Wikipedia

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 39

< Talk:2006 Lebanon War
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Tariqabjotu in topic Requested move (old)
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Earlier discussions

  • Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive38
  • Hezballah used civilians as shields and later as trophies, while continuing to murder Israelis.
  • Unlocked
  • Numbers, terms, etc.
  • Keegan Again (and some others).
  • Screwed up the references page
  • Amal and LCP in infobox
  • IDF casualties
  • Pre-planned?
  • At least we're not the only ones who can't decide what to call it...
  • 10 3-20-07: Israel officially declares conflict with Lebanon as a "war"
  • New name

No consensus with name of war

Latest comment: 17 years ago50 comments10 people in discussion

There is no consensus with the current name which is probably one of the most incorrect options for the name of the war. Until consensus, it should be changed back to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, or better yet 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, since most news sources are referring to it as "the war between Israel and Hezbollah guerillas" or "last summer's war with Israel and Hezbollah"... That would mean a Israel-Hezbollah war. In any case, the current name is incorrect. --Shamir1 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right, though 1982 Lebanon War was not exactly between Israel and Lebanon also. Flayer 08:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to think that the discussion that took place here constitutes a consensus, although it would have been great to get more feedback when the discussion was happening. While obviously not a vote by any officials means, and while votes do note guarantee consensus, having 5 or 6 people in favor of the move and only 2 or 3 opposed is pretty close, and apparently close enough for the administrator to move the article. A couple concerns I have with the "Israel-Hezbollah" naming are that most of those killed in the conflict were not members of Hezbollah, and not even all of the militants killed or fighting were members of Hezbollah; the article curently lists three Lebanese militias, in addition to Hezbollah. If it came down to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War and 2006 Lebanon War (which were the two frontrunners in my mind), I'd favor the later just for brevity, and consistency with the 1982 Lebanon War, though I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the former either. — George Saliba [talk] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not participate in the naming discussion when it took place, but I too support the current naming, 2006 Lebanon War. Italiavivi 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think everyone is ever going to be completely happy with the name. We've got a broad consensus for [ Name ] War, but the details won't be sorted out. I'm happy with this name, as in the war was in Lebanon, and involved a lot of Lebanese (some might say a majority), and is similar to the Israeli name without following an Israeli POV. I can see the arguments for Israel - Hezbollah, but I don't think its necessary or accurate to add. Iorek85 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

it is good as long as "War" is in the name. I also support the current name, the 1982 War wasn't called Israeli-PLO-Syrian War... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, please rename the Franco-Prussian War and the Russo-Japanese War and... Wars are typically named after where they took place OR who fought them. --Shamir1 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
also, I don't understand why people say Israel-Hezbollah War. Perhaps Israeli-Hezbollah War would be more discutable... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot, we already had an Israeli-Hezbollah War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no -- That was the Israel-Hezbollah-SLA War. (Israeli-Hebollian-South Lebanon Armish War I suppose). Anyway, I objected to the rename; still do. Would be fine with keeping War, but the current name sounds like a civil war to me. -- Kendrick7talk 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I can kind of see that, though the civil war article is at Lebanese Civil War. Remember too that the 1982 Lebanon War article is about the 1982 invasion, not the civil war that was going on before, during, and after the invasion. If the name implies a civil war, then it should likely be changed in both articles. — George Saliba [talk] 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, then at least I'm being consistent! -- Kendrick7talk 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually more curious about the name for that article. It's kind of odd having the 1982 Lebanon War in the middle of the Lebanese Civil War. After thinking about it more, I guess the names 1982 Israel-Lebanon War and 2006 Israel-Lebanon War are most accurate, but I don't view the current titles as very bad. — George Saliba [talk] 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
George.Saliba, those last two names are by far the least accurate. Names of wars are typically named where they took place OR who fought who. The vast majority of news sources call it something similar to what I noted above, which would mean something like 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War.

--Shamir1 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "vast majority" of news sources haven't come close to settling on any single name for the conflict. You'll find "Israel-Hezbollah war" and "Israel-Lebanon war" used more or less equally, with "Second Lebanon War" used about twice as often (mostly due to the recent Israeli decision on the name), but citing a dozen random articles that uses each term is hardly useful. More interesting, however, is your statement that "names of wars are typically named where they took place OR who fought who." Well, the war took place primarily in Lebanon, so I guess the current title works. However, there were also rockets fired into northern Israel, so I don't see "Israel-Lebanon" as being the "least accurate," as you put it, since it would be just a broader definition of where the war took place. I view it as preferable to the "Israel-Hezbollah" title, since, per the article, these weren't the only parties involved. Why then should we favor the "who fought who" over the "where they took place," when the formed is exclusionary and the latter is all inclusive? — George Saliba [talk] 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no official name, but news sources have certainly called it something like "the war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas," "the 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah", "Israel-Hezbollah war".... all of those would mean a title Israel-Hezbollah War, since the "-" denotes "between." Israel-Lebanon War is certainly the least accurate because it infers that it was a war fought between Israel and Lebanon, which it was not. I have hardly seen Israel-Lebanon war, which is incredibly incorrect anyway. In regards to coming close to settling, this is the closest we got. --Shamir1 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, news sources have certainly said things like this, though they have also used Israel-Lebanon explicitly (such as here and here), and they have in fact used Israel-Lebanon to refer to the 1982 war (such as here), though again, I don't think that making lists will resolve this issue. I'm still not sure why you favor listing combatants (well, a subset of the combatants) rather than where the war took place though. Even if your claim that "Israel-Lebanon" implies that these were the combatants, rather than where the war took place, what is wrong with the current title? — George Saliba [talk] 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
When a dash is included it implies the two who were combatting. The 1982 war was a different story and it does not help name this war more than the names of any other war. Most sources call it either the war between Israel and Hezbollah (or something very similar, see above) or the Israel-Hezbollah war. This is what it is known as and that is why the current title is wrong, since it was not a Lebanon War at least in the same sense that 1982 one was. 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War is by far the most accurate and per the above, the most used. I have included major mass media publications, including all major American news channels (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS), (Funk and Wagnalls, Britannica), America's largest newspaper (NY Times), the largest Middle East policy think tank (WINEP), human rights groups (HRW, AI, UNICEF), and the largest news weekly magazine (Time). --Shamir1 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong – I know we can find sources that say the war was between Israel and Hezbollah. And we can find sources that say the war took place in Lebanon. And we can find sources that say the war was between Israel and Lebanon. And we can find sources that explicityly call it the Israel-Hezbollah War. And we can find sources that explicitly call it the Israel-Lebanon War. And we can find sources that explicity call it the Second Lebanon War. We can find a whole lot of sources for all of the above, but the fact is that none of them holds a supermajority.
I think the underlying issues are two-fold. First and foremost, do we title the article according to who fought in the war, or where the war took place. Second, what is the best name to use when meeting this criteria. Currently, the article title is based on where the war took place, and that the best name for that is Lebanon. This title had the widest margin of consensus of the discussions I've seen about the title of this article, but if you feel a different title would be better, maybe consider putting them up to a vote. — George Saliba [talk] 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt where the war took place, however, using adjectives or prepositions for war, or better yet the war, most sources come up with something that would mean Israel-Hezbollah war. That is what they describe the war as. Second Lebanon War is a no-can-do, it is what viewed as from Israel and called that in Israel. --Shamir1 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'd suggest putting it up to a vote in a new discussion section. I'd suggest identifying which of the naming convention policies you're looking to change the title under. Also, please note that "Second Lebanon War" is entirely valid. Just because it's what one side chose to call the war doesn't mean that it isn't an option for the article title. Do Iraqis refer to the Iraq War by that name? I doubt it... — George Saliba [talk] 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, very very few sources call it a "Israel-Lebanon war", and only a minority of that small bunch is prominent, if any at all, and in total are very weak to say the least. It does not compare at all to Israel-Hezbollah. As for finding other titles, I found the best sources and the most recent. I found sources that went beyond news stories; for example, the BBC source which is official and not a story. I wouldnt be surprised if Iraqis call it the Iraq War, but certainly the world and most news sources call it that. The Washington Post also has a special page for the Israeli-Hezbollah War, not a story. If these news sources have come to consensus, it is about time we do too. I repeat that I have included major mass media publications, including all major American news channels (FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS), two encyclopedias (Funk and Wagnalls, Britannica), America's largest newspaper (New York Times), the largest Middle East policy think tank (WINEP), human rights groups (HRW, AI, UNICEF), the largest news weekly magazine (Time), the Congressional Research Service of the U.S. Congress... Thats what they call the war. --Shamir1 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I'd suggest putting it up for a vote, and yet again I'd suggest identifying which policy you're aiming for. I think the independent research of editors will show that this term does not meet the criteria of "if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing," nor do I think that it is "a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event." I would bet it's not even used half of the time, and almost every example will be met with counter-examples from the same or similar sources that use a different wording. — George Saliba [talk] 05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This also may be a case of more words not adding to the meaning. Quick Google news and web searches seem to indicate that the current title is more common than either of our suggestions. — George Saliba [talk] 05:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I just did a quick Google of the current title, and your allegation that that title is more common is incredibly false. While it leads me to sources that relate to this war, a) the words are rearranged and it is not the title they use, and b) almost all of those sources are unreliable/not prominent. Seriously though, what is your problem? Are you paying attention to what I have compiled above? because I am sensing a conflict of interest, and I really dont want to as I have admired your work at WP and have came to you personally with many issues. --Shamir1 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a serious case of de ja vu :). I don't think much has changed since then. The name is fine as it is, at least for now. Iorek85 10:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the rename to begin with, so I think it's only a question of whether to move it back to the old name (or at least 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, which had consensus), or to move it forward to the name Isarig has suggested. -- Kendrick7talk 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a consensus, and it is "2006 Lebanon War." Stop restarting settled issues and put your time and energy into other aspects of this article. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact there was no WP:Consensus because I was among those who did not consent. Time consuming as it will be, I guess it's upon me to move it back, and we can try this again. -- Kendrick7talk 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kendrick, there was. I count 6 supports and one oppose (you). If I' ve counted badly, I apologise, but that is a consensus- "the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision" - and 6:1 is 85% Iorek85 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I count myselt and Mr. Rubin against, Mr. Saliba, by the end of the discussion, as undecided, and 5 in support. 5/8 == 62.5%. Very slim support for renaming this; I'm calling this a lack of consensus and moving it back. -- Kendrick7talk 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note. I felt this name to be preferable to the former name, and supported the move. There are other names that I believe should possibly be considered, but I definitely feel this name is better than the former. — George Saliba [talk] 02:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley, not only is it not settled, it is a very incorrect name for the war, weakly supported by references. Please, I am not looking for opinions on the war. I do not want to hear what anyone thinks it should be called themselves, this or that. This is not about personal opinions, as all of you know as Wikipedians. I spent a long time gathering top-notch sources to see what they call it. George.Saliba tried to counter it by bringing a single AP story, which does not match up to the multiple other AP stories which are also more recent. The Washington Post has a separate page for the conflict, which they call the Israeli-Hezbollah War. The San Francisco Chronicle also has its own permanent page on the war and calls it the Israel-Hezbollah war. BBC did research, not a news story, where they called it the Israeli-Hezbollah War. The largest and influential Middle East policy think tank, which is in part written by former MidEast envoy Dennis Ross, calls it the Israel-Hizballah War. Time (the largest news weekly magazine) calls it the Israel-Hizballah war and nothing else. Two ENCYCLOPEDIAS call it the war between Hezbollah and Israel, and nothing else. The United States Congress calls it the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. Every single major American news channel calls it the Israel-Hezbollah war. What else is needed? Seriously. It may not be what you would call it, but these are the sources, the best and recent. Any problems with the sources? I really dont think so. Its about time we agree with them. --Shamir1 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're making extremly broad oversimplifications with your statements. First, just because some website in one branch of the United States Congress uses this term in one of their documents, that doesn't mean that it is what the "U.S. Congress calls it." The same holds true for AI, HRW, the UN, and "every single major American news channel." Guess what, few if any of them will use any single name consistently. At some point did some of them use it? Probably, but they probably all used various other names too. You also should be careful sensationalizing your statements, throwing around terms like "largest news weekly magazine" and "largest and influential... think tank," as I have no knowledge of such claims are true or not (their articles don't seem to mention it), and it triggers my WP:OR-gag reflex in a very bad way. Plus, some of your claims, such as Time calling it "nothing else" are blantantly untrue. Google is your friend; use it. Also, nobody disputes that the fighting was predominantly between Hezbollah and Israel. The dispute is what to call the article. I don't in any way view your assertion that statements such as "war between Hezbollah and Israel" means we have no choice but to name the article the "2006 Israel-Hezbollah War," any more than a similar claim would make me want to move the Iraq War to the America-Iraqi Insurgents War, or the America-Baath Party War. Start a vote, see if you can build a consensus for a new name, and I'll try to help find articles using different titles as a counterpoint for you. — George Saliba [talk] 02:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for saying U.S. Congress rather than the the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress (difference to the discussion, please?). As for using the single name consistently, I found that the usually stick to the name or something very similar, and chose the most recent. This is the most recent story from the war from ABC, for example.[43] The stories from the AP were all recent.
As for being consistent (I really already covered this), I explained that many of them were permanent sources. For example, the BBC source, which is not a news story, but official research. The Washington Post is the same. They name the link for the page on the war the Israeli-Hezbollah War, thank you. So dont give me any of that boloney.
Time (magazine) is America's largest circulated news weekly magazine. (Please see article Newsweek, and do NOT say that it is OR before getting information). That is big, very big, and we should consider it. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's article does not say my words, but says "one of the most influential think tanks concerning US Middle East policy." (again, point?) The writer of that article is Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy for the U.S., and for the record WINEP's title for the war is pretty consistent.
Then you say it is "blatantly untrue" about Time. First off, the short title for a news story amounts to much less than the text of the story. In this case you offered for Time, they wrote "summer's war" and "Hizballah-Israel conflict." The war's name that appears in the text is definitely more significant. Secondly, the two stories I picked up from time are more recent as well, but this older one also calls it Hizballah-Israel conflict anyway.
You are repeating much of what I have already discussed. No, no one denies who was fighting, but the fact is what adjective or preposition they use to describe the war. Israel-Hezbollah war, the war that broke out between Israel and Hezbollah, the conflict between Hezbollah guerrillas and Israel... all that stuff is essentially the same. I dont know what you mean by my assertion that that would mean we have no other choice but to name it anything. A "-" denotes "between", that is simple. Stop arguing that it does not.
Now, again comparing other wars. Please do not make me repeat the same stuff. Most sources call it the Iraq war. Using your logic, please rename the Franco-Prussian War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Arab-Israeli War,...
So I'll do this. I will repeat the sources that are permanent, not just news stories that may or may not be consistent. You tell me if that is not enough. They are: BBC, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Congressional Research Service, Human Rights Watch, and the Gallup Poll. As for other ones that have certianly been consistent, they are: Time (magazine), Amnesty International, and UNICEF. And then of course we have the two encyclopedias. --Shamir1 05:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll just cover a few of these points, since it really has no bearing until you start a discussion for moving the article. The bottom line is that you're sensationalizing, trying to make the sources you're citing sound more important than they are in order to push your point. I find several of your cited articles that don't say what you're suggesting they say, and others from the same sources that state things differently. If you want a dash to denote "between," maybe you should edit the Wikipedia article on the dash, and see if it sticks. Also, I'm extremely disappointed that you chose to edit the WINEP article yourself, adding the phrase "most influential think tanks", and then quoting it here as a fact to back up your own assertions. That's a good way to lose a lot of respect in the eyes of other.
You're repeatedly implying and/or claiming that "most sources" call this the "Israel-Hezbollah War," and not only is that not true, but it's quickly evident to almost anyone who looks into it. No, these sources are not enough. In fact I would call them far from indicating that there is "consensus, among scholars in the real world," about this name, where consensus seems to generally range from 60-80%. As for some of your sources:
  • BBC - What about this has any bearing? It's a poll. This isn't an article, or a portal, or anything that would constitute a reliable source. It's a poll.
  • Washington Post - The links named "Israel-Hezbollah" are from July and September, respectively, and the page it points to is titled the "Crisis in the Middle East".
  • WINEP - I'm not even going to consider this if you have to edit the article on them to support your assetions. It's worth noting, however, that this is widely considered a "pro-Israel" think tank.[44]
  • Human Rights Watch - HRW's portal is titled the "Israel-Lebanon conflict."[45] It also uses "Israel/Lebanon" in titling various documents on its site.
  • CRS - This document also uses phrases like "Lebanon and Israel are still in a state of war," and often calls the war the "2006 war in Lebanon."
  • Gallup Poll - Again, I don't think a poll constitutes a reliable source.
  • Time - In your opinion titles mean less than the bodies of articles. In mine, the opposite is often true.
  • AI - Speaking of titles, many of the AI reports on the conflict are titled with "Israel/Lebanon"[46]
Are you checking the sources you're citing? Almost none of them hold any water. Are you checking if there are counter examples, since you're suggesting that the current title is inacurate? I can see counter examples from many of the same sources, and sometimes in the same articles you're citing. It honestly seems that you're grasping at straws here, spewing articles in the hopes that nobody actually checks them. — George Saliba [talk]

Oy. I knew there would be a mess-up, and so I will explain one by one, if necessary.

  • BBC - What do you mean what about this has any bearing? This is official from BBC? Come on now. It is permanent, not a news story. BBC has no bearing? This is what they call it and it has no bearing.... Ok.
  • Washington Post - Yes it is called crisis in the middle east, BUT the link is called Israeli-Hezbollah War, even recent articles have that link. Their "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" link takes me to "Conflict in the Middle East".
  • WINEP - pfff, since when is sourcewatch a reliable source? its worse than wiki. This is Dennis Ross.
  • Human Rights Watch - [47] For the broader conflict, yes, for the war they call it the Israel-Hezbollah War. "Israel/Lebanon" simply means the issues they cover in Israel/Lebanon, not a name for the war.
  • CRS - You say: "This document also uses phrases like "Lebanon and Israel are still in a state of war," and often calls the war the "2006 war in Lebanon."" Answer: Lebanon and Israel have been in a state of war since Lebanon's invasion of Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Let me count what they call the war (in order): 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war (first time appears), summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, summer 2006 war, summer 2006 war in Lebanon, 2006 war. One time, and later in the document, and written to show what is occuring in Lebanon (and they made sure to include summer 2006). That is not often. It is not the first name for it, or what they call it mostly.
  • Gallup Poll - You say: "Again, I don't think a poll constitutes a reliable source." I say: What are you talking about? Its just to show what they are calling it.
  • Time - You say: "In your opinion titles mean less than the bodies of articles. In mine, the opposite is often true." Okay then tell me, can I quote George Galloway saying 'Jerusalem raped by foreigners'? Same idea. I have to go to the text, that is not my opinion. Nor is it my opinion that Time calls it the Israel-Hezbollah war there too, or the several other times. When it comes to the title of permanent information, such as in the San Francisco Chronicle, that is certainly true. But not another news story, for the reason I showed you above.
  • AI - Again, AI reports the issues in Israel/Lebanon. Are they calling the war that? No. They have been consistent with what they call it.
And now your comments.
"If you want a dash to denote "between," maybe you should edit the Wikipedia article on the dash, and see if it sticks." Better idea: How about you check out List of wars and find me a war that has a dash between two nations where one of them was not fighting. Until now I really thought that was common sense. Even so, what would you suggest if a source calls the war the war between Israel and Hezbollah?

"Also, I'm extremely disappointed that you chose to edit the WINEP article yourself, adding the phrase "most influential think tanks", and then quoting it here as a fact to back up your own assertions. That's a good way to lose a lot of respect in the eyes of other." Huh???? I did not add that. What? --Shamir1 08:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no argument against BBC. Yes it is a poll (by BBC), and that is what they call it in the poll. Please, no baseless arguments. Then there are the several other news channels. There are the two encyclopedias (any arguments?). The Congressional Research Service definitely uses 2006 Israel-Hezbollah the most and uses it to introduce the subject. Human Rights Watch often writes "Israel/Lebanon" while covering issues affecting Israel/Lebanon. When they write about the war, they call it Israel-Hezbollah war. The United Nations published a Year in Review 2006. See how they describe the war. Time: the most recent one says Israel-Hizballah war.[48] Older ones call it Hizballah-Israel conflict[49], 34-day war between Israel and the Shi'ite militant group Hizballah[50], the war between Israel and Hizballah [51], . The Associated Press calls it the Israel-Hezbolllah war, at least when looking at many of them, particularly recent ones. The Washington Post calls it Israeli-Hezbollah War, in the same way they call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I dont know what you mean by saying the articles are from July and September. They dont change that part. They dont change the link Israeli-Palestinian conflict either.

Then, you accuse me of me of misrepresenting what the sources call the war. Can you tell me which ones? I dont like false accusations. While at it, please tell me where you got the idea that I added any sentence at all to WINEP. --Shamir1 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; in reviewing the edit history of the page, I noticed that you were the last one to edit it, and I misread the date. Not seeing the unsourced "most influential" statement when I read the article yesterday trying to verify your claims, I assumed you had added it, but I was in error (happily). Regardless, I'm really not satisfied with any of your refutals for any of these sources. Maybe other editors will find your reasoning more logical. — George Saliba [talk] 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not satisfied with what? In what way is is the BBC source not valid? It is permanent and official. It is their international poll and they could have called it something else but they did not. It is very significant.

As for Time, it is for the same reason that the quote included in the title of the Ynet article has much less bearing than the quote written in the text. If it were a title of itself, for example, if the page were called "Lebanon's war", then that would have more bearing. But not in this case of the war's name within the title of a news story, for which in that same new story they call it the Hizballah-Israel conflict. So I dont see what you are not satisfied with; I am explaining a general fact about the title of news stories. Even so, the multiple other Time articles, including the most recent, also call it the Israel-Hizballah war or something very similar (see above). I dont know what you mean by not being satisfied with this. I am just naming facts. The fact is that all of TIME articles, including the one you brought up, call the war Israel-Hezbollah war (or conflict), again, including the most recent.

Not satisfied with my Washington Post analysis? Their name for the war (Israeli-Hezbollah War) is done in the same fashion as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. And as for the use of the dash, the Washington Post's subtitle for the Israeli-Hezbollah war includes "the month-long conflict between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerillas." Its really simple. The link says "The Israeli-Hezbollah War". There is nothing to be satisfied with here, these are facts. There is difference between calling it "the 34-day Lebanon war" and "the 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel" when it comes to the name of the war.

The Gallup Poll is not used for information, it is used to see what they call the war. Pew Global uses the same one.

Once again, this is not my opinion. Human Rights Watch does not use Israel/Lebanon to name the war; they use it as a title for the human rights they are watching in Israel/Lebanon. For the name of the war, it could not be clearer. They write Israel-Hezbollah war and are consistent with it.

You alleged that the Congressional Research Service "often" uses "war in Lebanon." That is false. To introduce the subject, they call it the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. In the text also appears: summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, summer 2006 war, summer 2006 war in Lebanon, 2006 war. The second-to-last one, which is only written once, may just be continuing the shorter "summer 2006 war" that they had been using, and in the context of the sentence they added that it took place in Lebanon. That does not make it the name. Even so, it is used a) only once, and b) much later. The first and must widely used name for the war is 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

The prominence of WINEP is apparent per the information in 'About the Institute'.[52] Moreover, the particular article shown was co-written by Dennis Ross, the U.S.'s former Middle East envoy.

And I just added Foreign Affairs to the list. --Shamir1 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just really quickly, I don't consider polls reliables sources – ever. There is no editorial oversight of any kind when writing a poll. I also tend to avoid special interest groups on either side, such as AIPAC, WINEP, or their pro-Arab counterparts. The bottom line is I fundamentally disagree with you that "there is difference between calling it 'the 34-day Lebanon war' and 'the 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel' when it comes to the name of the war." If you're claiming that the latter can be considered to be the same as "Israel-Hezbollah War", then the former could just as easily be said to indicate "Lebanon War," which would support the current article title. In short, of all the "articles" you've pointed out, and I use that term loosely, I find one or two tops that support your assertion. — George Saliba [talk] 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's kind of funny that it's called the 2006 Lebanon War when Lebanon didn't fight in it at all. I like 2006 Israel-Hezbullah war best. But I think the only option that I've heard so far which doesn't imply parties to the conflict is 2006 Summer War.

You are misunderstanding the point. We are not using the information of the poll. The question is, what language does the poll (and these are probably the most popular polls) use? What do they use as the common word for the war? The BBC poll in particular is BBC's and they call the war the Israeli-Hezbollah war, not the Lebanon war, not the war in Lebanon. That's the most continuity we can get at BBC. Really, there is no argument against that source. Nothing at all.
Secondly, I did not use any AIPAC source so I dont know what you are talking about. WINEP is not a special interest group and has no party affiliation or political loyalty. That particular article was co-written by Dennis Ross. There is no "pro-Arab counterpart." It has bearing.
I dont know what there is to fundamentally disagree about that comment. Do you fundamentally disagree that the Fatah-Hamas unity government is a government united between Fatah and Hamas? Do you fundamentally disagree that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you fundamentally disagree that Turkey-Israel relations are the relations between Turkey and Israel? Do you fundamentally disagree that the Greece-Turkey War was a war fought between Greece and Turkey? Do you fundamentally disagree that the summit with the U.S. and the E.U. was the U.S.-E.U. Summit? You're smarter than that. Dont make this difficult with a fundamentally baseless point. If that would be the case, why doesnt the U.N> write in their Year in Review 2006, the 2006 war in Lebanon? Why doesnt Britannica? Funk and Wagnalls?
I am assuming you have understood my explanation to your argument on Time. For permanent article titles, that is certainly the case, see the San Francisco Chronicle for an example of that. Not for a new story, especially since that same news story refers to Lebanon's war as the "Hizballah-Israel conflict." I repeat, since you refuse to acknowledge it, that the other TIME articles, including the most recent, call it the Israel-Hizballah war.
Lastly, you seem to simply want yourself for any name that includes the word "Lebanon", regardless of any source or providing any evidence of it being the most commonly used. I dont appreciate invalid attacks on sources like BBC, Congressional Research Service, Washington Post, Human Rights Watch... Those excuses have amounted to nothing and have not helped your case. You have even attacked things as clear as the text on Human Rights Watch. So, I will review all the sources again.

The following are recent and permanent references, general coverage articles, and/or have been consistent:

There. --Shamir1 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the weakness of your sources is fairly self evident, so instead I'd like to touch on the points where I believe we fundamentally disagree. To summarize, our disagreement is:

  1. You believe that there is a consensus among reliable sources for the title "Israel-Hezbollah War," while I see not such consensus, among the sources you cite, or elsewhere.
And how not? I have represented all of my sources accurately.
  1. You believe that something like "war between Hezbollah and Israel" supports the title "Israel-Hezbollah War," while ignoring the same sources using terms like "war in Lebanon," which I feel could just as easily be used to support the title "Lebanon War".
You are wrong to suggest that I ignore the fact that "the war in Lebanon" would support "Lebanon war." I do believe that, and I made that point very clear. You are right to suggest that "war in Lebanon could be used to support the title "Lebanon War".
  1. You favor listing the major combatants in the title, while I favor citing the primary location of fighting.
Its not me favoring, its the sources. --Shamir1 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. You're okay using polls as reliable sources for information not about the results of the poll, while I'm not.
This has nothing to do with the results of the poll. The question is: What did BBC call it? They called it the Israeli-Hezbollah War. Period. --Shamir1 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that pretty much covers it. Again, I'd suggest (for the fifth time?) starting an RfC or vote on a move, as I don't see this discussion going anywhere meaningful while the two of us are the only ones involved, and we (apparently) disagree so fundamentally. Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd remind everyone that we shouldn't be deciding which name is more correct (both names are obviously legitimate) but rather which one is more commonly used (and not specifically in scholarly papers). Saying the conflict was between Israel and Hezbollah doesn't automatically mean the source is referring to the war as the Israel-Hezbollah War just like if the source says the war in Lebanon it doesn't automatically mean the source is referring to the war as the 2006 Lebanon War. Yonatan talk 00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is precisely true. The issue only comes up under point three of the naming conventions policy. Since Shamir1 hasn't identified which of the three points he's supporting a rename under, despite my requests, the discussion has broadened to all three. — George Saliba [talk] 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I will continue. Yonatan, the cited sources do not say "The war was fought between Israel and Hezbollah," as your comment suggests. The sources I brought up say "...the war between Israel and Hezbollah." The difference: The 1st one is telling us who fought the war. The 2nd one is describing the war. Funk and Wagnalls could have said: the 2006 war in Lebanon, but they said: the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. That is also a difference. The connection is clearly shown in these Cox Enterprises, The Australian, and GlobalSecurity.org articles: [114], [115], [116]--which I have not yet added. Like Yonatan, I support the commonly used titles. The most commonly used news magazine is Time, and they use Israel-Hizballah war. BBC is commonly used, and in a permanent source of theirs they call it the Israeli-Hezbollah war. The Washington Post has a separate page of coverage on the war, and they call the war The Israeli-Hezbollah War. The San Francisco Chronicle has the same such page with the same title of the war. Human Rights Watch, in an official document and recent country report for Lebanon, calls it the Israel-Hezbollah war. The Congressional Research Service, the public policy arm of the United States Congress, calls it the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. I support the title 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War under Rule #1. --Shamir1 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this whole paragraph is just riddled with problems. However, I'm going to hold off discussing this further until and unless it comes up for an actual move vote or RfC, as we just seem to be spinning our wheels here. — George Saliba [talk] 02:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is not a single problem as the links of each source is there to prove themselves. I have requested for comment. --Shamir1 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming it the 2006 Lebanon War gives the article a Israeli perspective, just like the US calls the war going on in Iraq, The Iraq War. Would anyone call this war the "2006 Israel War?" Even If we get past that, the war wasn't against Lebanon. The name needs to be changed - Mrbojanglescj 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (older)

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments8 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. A new and different request to move the page was opened on April 19, and that is dealt with below. Dekimasuよ! 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a move back to a consensus title, per discussions above at #New name and #No consensus with name of war. -- Kendrick7talk 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral - I'm not strictly opposed to this move, though I'm not sure if it's better than the current title. — George Saliba [talk] 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The original title was hardly a consensus one, as evidenced by the number of complaints and attempts to move. We've got this far, there's no need to start going backwards. Iorek85 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've reviewed these last few pages of discussion, and have taken part in enough of the previous ones to be familiar with the issues. The current title seems ideal under the circumstances, and the uniformity with the 1982 event certainly adds appeal. TewfikTalk 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment This really doesn't require a vote, since it was an out-of-process move to begin with. -- Kendrick7talk 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I know some editors feel that the previous move "doesn't count," but I believe that the discussion that took place constituted a consensus. An administrator, not associated with the article in any way, reviewed the discussion and made the move, indicating that they felt the same way about consensus being reached. I highly suggest that going forward that we consider this to be starting from the "Previous Consensus" illustrated in the state diagram on the policy page on consensus, rather than continually arguing about whether consensus was reached or not. I honestly just don't think anything constructive will come out of arguing about whether the past discussion reached consensus or not, while talking about improvements or possible future moves to the article has merit. — George Saliba [talk] 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Changing the title from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War was the previous consensus. The admin simply got it wrong. An error, even in favor of the majority, does not create a new consensus; WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Kendrick7talk 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Not it wasn't. TheFeargod proposed (and I quote) "As the First Lebanon War here on Wikipedia is named 1982 Lebanon War then the Second should be named 2006 Lebanon War". This was the move that people supported, and achieved consensus. Iorek85 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not for us to decide. TheFear's logic to name this war based on a past war is his logic. So far, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War is by far the most accurate title reflecting the cream of the crop of sources. --Shamir1 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may point something out - it would be best not to use "War" with a capital 'W' in the title, as this implies an official name. Compare 1906 San Francisco earthquake and Great Lisbon Earthquake for examples of titles correctly using the "date + name" capitalisation format. Also, Second Lebanon War, First Lebanon War and July War would all be capitalised. My opinion is, as always, that the title does not matter as long as the appropriate redirects are in place and the first few sentences of the article gives the other names. That way, those who know it by whatever title only have to remember their name for it - they type that in and arrive in the right place, regardless of what the actual title is. Seriously, the content is far more important than the title. My preference is Second Lebanon War, as that is an official name and is more recognisable than July War. A title being slightly POV is OK as long as the first sentence gives the other names. 2006 Lebanon war (small 'w') and other variants should all be redirects. Carcharoth 13:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe a capital 'W' was chosen to match 1982 Lebanon War, which also didn't have an "official" name. — George Saliba [talk] 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I should have moved that before bringing this up... :-) Anyway, since I said the titles don't really matter (up to a certain point), I'm not going to quibble. Carcharoth 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. Lebanon War (1982) (capital 'W') would be OK if Lebanon War was the official name and the date is just disambiguating. eg. The Great War and the 1914-1918 war and First World War. Putting the date first is done for "descriptive names" and the name is decapitalised. Official names that include a date are rare, but it does happen sometimes. War of 1812 is an example. Carcharoth 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you by the way, just pointing out why I think the name was chosen. I wouldn't oppose moving both articles to the lowercase 'w'. — George Saliba [talk] 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The First Lebanon War isn't an official name at all, in fact Israel never even officially recognized it as a war never mind naming it the "First Lebanon War". I'd like a link explaining why capitalizing the war in 2006 Lebanon War implies it's an official name and no, wikipedia isn't a source, it's only a tertiary source so showing similar examples on Wikipedia isn't sufficient evidence. Yonatan talk 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source, but this is a question of style, not sourcing. Wikipedia does have style guidelines. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Events are not listed there, but as Wikipedia's style guidelines tend to be based on a mix and match from other style guidelines, I'm sure guidance can be found elsewhere. Carcharoth 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, it might help to think of 2006 Lebanon war as the telegraphese version of "The war that took place in Lebanon in 2006", whereas 2006 Lebanon War is the telegraphese version of saying "the war known as the '2006 Lebanon War'", and Lebanon War (2006)" is the telegraphese version of "the war known as the 'Lebanon War', which took place in 2006", and finally Second Lebanon War is the telegraphese version of "the war known as the 'Second Lebanon War'". Hopefully these examples have made things a bit clearer. Carcharoth 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, telegraphese is currently very misleading - see Talk:Telegraphese for a better explanation... Carcharoth 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I would also be in favour of moving both to lowercase 'w'. TewfikTalk 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully we can try to file a request to move to the lowercase 'w' after all the other requests are done. After reading Carcharoth's "telegraphese" logic, I agree that the lowercase 'w' is more accurate, as the current title is meant to imply "the war that took place in Lebanon in 2006" – not "the war known as the 'Lebanon War', which took place in 2006". I believe this was Kendrick7's initial concern, as the second, current version of these two variations may denote the Israeli view, since they call it the "Second Lebanon War". — George Saliba [talk] 09:31, 19 April 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.

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

This is a dispute about the appropriate name for this article. --Shamir1 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Positions
  • 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War
  • 2006 Lebanon War
Comments

I would go for 2006 Israel-Hezbollah July campaign. --Igor21 15:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is. Israel bombed the whole of Lebanon and Lebanon did not respond adequately because it couldnt. They certainly did not invite Israel to bomb Beirut and destroy the country's infrastructure. It is not known anywhere as the Israel-Hezbollah" war, not even in Israel. Practically all of the fighting occurred in Lebanon and the vast majority of the casualties, Lebanese or Israeli, died in Lebanon. --Burgas00 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I support 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, or something to that effect. Lebanon was not party to the dispute. If you need evidence for this, I have piles of it. I m dude2002 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel made Lebanon a party to the dispute by bombing it. 70.51.11.38 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I favor the current article title, for the time being, as I see no "consensus, among scholars in the real world" on the name "Israel-Hezbollah War," and I do not believe that it is the name "most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it," as outlined by naming policy. — George Saliba [talk] 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I favor the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. 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. The San Francisco Chronicle has a page 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,[117] and Gallup Poll[118] 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. Lastly, the government of Lebanon, on its sub-headline for the main page of its "Lebanon Under Siege" website,[119] as well as the government of Israel, on its official website for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[120] call it the Israel-Hezbollah war and the Israel-Hizbullah conflict, respectively. --Shamir1 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, for now. If a later consensus emerges, then sure, change it. As a general point, I've found most news media using using the term 'war between Israel and Hezbollah', which I think constitutes a description of the war, not a title. The current name is fine. I really think we should just leave the issue alone for now - there's already been massive amounts of discussion that has gone nowhere. This page is in the top two google results for every search I could come up with, and with redirects, no one will miss this page. No talk about names for 6 months! Iorek85 04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do not believe that consensus should be required to change to title, since the current title was arrived at very recently, and (if I understand correctly) without full consensus. I m dude2002 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Hezbollah War is a horrible name. As Israel did not restrict attacks to Hezbollah targets. If you're going that way, it should be the 2006 IDF-Hezbollah War. 70.51.11.38 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. - Mrbojanglescj 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that nobody has noticed my comment. The expresion Israel-Lebanon war has two problems. The first is that was not a war but a part of war (a campaign) and the second is that there was another war so when 20 go by each time someone say "Israel-Lebanon war", "which one?" would be the question. I know my comment is useless because here anybody cares the historiographic question. The only aim is to make propaganda and a "war" is bigger than a "campaign" and Lebanon is bigger than Hizbullah. If you try to see through the eyes of someone clasifying wars that need a name for each one, you would see how convenient is either "Israel-Hizbollah Campaign" or "July 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (assuming is finished which is unclear to me at this point)". --Igor21 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true Israel and Lebanon have been in a state of war since 1948, which confuses the whole nomenclature. -- Kendrick7talk 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments11 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.


Is there a new consensus for moving to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war? -- Kendrick7talk 07:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Still feel the same I did in the RfC discussion. I don't see a "consensus, among scholars in the real world" on the name Israel-Hezbollah war, and I do not believe that it is the name "most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it," as required by naming policy. I also don't view it as the most accurate name, since Israel and Hezbollah were not the only combatants, nor the only parties which saw deaths and destruction. — George Saliba [talk] 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - short answer - no, there isn't. I'm not going to repeat my arguments yet again, see above. Iorek85 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current name is the familar name. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
To whom? It's only been the name of the article for three weeks. -- Kendrick7talk 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most straightforward name. Location of ground combat and majority of aerial bombing. But what is the justification for the capital W? Has this been spotted with a capital letter in any sources? Joeldl 06:15, 22 April 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 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

The result of the proposal was move. -- tariqabjotu 11:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)



Yes, this is a good point.. Although the war started off between idf forces and lebanese, it was not long before other countries showed up. The us and uk flags should be entered into the infobox as participants. These countries openly provided direct heavy weaponry to the front line. In the case of the us this was provision of missiles and warheads dropped on lebanon, and in the case of the uk this was the provision of logistical/transportation support of the above mentioned weapons. There are plenty citation links from us/uk official sites and newsagencies for this relevant information on the war.

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

Changing the uppercase "War" in the article title to the lowercase "war" has come up a number of times in the various article move discussions. I think Carcharoth described the reasoning for the change best, when he stated that the lowercase form means "the war that took place in Lebanon in 2006", while the uppercase form means "the war, known as the 'Lebanon War', which took place in 2006". I believe the intention behind choosing the current article title was to imply the former, not the latter. This move discussion only involves changing the term "War" to "war" – not any of the other words, which have been debated already (and I'm sure will be again). Please try to keep votes and comments relevant to the change of the word "War" to "war". — George Saliba [talk] 22:52, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support – I agree with Carcharoth's interpretations of the meaning of the two names, and I favor the one implied by the lowercase "war". — George Saliba [talk] 06:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - thanks for your answers, George. Iorek85 07:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, reasons: Nagorno-Karabakh War, Croatian War of Independence, Kosovo War, Iraq War, Eritrean-Ethiopian War, Falklands War etc.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I understand the reasoning but see it is odd for the title. For the title I believe all should be in caps, but in the regular text, it should read 2006 war, Lebanon war, Israel-Hezbollah war.... --Shamir1 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I am ok with either one. Isarig 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - the lowercase convention makes sense here. -- Kendrick7talk 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I forsee that the persistent arguments about the naming of this article will die down somewhat if it's made clear that this is a descriptive title rather than a proper name. Dekimasuよ! 11:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TheFEARgod (above) and 1982 Lebanon War for parallel case. --MZMcBride 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The opponents have not provided evidence that the name "Lebanon War" with a capital W is used by neutral English-language sources. Therefore a descriptive name is preferable. Joeldl 07:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an improvement. However, I would prefer 2006 war in Lebanon. I heard BBC radio refer repeatedly to the events as "last year's war in Lebanon". Joeldl 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I do support the latter, but first I want to confirm something; part of the reasoning (which I agreed with) for renaming it the 2006 Lebanon War was that it was called the Second Lebanon War by Israel, in the same manner as the First Lebanon War is named 1982 Lebanon War. If we change this, we should also change that articles name. They should either both be capital W or small w. Or are the two differently named by the press? Also, does naming policy have anything on capitalisation? Iorek85 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Great questions.
  • I agree that the current title was heavily influenced by Israel's decision to officially call this the "Second Lebanon War", but I think the distinction between names is important. From the Israeli decision we can draw two conclusions: (1) this was considered large enough to be called a war, regardless of capitalization, and (2) using the word "Lebanon", the location where most of the fighting took place, was considered accurate enough for use. So, capitalization aside, the Israeli decision to call it the "Second Lebanon War" gives us two key points – the term "Lebanon", and the fact that this was a war.
  • The question then becomes whether the term war should be capitalized or not. Unfortunately there isn't a specific naming convention regarding the capitalization of event names. The closest we have are the Manual of Style on capitalization, the naming conventions on events, and the Military history WikiProject naming conventions on military conflicts. My personal interpretation from these is that if the title is considered a proper noun, it should be capitalized – otherwise, not. For instance, if the article was titled the "Second Lebanon War", then War should be capitalized, as it would be part of a proper noun. However, since the current article is named a more descriptive "2006 Lebanon War", and I don't think this name is used as a proper noun often, I believe the war should not be capitalized.
  • I haven't researched it in any great depth, but I think the 1982 Lebanon War should also be changed to a lowercase w. If "1982 Lebanon War" was a common proper noun, then it should be capitalized, but I think it is more of a descriptive name, and therefore shouldn't be.
For what it's worth, I'm open to renaming "1982 Lebanon War" to the lowercase "1982 Lebanon war" as well. — George Saliba [talk] 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that the 1982 war was lowercase. Perhaps we should investigate what the rationale behind that name was. TewfikTalk 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick scan of the talk page seems to indicate that the issue of War versus war never came up. I think the editor base and "number of eyes" on the 1982 Lebanon War article are both just much smaller than here, given how much less discussion has taken place there. If we rename this article to lowercase I doubt there will be much resistance to changing the other. — George Saliba [talk] 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure if I know enough to vote in any direction, and this discussion would probably benefit from comments by a member of WikiProject Military history. In that vein, I've invited one of their experts to share with us their understanding. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Thanks! — George Saliba [talk] 07:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, in general, MILHIST recommends parenthetical or suffix date disambiguation forms to prefix ones. I would actually suggest going with something like War in Lebanon (2006); this also neatly eliminates the question of whether "war" needs to be capitalized or not.
If you don't want to do it that way, though, I would say this could go either way. The real issue is that the conflict is too recent for historians to have settled on a name for it; I don't know that trying to figure out whether they're leaning towards "war" or "War" is going to be feasible (or particularly useful) at this point. Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion. What do other editors think of this? Also, should we consider a move to Lebanon War (2006) if people don't want to move to the lowercase "w"? — George Saliba [talk] 05:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think adopting the (2006) is a good idea, especially in light of 1982. The second half seems more relevant here, but that is me. Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the two names are tied together, at least for now, so if we moved to the (2006) at the end, we could prolly do the same for (1982). The only problem would be that the 1982 war would probably be Lebanon War (1982) while the 2006 one could be either Lebanon War (2006) or War in Lebanon (2006) – the latter of which wouldn't match obviously. — George Saliba [talk] 09:03, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_39&oldid=1140237929"