Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

New image for box..., Map of lebanon Info Box, Displaced is blatantly inaccurate, Treated for shock???, The human and material costs of the war / what else belongs in the lead, chart of casualties, Bombing Chart, Lead, Ongoing?


Here is an article about what Israel wants to be seen as: They want to creat events that will have the Arabs think that they are, i quote from an Israeli: "The Jews Are Crazy": article, opinion, amnesty --Striver 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of doubts about the reporting from the Libanon side. Reports that Hezbollah threatened reporters. A few links :

These are encyclopedic quality imho, and quite NPOV. They seriously discredit one side of the conflict, but they do not say anything about the other side, they're just looking at the reporters themselves. What do you think ?

I think not encyclopedic at all, a very POV site, is zombietime.

The zombietime article has been discredited here and in The Australian. Iorek85 07:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The zombietime replied to the Australian "rebuttal", and is quite convincing: His only "evidence," yet again, is the testimony of the people who claim to have been attacked. And though he informs his readers that he went back to "inspect the damaged ambulances" he took no pictures to either validate his claims or to challenge the evidence here. . It may not be NPOV but it adheres to facts, and the pictures don't lie. It clearly shows that any claims that Lebanese ambulances were hit by Israel are false, since there is no supporting evidence. It was not "discredited". Moreover, the reporter that was sent to reinforce the accusations returned with empty hands. --Gabi S. 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Amesty's accusations

"Amnesty International called on Israel to consider refraining from the use of depleted uranium munitions..." is a false accusation. Israel did not ever use such weapons, not even in the 2006 Lebanon conflict. The fact that it didn't use it acts as a counter-balance to the accusation, and doesn't need any proof. On the contrary, if someone claims that Israel did use such weapons, then supporting evidence from reliable sources must be provided. It would be a distorted POV to leave Amnesty's accusations on the article without mentioning that they have no relationship to reality. --Gabi S. 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When you have some evidence of this, then please, put it in. Until then, you can't say Amnesty is wrong without evidence. It's not at all POV to leave a comment unrefuted when you can't refute it. Iorek85 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Amnesty called Israel not to use depleted uranium. Israel didn't use depleted uranium. These are simple facts. You keep deleting it, but I can't prove what has not been done. You want only one side (Amnesty's accusations) to remain in the article - this is not NPOV, you should show both sides of the issue. --Gabi S. 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's rich. "Israel never used them and my word is proof enough that they didn't, but if they did you would still have to prove that they did because your word isn't proof." Does that about sum up your arrgument? Carbonate 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it not the policy of Wikipedia that an accusation must be proven to be fact (i.e. Israel used cluster-bombs), rather than a accusation needs to be disproved (i.e. Israel has not proven that it did not use cluster-bomnbs). For example, Hezbollah used missles designed to kill as many people as possible due to the recovery of thousands of pellets.

This is a major problem for Wikipedia. Using organizations comments as fact has become a trademark of Wikipedia. However, many of these organizations have shown bias and can no longer be used as a factual source. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and many other agencies have made statements that were later proven incorrect. Whether they knew this at the time the statements were made is open to debate. One way of resolving this issue is to contain a section in this and other articles called "Accusations made during a current event". It may only take a few days, a few weeks, a few months or many years, but the accusations can become facts. It would be wonderful for there to be organizations free from any bias and any political motives whose statements could be used as facts, but, these days, that does not seem to exist. user:mnw2000 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Screw AI, they're in bed with Hezbollah, anyway—it's a bunch of islamofascist crackheads spouting propaganda. I tell you, the IAF dropped pink balloons, and that's all there is to that. Kosmopolis 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget the IDF. They can lie better than the rest. Carbonate 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Mnw2000, above you wrote: "Are there any honest brokers out there anymore? You have to admit that democratic governmeents are being held to a higher standard than non-democratic instituations by these so-called non-political organizations [AI, HRW, etc]? This, by itself, is unfair and shows the bias." But shouldn't democratic governments be held to a higher standard than non-democratic ones? Isn't it reasonable to expect more excellence in the actions of the governments of the USA or Israel or Sweden, than, say, of the governments of North Corea or Sudan? After all the actions of a democratic government reflect on the entire population, and I daresay reflect on the very principle of democracy. Conversely should one's expectations of the democratic government of Israel be the same to one's expectations of the governments of North Corea or Sudan, wouldn't this be demeaning to Israel? - You write that AI, HRW, IRC, UN have all been wrong sometimes in some of their statements. What other organizations would you suggest are more reliable as a source of information about current wars? Dianelos 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: Since Amnesty's call to Israel to refrain from using depleted uranium did not materialize (Israel did not use such weapons - there would be clear evidence if it did), I suggest to delete the whole accusation paragraph. It is irrelevant. Please write your opinions here; I will wait a couple of days before changing it. --Gabi S. 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Gabi S. 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was this changed to war?

Was there a discussion on this? I don't think any of the involved parties made and official declaration of war... Should we have a vote to move it back to conflict? Carbonate 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While you may believe in wikivoting — I urge against that and opt for careful discussion, as was the ten day-long discussion over the renaming; but regardless, please do not create an inconsistency between the lead and the title; that is really basic style criteria. El_C 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know, as well. User:El C moved it, without comment, and despite the fact there is no consensus on moving it. Iorek85 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but there will be no vote. I moved it for the reasons stated, after waiting ten days. And I understood that there was consensus. El_C 09:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7 to 5 is a consensus? I don't think so. Iorek85 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That certainly wasn't the tally at the time of the re-naming, nor is it the tally now. I submitt that you are confused on this point. El_C 10:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - you're correct. You renamed it at 4.52am GMT, Sep 5 - the voting was at 6:5 in favour of War at that time. Even less of a consensus. Not only did you move it while the poll to see what it should be named was still running, you moved it when people were roughly evenly split on the issue. I'd appreciate if you'd move it back and wait to see what the poll comes up with. Iorek85 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What voting? There was no voting. Nobody voted for anything. There was a discussion about the renaming, as there should have been. My rationals were not contested in any substantive way and I'm not interested in creating a poll about it after that. I'm not moving it back. El_C 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All wars are conflicts but not all conflicts are wars. So if this event can reasonably be called a war then I think it should, as this expression conveys more information. A month long event with thousands of bomb raids and thousands of rocket launches - and where one fourth of a country's population is displaced - does look like a war to me. In any case most of the world thinks so too: If one googles israel lebanon 2006 conflict one gets 26 million hits; if one googles israel lebanon 2006 war one gets 58 million hits. In google's news section the results are 3,400 and 5,520 respectively. In google's news section the results are 14,400 and 33,900 respectively. Dianelos 14:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dianelos has the right idea here, although such a Google search is not the most accurate method. The title should only be changed if we can show that the new title is more notable. As I've said a few time previously, we must analyse the notation in the media etc, and see what they most commonly use, taking into account the statements from all sides and any academic positions on the matter. TewfikTalk 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that before this can be called a war, someone actually has to declare war on someone else. I have not heard of that happening by anyone. For this reason I would consider "conflict" to be appropriate regardless of what the hebrew wiki or the media is calling it. Carbonate 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like polls or not, El C, is irrelevant - the page was being moved in accordance with the process on WP:RM. Since the page is protected from moves, only an admin can move the page back. Iorek85 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Seems the Israel-Hezbollah option is going to prevail also --TheFEARgod 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This move should be reversed ASAP. There was no consensus for the move. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Iorek85 and JBG seemingly intent on maintaining paralysis and preventing substantive discussion. El_C 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Bollocks. You're the one who moved it without consensus, not me. I welcome substantive discussion, just as much as I welcome the opinions of the editors who voted in the polls according to procedure. Iorek85 02:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
And moving the article while there is an ongoing discussion of where to move it is real productive, El C. Here's a thought, wait until the discussion here is done before moving the article to save on rework. You complained here about Arthur Rubin abusing his admin bit to revert your move, what about your abuse of your admin bit to move it away in the first place. --Bobblehead 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I said that I was going to rename it if there was no strong objections, and there was no strong objection. There is no excuse for wheel-warring, even if it serves your own ends. El_C 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well there was no consensus to move to the name you chose arbitrarily and not moving does not equal paralysis. There is substantive discussion going on, you're just chosing to ignore it. Also there are obviously strong objections now ;). JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel's prime minister Olmert calls this a war: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning" in this Times interview on Aug 2. On Sept 4 he keeps calling this a war: "The order of priorities of the government has changed since the war in Lebanon", see here. Lebanon's president Lahoud calls this a war too: "Before the attack I said Hezbollah couldn't be disarmed and still after the war no one can disarm it" in this interview. The president of the American Lebanese Foundation calls this a war too in his article "Are there real winners in the Lebanon war?"; an interesting read BTW. I personally think it's more precise to call this a war, and I think most people who go to wikipedia to search for this article will use "war" as a keyword, so using "conflict" in the title will make it more difficult for readers to find the information they are looking for. Dianelos 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved back in response to lack of consensus for move, as well you would know if you read the arguments. Some of the "votes" for conflict gave valid reasons. I was assuming that User:El C had agreed not to move the article without consensus. Do we need to take this to RfAr again? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Lack of consensus is your (misguided) interpretation. You over-ruled an admin action without discussion. I was not aware there was an RfAr (again?), but regardless, I would'nt at all mind your wheel warring being looked into there. El_C 13:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope. User:El C said that he would move the article unless there was strong objections. That is out of process — moves should only be made if there is consensus. There were objections, clearly showing there was no consensus for the move.
I've never brought an RfAr before, but there was an RfC on this article already, which suggested that moves should not be done without consensus. If someone else brings up an RfAr, and lets me know, I'll make a statement. I think it's time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Mister Arthur Rubin, you will be a party to such an RfAr, not merely a commentator. El_C 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose so. Still, I was following process WP:RM; even if I believed your move was made without requesting comment at first, it was still made without consensus; and you never got around to fixing double-redirects, as should be done with any move, requiring Admin or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, can you not use italics instead of bold? It's much more understated. Regardless of what happnes here, if I ever see you wheel warring again, I'll be filing the RfAr before you're able to, belatedly, start explaining why you wheel warred. El_C 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You could not have followed process because you wheel warred. You had to discuss the matter first, and you didn't, which is way out of process. El_C 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no wheel war here. This page was protected against vandalism, not due to an ongoing content dispute. There is no prohibition against making content related changes (which is what a move is) when the protection is for vandalism. Further, if you consider moving a protected page to be wheel warring, then both El C and Arthur Rubin wheel warred, since it was protected at the time of both moves. But let's not claim wheel warring when it does not properly apply. NoSeptember 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but wrong. You don't over-rule (move war revert) an admin action without discussion. El_C 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all admin actions are created the same, content actions on vandalism protected pages are not the same as reversing blocks or deletions, and you know this. Don't confuse an edit war with a wheel war. By your definition, every time an admin edits the Main Page he is wheel warring by reverting at least in part a previous admin. That page, like this page, is only protected from vandalism. You may want to check WP:WW again, the actions on this page do not fall into that policy. NoSeptember 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, but, IIRC in the Israeli Apartheid matter, moves of move-protected pages were found to be Admin actions, and reverting such actions, even if the actions were unjustified, were found to be wheel warring. I should have remembered that. Still, are we going to have to bring this to RfAr so I can avoid having multiple messages on my talk page and move the discussion to one place? (It's presently spread in three sections of this page, and on WP:AN/I, User Talk:El C and my talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well you can tell that I don't watch this page or related discussions about this page or middle east topics in general. I imagine that such a ruling was based on a history of page move warring. Is there a history of move warring on this page? If not, it seems premature to apply that standard to this page. It seems hard to believe that ArbCom intended to apply a rule to thousands of articles that did not have a previous history of move warring. But you guys may know the particulars better. NoSeptember 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware of any rulings on this page. AR could have informed me of these before move-reverting me, but he didn't, thus, sowing all this discord for naught. All I know is that I facilitated a discussion for ten days, a discussion that at the time of the move enjoyed consensus. It appears someone started a poll about the War rename two days after I had initiated this much more substantive discussion. A discussion that kept being moved (and archived!) against my wishes. It seems impossible to get anything done on this talk page. You can't start a discussion without the thoughtless specter of "let's vote on it." I'm out. El_C 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by move warring. A quick check of the move history for 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict, 2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, and 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis finds 6 moves between July 13 and July 22 when Cyde move protected the article here with instructions not to move against consensus. --Bobblehead 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, I did not look at the move history closely, nor should that be key to any of this. I saw that the Hebrew wiki renamed their entry to War, so that reminded me that I wanted to see the English one renamed to war quite a while back before that, but never got around to it. Then I facilitated a ten days discussion (which obstructively kept being archived and moved around from the foot) on re-naming it. After ten days (at.the.time.of.the.move, not after) there was consensus for it, so I moved it. End of story. But I am no longer interested in speaking to you at this time. So don't waste your breath, I am leaving this page for a long while now, after having extensively contributed to it, if I may add. El_C 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Haaretz, one of the main Israeli newspapers also calls this a war, in fact it calls it the "Second Lebanon War". See here. [Yedioth_Ahronoth], another Israeli daily, also calls this "Lebanon war", see here. So does CNN, see here. So does BBC, see here. Frankly it's hard for me to understand why so much energy is expended in discussing this issue; why not change "conflict" into "war" in the title and invest our time on improving the article itself? Dianelos 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's not a war, it's not a war, even if every newspaper on the planet were to call it a war. Valtam 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
True. In this case though it's like every newspaper and also every relevant watchdog organizations (UN, AI, HRW, ACRI), and the two fighting organizations themselves (Hezbollah, IDF), and the relevant leaders (Israel's prime minister, Lebanon's president, etc) all calling this a war. I think under these circumstances an encyclopedia should call this a war too. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


The user from the 80.135. IP range should consider themselves warned in regards to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule rule. Please discuss the issue instead of continuosly reverting. TewfikTalk 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

this art. is continuously and deliberately skewed towards pro-israeli pov. and you be careful. according to the hist. you've screwed up the intro 3 times already in < 24h. -- 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

External links again

Iorek85 deleted the external links on August 1, stating: "They are getting way too long. I think that post conflict, the news links are no longer needed unless they give a special insight to the conflict - before, they were good as they allowed quick access to updated news, but that's irrelevent now. Maybe even the blogs, since the conflict is over. Iorek85 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"

I don't agree at all with this reasoning and have reverted the previous list of external links. We need to consider how the list of external links can best serve the interests of our readers, as well as what Wikipedia:External links states. In particular:

  • We should link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." (WP:EL). By any sane reasoning, coverage from CNN, the BBC, the NY Times and other media outlets provide such material and should be linked to. Contemporary news coverage is never irrelevant for those who wish to track the day-by-day developments in a more in-depth way than we could in an overview article.
  • The links should not include non-neutral and inaccurate sources. Iorek's preferred list plainly does, including things such as "video about photo fraud at the war" (sic) and the deeply tendentious website (whose webmaster seems to have been anonymously spamming links into articles all over Wikipedia - I must have nuked 30 or 40 of them by now). We need to take care that what WP:EL calls "Links normally to be avoided" don't creep into the list.
  • Nor should we single out individual news stories - that's why the external links go to compilations of news stories from reputable news organisations.
  • The list of links should be structured. A mess of undifferentiated links is unhelpful.

I strongly suggest that editors should read Wikipedia:External links carefully before editing the list. -- ChrisO 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAMHOLE is where this article is. We should aim to have five links, tops. HawkerTyphoon 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You're exaggerating. :-) It could probably do with shortening (do we need to link to blogs?) but otherwise it seems about right to me - we certainly need to link to the major combatant and international news outlets' coverage of the conflict. Compare 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#External links. -- ChrisO 07:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Contemporary news coverage is never irrelevant for those who wish to track the day-by-day developments. I couldn't agree more! But the conflict is over - hence the lack of a need to link to the general conflict pages on a variety of news sources any more. Same goes with the blogs. I was happy to have them when the conflict was ongoing, so readers could get the latest, unique information (I defended their inclusion repeatedly, in fact) but now the conflict is over, they don't provide anything unique or important. As for bad links - I culled based on the links claimed content, not the reliability of the source. I thought specific articles were fine - detailed analysis should be included, of course. I just deleted the links to the israel-lebanon section of the newsagencies. As for structure, sure, but ideally, there should be so few as to not require headings, as with most pages here. Iorek85 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Background section

It's massive! Far too long. This is not the history of conflict between Israel and Lebanon, it's about the 2006 conflict that started in July and ended in August. I know it didn't happen in a vacuum, but a background section longer than the section about Israeli attacks is way out of proportion. Iorek85 09:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's long, arguably too long at the moment. I am at it, right now, looking at which parts can be spared. Kosmopolis 10:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it make sense to put the Background section after the description of the conflict? That way, a reader could move on to the background after reading about the events of July and August 2006. Valtam 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored much of the previous consensus background, which was more concise. Of course if anyone feels that there is a specific point that is relevant to the background for this conflict that isn't in the article, then they should make mention of it. TewfikTalk 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the "non-consise" version to a new article. -- Kendrick7 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, but it seems a bit drastic. Some background is necessary in the main, article, though you can feel free to trim it down. And I'm not sure that there should even be a subarticle called Israel-Lebanon conflict. TewfikTalk 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Media Controversy

Why do the staged and rather primitive PR efforts of Hezbollah merit a section in the article about this war? Nor do I find one Lebanese freelance photographer's use of photoshop to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings to be so noteworthy (Incidentally have you seen an example of what he did? – it’s so crude it almost looks as if he wanted to be caught).

I suppose all readers of wikipedia know that there is measure of propaganda and exaggeration of reporting by each side in any war - and it's the editors' job to make certain that no such propaganda leaks into the article. I trust no editor doubts that Lebanon did in fact suffer widespread destruction of its civilian infrastructure, and we should be careful not to present this article in a way that might lead the reader into doubting this basic fact. So I suggest we remove the entire media controversy section. As the story is kind of interesting we should leave a link to the specific article in the "See also" section. Dianelos 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't yet formulated an opinion regarding how important the section is in the greater article, its important to note that whatever Hajj's failings, he was supposed to be a neutral party, and he unfairly influenced public opinion in a manner that journalism is supposed to stay far away from. The section isn't about Hezbollah or Israeli PR, but about an unfair manipulation of one side's image internationally, and the varying levels of complicity in this sophisticated campaign. And while nobody (I hope) is denying the suffering of the Lebanese people, that at times the image portrayed is a false one is also significant. TewfikTalk 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It is very important. As noted here, reports that an Israeli missile attack destroyed two ambulances played a role in shaping global opinion, which led to a ceasefire leaving Hezbollah intact. --Gabi S. 11:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but those ambulances really were attacked. That blogs comments have been refuted by both the media there, the victims and the Red Cross. Iorek85 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The ambulances were not attacked. No proof was provided that ambulances were targetted. [The reporter] remains completely unverifiable. His only "evidence," yet again, is the testimony of the people who claim to have been attacked. And though he informs his readers that he went back to "inspect the damaged ambulances" he took no pictures to either validate his claims or to challenge the evidence here. [1] These are the plain facts, and the pictures don't lie. They clearly show that any claims that Lebanese ambulances were hit by Israel are false, since there is no supporting evidence. Moreover, the reporter that was sent to reinforce the accusations returned with empty hands. --Gabi S. 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for your claim? (No does not count.) // Liftarn
I believe that zombietime would admit it if there were pictures proving that ambulances were really hit. But even the Hezbollah propagandists could not bring the Australian reporter to real evidence. He came back to the hospital just to find healthy drivers fabricating more stories, and no pictures. Not a single picture. I don't think that the Hezbollah propagandists would miss a chance to show real damage done, so this is proof enough for me. I count the missing evidence as a reliable source. --Gabi S. 19:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Zombietime is a single person crank website. It simply isn't a reliable source. On the other hand we have reliable sources saying it did happen. "Missiles hit two Red Cross ambulances last weekend, wounding six people and punching a circle in the center of the cross on one’s roof." (New York Times), "The Israel Defense Forces said last night that Israeli fire hit an ambulance"(Boston Globe) and so on. // Liftarn

I don't know what a "crank website" is, but what do YOU think about the coincidence of a missile hitting exactly the center of the cross, where the ambulance just happens to have a ventilation cover of the exact same diameter at the same location? The Boston Globe article shows just the hoax picture. And it even quotes the IDF spokesman saying "The IDF never intentionally targets civilians, much less ambulances". Newspapers make mistakes, and you can see the Adnan Hajj cases to see how easily they fall. In this case, I find the "crank website" much more reliable than the articles that you give as reference. --Gabi S. 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

with israels precision and accurate missiles it is very possible. which brings the other question as to why there were so many civilian deaths in lebanon...hint: the answer is not hezbollah used them as a human shield

As per WP:RS "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." and "editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views". Also per WP:NOR whay I or you or any other editor thinks is not relevant. // Liftarn
I personally found the zombietime articles about the ambulances quite convincing. On the other hand this is indeed a one man operation and I wonder why no mainstream news media did pick up its theory about media manipulation, the way they picked the other ones. In cases where we don't really know what happened I suppose the encyclopedia article should not suggest either version as a fact. As for the global opinion I think it was shaped much more strongly by the numbers of civilian fatalities in Lebanon - many of them children - and the well-documented widespread destruction of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Dianelos 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's published in a reliable source is is fact as Wikipedia defines it. You may wonder why mainstream media did not pick up the story, but it may be the same reason they did not publish the findings of persons coming to the conclusion that the lunar landings was a hoax. // Liftarn

I better go change the 9/11 page to show that the towers were really brought down by the U.S government using explosives, and the planes were just a diversion so no one would notice then. Iorek85 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there were civilian fatalities in Lebanon and the infrastructure was destroyed (supposedly to disarm Hezbolla). But specifically the ambulance story seems unfounded, as no real proof was provided, and the testimony of the alleged victims is dubious. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, since Hezbollah propaganda hoaxes are well-known. For example, the movie with Mr. Green Helmet shows how the body scenes are staged by Hezbollah [2], even though reality is still fiction for Reuters, which still claim that all of its photos are authentic and not staged [3]. Another first-hand example is the reporter that admitted that he could not take any pictures, unless he got a letter from Hezbollah giving him permission [4]. All this is ignored by the media out of plain bias toward anti-Israel reports, there's nothing new or peculiar about it. --Gabi S. 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering the blatant pro-Israel bias in the US media it seems very strange that no real magazine, newspaper or tv station picked up the story. If/when they pick upt he story it can be included in the article. Until then it's just another conspiracy theory. // Liftarn

Pie chart

The pie chart is a POV. The number of dead Hezbollah guerillas is from Hezbollah suorces... 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As is probably the number of dead Israeli soldiers from Israeli military sources! Who is to say they both aren't lying? We deal with the appropriate data we have and should be neither pro-Israel nor pro-Hezbollah. It is only POV if you are strongly pro-Israel... Wikipedia does not censor information nor should it exclude factual items such as this chart. ~ clearthought 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So we should put below it a chart from Israeli sources, or at least to write that the chart was made by Hezbollah sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
By that logic, we should have a chart showing Israeli [military] casualties by Hezbollah sources... ~ clearthought 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you have such figures, such would be the only NPOV solution. Otherwise, this Pie chart is misleading. Isarig 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that you know perfectly what are the differances between the sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Obviously there are differences. Hezbollah wants to say that they killed more IDF soldiers than they did and had less casualties as the IDF say that Hezbollah had. In addition, the IDF probably says that they have lost fewer than they actually have and state that they have killed more Hezbollah fighters than they actually have. It is all just agenda-pushing on all sides. From the looks of it, you above IP users seem to be staunchly pro-Israel whilst I am a moderate. ~ clearthought 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only, I am sure you can find more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Why don't you give us all the pleasure and do so, then. ~ clearthought 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
So, you are saying that only Israel is a valid source, and Hezbollah is not. I will be frank here, I don't trust either, but it would only make sense to have Israel report their casualties and Hezbollah report theirs. Having Israel report Hezbollah's figures is POV and vice versa. The best source is an independent source, which neither Hezbollah nor the IDF are. They both have agendas to push. Since we don't really have third party figures, we should use the data — however questionable — that Israel gave for their fatalities and Hezbollah for theirs. ~ clearthought 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the pie chart, as is, is original research, POV and misleading for 3 reasons - (a) it does not list the sources used, and as such it is OR. (b) while it does not cite sources, it seems that it is using the Hezbollah figure for their casualties (74), and not the list of 440 confimed dead by name and address by the IDF - as such - it is strongly POV. (c) it appears to use the figures for total Lebanese killed, and claims they are all civilian - misleading and POV. If indeed it is using the same figures that already appear in theinfobox - this information is redundant, and it seems the only reason it was added was to visually push the POV that the vast majority of casualties were Lebanese civilians. This is a vioaltion of WP:POINT. Isarig 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But the vast, vast majority of casualties were civilians! Plus, it can be argued that the IDF is just as POV as Hezbollah! ~ clearthought 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but that is not borne out by the figures so far. for example, if you assume that the # of Lebaneses casualties (~1200) includes both civilians and Hezbollah fighters, and if you furtheraccept the IDF estimate of Hezbollah fighters killed (~700), it would seem that civilians were not the majority of casualties. Even if you only use the number of Hezbollah fighters confirmed killed by the IDF (~440) as part of the overall Lebanese killed, the civilians are a majority, but not a big one. In any case, there is no reason to use a POV chart, when we have figures that present both POVs. Isarig 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Both POVs? I don't see figures saying how many IDF soldiers Hezbollah says they killed. ~ clearthought 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
One POV is the pie chart as it was in the article. Another would be based on the assumptions avove, and would have Lebanese civilian casualties at around 500, and and hezb casualties at around 700, Idf casualties at 120 and Israeli civilians at 40. percentage wise, 51% Hezb, 37% Lebanese civilians. 01:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that many more than 500 Lebanese civilians died. POV is joining a side and not taking an objective or near-objective viewpoint with as little bias as possible and showing the viewpoint, if possible, of all parties to — in this case — the conflict at hand. ~ clearthought 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And you are of course welcome to that belief - so long as your remember that's what it is, and keep that POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, I was using "believe" like "think", not like "it is my opinion". All sane data shows that the figures of Hezbollah deaths at '700' and Lebanese civilian deaths at '500' are extremely incorrect. What next, Israel lost 2,000 civilians? Nonetheless, why aren't you picking on other users for their extreme POV, whereas my statements show that I am a moderate in this whole conflict scheme. Lastly, what POV are you talking about? Find one article edit of mine that shows POV! ~ clearthought 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The data that is used in the article does not support what you claim. It says ~1200 Lebanese were killed, but does not break up civilians vs. hezbollah (which would be extremely difficult to do relaiably, in any case). So while you are welcome to your "belief" that "all sane data" supports your claim, until you actually produce such data, kindly keep that POV out of the article. Isarig 16:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you keep your POV out of Wikipedia! ~ clearthought 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your remarkable [pro-Israel, pro-Fox News] POV and uncivilly in the past, Isarig: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
~ clearthought 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Its foolish to try and make a pie chart that will only show one sides view when there are two hot headed sides out there beleiving their figure to be right and no third party ruling on what the real number is yet. Leave the stats to the infobox where it can be noted that there are conflicting figures. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If we can note conflicting figures in the infobox, why can't we on the pie chart? There should just be a note saying that 'the figures represented in this pie chart come from the respective sources of the ones who casualties were inflicted upon' or a like NB. ~ clearthought 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason we can't do that on the pie chart is that the chart itself will have a slice of only one size - so even if you note in the labels that there are differing figures, you will end up showing only one of these. Agian I ask you - what's the point of this chart? what info does it add that is not already in the article? Isarig 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The point of the chart is to provide a visual showing of the casualties. Like the ones (numbers) listed, but in chart form. It is no more POV than the figures themselves. I was also saying for the note to be put not in the image but the image frame box or on a note linked to the caption on the image box. ~ clearthought 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See above as to why the chart is more POV than the figures - the figures give two sets of claimed casualties, the chart - only one. Isarig 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See my above arguments to see why your argument is greatly more pro-Israel than moderate. Those figures (of Hezbollah casualties reported by the IDF) are there because that is what is known, not because it is any more accurate than Hezbollah's figures. We use the IDF's figures when describing their own casualties, why not do the same for Hezbollah? That is what this chart does. If you want a chart showing a more IDF-slanted stance, make one! ~ clearthought 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs in this article anyway. We already have a summation of the casualties - it belongs in the subarticle Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Iorek85 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that no one substantially disputes Israel's numbers for its own casualties (I don't think that I've even seen a discrepancy of more than ten), while there is controversy regarding statements coming out of Hezbollah. Regardless of how one feels about Israel, it seems that certain information coming out of it, even with charges of military censorship, is more verifiable than the same information coming out of Hezbollah, which doesn't claim to be either democratic or open. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Tewfik, you are wrong. There have been numerous reports of the IDF reporting a couple of deaths to the public and then informing far more families of children that won't be coming home. There have also been questions raised in this discussion about including people treated for shock as wounded. A paper cut can cause shock, a long distance bill can cause shock, a girdle can cause shock, even a bad opera performance can cause shock. When we speak of wounded, most people understand that to mean something approaching "purple heart" worthy. Carbonate 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That's wrong(The first thing). Where did you get this information? Where are you from?
What does the Shock comment has to do with it? Also, It is clear that you have no idea what is a real shock. So Please check that out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Tawfik, as I have stated before, we can pretty much trust Hezbollah and the IDF the same, and since we use the numbers of military deaths of IDF troops from the IDF, it seems only logical to use the data from Hezbollah regarding their casualties, or at least some confirmed number. And, User:, I hope this is the last time anyone has to tell you to please sign your comments; ~~~~. ~ clearthought 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, look at all the comments over a chart which I suggested someone create weeks ago with not a single response... Just to clarify, the chart is of deaths only, the data comes from the casualties page (that is linked just above and in the chart's upload info) and yes, it does use hezbollah's figures for their casualties. The numbers used were taken very close to the upload time (within a couple of hours) if you need to go back in that page's history. Isarig removed the chart saying it needed to be discussed but as I have already mentioned, no one seemed to care until the dirty deed was done. I don't think any amount of fiddling with the numbers (like including the 2000 people who suffered from shock as injured) will drastically change the proportions that become VERY obvious when put in chart form (which is why charts were invented). If the numbers are in question, I would be more than happy to change them (they are in a spreadsheet) but I would be inclined to favor self admited numbers over enemy kill claims for obvious reason of conflicted interest. Carbonate 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I must correct myself, it seems that Iorek did comment on the chart when I proposed it and it also seems it wasn't so long ago (it must be the very long list of changes and the archiving of the discussion that made it seem so). I belive that the chart should be in both places because they both feature lists of (often conflicting) numbers. I also believe that it is important to show what these numbers really mean in terms of human beings. These are lives that we are talking about, not the footy score. Carbonate 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please address the above issues, which you have ignored, regarding the inability of a chart to show more than one set of numbers. More importantly, your last statement " I also believe that it is important to show what these numbers really mean in terms of human beings." - is a clear and explicit violation of WP:POINT and WP:SOAP. If you want to "show what these numbers really mean" - write a letter to your local paper, start a blog , or make a sign and go demonstrate. Wp is not your soapbox. Isarig 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be extremely interested in seeing a questioning of the IDF's reporting of its own casualties in RS, but in the myriad articles which I've read since the beginning of the hostilities, and in general since I've begun to track the ME violence, that claim has been absent from the milieu of issues reported. In terms of shock, you won't get it from a phone bill, girdle, or anything else short of "actual or threatened death, serious physical injury, or a threat to physical and/or psychological integrity." And while I don't recall when you originally posted a discussion about this, it is certainly legitimate to register my protest once I've seen the manner in which it has come together. While the claim has been made that both sides' numbers are questioned, and I await a response on that issue (above), do you challenge that if one side's numbers were accepted by all and the other's were tied to controversy and potentially inflated, that it would not be fair to quote them as equally valid? Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what big harm the inclusion of this piechart causes. Indeed it helps the reader realize one of the most disturbing facts about this war and the one most reported on: the disproportionate killing of Lebanese civilians. Even using IDF's numbers about Hezbollah casualties we get that 66% of all those killed in this war were Lebanese civilians (the Israeli civilians killed amount to 2.5% of the total). And whose fault is this latest tragedy? Israel's and Hezbollah's of course, and also the international community's that wouldn't find a win-win solution during the last 40 years - but also the fault of all those who try to whitewash one side or the other. Shame on us all. Dianelos 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree with you; I mean, it is just a pie chart! Oh, and Isarig, Wikipedia is not your soapbox either, contrary to your notion that the POV and related rules seemingly do not reply to you. ~ clearthought 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The article makes it very clear that the majority of deaths were suffered by Lebanese civilians, but it makes note of when numbers are challenged. If we can find a way to incorporate that qualification in the chart, then we should definitely include it, as it is, as you say, a good visual aid. But we should be extremely concerned about the information that it includes, and make sure that it isn't used to just report one position. Again, if one set of numbers is unchallenged, and the other is disputed by a large margin, then the pie would not be neutral. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said any of the numbers are undisputed? Both sides have claimed more kills than the other has admited to (can you name a battle where they didn't?) and both sides have been accused of shorting the casualties they took (although a notable exception was the agregiously inflated wounded figures for shock by the IDF). The chart I made presented each sides admissions of those killed and that is both fair and equitable. Have you noticed that the only complaint so far is in the supposed under reporting of Hezbollah's casualties? Do you understand why that is the complaint being made and not the exageration of Israeli or civilian casualties? I feel very sorry for those people who believe that a certain enemy tally can in some way justify the horrific damage done to a peaceful and democratic country. I have not yet seen anyone propose a new chart that fixes these so called POV problems but then again, it is usually much easier to critisize than to create. Carbonate 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I have not seen evidence of the IDF numbers being disputed, while the Hezbollah numbers are disputed many times over. This has nothing to do with any justification, but with giving equal weight to the questioned numbers. TewfikTalk 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Carbonate, why not re-insert the piechart using the IDF supplied number about confirmed Hezbollah dead (440), with a short mention of this fact? (I think it's reasonable to trust IDF's numbers more than Hezbollah's.) In the future we shall probably have more reliable information about the number of casualties in the various groups and you can correct the piechart accordingly. Dianelos 06:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I just want to state for the record, I believe this article and this whole series of articles has come out really well, even if Tewfik at times does cut a little closer to the bone than would be in my own nature. But it's not the job of the encyclopaedist to spoonfeed the reader overarching theories. Kosmopolis gives the example, if I might over-paraphrase, that this could be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Iran. History may indeed look back at this conflict that way. But, however that may be so: a user with so much of an inkling of that idea today would have to follow the link to Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, find that the US supplied military aid to Israel from the TOC there, follow the link to Israel-US relations and it is all pretty well laid out. As someone who had an encylopedia at his fingertips for most of his youth, thumbing through three levels of see-also's is hardly a chore, and Wikipedia guarantees no paper cuts. Let the propagandists spoon feed people this outside our pages, and tell their disbelievers to look it up in their "Funk and Wagnalls" for verification, or rebuttal. If any of us want to shout from the roof tops that US citizens tax dollars are paying to kill and empoverish woman and children, that's an endeavour to be accomplished from a rooftop or soap-box somewheres else.

Nevertheless -- all that does need to be balanced with our duty to encourage readers to delve, which is why I prefer more meat on the bone. But it's a difficult balancing act, especially for current or recent events. All we have to write with is black letters on white screen, while all the world gives us are shades of gray. -- Kendrick7 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, I know it is all very serious, but try to keep a sense of humor. -- Kendrick7 04:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your assessment of the article, and especially your bit of advice in the end. I would like to reiterate that the recent source of controversy was my maintenance of a consensus "background" which had been stable for weeks, and which was originally hammered out by editors representing many POVs. While Wikipedia should obviously not be static, I don't feel that my actions there should be seen as advocating anything but the article's quality, and certainly not a POV. And while I'm generally not a deletionist, and I was among those who argued for the preservation of some key details when this article's size had forced others to move information en masse to sub articles, the type of detail that was added by Kosmopolis/80.135.***.*** did not seem to be the kind that should be preserved here, even if some may be relevant elsewhere. All of that said, I also welcome constructive criticism of my editing that you may offer. Happy editing, TewfikTalk 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to the instability of being a current event. Might I also suggest turning the bulleted list into prose? --Tarret 00:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly surprised. It's not even close to GA quality yet. Iorek85 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


--Greasysteve13 03:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it made 5th a couple of days ago. Crazy. Iorek85 03:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC) External Link or Not?

I was notified that I could not created an "external link" to the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict debates on [] This seems to be because I founded Debatus, and there was concern that I was self-advertising, which I can't defend against. Nevertheless, I believe strongly that this "external link" should be made by a 3rd party, not affiliated with the Debatus team, because the content and structure is very valuable to rationalizing the debate. I should add that the idea of Debatus is basically an extension of the Wikipedia concept over to the refinement of debate and argumentation. I would think, then, that Wikipedia would desire an "external link" to such a resource. Perhaps, a concensus could form on this issue in this discussion page with people varifying the legitimacy of Debatus, and someone could then decide to make the external link. Thank you. inspirator 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Kudos to Kendrick7 on the concise and neutral background. My only issue with it was that the instability which caused the Lebanese Civil War was directly caused by the influx of Palestinians, including the PLO, into Lebanon after their expulsion from Jordan. While the founding of Israel can of course be looked at as an indirect cause, so can lots of things, and I believe this more accurately portrays what happened. Again, this was only a small part - the passage was otherwise a very good work (I also restored the categories and clarified the nature of targets hit by Hezbollah). Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've restored mention of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War to the background, and while it is certainly neutral, I still question the assertion's accuracy. While there may have been some movement of Palestinian Arabs to Lebanon in the war's wake, the instability leading to Lebanese Civil War (as is stated in that article) was primarily internally based before the post Black September events, which is when Palestinian involvement came into play. Please let me know what you think. TewfikTalk 15:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The information I've gathered from the other artcles suggests 711,000 Palestinians fled Lebanon in 1948. By 1967, 19 years later, they had 700,000 descendants in Jordan. So I would guess maybe 200,000 came to Lebanon in 1948? I don't how many came in after the Six Day War, but 110,000 fled Jordan after the failed coup, again, according to loosely ref'd subarticles to the main background article. I wouldn't mind having more precise data, but for political reasons, Lebanon hasn't conducted a census since 1932. -- Kendrick7 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholics and Maronites

Although most christians in Lebanon are probably not Maronites today, they were certainly the majority of christians when lebanon became independent. I think people might be confused due to the fact that today the Maronite church is in full communion with the Catholic church, so they are technically unified. However, to actually refer to Maronites as Catholic really is misleading since they actually have entirely different histories. In fact, the Maronite church is more similar to the eastern rite churches than to the Catholic church.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is the definition of Maronite according to the Encarta Dictionary 2006: belonging or relating to the Christian Uniat Church of Lebanon, an Eastern Catholic church. Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Maronites are indeed Catholics.
I believe I clarified this for Moshe, but for the record: the archdiocese of Boston is in full communion with the Catholic Church too, but I wouldn't say they are technically Catholic. It's true 98% of Catholics are belong to the Latin Rite particular Church, and the other 2% fall into one of the 22 Eastern Rite particular Churches. So, out of a billion members, that's 20 million Catholics being made technicalites. The long history of French intervention in Lebanon can largely be explained by this shared religion, despite the liturgical differences. -- Kendrick7 22:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cluster Bombs

Although Haaretz reported that soldiers in the IDF have explicitely said that cluster bombs and phosphorus shells have been used in Lebanon and that these shells are "widely forbidden" according to the international law, someone, I hope it is not Tewfik, is not happy with this fact. I have re-edited that part to refelect what was really reported in Haaretz. To say that some phosphorus shells are not excplicitely forbidden by intenational laws is funny. I'm not sure if there are some phosphorus shells that are Kosher and some that are not.

Marwan123 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Marwan123

It was me, Marwan. While the Haaretz article does say "widely forbidden," we've had many more detailed discussions on this specific point in the past (and I realise that this sounds exclusionary - you could check the archives if you like), but the results of those discussions are more or less preserved in the Targeting of civilian areas. The relevant points are that international law only prohibits them in very specific situations (ie, antipersonnel, as opposed to tracers, marker bombs etc.), and that neither Israel nor Lebanon are party to even these limited prohibitions. Thus saying that they are not explicitly forbidden would seem to more accurately represent the reality of what is a very complex situation. Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the name of the article

Rename to "war"

I see now that the Hebrew Wikipedia has renamed their article (belatedly, I think) to "the Second Lebanon War" and now with this as an encyclopedic (as opposed to journalistic, of which there are plenty) reference, I'm inclined to rename the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon war (i.e. beyond a conflict). So unless there are objections, I'll be implementing the move in the near future. Thanks. El_C 08:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC) The following comment was inexplicably archived; I'll keep an eye that this dosen't happen in the future and give it a few more days. El_C 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In response too ILike2BeAnonymous (and not El_C), until we do come to a decision, your arguing that "men raining destruction on each other in the form of high explosives" constitutes a "war" is fine, but shouldn't affect the article. Also, please be careful about fully reverting changes - the syntax, which I noted in the edit summary, is hardly controversial. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that its called Israel-Hezbollah War, since the main combatant was Hezbollah, and not Lebanon. --Doom777 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It took place in Israel and Lebanon; we're not gonna call it IDF-Hezbollah war.
Further arguments for "war" are based on clear rationals:
  1. Political echelon & media in both Israel and Lebanon call it "war"
  2. Sustained high-intensity warfare throughout a period of weeks
  3. Unlike in Gaza, entire divisions were mobalized (in Israel)
  4. Scholarly sources call it "war" (e.g.
Where it took place is not as important as who fought it. --Doom777 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
El_C 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, whether it's called a war or not has nothing to do with the intensity, actors, weaponry, length, etc. What matters is what the thing is called, nothing else. Israelis call it a war, Lebanese call it a war, Hezbollah calls it a war. Even if there were no dead people and everybody called it war, Wikipedia would call it a war too. Zocky | picture popups 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I opposed calling it a war previously in order to err on the side of caution, I think that now that time has passed we can faithfully call it a war with legitimate backing. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Iorek85's contention that "I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war" is clearly mistaken; it involved the entire territory of one country and a good third of another, the number of casualties was far higher than in other recent conflicts universally called wars (cf. Falklands War) and the scale, scope and tempo of military operations was consistent with a full-blown war. I'll support El C's proposal to move the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. -- ChrisO 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I also got involved with the above polls, this really isn't an issue to be determined by votes. What we should do is have a listing of current references to the event, and name this article based on the factors that are most prevalent in them. TewfikTalk 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Israeli government opposed (and still opposes) calling this conflict a "war", because it has economic implications, dealing mainly with recompensations for damaged property. Instead of "war" it is formally called "fighting". However, "2006 Israel-Lebanon fighting" doesn't sound very encyclopedical. --Gabi S. 06:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Conflict seems to fit best. This was not a widespread incident with a small number of casualties that took place between a country and a terror organization. There generally has to be two countries for there to be a war and it usually has to be declared. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Since scope isn't apparently an issue in whether action is called a war or not, it seems to be only popular opinion that gives it the name. I agree with tewfik, but I don't know how one would go about collecting enough sources, or which sources should be used. I disagree that voting isn't important, though - wikipedians are members of the international public after all, and thus decide whether it was a war or conflict just as the public do. Iorek85 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please look this: Ten-Day War - it was a war and this isn't???--TheFEARgod 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That was two countries duking out. Our own page on conflict says - "Another type of conflict exists between governments and guerrilla groups or groups engaged in asymmetric warfare." Still, I've said size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary. Iorek85 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And Second Chechen War?? --TheFEARgod 23:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war." - Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, this qualifies as a war. Both Israel and Hezbollah have the (relatively for Hezbollah) organized use of weapons and physical force and Hezbollah is a rather large-scale group (5,000-10,000 active members, 50,000 volunteers according to CNN), they both held territory that they did win and lose, and both do have a leading person and/or organization that can surrender of collapse that would have pretty much brought the end of the conflict.

Then what is a conflict? As I said "size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary". Iorek85 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The whole poll is really not the proper manner for deciding on a name change, rather as I've said before, there should be an attempt to analyse the various relevant sources, and name based on what is most used in them. TewfikTalk 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)