Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 31

Discussion about the name of the article

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

to keep the article at it's current name (2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict). There is no consensus on the description of combatants or the description of the conflict, but the convention "2006 [description of combatants] [description of conflict]" did receive convention, and that is the title already in place. — Mets 501 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

 * Earlier archives
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive26
 * Title again, Use of year in article title.
 * Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 28
 * Proposed move to Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006) and other related discussion
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive29
 * Rename to war
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Naming Vote

Issue 1 - Date placement
Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

2006 [description of combatants] [description of conflict]
Comment here
 * 1) Support - I actually prefer the combatant-description (2006) title, but pretty much all of the relevant conflicts/wars in this arena follow this format - 1920 Palestine riots, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1982 Lebanon War, 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. Iorek85 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - convention per Iorek,  Tewfik Talk 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Valtam  17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Although I originally thought to follow the military history project's nomenclature, as all of the Israeli conflicts seem to follow this method, we should keep it. -- Avi 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - It's not broke - let's not fix it :-) HawkerTyphoon 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - If including the year is important, than this seems to be the most logical. --Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I agree with Lorek that combatant-description (2006) looks better, but that we should follow the existing convention. TheronJ 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I agree with Iorek85 and TheronJ that [description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006) is the better form but I support following the existing conventions unless a consensus can be reaced in re-naming all the articles that follow the existing convention. Edward Lalone 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per existing practise. Cynical 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support this format look nice, and other existing combat articles with year seem to be titled this way Nielswik 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, since this convention does not reflect namefinding elsewhere, e.g. this conflict is named "July War" in Lebanon or "Lebanonwar II" in Israel. --213.155.224.232 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[description of combatants] [description of conflict] of 2006
Comment here

[description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006)
Comment here
 * 1) Support Who fought is more important than when. --Doom777 15:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The date is not a key feature, particularly when trying to find the article - the combatants are. Fast Rita 12:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue 2 - Description of Combatants
Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

Israel-Lebanon [description of conflict]
Comment here
 * 1) Support - Lebanon was involved, and bore the brunt of the damage. Iorek85 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - This seems to be the most common reference in the media...  Tewfik Talk  07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. In a Lexis search of major newspapers since July 12, "Israel-Hezbollah conflict" appears about as often as "Israel-Lebanon conflict"--51 to 58.  Pan Dan 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be. However Wikipedia isn't a democracy. We should have an organised discussion about what is indeed the most common, as opposed to engaging in a poll which at best reflects the title most popular with Wikipedians who have bothered to read this Talk and post a reply.  Tewfik Talk 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, but I don't understand what that has to do with the point I tried to make above--that it may be a myth that the "Israel-Lebanon" is more common than "Israel-Hezbollah" in the media. Pan Dan 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support  Valtam  17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Most common reference. -- Avi 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The war ranged over all of Lebanon, and northern Israel. 132.205.44.134 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Lebanon suffers most damage, and hezbollah is lebanese citizens too. and, we should also consider that Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, stated that “[i]f the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years." Nielswik 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support My understanding is that this is the most common reference from among the available choices. TheronJ 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This is the more commonly used reference for the Israel Lebanon Conflict (2006). Edward Lalone 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This is the most common reference. It's also consistent with other usage; for example we speak of Israel's 1982 Lebanon war - not of Israel's 1982 PLO war. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. As for this being pro-Hezbollah POV, after the capture/abduction/kidnap of the Israeli soldiers, the Israeli government itself said that this was 'an act of war by the state of Lebanon against the state of Israel' - so both sides saw it as Israel v Lebanon. That aside, a conflict where Israel is bombing Lebanon and people in Lebanon are firing rockets at Israel seems like a no-brainer namewise as far as I'm concerned. Cynical 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Lebanon was clearly involved in the conflict and arguably suffered the most from it. Crumbsucker 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - In a conflict where the overwhelming majority of the dead are non-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians, excluding the name Lebanon seems absurd. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government. If Mexico invaded America to wipe out the Democrats, and indescriminately killed voters of all parties, I'd be hard pressed to to call it the Mexico-Democrat conflict -- Kendrick7 03:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support — Lebanon was certainly involved politically, diplomatically, and (to a certain extent) militarily. All international diplomacy was done through the Lebanese government and all relevent UN resolutions refer strictly to Lebanon without even mentioning the word "Hezbollah."  --GHcool 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Israel may have been aiming at Hezbollah, but they hit Lebanon. Fast Rita 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Israel fought other militias operating inside of Lebanon besides Hezbollah. Geedubber 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support --Sloane 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support If it is Israel-Hezbollah war, IDF doesn't have to waste their weapons destroying Lebanese infrastructure (airport, power plants, roads, bridges, schools, etc) and killing thousands of lebanese civilians. Hezbollah take major part in defending lebanon against Israel invasion because lebanese army is too weak to fight 5th strongest army in the world and it doesn't have any significant number in southern lebanon155.69.5.234 06:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Strongly Support. It's clearly a war against Lebanon. Raja Lon Flattery 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah [description of conflict]
Comment here

Israel-Hezbollah [description of conflict]
Comment here


 * 1) Support  Hizbullah attacked Israael.  Israel responded by attacking Hizbullah.  The Lebanese Army was not involved.  Israel did not declare war on Lebanon.  Lebanon did not declare war on Israel.  Any name that includes Lebanon is inaccurate and POV nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.5.7 (talk • contribs).
 * Oppose Lebanese army was involved in several extent like this Anyways, Hezbollah are lebanese and israel has completely destroyed lebanon, so it deserve called Israel-Lebanon war Nielswik 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dupe Support Unless someone can prove Lebanon was a combatant this was clerly not a war between Israel and Lebanon, hence it should not be falsely labeled the Israel Lebanon Conflict. --138.162.5.7 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dupe vote. Crumbsucker 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support All the fighting was between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon did nothing except get bombed. --Doom777 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The war/conflict was between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanease army wasn't involved. --The monkeyhate 11:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Misnaming this conflict to include Lebanon is as POV as anything I've seen on Wikipedia.  --67.72.98.85 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Like users above --TheFEARgod 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Medule 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -   AjaxSmack   05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hezbollah is not a territory, otherwise you should call this the IDF-Hizbollah war. Pancho Villa was not Mexico, and it is not called the Pancho Villa -American war. 132.205.44.134 05:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC). No, but it is called the Pancho Villa Expedition.  -    AjaxSmack    05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Defines pretty finely the event, since Hezbollah is only a relatively small fraction of Lebanon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CP\M (talk • contribs).
 * 2) Support- Lebanon wasn't involved, although to be fair, the conflict did occur in these two countries HawkerTyphoon 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, Lebanon the country was not a party to this conflict. This was solely between the Israeli army and the Hezbollah organization. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - This seems to be the most accurate description of the combatants. --Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per the first persons comments. TJ Spyke 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Retropunk 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I feel quite strongly about this; Israel was NOT at war with Lebanon, it was the Hezbollah who attacked Israel and and it was Hezbollah that was target of Israel's response. Lebanon was the unfortunate victim of this action  The Perfect Name is: "Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, 2006".  Anything else is misleading.Pberk
 * Reply: Brand new user with 2 edits. Likely a sockpuppet. Crumbsucker 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per the first person's comments and Pberk. "Israel-Lebanon conflict" implies that the Lebanese gov't was a major combatant.  It was not.  Hezbollah initiated the action without the approval of the Lebanese gov't.  In the ensuing conflict, Israel targeted only suspected Hezbollah launching/stockpiling sites and re-supply routes, and Hezbollah, again without the approval of the Lebanese gov't, fired rockets into Israel.  And the media's supposed more common reference to the "Israel-Lebanon conflict" may be a myth—see my reply to Tewfik over on the other side.  Pan Dan 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support it's all said already --Mandavi 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support conflict between Israeli forces and Hezbollah forces. Psychomelodic  12:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support WAR between Israel and Hezbollah. The belligerent state is WAR. The combatants are Israel and HA. have I voted twice. Is there a vote once for the belligerency and once for the combatants? Or do you have four different place to vote. Way too confusing. I give up. The state of Lebanon was never involed in. The leb army got bombed in their barracks once or twice and that brigadier got arrested for serving tea to the Israelis in Marj Ayoun. His evacuation convoy still got bombed. Wasted tea? Maybe not- always good to talk to the other side. Have some sweet tea- Bon Appetit.Will314159 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue 3 - Description of Conflict
Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

[description of combatants] conflict
Comment here
 * 1) Support - After earlier supporting "war" - I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war. It was too short, pretty much one sided, and didn't result in large numbers of military deaths. If anyone can think of smaller "Wars" then sure. Iorek85 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Again, Iorek says it best,  Tewfik Talk 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Iorek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Valtam  17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Most common reference, not the same scope and danger as other wars such as Iran-Iraq/Yom Kippur/etc. -- Avi 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No formal DoW issued HawkerTyphoon 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, not only was this not a declared war by either side. It was a limited conflict that wouldn't classify as a war in any other part of the world. Also I would question naming it Israel-Lebanon Conflict. It would be better served at 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict. The government of Lebanon was not a party to the war but rather a terrorist organization in southern lebanon was the co-party with Israel. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I support calling it a Conflict and not a war because I do not think that this conflict meets all the requirements of being a war. Edward Lalone 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support TJ Spyke 05:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. It doesn't matter what inaccurate terms news organisations were using, legally and factually this was not a war, as there was no formal declaration of war between two countries. Cynical 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Crumbsucker 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Carbonate 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - More acuarate term. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I believe it's both tan Israel-Lebanon conflict and an Israel-Hezbollah war but the first is more apt (though this still belongs in Category:Wars of Hezbollah) -- Kendrick7 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support The Lebanese Army was never engaged Fast Rita 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[description of combatants] war

 * 1) It's not for us to measure its seriousness - we should just follow the general usage. Everybody calls it a war, so it's a war. And as for "If anyone can think of smaller Wars", Anglo-Zanzibar War springs to mind. Zocky | picture popups 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Everyone calls it a war, it lasted for 34 days, much longer than the Six Day War, a lot of explosives were used, Israel called out Order 8, and most call it a war. --Doom777 16:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - 21,000 soldiers died in the six day war. Iorek85 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No one died during the Ohio-Michigan War. The Red River Bridge Controversy is sometimes knwon as the Red River Brige War, but there was no bloodshed.  There's several wars that had little or no bloodshed.  Retropunk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Of course it's a war.  The fact Hezbullah acted criminally in failing to declare a war does little to negate this. --138.162.0.42 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Israel didn't declare war either, AFAIK. Iorek85 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is and should be the ONLY reason to not call it a war. Severity and length have little to do with the definition.  However, I believe the UN does state that even an 'armed conflict' constitutes as a war. Retropunk 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - All the media use the term "war", and there was enough casualties to call it a war. --The monkeyhate 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - If this is war... --TheFEARgod 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, the US never declared war on Vietnam either, it's still called the Vietnam War. 132.205.44.134 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, due to both sides aiming for total destruction of each other, and large scale. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, it has killed thousands of people, isn't that war? another point : Wikipedia says "War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups" in War article. This is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons by Israel (a state) and Hezbollah (a large-scale groups)  Nielswik 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I'm finding it hard to call this anything but a war.--Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - hey, what about "israeli destruction of lebanon"?
 * 1) Support - AFAICT, "war" is the popular term, and it was a war, if one-sided.  TheronJ 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support All the major news outlets (e.g. CNN, BBC, Fox, etc) including Israeli ones such as Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth call this a war, the prime minister of Israel, the president of Lebanon and the US secretary of state call this a war, the Israeli army calls this a war, international and transnational organizations such as the UN and the EU call this a war, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel call this a war - I think this encyclopedia should call this a war also. "Conflict" is a more generic expression which is also used but much less frequently than "war". By now the dominant expression in Israel at least appears to be "Second Lebanon War". I think "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" is the best title with "Second Israel-Lebanon war" reverting to it. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for the same reasons that Dianelos gives. I was in Israel during the war and after about the 2nd week of the conflict, nearly all of the Israeli media have been calling it Milkhemet Levanon ha-Shniyah("the Second Lebanon War" or "Lebanon War II," depending on how you would like to translate it).--GHcool 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Defintely a war, it was an all-out war both ways. Hello32020 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Guys, what are you thinking? over 1,000 people are slaughtered in a series of systematic military operations, and you don't call it a war? It's definitely a war!! I even will surely agree if it's called a massacre. 155.69.5.236 07:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support "known in Lebanon as the July War and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War" If both sides call it a war then why shouldn't wikipedia? Geedubber 22:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I read somewhere a definition that 1000+ casulaties is one criteria for a war. (sorry source not available) --213.155.224.232 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support--Sloane 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support--THE voting system is too complicated for me. My vote is for war, but I can't figure out how to cast it. The conflict thing is pxxing me off b/c when I make an edit then I see conflict at the top of the screen, it looks like an edit conflict. Everybody else calls it a war, why does somebody here trying to make it different? Have a coold drink today! Will314159 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT thanx Theron, I guess, llike i said, this is complicated. Actually what I'm for is the Israeli-HA War. Somebody please move it to the appropriate category if it's in the wrong place, would deeply appreciate it. The state of Lebanon was never involed in. The leb army got bombed in their barracks once or twice and that brigadier got arrested for serving tea to the Israelis in Marja Ayoun. His evacuation convoy still got bombed. Wasted tea? Maybe not- always good to talk to the other side. Have some sweet tea- Bon Appetit. Will314159 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- this is the more generally used term. Herostratus 18:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.