you agree or disagree with any specific reasons. The point is to find out what people's opinions generally are, regardless of why they hold them. Then the question becomes how we are able to eventually arrive at some sort of answer which reflects some sort of broad consensus , between all the people concerned. --Sm8900 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I didnt say it does not convince me (it does not, but thats not what I said). I said it is a not convincing argument to say that because he thinks that some sources say different things, then that must mean Lebanon War is correct. That does not make sense and it has no backing. This is not about people's individual opinions (that would take forever and is not the way of Wikipedia), this is about what is confirmed by the relevant sources. That is the concern. --Shamir1 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there are a few things being discussed here that we shouldn't confuse. The first is whether "most English speakers" use a specific term when referring to the conflict. The second is whether or not there is a consensus among scholars for a specific name. And the third is which name is more neutral. I am not stating that "some sources say different things, [therefore] Lebanon war is correct". I'm saying that so many different sources say different things, that "most English speakers" either (a) haven't established a single name yet, or (b) they use the term Lebanon war a majority of the time. In other words, I'm stating that a plurality of English speakers use the term Lebanon war, but they may or may not represent a majority, as the fact that it represents a plurality alone is enough to reject the proposal (since there cannot be a majority at the same time as there is a non-majority plurality). Additionally, I'm saying that, along the same lines, there doesn't exist a consensus among scholars, or, similarly, if one does exist, it is for Lebanon war. Lastly, I'm stating that the current name has no POV implications, while your proposed name may. — George [talk] 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to shut down opposing support, I will be completely honest. Honestly, your attack that Israel-Hezbollah War has POV implications has no basis and I see it as just a tactic of trying to delegitimize it. As far as if Lebanon War does, it may, but I wouldnt call it a serious POV implication, perhaps a mediocre one, I havent put that much thought into it. Naturally, my question remains unanswered. Many media organizations have created summaries of the war, as you can see above. None of them call it the "Lebanon War", so why should we? That title is not used at all. Don't ramble along with bogus and unsupported claims about scholars. These are important questions. I am sure the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery and the Maccabi Healthcare Services are scholarly sources that give a lot of insight on the war, I am sure members of Congress, students, and scholars are ready to cite them, but let's get to these important facts first. --Shamir1 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(De-indenting) There are two basic problems with the "many media organizations... summaries". First, of the ones you listed, only one uses the exact phrase you're proposing. One uses "Conflict in the Middle East", one uses "clash" instead of "war", another uses "conflict" instead of "war", and one uses "Israeli" instead of "Israel". Some of these are obvious nit-picking, but the general sense I get from these inconsistencies is that they don't agree on a single, specific name, nor do they use the one you propose (with the exception of the San Francisco Chronicle). My second problem is that I still feel you're overplaying these sources. I've already outlined my problems with the conclusions you draw from the Washington Post page that uses a different name for its title (if it really supported your title, why wouldn't they use the same name?).[89] The L.A. Times page certainly doesn't look to be meant as anything more than a half page article published in April (note that it has a publish date).[90] The PBS page is a summary, but it's not for all of PBS, it's for one television show on PBS (which is applicable, but drops its importance significantly).[91] The newest comment on NPR's page you cite was from weeks before the conflict even ended, and the only thing listed there are editorials.[92] All in all, the only source of the "many media organizations.... summaries" that even seems as valid support for your proposal is the San Francisco Chronicle, though I'm not sure how much bearing "northern California's largest paper" has in the whole scheme of things... — George [talk] 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nitpicky details like capitalization and Israel vs. Israeli are so trivial that the only point I see you making is going out of your way to try to figure out a way to delegitimize the sources. It does not prove what you are saying it does. (Where are all these conclusions coming from?) If you expect me to believe that you see a reasonable difference between Israel and Israeli I dont believe you one bit. Clash is also pretty trivial, but all three of the major newspapers use war anyway, and its only used once in another. The LA Times page is a brief summary, no arguments. All links to that page write Israeli-Hezbollah War, but that does not mean that they are calling it anything different. If two are used then two are used. I did not hide what the NPR source was. That is what NPR is about anyway, commentary, and in this case about... (I dont see "Lebanon war"). And I was just adding NPR in the interest of fairness. I added what all major news sources had for the summaries. Your argument against PBS is laughable. I am sure their is a "significant drop" between BBC and BBC News, too. Overall, all your above arguments are lame excuses that have no credibility. You are not acting seriously, George, you're not. I do not believe that you are thinking objectively when you make such claims ("Yeah um, it says Israeli-Hezbollah, not Israel-Hezbollah... And a summary of Israel-Hezbollah clash is so much different from Israel-Hezbollah war..."). My question remains unanswered. --Shamir1 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
One, I never mentioned capitalization – that claim is an outright fabrication on your part. Two, you're obviously not very familiar with PBS, or you would understand why it is different than BBC News and the BBC. Three, commentary or not, NPR is outdated. Four, what "all major news sources had for the summaries" are you talking about? Even if you include every variation you can think of, "Israeli" or "Israel", "war", "clash", "crisis", "conflict", or "taco", how have you in any way cited summaries from "all major news sources"?? These aren't even all major newspapers in America, let alone news sources, let alone in the world. — George [talk] 07:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(To shamir1)For fear of igniting yet more debate, I need to clarify something here. We've shown, and you've admitted, that there is no clear consensus among news sources/academic sources/other sources as to the name of the conflict. Are you trying to say that we should change the name because more people use 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War than the others? I.E, that when there is no clear choice, we should choose the one that is used the most? Iorek85 08:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure this discussion is helpful anymore. It seems to have gone on long enough. Shamir, I feel that if one can't get others to support an idea, then there is no way of doing it. Sorry if you don't find the others' reasons convincing. I understand that this is your honest opinion, but at some point, we can't keep arguing about this over and over. --Sm8900 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sm8900, you're right about one thing, about all the arguing. I am just wondering what George's next excuse will be. It will probably be easily disproven. And Sm8900, I am arguing against Lebanon War, I'm sorry you don't find these reasons convincing. So far, this name remains to this day completely unbacked.
George, I didnt say you meant capitalization. I shouldve phrased it better. What I meant is that that those details are as trivial as whether or not a word is capitalized. Please cool down. NPR is not outdated. Is there a more recent page of roundup commentary they publish? Cool down, George, really. I said: I added what all major news sources had for the summaries. I did. I found what the NYTimes and what the rest of them had, whether or not it proves my case yours, or neither. I just showed that the NYTimes has such a page, but also covers the crisis in the Gaza Strip, not this one. So dont mock me. I never said I included all the ones in the world, I included the ones that have special reports. And I did, George. I am not sure how many I have used say conflict or crisis, but I am assuming its somewhere between 0 to 1. Remember, Im not hiding anything. Im not saying they say things that they dont. And yes, all of the newspapers I mentioned are major. George, think straight. I am sure you would love to think that the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery is more scholarly on the subject of this war; you can go ahead and call whatever you want weak. Does that change any facts George? No. It doesnt change what news media sources call their little mini-encyclopedia entries on it. It doesnt change the reputation and influence of the public policy institutes I mentioned above. You can play around with this ridiculousness as long as you want. I hope you find it entertaining, I dont. When you want to act seriously, look at sources objectively, and most of all, actually make a case for what you are fighting fo, then we'll talk. --Shamir1 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the burden of proof is on those who want to make the change; if they can't get broad support for doing so, then the change cannot be implemented. i would ask that others stop prolonging this. thanks. --Sm8900 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I consider support to be evidence (i.e., sources). The change to 2006 Lebanon War from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict was not made with use of or reference to any sources. If no support exists, meaning no proof to pass the naming conventions, the change should not have been implemented. Similiarly, no one has been providing any sources to keep this one. Simply saying that you think it should be this one because you like this name does not cut it. --Shamir1 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Still trying to understand this discussion. Why was the name changed from "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" to "2006 Lebanon War". Also, why is it POV to describe it as the "Israeli-Hezbollah war". Yes, I know that the PFLP had 2 casualties, and other groups like Amal a dozen or so; but the conflict was basically between Israel and Hezbollah; Hezbollah did 99% of the fighting against Israel. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah might have done 99% of the fighting against Israel, but Israel didn't do 99% of their fighting against Hezbollah, is the problem (and one source of POV concern). Italiavivi 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The name was changed initially due to consensus created by an earlier move request discussion. I'm not sure how relevant the POV implications are anymore, but if you'd like to discussion them, maybe leave me a message on my talk page. Some editors have been complaining about the length of this discussion already. — George [talk] 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. This move was followed by another move request for "Israel-Lebanon War", which failed, which was followed by another move request for "Israel-Hezbollah War", which also failed. — George [talk] 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, in all fairness, there is no POV concern about Israel-Hezbollah War. That is just a desperate attempt to come up with something to delegitimize it. It would be equivalent to saying the 1948 Arab-Israeli War is POV because it does not include the Druze. You probably already know that polling does not mean consensus and the other issues of consensus-building, so I will not go into that. What I will call to attnetion is the fact that George did not dispute my point that Lebanon War was chosen without any use of or reference to sources.
If you needed clarification. I did not have any bias when presenting the summaries of the war by news media sources. I included all that have full reports of the war.
I am sorry we argued so, I know it made a bit more confusing for you. Your questions and thoughts are welcome. --Shamir1 05:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Shamir1, sometimes these decisions are made based on what the Wikipedia community in general seems to feel comfortable with, and not necessarily on the precise specific evidence or sources; in other words, simply what people generally seem to want. that is one of the ways that Wikipedia is run.
So let me put it simply, since you seem to think I keep equivocating; the evidence for each side is not relevant, if people are already able to generally agree on a course of action, and if it is an aesthetic matter like an article name ( as opposed to an issue like the factual content of an article.) --Sm8900 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me put this simply: It is not as if the title you seem to be supporting is agreeable, do not make it sound like it is. Just because you seem to like one does not rule out sources. You very seriously need to review Wikipedia policy. --Shamir1 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
errr, maybe you don't get my point. the title I'm supporting is the current title, so clearly it is supportable. the point is that existing arrangements are considered to be in place because already they have some underlying support. So one does not need sources merely to explain the status quo; one needs to generate consensus if you want to make a change. err, you seem to really take this to heart. Sorry if I seem to be harping on any of these points too much. thanks for all your input. --Sm8900 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

While some news stories went on with less consensus on the name of the war, many of their final reports have settled on the name Israel-Hezbollah war. For example, The Washington Post includes a box that links to a "full report" of the coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah War.[93][94][95]. Others, including the Los Angeles Times[96] and the San Francisco Chronicle[97] also have general pages very similar called the Israel-Hezbollah War.

Human Rights Watch compiled a country report for Lebanon, where they called the war the Israel-Hezbollah war. When BBC surveyed the international public, they used the term Israeli-Hezbollah War. Not only does that help the case of proving "most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it," but Harris Interactive,[98] and Gallup Poll[99] use the same term as well.

The Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the United States Congress, calls it the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. As for scholars, it has been called the Israel-Hezbollah War by both the Brookings Institution (left of center)[100][101][102], and the Heritage Foundation (right of center)[103][104][105], as well by the bipartisan Washington Institute for Near East Policy[106].

Lastly, the government of Lebanon, on its sub-headline for the main page of its Higher Relief Council website,[107] as well as the government of Israel, on its official website for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[108] call it the Israel-Hezbollah war and the Israel-Hizbullah conflict, respectively.

In accordance with policy, I propose to move this article to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

When commenting, please refrain from comenting what you personally would or do call it. The policy is more connected to outside sources than individual belief. Thank you. --Shamir1 05:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the admin didn't see a consensus one way or the other in the current survey to move the article to the lowercase "war", so they requeued it. That means the current move request won't finish for another 3 or 4 days unfortunately. I'm probably going to refrain from discussing the other moves until we can get the current one resolved. In the meantime, you should probably try to find a better example for the usage by the Lebanese government, since (despite the Google search snippet) the HRC site doesn't include the same phrase (which is, I assume, why you chose to link to the Google search results instead). This means that at one point the site used that phrase (when Google last crawled it), but that it was removed, and no longer uses the phrase. — George Saliba [talk] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Two parts are wrong. It seems you do not understand what a sub-headline is. If I were to type in: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, I would come across the main site link with a sub-headline that reads: "A public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on US interests in the Middle East." This statement does not appear on that page but is written by the publisher (in this case, WINEP). Watch as I search for "Iranian Revolution"[109]. Those are sub-headlines, not the text. Same with many Wikipedia articles. If I were to search for Yom Kippur War, I would find a Wikipedia link that reads: "Background of the war, the events, aftermath, and long-term effects."[110] That is by Wikipedia, but not in the text. Same with the Lebanon article, it says "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article covers the country's history, government and politics, geography, economy, demographics, language and culture."
Second wrong point is the allegation that it does not appear elsewhere. Besides the fact that that sub-headline weighs much more, I have (and will again) show more pages the site publishes that uses that term. See [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119] [120] Blominvest research brief for Lebanon--Shamir1 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first point, the snippet section of Google results is not "written by the publisher." It is an indexed statement that either comes from (a) the crawled page itself, or (b) directories that link to the page. In this case, the snippet you found is not from the Lebanese HRC website, it is from this site. Note the common misspelling. It doesn't mean anything regarding the Lebanese government's stance on the appropriate title. In fact, I could go in and change the words used there myself. I don't have time to go through your other sources at the moment, but that's all I was requesting - actual sources, from the Lebanese government, that support your assertion (which, I assume, is what you linked). — George Saliba [talk] 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
While the government of Lebanon has not officially named or taken a stance on the title, that title does appear on pages published by their website; that is the most we can get out of it. Other than that, I hope the other sources can be taken into serious consideration. --Shamir1 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

(With minor changes, this block of sources and descriptions appears above.)

While some news stories went on with less consensus on the name of the war, they have published summaries of the war and settled on the name Israel-Hezbollah war. For example, The Washington Post includes a box that links to a "full report" of the coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah War.[121][122][123]. Others, including the Los Angeles Times[124] (The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war) and the San Francisco Chronicle [125] (Israel-Hezbollah war) have such general information articles. PBS also has an in-depth coverage page of the Israel-Hezbollah Clash. NPR's world opinion page is called The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict.

Human Rights Watch compiled a country report for Lebanon, where they called the war the Israel-Hezbollah war.[126] The Economist called it the Israel-Hizbullah war in their The World In 2007 issue.[127] When BBC surveyed the international public, they used the term Israeli-Hezbollah War. Not only does that help the case of proving "most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it," but Harris Interactive,[128] and Gallup Poll[129] use the same term as well.

The Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the United States Congress, calls it the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. As for scholars, it has been called the Israel-Hezbollah War by both the Brookings Institution (left of center)[130][131][132], and the Heritage Foundation (right of center)[133][134][135], as well by the bipartisan United States Institute of Peace[136][137]. There is also a publication specifically about the conflict by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy[138], the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [139], and the Center for Strategic and International Studies[140]. Other scholarly sources can be found at Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations[141], the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs[142], and academic research groups affiliated with Harvard University [143] [144], Columbia University [145], Brandeis University [146] [147], the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[148][149], and Tel Aviv University.[150]

The government of Lebanon has not officially named the war or been consistent, although Israel-Hezbollah war seems to be acceptable as it appears on some pages it publishes on its Higher Relief Council website.[151] [152] [153] [154], [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] The Israeli government's official website for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[160] calls it the Israel-Hizbullah conflict.

To see some samples of the term in ordinary news stories, see here.

Credentials are very important. Per the sources, the article name is proposed to be changed correctly. --Shamir1 05:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question. You may have answered this before, but your views may have changed since then, so I'll ask again. Which of the three following rules for event names are you suggesting this change under:
  1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
  2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
  3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
If you can identify which of these three rules you're proposing the name change under, it should help to keep everyone on the same page. — George Saliba [talk] 06:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Every newspaper I have found that has a final coverage report of the conflict uses Israel-Hezbollah War. It also appears to be very common since polling agencies use that term consistently when surveying the common people. "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." The word is generally accepted (as shown above), as even news sources that are less consistent have used the term. This includes the HRC. The term is, in addition, descriptive and carries no POV implications. Rule #1 applies, and Rules #2 and #3 give the same result. Hopefully, that should help. --Shamir1 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So let's try to cover these rules one at a time, in order to keep the conversation prescient, and avoid shotgun-style approaches. We can move on to the next rule in turn. Regarding rule #1:
  1. Are you saying that a plurality of English speakers who are aware of the war use the term "Israel-Hezbollah war", or are you saying that a plurality of English speakers aware of the war agree that (a) the primary combatants were Israel and Hezbollah, and (b) it was a war?
  2. Is said statement based on the sources you've cited here, based on your own general knowledge, or based on common knowledge?
— George Saliba [talk] 05:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. I was implying the first one but both are true.
  2. Sources. --Shamir1 05:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a pretty big leap of faith to me to cite thirty-some-odd sources from various groups and extract an implication for most English speakers in the world, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, and move along to rule #2 for now. My primary goal here is just to try to resolve where, if anywhere, I can agree with your reasoning, so it's totally fine if we disagree I think. — George Saliba [talk] 06:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding rule #2, the naming conventions define generally accepted as "a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event." So, my questions for this rule are:
  1. Are the sources you've cited from scholars? For instance, I think this would not include politicians, journalists, or ordinary individuals in most cases.
  2. Are you saying that more than 60% of scholars in the world use the term "Israel-Hezbollah war", or are you saying that most agree on the main combatants and use of the term "war"?
— George Saliba [talk] 06:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have cited a huge amount of sources (no one else has come close to even half as much). I did not use every source above. Most were located on final reports, etc., which I have explained, so don't give me any 30-odd boloney when no sources have been cited for an opposing view. I also explained that every newspaper I have come across that has a special page for the coverage of this very war calls it Israel-Hezbollah War. Not a single one (I have found) has a general page that says otherwise. That is significant. As for what is common among English speakers, I think I covered just about every major polling agency. These polls survey the common people and all use the same term. There is nothing to agree or disagree on that.

If your primarily goal is to resolve, great, but no excuses (which have nothing to do with WP policy).

The term Israel-Hezbollah War is a widely, hugely, incredibly accepted term for the war. As I stated earlier, several less consistent sources (named on previous pages) have used the term as has the Government of Lebanon Higher Relief Council.

As for scholars, I checked up with top-notch think tanks. The most prominent think tank on Middle East issues is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which has used the term Israel-Hizballah War on their [161] of the war, as well as at events and other reports. The other two scholarly sources were from the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation, which should cover the bulk of the political spectrum.

I also stress the strength of the Congressional Research Service.

  1. Yes, in addition to many other strong sources.
  2. I (and probably no one) could give a statistic. I would say that virtually all scholars and historians consider Israel-Hezbollah War to be perfectly acceptable, and a higher percentage than for any other term. The support for the term is certainly evident and used by many scholars. To answer your question: I implied the first one, but both are true. --Shamir1 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I believe a case might be made for your suggestion under rule #3 of the policy – I just see no grounds for it under rules #1 or #2. I'll try to review (your sources, and others) further, and see if something has changed since the last time I checked. — George Saliba [talk] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to be looking for numbers from decent sources, here's 20-something sources I found that use "Lebanon War" in about 30 minutes of looking. This isn't saying that the term "Lebanon War" is correct, just that this is why I don't think your suggestion of "Israel-Hezbollah War" has any chance of passing the naming policy under rules #1 or #2. (Sorry about the formating, but I don't really want to waste too much time on these) — George Saliba [talk] 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) "The main findings of the Winograd partial report on the Second Lebanon War" - Winograd Commission, via Haaretz.

"The impact of the Lebanon war lives on in poverty, traumatised children" - UNHCR

"The Second Lebanon War" - Council on Foreign Relations

"The 2006 Lebanon War: Lessons Learned" – appears to be an actual scholarly document, citing over 40 sources, published in the US Army War College Quarterly Parameters, written by an actual scholar.

"Basic Facts You Should Know - 2006 Lebanon War" – published by the Anti-Defamation League

"Israel-Lebanon War 2006" – published by The Shalom Center

"PM 'says Israel pre-planned war'" – BBC. Please note the use in the title of the little box. I consider this just as bad a reference as the Washington Post one which links to a page with a different title.

Olmert 'planned Lebanon war before soldiers' kidnap' - The Independent.

"THE 2006 LEBANON WAR'S EFFECT ON GLOBAL JIHAD GROUPS", "CONSEQUENCES OF THE 2006 WAR FOR ISRAEL" - the Middle East Review of International Affairs

Islamist Movements in the Arab World and the 2006 Lebanon War - paper published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Again, a scholarly source.

"The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict" - Marvin Kalb, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, February 2007 - scholarly research publication, published by Harvard University. Uses "Israel-Hezbollah War" once, and "Lebanon War" 24 times.

"How Israel Bungled the Second Lebanon War" - Middle East Quarterly

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51519 "Israel loses Lebanon war"] - WorldNetDaily

"NGO campaigns in the Lebanon War 2006" - NGO Monitor

"Lessons from the 2006 Lebanon war will lead to Israel becoming a NATO Member" - European Jewish Press

"Israel turned down talks with Syria at start of 2006 Lebanon war: former official", "Israeli reservists criticize Lebanon war leadership" - International Herald Tribune, citing a former official

"HMO data show Lebanon war triggered baby boom in Israel" - Haaretz

"Israel warned: Lebanon war could start again" - Guardian Unlimited

"Israeli PM Attempts to Diffuse Public Anger Over Lebanon War" - Assocaited Press, via FOX News

"Analysis: Lebanon War Hurting U.S. Goals" - Associated Press, via The Washington Post

Thank you for going through a process we have already been through. I now find myself having to use the same arguments you used to delegitimize some of my sources.

1) Do you know how many articles I found with Israel-Hezbollah war? You saw earlier (not the one above, earlier). I can certainly find more. BUT Do you have any final reports rather than news stories? That is what I made sure to do. General articles of coverage of the war rather than a daily news story of a single event. I found dozens of news stories that prove my case but news stories are not always consistent, as you mentioned. Do you want me to bring them back and add more again? In fact, I cited stories from the same news sources you did. So, instead, I use the reports above.

2) Second Lebanon War means little and does not prove any case. That is what it is known as primarily in Israel. Again, it does not prove anything.

3) The Harvard University paper used 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War in the title of the working paper, as opposed to of a news story (which needs to be shortened and not grammatically correct)

4) The BBC box does mean something, but according to your logic before, "War in Lebanon" does not support "Lebanon War".

Lastly, still, nothing has reached to anything even close to half the strength of the sources I pulled off. Using guidelines set out (mostly by yourself) earlier, the majority of those sources right above can be disregarded.

I cited 3 newspapers that have its own pages on the war. Nothing else yet. I cited 4 powerful and influential thinktanks, in addition to the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. And of course, a bunch more above. (I repeat that I have also gathered news stories from the news agencies you cite above but did not add them because of your argument of inconsistency. Therefore, find something that stands out [e.g. final reports, etc.]). Israel-Hezbollah War passes Rules #1 and #2. The same sources you cited have used Israel-Hezbollah war as well.

So I will make your job a little bit easier and remove the sources that do not prove anything. Here is your list:

"The 2006 Lebanon War: Lessons Learned", published in the US Army War College Quarterly Parameters

"Basic Facts You Should Know - 2006 Lebanon War" – published by the Anti-Defamation League

--Shamir1 17:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting way to interpret things, accepting them when they support your position, rejecting them when they don't. The bottom line is, it appears obvious that there still isn't a consensus, among "most English speakers," nor among scholars, for any particular name. Remember, I'm not trying to show that "2006 Lebanon war" is the correct name – only that there is still no concensus for your proposed "2006 Israel-Hezbollah war". This became evident with minimal effort, so I'll leave the topic be until the next RfC or move request is made. — George Saliba [talk] 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you are smarter than this. You say: "Interesting way to interpret things, accepting them when they support your position, rejecting them when they don't." Here are the things you can be talking about:

  • The use of news stories that report on a single event. These are generally inconsistent, as you pointed out, and I have refrained from using them. So what are you talking about?
  • The use of the title of a news story. Titles of news stories (unless simply called "2006 Lebanon War" or "Lebanon War"...) do not mean anything as they need to shortened and are not grammatically correct. That does not pertain to working papers.
  • Using "the war between Israel and Hezbollah" to support Israel-Hezbollah war. You had me drop this, and therefore you cannot use "the war in Lebanon" to support Lebanon war.

None of the hypocrisy comes from my side. Bottom line is, it is not about what you personally call it or want to call it. Credentials are the most important. I have compiled final reports, general coverage pages, publications, etc. (things that stand out) to prove my case. Among scholars, it is hard to find one particular name, but I have found 4 publications from the most major, powerful, and influential think tanks that use that term. Anything found for Lebanon war is at most 1 (so far) and the source is by far weaker than the Washington Institute, Brookings, Heritage, and Carnegie, as well as the CRS. And for what common English speakers use, BBC, Gallup, and Harris Interactive used Israel-Hezbollah to ask them.

George.Saliba, I understand you want "Lebanon War", or as it seems, anything that has the word "Lebanon" in it. You need to have the right reasons. It is not about "damage" or who can gather the most voters. Collect sources and prove your point. I'm all ears. --Shamir1 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to cover your basic points, as I feel this discussion is going nowhere quickly, and will continue to do so until this is put to a consensus test.
  1. I furvently and completely disagree with your belief that titles mean nothing.
  2. I agree that "the war in Lebanon" should not be considered, just as "the war between Israel and Hezbollah" should not be. However, to the best of my recollection, all but one of the sources I cited used "Lebanon war." My sources are not intended to show that "Lebanon war" is the right name, only that the name "Israel-Hezbollah war" does not meet the criteria for naming policy rules #1 and #2 that you claim it does.
  3. You repeatedly bolster your sources, when, after reviewing them, I find them to be very weak. A little box on the Washington Post site; polls, not meant in any way to be reliable sources and with no editorial oversight. Almost none of your sources use any single term consistently, let alone the one you claim they do; let alone exclusively.
  4. I don't particularly care what this article is called – I'm purely defending the current consensus against what I fear may be just you wearing blinders, or possibly blatant POV-pushing.
  5. I have no burden of proof to keep the consensus name – I'm only trying to illustrate the errors of your reasoning, and suggesting you make your proposal under rule #3 of the naming conventions (where it at least has some merit). The burden of proof is always on the party attempting to seek out a new consensus.
We can continue to talk in circles about this for weeks and months longer than we already have, but I really don't see the point. You can keep making all kinds of bogus assertions until you're blue in the face, but unless you're just trying to gain consensus through a war of attrition, consider filing an RfC, an RfM, or an RM, and put your proposal to the test. — George Saliba [talk] 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Title of what? It makes a huge difference. I keep explaining this to you and I gave you an example before about the title of a news story covering a single event, as opposed to the title of any other article (can be from a newspaper) that is simply called "Lebanon War." There is a huge difference. Even if there was not, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE INCONSISTENCY. I gave examples of that before and so did you. Hardly any of what you named are and it is certainly hypocritical to what you preached earlier. So find something that stands out.
  2. Don't be trying to prove how something does not work. That does not help either of us. How does proving (which you are not) that Israel-Hezbollah war is not credible take us to Lebanon war? Get the facts, use the sources. You're dancing all over the place. We go with what is most credible. Basically, if I were to make up a point system (again, I am totally making up the system and the number of points), if Israel-Hezbollah War had 5 points, Lebanon War had 3, and Israel-Lebanon conflict had 3, then we would use Israel-Hezbollah War since that name itself has the most points individually. This is a matter of Wikipedia and credentials. So far, no one has brought up any sources that measure up to even close to half of the strength of the sources that support Israel-Hezbollah War. Total disregard of credibility is not appreciated.
  3. Your claim that they are inconsistent is boloney and a lame excuse. We have been through this before. You recite excuses that are never heard on Wikipedia. The questions prepared for polls do have editorial oversight, and the results are up to the public. Wouldn't these agencies choose a name that is most familiar to the public? Of course. The sources I brought up use the term in the title of paper, publication, etc. The title is about the war in general and is not a single news story that covers one event (i.e. "Siniora calls for ceasefire during Lebanon war" in a news story). News stories cover one event of the war and even then it does not even call it "Lebanon war" in the text. Titles of these stories of the event, not the war, are intended to be very brief and not grammatically correct. Do you see me using this, this, this, or this? No, and I'm not going to. That is why I have been looking at final reports, general pages of war coverage, publications, etc. That is because the titles of these do not change and cover the war as a whole, not one event or aspect of it. All of the newspaper sources I use have its own page on the war. As you know, I had been citing newspaper stories covering one event before as well, but I have dropped it. The Washington Post (to respond to one of the most ludicrous excuses I have ever heard) has a box and a link entitled "Israeli-Hezbollah War" and directs you to a page called Conflict in the Middle East.
  4. You have not indicated any errors in my reasoning. To do so, pick a name and prove that it has more credentials to back it up. That's it. --Shamir1 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This whole issue seems totally pointless. The article name is totally fine the way it is. Could we please not argue about this any more. thanks. --Sm8900 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, as soon as the article is moved to its proper name per sources. --Shamir1 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll reiterate: this discussion appears to be going nowhere, and the burden of proof lies in trying to change the consensus, not defend the existing consensus. Until such time as a new consensus is sought after via RfC, RfM, or RM, I see no point in continuing this disucssion. — George Saliba [talk] 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by new consensus, since there never has been consensus. (Consensus is not achieved by votes, per WP policy.) Anyway, the support for this name is strong, and let me reiterate that outside support for any other name has not shown to be anywhere near as strong. Wikipedia tells us to go with the best name (in terms of use, familiarity, and description). While I have been away and editing just a bit less the last few days, the process of moving this article to its appropriate name will continue. --Shamir1 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming: summary?

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Just for those who haven't been involved in the naming discussions and don't feel like reading pages and pages of Talk, could someone briefly summarize why the page is called the 2006 Lebanon War? Preferably from a NPOV. Thanks. Jeztah 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, though I'm sure other editors may disagree, or find my reasoning to be laced with POV... The current article name was chosen under rule #3 of the naming conventions on events: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications."
First, why rule #3, and not #1 or #2? Well, #1 requires a common name, where the common name is the one used by "most English speakers aware of the topic." Unfortunately, after looking through literally hundreds of sources, there still doesn't seem to be a single, common name used by "most English speakers." Under rule #2, we need a generally accepted word for the event, where the generally accepted word is one which has "consensus among scholars in the real world." Again, unfortunately no such consensus exists (where consensus is loosely defined as a 60-80% agreement). This is my interpretation - Shamir1 disagrees I think, and believes that the title "2006 Israel-Hezbollah war" meets the criteria for both of these two rules.
This leaves us with rule #3 – to use a descriptive name. There have been various names proposed, which have each been evaluated for applicability, accuracy, vagueness, and neutrality. Among these names, the name "2006 Lebanon war" gained consensus among the editors. It is descriptive of where the war primarily took place. The name "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" would have been more accurate of the location of fighting, but there was concern that this would imply that Lebanon was a combantant (when Lebanon's military forces did not engage in combat). The title "2006 Israel-Hezbollah war" has also been proposed a number of times, but (a) it doesn't list all combatants, (b) it may be considered POV (for very complicated reasons, that have to do with who won the war, and who was targetted in fighting), and (c) it doesn't list the party that suffered the most death and destruction as a result of the conflict. So, the current title was chosen for it's neutrality over other, possibly more accurate titles, which do not meet the criteria for rules #1 and #2. Again, this is just my view. — George Saliba [talk] 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the Israeli government officially dubbed the war the "Second Lebanon War" a couple months ago. Since what is colloquially referred to as the "First Lebanon War" is called the 1982 Lebanon War on Wikipedia, this article got its current name. — George Saliba [talk] 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeztah, the explaination above (that since the article of the 1982 war is called 1982 Lebanon War and since that war only since 2006 has been called the First Lebanon War only in and to Israel, then this war should be called 2006 Lebanon War is incorrect and that logic is not supported by Wikipedia policy. The 2006 Lebanon has very little credentials (as I am proving above.) Israel-Hezbollah War carries no POV implications (the excuse George.Saliba named above is purely original and cannot be heard anywhere else in all seriousness.) Using his logic, 2006 Lebanon war would be incorrect since fighting began and took place in Israel as well. Israel-Hezbollah War meets the criteria of Rule #1 and #2. Neither George.Saliba nor any other editor has come close to proving another single name. And George.Saliba, "(c) it doesn't list the party that suffered the most death and destruction as a result of the conflict." Way to make up Wikipedia policy! I do not appreciate that at at all. You know as an editor that that is purely and totally irrelevant. --Shamir1 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "2006 Lebanon war" isn't perfect, but it is the closest to meeting Wikipedia policy we have found thus far. Also, the "(c) it doesn't list the party that suffered the most death and destruction as a result of the conflict." is entirely relevant to Wikipedia policy, per naming conventions rule #3. It becomes quickly apparent to anyone doing even the minimum amount of research that "Israel-Hezbollah war" doesn't meet rules #1 or #2. It might meet rule #3, though that is also disputable. — George Saliba [talk] 17:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not true, at all. What are the credentials for that name? Nothing. Enough baseless excuses. --Shamir1 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The reasons are simple. this war occurred primarily in Lebanon. It was the only war between states which occurred on lebanese territory in 2006. finding problems with the article name is just silly. --Sm8900 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Primarily does not mean exclusively, and I was simply trying to give George.Saliba a bit of his own reasoning, not necessarily my view. Its all about proper sources, not personal opinion. --Shamir1 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
yes, but Israel's main issue was attacks occurring from Lebanon. So it was a war in lebanon, over Lebanese conduct, with the primary targets in lebanon. The reason Israel is not mentioned is that israel is a protagonist nation, meanong it is one of the dominant countries as well as being one of the good guys. For the same reason, America's war in Vietnam is simply called the Vietnam War; the UN action in Korea is called the Korean War; the international war against the Boxers is called the Boxer Rebellion. Wars are named after the places where they occur, not named after all of the countries involved. --Sm8900 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comparisons aren't relevant - in both the Vietnam and Korean wars, all of the fighting occurred in those places. In the 2006 conflict, that was not the case. What about the rockets that landed in Israeli territory, killing and wounding Israelis? What about the capture/abduction of the two Israeli soldiers, which started the whole thing in the first place, which occured in Israeli territory? Cynical 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


You're right. I didn't mean all fighting occurred in Lebanon. I mean the main issue of the war wasd the conduct of groups in Lebanon, and the political arrangements and conflicts in Lebanon. Besides the comparison with Vietnam and Korea was that in those, the major powers involved are not mentioned in the war's title. Thats because it was clearly hinging on conflicts within that country. On the other hand, the Franco-Prussian War and the Spanish-American Wars were between two evenly matched powers. So that's one reason behind different naming ideas. --Sm8900 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Vietnam war, much of the fighting occurred in Laos and Cambodia. I agree with George Saliba's reasoning which seems pretty coherent. The name should stay as it is. --Burgas00 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So much for that whole "summary" idea, LOL. Alright, I give up. You kids have fun ;) Jeztah 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called the "2006 Lebanon War" because (a) the fighting took place in 2006, (b) the vast majority of the fighting/destruction/deaths occurred in Lebanon, and (c) the conflict was large enough to be considered a war (per the Israeli government decision a couple months ago). Better? :) — George Saliba [talk] 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beauty. Thanks. Jeztah 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi you guys. Take a look at this! Name that war - Your chance to rewrite Israeli history, from haaretz.com. deals with this exact topic. --Sm8900 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

None of these reasons are supported by facts or outside sources. This is not about what you would call it, we need sources. So far, I am the only one to cite them. George.Saliba, you have to ask yourself: Whose reasoning (right above) is that? It is yours. Why should an editor's reasoning be the basis to name an encyclopedia article? The fact that it is a war is not disputed. The location of the majority of the fighting is not the basis of naming a war. --Shamir1 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_41&oldid=1142395794"