Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War/Archive II

Initial Statements
I would like to hear all parties' views without complicated discussion in the first instance. To that end, I'd like you both to put a statement below, under your named section. Please don't engage in a detailed rebuttal of the other editor's points for now. I want to get an overview of the situation first.

When we have got to this place, we can then decide exactly what issues are under contest, and why. From there we will hopefully be able to find a solution you can all be happy with.

Basically, a short (couple of paragraphs, maximum) summary of what you believe the title of the article should be, and why; and what sources should be used and what shouldn't (the ones that are under contest), and why. Once this is established, then we can start to work on a comprimise version.

I'm sorry that this may seem complex and drawn-out, but the first week is always the worst, because I need to establish a starting point before I can mediate effectively.

Cheers,  Daniel  02:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1
I support a move to Israel-Hezbollah War as it the only name that has been shown to pass the naming conventions. George has no proof to back any of his claims 'a' through 'g' and/or the assertions have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Israel-Hezbollah War is common and accurate. It used in news stories (headlines and text) and other such media sources. More important is the title of other articles. What have other sources in the media and elsewhere used for the title of the summary of this war? This is Wikipedia's summary, and as editors we should be looking after other sources that have created or compiled articles/summaries/reports of the war and put a title over it. Daniel, let me know where the appropriate place to post them is. Several have used Israel-Hezbollah War. Any summary of the war entitled Lebanon War remains 0.

As for scholarly sources, the use of Israel-Hezbollah is by far the strongest. This includes the most scholarly research groups there are. There is the official research arm of the United States Congress (CRS), the most commonly cited research institutes, the makers of the Iraq Study Group Report, university institutes, and many other influential sources. They have all used this name.

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I strongly support this move. Each policy has been considered and dealt with accurately. --Shamir1 13:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

George
I support the current title, 2006 Lebanon War, because (a) "Lebanon war" is the most common name used by English speakers, (b) it constitutes a generally accepted name for the event, (c) it avoids needless extra words to describe the event, (d) it is a neutral, accurate title without POV implications, (e) it describes the location of the event, (f) it is consistent with the decision by the Israeli government officially dubbing this conflict the "Second Lebanon War", and (g) it is consistent with the naming format used in the 1982 Lebanon War article (which constitutes the first war to said second war). In short, the current title meets Wikipedia's naming conventions for events, and the naming conventions for military conflicts established by the Military history WikiProject better than the proposed title. The proposed title, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, is used on occasion, but much less often than Lebanon War, and it fails to meet the criteria set forth by Wikipedia policy. — George [ talk  ] 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sources used, I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. Reliable sources are good; scholarly sources are good. I think that statistical data is helpful in determining what name most English speakers use, since neither reliable nor scholarly sources encompass all English speakers. I don't think that descriptive names shouldn't be confused with proper names – that is "war between Israel and Hezbollah" should not be confused with "Israel-Hezbollah War", and likewise "war in Lebanon" should not be confused with "Lebanon War". These desriptive names were almost never intended to be interpreted as proper nouns. — George [ talk  ] 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Iorek85
I believe the current title is adequate, and I oppose any name changes until a consensus has emerged in the wide world over the name of the war. Wiki policy states that if there is a common name for the event, then we use that title. I do not believe that Israel-Hezbollah War is the common name, as many sources use other names such as Lebanon War, Second Lebanon war, etc, citations of which have been provided by both myself and George. I do not believe the current name is the consensus name, but that it should stay because it fulfils the second rule; "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.". Therefore, the name should stay as it is until a name becomes the common name for the conflict, at which point I will support it being changed to whatever that name is (even if it is Israel-Hezbollah War). Iorek85 04:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik
Iorek85 [again :-)] basically describes my sentiments on the issue, that the current name is an adequate descriptive name in the absence of a common name. So I disagree with George on the point of common name I suppose. I could support Shamir1's proposal if he presented solid evidence that his name is indeed the "common name". Likewise, George would have to present a solid sourcing to convince me that his is the "common name". Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

TheFEARgod
I support the current name (having been among the first to propose it), but I could support Shamir's idea if: (copy of my then-out of the place comment from a previous discussion) First, I get really mad when I see his construction of the name and no-one bothers the more correct version Israeli-Hezbollah War. Why? When we used the first name - Israel-Lebanon - it was a name of geographical meaning, as it didn't imply that there was a war between Israel. and Lebanon, but on the area where it was taking place. Similar to the South Lebanon conflicts. So, the proposing name should not reflect that meaning as one of the parties mentioned isn't a geographical location - Hezbollah. So Israel in adjectival form and Hezbollah not since it is a foreign name and no forms exist. I find it more natural, again: Israeli-Hezbollah War.
 * Second, that proposal should work without neglecting the 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict, also then an Israeli-Hezbollah War.
 * So to make me vote for the new proposal there should be two stimulants: changing the form of the name, and renaming the 1982-2000 war in a similar manner.

Since posting that I decided that the second "stimulant" is less important and that could be settled later, independently of this discussion. Cheers, -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900
Basically, i concur with George, lorek85, and the others favoring the current name. I feel anyone proposing a name change needs to prove there is a clear consensus in favor of the new name. That is my feeling about article names in general, not just this one. I don't have many more views on this than that. Glad we can have this coinstuctive discussion. thanks. --Sm8900 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I feel the primary issue in the war stemmed from action by Lebanese groups, within Lebanese territory. Also, Hezbollah has seats in the Lebanese cabinet, so they do have some governmental role, even if it is partial in some sense. So I do feel that the current name does make sense. thanks. --Sm8900 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi
I have serious POV concerns about describing this as the "Israel-Hezbollah War." While name-change advocates' argument that "Hezbollah did 99% of their fighting against Israel" is true, it is not true that most of Israel's fighting was against Hezbollah. The war in Lebanon was far more than Hez'b-Israel fighting. Italiavivi 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg
I'm not sure I understand all the competing claims regarding which name is more commonly used, or more commonly used in scholarly sources, but it seems to me that that a name that fails to mention Hezbollah and instead mentions Lebanon does the reader a number of disservices: The fact that names containing the word "Lebanon" indicate where much of the fighting happened is somewhat helpful, but not strongly so; it's a very tiny geography, and any war involving Israel will be fought more or less in the same place. And while precedent from other wars is interesting, that really doesn't have an relevance to naming this one. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was followed by the Six-Day War and then by the Yom Kippur War, not the "1967 Arab-Israeli War" and the "1973 Arab-Israeli War". Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It fails to mention one of the two main combatants. Yes, other forces did take part in the fighting, but it was initiated by Hezbollah, and Hezbollah did 95% of it. This was a fight between Hezbollah and Israel.
 * It implies that Israel was at war with the government or armed forces of Lebanon, when this was clearly not the case.
 * I do not consider User:Jayjg an "outside view" in this dispute (he has said in past Talk discussion that he "has not seen any convincing arguments against Israel-Hezbollah War," and was the first to use the "Hezbollah did 99% of the fighting against Israel" argument), and have refactored his comments to a regular "participants" header. (Hezbollah's fighting participation also went from 99% to 95%, apparently.) Italiavivi 23:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the examples you gave here Jayjg, it would appear you favor the colloquial name Six-Day War over the descriptive name 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and the colloquial name Yom Kippur War over the descriptive name 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Given that the colloquial name of this war is the Second Lebanon War (which was suggested below as a possible alternative), would you support that name over the descriptive alternatives? — George [ talk  ] 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to go with whichever name has a large consensus behind it, as long as there is some real evidence of a consensus. thanks. --Sm8900 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Response by Daniel
OK, thanks everyone, that's a good starting point. This is a very complex dispute, despite being simply about the name, so I'm going to need overnight (ACST) to have a think about where we go from here. Sorry about this delay, and cheers,  Daniel  08:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just want to express my empathy. i think it is complex especially because it is about the article name, since it is hard to find a middle ground on that; the name is either one choice or the other. So i understand about the complexity. Just wanted to mention that, to you and also to everyone else. so thanks. --Sm8900 13:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)