This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Extended background talk, Archive 42
  • 2,733 mentally injured Israelis?
  • Number of casualties
  • Prophecy
  • 11k of new Timeline information
  • POV (Syria-USA)
  • New lead picture
  • Excessive use of contractions in this article's text.
  • Outcome of the war
  • Fair use rationale for Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG
  • Begining of the war
  • Extended background
  • Bias in Timeline
  • Extended background

30,000 soldiers were deployed only in the last few days. During most of the time it was 10,000 (once the ground deployment was decided upon). I suggest changing it to something like: "Up to 10,000 initially. 30,000 in last few days." It would probably be better if someone who follows the article more closely changes it rather than me. ehudshapira 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I added that info. ehudshapira 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*yawn* So this issue comes up again. I don't really see it as a major issue, but hopefully we can avoid people revert warring over it by discussing it here.

I don't remember the exact reason that people oppose the term capture, as it seemed pretty neutral to me, but I can understand why people don't like the term kidnap.

• The term kidnap is derived from "child-snatching". It's meaning has since expanded beyond this, but I would think it would be best to avoid any possible misconception.
• Colloquially, the term is more often used when referring to civilians than military personnel. In this case, the two men taken were decidely military in nature.
• I'm worried that favoring the term kidnapped may only be for POV reasons. Anyone sufficiently familiar with English is very unlikely to refer to themselves as having "kidnapped" their enemy, so I would worry that using the term in this article would imply bias. If the case is reversed in other scenarios, such as Hezbollah fighters being captured, I would also avoid the use of use of the term kidnapped for the same reason.

Could someone explain the other viewpoint of why the term capture has worse neutrality problems? Cheers. — George ^{[ talk} 12:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that despite the edit summary, there was only one "kidnapped" changed in the edit, which also changed "border villages" to "army positions", this is probably moot. I've changed that sole "kidnapped" to "abducted" to avoid any issues, though I'm sure you are familiar with my position ;-) Tewfik ^Talk 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, this is what the edit war is over?! Abduct is good enough. Any thoughts on changing the sole kidnap to "took hostage"? I don't really care either way, just curious. Cheers. — George ^{[ talk} 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the word took hostage is not as impartial as capture. Hostage taking is carried out in robberies and things of that nature and the word carries a negative tone. The word capture is the most suitable for a military operation. As I pointed out earlier the word capture was used by Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah, the BBC, the ABC Australia, HRW, and the UN. I think they represnt a strong argument for the use of the word capture. Abufijli 10:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Hezbollah tried to use the soldiers' captivity as leverage to free Lebanese prisoners in Israel. This isn't exactly the same as ransom, which is described in the kidnapping article, and usually has a monetary overtone, but it does likely amount to hostage-taking. I still agree that capture is more appropriate, but I don't think it's worth revert warring over for one word. The grey area in this case is whether the soldiers were taken before the conflict, or as a part of the conflict. In the case of the former, taken-hostage is more appropriate, while capture is more appropriate in the later. Given the short delay between their abduction and the response from Israel, and the way this article currently describes the events, I think that it was a part of the conflict, but you'd have to ask other editors why they oppose the term capture, as that still isn't entirely clear to me. — George ^{[ talk} 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The conflict between the two parties has been on ging since the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. This operation was part of the bigger conflict between the two sides. While Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, it did not return prisoners, release maps of land mines and continued overflights over Lebanese territory. These Israeli actions and the Hezbollah actions constitute an ongoing conflict, therefore the word capture is more appropriate, I ask the people who are reverting the article to "kidnap" to present their case instead of editing back and forward. Abufijli 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the term "kidnap" is defintiely appropriate here. The soldiers were not taken as part of any ongoing military conflict between two states. Nor were they held by any established governmental authority. Nor were they occupying any lands of the group which abducted them. So that's why i feel "kidnap" is appropriate. However "abduct" seems accetable as well. thanks. -- Sm8900 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Hezbollah also use the term "kidnap". Tewfik ^Talk 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you find the source that had this? I remember seeing it too, but I can't remember the details (who published it, who translated it, if there was an original copy in Arabic). Also, are we sure that words kidnap, capture, abduct, and take are different words in Arabic, and translate cleanly to English? For instance, Google [1] and another online Arabic-English dictionary [2] translate both "kidnap" and "abducted" to the same word, خطف, while capture translates as something else. — George ^{[ talk} 07:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated previously Nasrallah used the word capture in Arabic during the press conference that announced the operation that was carried out. I gave the link to the video where he says it clearly, if someone speaks arabic they can check the video at: http://www.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=307 . I am well versed in Arabic and yes there is a huge difference between capture and kidnap in the language, I used the Google translation tool and it reflected this difference between the two terms. Plus does the UN and HRW statements about this conflict which use the term capture not seem enough to use the word in this article? The UN is the international body which overseas these conflicts and its wording is usually unbiased. Abufijli 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How many minutes into the video does he say this? I can't understand Arabic, but if you can give the number of seconds into the video to listen, I can probably make out the difference between KhTF and ASR. — George ^{[ talk} 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The audio isn't amazingly clear, but I believe Abufijli is correct. The issue was always about the "apology" speech where he uses Kh.T.F though, not this one. Tewfik ^Talk 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 'kidnap' and 'abduct' can be translated the same way in Arabic (Kh.T.F), while 'capture' or 'imprison' can be translated to A.S.R. While I'm still searching for the original for this later Nasrallah statement, we are certainly not obligated to adopt that position. I don't understand what the problem with "took hostage" is, since Hassan Nasrallah openly declares that to be the intent (i.e. Operation Truthful Promise). Tewfik ^Talk 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And here it is ("لو كنت اعلم ان خطف الجنديين الاسرائيليين سوف يؤدي الى هذه النتيجة لما اقدم حزب الله على ذلك"). Tewfik ^Talk 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great find! I think it was you who explain the difference between Kh.T.F and A.S.R. to me the last time this came up. My thought is this: I have no problem with "took hostage", but apparently Abufijli does. In the interest of resolving the discussion, what if we change the one "took hostage" to "abduct"? This would be accurate of the original Arabic statement, while being pretty neutral in English. So what do you, Tewfik, and you, Abufijli, think of making all of such statements in the article to say "abducted"? I noticed that Abufijli changes all instances of abduct to capture in the existing article, so a lot of this would rely on his willingness to accept abduct as neutral and accurate. — George ^{[ talk} 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with abduct either. Tewfik ^Talk 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the link I gave of that press conference http://www.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=307 Nasrallah uses the word A.S.R at 2:41 minutes. As for the so called "apology" he gave on the 28th of August 2006 in an interview with New TV Lebanon where he is asked by the interviewer if he had known the response to the capture would be so severe would he have gone ahead with the operation he clearly uses the word A.S.R over and over again, for those who can understand arabic the video is here http://www.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=159#232 the discussion about this takes place from 40 minutes into the video. The BBC has mis quoted Nasrallah on this issue clearly as the video states.... My problem with the word abducted or took hostage is that it is exactly the same as kidnap. Changing it to any of these two words is not appropriate because they affect the integrity of the article. As stated previously the UN used the word capture and I think that, including Nasrallah's words present a strong case for the use of the word capture instead of abduct, kidnap or took hostage. Abufijli 12:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the technical ability at the moment to go through the videos, but even if you are correct that the BBC and others misprinted the direct quote, the point was only that if Nasrallah uses that language then it would make it clearer that it was appropriate, but we were certainly not saying that we can only say what Nasrallah says. Many media sources use this language, as do one of the two sides of the conflict, and the neutrality of capture has been questioned repeatedly, perhaps for the same reason that you question kidnap (as an aside, "take hostage" is not exactly the same as "kidnap", and if anything seems the least problematic since, while unwieldy, it describes what Hezbollah says it was doing without any value judgements). We cannot satisfy everyone, but I think that the current compromise is the best we can do. If you have other suggestions for something that allows all of us to meet in the middle, then by all means share it with us. Tewfik ^Talk 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major deal, but I do think that capture is more common than kidnapped in the media( [3] vs. [4]) and in general ( [5] vs. [6]). I'm still not completely clear what neutrality problems capture has though. By my definition, it means to take someone or something, usually by force, and usually for some reason or some gain. Would that definition imply something non-neutral, or do others have a different definition of capture that they're going on? — George ^{[ talk} 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the other article here on wikipedia, "Casus Belli" for the war and the word capture is used over and over again in that article. This is the word more widely used in the media, and by the UN. Abufijli 04:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

While the news search yields 208 to 508, they are still the same order of magnitude (while the regular search of 62,600 to 88,800 is even closer, though a Google test is really not effective for this type of exercise). Regardless, the fact that one of the two parties has a different take, one which appears in the mainstream no less, and that we have compromise wording available, means that we should be using that to be neutral. In terms of what does or doesn't appear elsewhere on WP, we do not use it as a source, especially as AFAIK discussion has not taken place elsewhere. In terms of the various implications, George, I believe that the Israelis and others have used language other than "capture" to differentiate between the explicitly intentional hostage-taking, and capture in the course of conflict. Likewise we would describe the taking of Mustafa Dirani as an abduction or hostage taking. Tewfik ^Talk 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct here regarding the timing playing a key role in determining the correct label (that is, capture being used in the course of the conflict), but I think we may disagree as to whether the taking of the soldiers was part of the conflict or not. My personal view is because there was fighting involved in their being taken (this wasn't a sneak into their barracks while they're unarmed or sleeping type of operation), and because the Israeli response was immediate, and military in nature, the taking of the soldiers constituted capturing, as it was both the start of the conflict, as well as a part of the conflict. Now, say for instance that Hezbollah had crossed the border at night without firing any shots, snuck into the soldiers' barracks and taken them while they could not fight back (being unarmed or asleep) – that would be blatant kidnapping. Likewise, if Israel had tried to negotiate for their release first, or given Hezbollah a 24 hour ultimatum of "release them or we're coming in", the taking of the soldiers would definitely be separate from the fighting part of the conflict. In this conflict, given the military nature of the circumstances in which they were taken (diversionary rocket atacks, a fire fight involving both sides), I have a hard time separating the taking of the soldiers as not being a part of the conflict itself. I'm not saying Israel was wrong by any means, or that I wouldn't react in the same exact manner, but from my perspective the abduction of the soldiers should be included as part of the conflict. — George ^{[ talk} 07:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that they were immediately incapacitated and were capable of offering little or no resistance. I don't think this is the same as if they were grabbed into the back of a lorry outside an army base, but because the explicitly stated goal was to take them into custody, I still feel that it is inappropriate to use the same language as is used for any other military engagement. I believe Hezbollah intentionally uses that language because of their position that Israel occupies Lebanese land, and thus that Israelis as occupiers are fair game. None of that is really important though, just that a significant part of the conflict uses language akin to "kidnap", and that the most realistic solution would be one that compromises on intermediate language, rather than adopting that of one side. Cheers, Tewfik ^Talk 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much resistance they could have put up; I was more focusing on the fact that since they were patrolling the border, they were likely armed and would have had the ability to fight back if they so chose (granted, doing so would have likely cost them their lives). Your point regarding the intention of Hezbollah is an interesting one though, as their original motive did indeed appear to be to take Israeli soldiers in order to strike a trade. I think that that is the strongest case for the term kidnap or took-hostage I've heard. I'm totally fine with using the term abducted throughout still... just discussing the subject since editors seem intent on changing or reverting these terms. Do you think there's any middle ground? I'm thinking maybe any direct mention of the event when it occurred, or in the subsequent failed rescue attempt, use the term kidnapped, the mention in the introduction remaining took hostage, any mention of the event after the fighting actually broke out use the term captured, and any mention of the taking of troops in general (such as use as a past tactic) use abduct. I'm implementing this now, in the hopes that editors might be okay with it as a compromise, but you never know. ;) — George ^{[ talk} 10:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my general thought with this attempt at compromise is that before war fully breaks out (that includes the inital attack, and the failed rescure), they've been kidnapped, and afterwards they've been captured (akin to prisoners of war, but that term doesn't apply to militas). — George ^{[ talk} 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we trying to reach a compromise or are we trying to be objective and neutral? How is it that the word took captive is sued at the begining of the article then the word kidnapped is used later on? Why does this article have to have different words for the same action than other articles on Wikipedia related to the same incident? What is the problem with the word capture? I still have not heard from the people opposing the use of the word. Let us discuss it here and reach consensus on the issue. Cheers Abufijli 12:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read through all the discussion regarding this issue ad I think the use of the work capture is much more appropriate than abduct, kidnap or took hostage. The word capture leaves it up to the reader to decide which way he/she would like to view th incident, while the other words imply illegality, thuggishness etc... You can argue that Hezbollah is a militia but you must remember that it has been given legitimacy by the Lebanese govvernment prior to this attack, by the UN when Kofi Annan visited Nasrallah or by the agreement reached between Israel and Hezbollah after the 1996Grapes of Wrath. I therefore vote for the use of the word capture. Forix r6 07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to say too much because as we all know this page is controlled by an Israeli Lobby. However i will just say the correct word should be 'captured.' Reaper7 01:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we have a vote on the use of the word capture or took hostage, we will otherwise have a edit war and that is something we all do not want to do. Please sign your name below under the term you would like to use: Abufijli 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Capture:

• 1. Support. : As per reasons above. Reaper7 12:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Abufijli 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Forix r6 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Took Hostage:

Close to one month has passed and no votes for the use of the word took hostage, I guess that settles it then, the word captured, which is more widely used as discussed, will be used. Abufijli 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by a conspiracymongerer and two redlinks with a suspicious editing pattern is not the same as consensus. Tewfik ^Talk 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You were asked to vote on an issue which we can no0t reach an agreement on, you chose not to, do not change things without going through the due process. I do not want to play this game with you of editing war, if you do not like the use of the word capture vote aganst it. Abufijli 00:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Straw polls are for determining if consensus exists, something that comments about how "we all know this page is controlled by an Israeli Lobby" etc. are far from demonstrating. Tewfik ^Talk 05:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Every single argument you used regarding the use of other terms where shown to be weak, military personnel are never kidnapped or abducted or taken hostage, they are CAPTURED. I do not want this to be a battle ground, I want to discuss it and you are the only person opposing the change and are refusing to discuss it. Abufijli 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue has bee discussed at length on this talk page, and Tewfik is far from the only oner who opposes the change. You are welcome to your persoanl opinion, but military personnel are often kidnapped, and reffered to in such terms. See for example [7], [8] Isarig 06:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That is quiet untrue, the term captured is more often used for soldiers, for example: [9] [10] [11] please note that the last link is from a US government website, the US is believed to be biased towards the Israeli's. Abufijli 10:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "military personnel are never kidnapped " - I promptly showed you they are most certainly kidnapped and referred to as such. Your response to this sourced argument is "That is quiet untrue" - and an allegation that "the US is believed to be biased towards the Israeli's" - a non-sequitur as that link is about US soldiers. I find it hard to assume good faith with regards to such responses. Isarig 12:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Military personnel are not kidnapped, they are captured. Especiallyt when this is part of an ongoing conflict such as the one in the Middle East. If the borders between these two nations where peaceful and tranquil then yes the term kidnap or took hostage or abduct can be appropriate. Abufijli 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I read a recent report recently that might provide a better solution. What about the term "seized"? That seems appropriate, and more neutral then either abducted, captured, or kidnapped. Thoughts? — George ^{[ talk} 09:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Isarig 12:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig and George. Italiavivi 13:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is a neutral term. But I think it must be used throughout the article. Hopefully everyone is happy with "seized" Abufijli 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. Barring any objection by Tewfik, hopefully this issue can be put to rest. — George ^{[ talk} 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't accept seized. checking thesaurus for the word "seize":

seize One entry found for seize. Entry Word: seize Function: verb Text: 1 to recognize the meaning of <an artist who seizes everyday reality and captures it on canvas> -- see COMPREHEND 1 ---not relevant 2 to take or keep under one's control by authority of law <seized the leaders of one of the city's major drug rings> -- see ARREST 1 - would be very wrong to use thereof. 3 to take physical control or possession of (something) suddenly or forcibly <seized the escaping balloon> -- see CATCH 1 -- since it's about subjects - not relevant

Amoruso 12:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these words will have just about the same synonyms in a thesaurus; that isn't a reasonable test. One of the definitions of seized, for instance, is: "take or capture by force; 'The terrorists seized the politicians'; 'The rebels threaten to seize civilian hostages'". [12] If you're looking for a perfect term, you're not going to find it; it doesn't exist. This is the closest we've come so far. It is the various definitions of this word that make it neutral - it's ambiguousity is its strength. — George ^{[ talk} 12:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Amoruso has little interest in discussing or compromising on this issue. I'm currently up against the 3RR boundary (not to mention it's almost 6am here), so I'll check back in tomorrow and look at getting administrative intervention in this case. In the meantime, I'm especially interested in Tewfik's thoughts on the term "seize", as he has been heavily involved in this discussion. — George ^{[ talk} 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's most common use is a synonym for "arrest". Webster and others (freedictionary etc) make no mention of take or capture by force (unless it's an object). Therefore it might be construed as something legal or acceptable, and it isn't. They were abducted in a terrorist act in violation of any legal or moral principle. any change to something else is whitewashing. Amoruso 12:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on escalating the issue until I hear Tewfik's viewpoint, but I do consider your narrow definitions and the injecting of your own POV into the mix to be far from constructive, verging on disruptive. It would be far more appreciated if you had chosen to take part ing the more than month-long discussion on the subject first, instead of just blankely stating your POV and going on an edit war. It's fairly obvious that English isn't your native language, or you would likely know why "seize" has a completely different meaning than "arrest" (you can "seize" drugs, or you "seize" hostages, for instance, while you "capture" fugitives), but again, I'll wait until we hear Tewfik's feedback, as he is a fairly moderate editor, deeply involved in the discussion. The other editors involved in the discussion have already voiced their support, so if he does the same I'll consider it a consensus for change. — George ^{[ talk} 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait and see what Tewfik thinks, I'm sure we can reach some compromise on this one. Abufijli 00:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the lot of you for waiting for my input. In the past I had supported the use of seized, I believe in the framework of a semantic mix, but I'm not certain that it is the best word for exclusive use. The problem in my eyes is that abduct, which is between one side's preferred capture, and the other's kidnap, carries the "taken hostage for negotiation" meaning in a manner that I'm not sure seized does, and which would then be lost. While I'm open to continuing the previous discussion if necessary, I feel as if the goal-post has been moved (in good faith) from finding a midpoint between two extremes to finding a midpoint between one extreme and the previous midpoint - I don't see anything that can be done about that aside from continuing discussion, but it is my sentiment, and I don't know that that is "compromise". Cheers, Tewfik ^Talk 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful for us to all list how we feel these terms rank from a neutrality/bias perspective. Let's say the scale for ranking is -10 to +10, where -10 would indicate the term is fully biased pro-Hezbollah and +10 would indicate that the term is fully biased pro-Israel (please don't read anything into who is positive and who is negative; I chose them at random). For me, the breakdown is like this:

• kidnap +9
• abduct +3
• capture -3
• seize 0

If other editors could list the degree of bias they feel each of these terms hold, using the same scale, perhaps we could better understand the gaps. — George ^{[ talk} 08:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that this would help, as while I view abduct as being between capture and kidnap, I don't view seized as problematic in and of itself, only if its use is to the exclusion of others which relay more contextualising. Tewfik ^Talk 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'm trying to ascertain (a) which name people consider to be the most neutral, and (b) how biased they consider the names to be. I read through the article, and I can't see any spots where any of the terms offers more contextual information than seized would (although one of the instances can be removed from the article outright), but I am, of course, open to discussing that. Mostly I want the edit warring to stop with some vesion both sides of the disagreement can live with. — George ^{[ talk} 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• kidnap +7
• abduct +7
• capture 0
• seize 0

Pocopocopocopoco 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• kidnap +8
• abduct +2
• capture -1
• seize 0

Iorek85 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• kidnap +10
• abduct +6
• capture 0
• seize 0

Abufijli 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont make this an issue when it does not need to be. The term "kidnap" is correct in nature. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22](not of this particular event, but a kidnapping of soldiers.) -- Shamir1 10:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This one uses all of the terms, this is the U.S government expressing outrage, this also uses kidnap, abduction and capture, this one also uses capture, this uses abduction as well, and this uses capture too, and those are just from your examples. From what I can see, most of them use a mix of all the terms. Perhaps that would be best here? Iorek85 10:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "correct in nature", or which Wikipedia policy deals with that anyways, but the problem is that (a) it is regarded by many as a highly POV term, and (b) it isn't the most common term used. The first of these alone is enough to warrant its exclusion in most cases (except direct quotations obviously). Iorek85 is correct; all of the terms are used, sometimes together in the same article, although I would point out that capture appears to be the most common. I'm generally fine with using a mixture of name, and I trid to implement something similar at one point, but it was reverted fairly quickly if I remember. — George ^{[ talk} 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion before. Kidnap is on one extreme, capture is on the other. The discussion went on for quite a while, those who were here back when this was happening can remember. Eventually, someone brought up "abduct" as a middle ground. There are lots of rough synonyms to "abduct," like "take," "steal," etc, but not all of them carry the same meaning in this context, which is what we are concerned with. Seize is a rough synonym, but it doesnt carry the same meanings in this context, which is all we are concerned about. For a rough rating...

• Kidnap +5
• Abduct 0
• Capture -5

I also dont really view this revisiting of the compromise as helpful. It took a lot to settle it the first time, and I would hate to see time wasted here again. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much of a problem with the term abduct, though I don't think it's the most neutral word possible, and I'm more interested in stopping everyone from edit warring over it. Based on the votes so far, it would appear that a lot of the other editors also don't like the term abduct too much, rating it as more POV than capture. I'm not convinced that this is a solvable issue though, as I don't think either side has any intention of compromising. — George ^{[ talk}

Well, you will always have an element of edit warring on these contentious articles. Far from emerging from a lack of compromise, abduct was chosen as just that - a compromise consensus. Not everyone was perfectly happy with it, but thats the nature of compromises. Abduct is, in my opinion, the best long term option, as opposed to setting a precedent now where even if you reach a compromise, it doesnt mean anything. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and you're completely entitled to your opinion, but I think we'll be best off long term walking down the dispute resolution path until a more solid consensus emerges. Eventually we'll either establish a real consensus that halts the edit wars, or we get to the arbitration committee and the issue is solved once and for all for us. — George ^{[ talk} 05:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The AP Reported that ~1,500 people were wounded within Israel, while ~450 Israeli soldiers were wounded in Lebanon. The statistic in the article only the former (as the source itself states). I am wondering what the best way would be to include these 450 in the article without creating a factbox that is two pages long. Suggestions? Screen stalker 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The IDF injured are already listed in the infobox at the top of the article, but it should also be added to the section dealing with IDF casualties. Casualties include both those killed, as well as those injured, so maybe add an additional sentence stating how many soldiers were injured, along with a source. Cheers. — George ^{[ talk} 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That is true. But why does the Lebanon section deal with "Lebanese citizens," whereas the Israel section deals with "Israeli civilians"? Screen stalker 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've been doing some more reading in the sources, and it seems to me that the infobox is quite slanted in its representation of the casualties. It count Hezbollah fighters twice in the death count, and includes them in the wounded count (which it does not do for Israeli soldiers). Furthermore, it lists 4,409 injured Lebanese civilians, but breaks down the Israeli injured figure into physical injury and mental injury. The source that is quoted lists 4,262 civilians "treated for injuries." Why then does the article only mention 1,489 injured? Screen stalker 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lebanese figures are labelled "citizens" because it is unclear whether the figures relate to "civilians" or all "citizens", which would include Hezbollah. Many sources list "civilian" figures, but official sources do not distinguish, labelling them only as "citizens". The Hezbollah fighters may or may not be double counted, depending if the "citizen" figures include them or not, which has been debated in the past. The bigger problem, however, is since there is a huge range of estimates of Hezbollah dead, we have no way of cleanly doing the math to figure out how many civilians died. The 4,409 citizens injured comes from the Lebanese government, who does not break down their figures regarding how badly injured they were. The Israeli government source does give a breakdown on the figures ("Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety."). There was some debate whether or not to even include the figures for those treated for "shock and anxiety", but the current version chose to include them since we had the data readily available. — George ^{[ talk} 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I see your point as to why Hezbollah is counted in the count of injured and dead. But I still disagree as to the question of injured Israelis. The source calls all 4,262 Israelis "injured," while the article only calls those who were actually wounded by the same name. Why aren't we citing what it actually says? Doesn't it seem to you to be synthesis to give the title "injured" to only some of the people to whom the source refers as such? Moreover, the source doesn't say 2,773 were treated for shock. It says they were treated for shock and anxiety. So here we have another incorrect citation. But, then again, this breakdown seems altogether too complicated to me. Don't you think it would be wiser to write "4,262 injured" in the box, and break it down further in the section you were talking about? Screen stalker 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a result of a rewording in the article. At one point the article listed the Lebanese injured as "wounded" and listed the subset of Israeli who were physically injured as "wounded", and at another it listed the Lebanese as "wounded" and the sum of the Israeli injured as "injured". The term wounded has a physical connotation that the term injured does not, as one can be mentally injured, but not mentally wounded. Some were unhappy with labelling the two differently, so it got changed back to the term injured and broken down. The biggest reason for the breakdown is that we have the mental injury information available for the Israeli casualties, but every indication is that the Lebanese figure includes only physically injured (again, no breakdown on the figure exists to indicate severity). The wording is a bit unusual, in that what the Israeli website describes as "shock and anxiety" doesn't match with the Wikipedia articles on shock and anxiety, but more closesly matches with post-traumatic stress disorder. I'm not sure if this is a mistranslation of the Israeli page to English or a colloquialism, but obviously we can't know. Oh, and the figure is already broken down fully in the section I was talking about, so it was generally viewed as a non-issue. There's a whole discussion on it in one of the archives. — George ^{[ talk} 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But the UN source says that there were 4,409 injured Lebanese. And the Israeli source says there were 4,262 Israelis treated for injuries. So it would make more sense to me to write 4,409 injured vs. 4,262 injured, and include the breakdown in the appropriate section. Screen stalker 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try to change the article and see if it gets reverted. I think it's probably inaccurate and misleading to list the two figures in the way you suggest, as there's zero indication that the Lebanese figure includes mentally injured, and some indication that it doesn't, but that's mostly the fault of the Lebanese government for not releasing more accurate information. — George ^{[ talk} 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and edit. If I had to guess, I would probably venture to say that the Lebanese figure does not include mentally injured (perhaps with the exception of very serious mental injuries). But both sources discuss people who are injured, even if their definitions vary. If I went with my guess regarding the meaning of the word "injured" that would be OR. Screen stalker 02:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding the OR, though I don't know that there's anything wrong with breaking the figure down in the infobox. Regardless, I won't revert your proposed edit, and I think you should make it, but be aware that the last time people were touching this it would get continually reverted between three different versions. Cheers. — George ^{[ talk} 02:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I updated that section based on your source. That's a really good source which we can probably update a few other items with. — George ^{[ talk} 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you think so. I am glad that it does not mince words on the question of possible violations of international law. Screen stalker 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll agree with you and George about retreating to the ambiguity to prevent OR, though it would be nice if the Lebanese government or some transparent third party would publish clear data. By the way, which link was it that might be helpful? Tewfik ^Talk 07:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the link to which George was referring. I am glad that consensus seems to be holding on this issue, although it seems shaky. I, too, wish that the Lebanese government or some other source would publish a breakdown of the casualties. But I would imagine that it would take immense resources to engage in that sort of delineation in the middle of a war. After all, if you find a body somewhere, how do you know if it was a Hezbollah fighter or a civilian? Are you going to make hospitals interrogate patients? I am impressed that the Lebanese government even managed to keep records as detailed as it did when it had bigger fish to fry. Screen stalker 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I supported (and still support) the breakdown in the infobox (though I recall I originally opposed based on length). The only arguments that were made against it were that it made the Israeli injuries look less than the Lebanese ones, which is just a POV accusation. We have the breakdown, I don't see why more information is not better. If we had a detailed breakdown of Lebanese casualties, I would support putting that in too (assuming it wasn't overly long). Iorek85 09:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Israeli source says that the 4,262 civilians concerned were "treated in hospitals for injuries." If we break that down into "injured" and "treated for shock" we would be implying that those treated for shock were not injured, which runs contrary to what the source reads. That is OR. Also, the source doesn't says that 2,773 were treated for shock; it says 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety, which was not mentioned in the box. I think writing "1,489 physically injured, 2,773 treated for shock and anxiety" is a little too long for the infobox. Simply writing "1,489 injured ..." as it was previously implies that the 4,409 Lebanese injured did not include mental injuries. While this is probably true, this is nowhere mentioned in the UN Report, or any other source that I have seen. I don't see a problem with providing the basic information for both sides in the infobox, and providing greater detail in the appropriate section. Screen stalker 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Simply writing "1,489 injured ..." as it was previously implies that the 4,409 Lebanese injured did not include mental injuries." - Is the POV accusation that others were making. I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but we aren't. It is an added interpretation made by the reader, not implied by the info box. Equally, one could argue that we're presenting the POV that the Lebanese figures include shock and anxiety because the Israeli casualties include it. Since we don't know either way, we should err on the side of more detailed information because, aside from size issues, more is always better. As for OR, it is far from it - the source itself provides the breakdown as "4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety." Perhaps writing "4,262 injured, inc 2,773 for shock & anxiety" would clarify it better. Adding the 'seriously' 'moderately' and 'lightly' wounded is just a bit too long for the infobox, while shock/anxiety is a big difference from physically injured. Iorek85 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are other editors still opposed to listing the Israeli wounded rather than the injured? Wounded would not include mental injuries. — George ^{[ talk} 11:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of NPOV, you could include an estimate of the mental injuries in Lebanon (which would be enormous given the scale and spread of the campaign), or at least note that no estimate is given. Alternatively, do as you suggest and cut out some of the propaganda from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. MX44 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly be alright with writing "4,262 injured, inc 2,773 shock & anxiety cases" or something along those lines. I think it would look a little weird, but I'm cool with that. Screen stalker 13:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this will be interpretted as "in addition to" rather than "this includes". What is wrong with something like: 1,489 wounded; 2,773 treated for shock & anxiety It's accurate, while avoiding the possibility of double counting. — George ^{[ talk} 20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I support and would like to see a return to this standard as soon as possible. The old "wounded + shock" listing was better information. Italiavivi 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that the Israeli source says there were 4,262 Israeli civilians treated in hospitals for injuries. That means there were 4,262 injured Israelis. There were also 4,409 injured Lebanese. I have nothing against breaking down the figure of 4,262, but since both Israelis and Lebanese are listed as "injured" in their respective sources, that is how they should be listed in the article. Why are we listing the Lebanese as "injured," but the Israelis as "wounded?" It seems to me this deliberately selects how we portray a source in the article, which is tantamount to synthesis. Screen stalker 21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the Israeli government has broken down the figure between wounded and injured, while the Lebanese government hasn't. There's some evidence to indicate that Lebanese government is using the term "injured" in the way that the Israeli government is using the term "wounded" – that is, to mean physically injured – but making that conclusion may be a little over the OR line, so we elected to break down the Israeli figure, and leave the Lebanese figure alone until such a breakdown emerges. — George ^{[ talk} 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But since we don't know for sure whether the Lebanese government's figures include mentally injured or not, and we do know that the Israeli figure does, what is wrong with saying "x-many wounded, including y-many treated for shock & anxiety"? Obviously, the bold is not intended as part of the article. I don't think this can be misinterpreted as thinking that x-many does not include y-many, since the term "including" is used. Screen stalker 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The two are mutually exclusive. The term "wounded" denotes a physical injury, while the label "treated for shock & anxiety" denotes a specifically non-physical injury. We could state that the injured included those treated for shock & anxiety, but that can be misleading, as injured sometimes refers to physical injuries, and sometimes to mental injuries, so the explicit breakdown is preferable. Also, it's incorrect to use "&", as they weren't all treated for both shock and anxiety; some for one, some for the other. — George ^{[ talk} 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how "4,262 injured, including 2,773 treated for shock and anxiety" can be misleading. There is no room to question whether the former figure includes the latter or not. Screen stalker 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Hmm, I probably didn't explain myself very well, and misleading isn't exactly the correct term to use. It isn't misleading in the sense of "putting forth false information", but more what I would consider imprecisely or poorly worded English. It isn't a question of "whether the former figure includes the latter or not", but instead whether or not the statement is the best way to explain the situation.

Let me try an example. Let's say I have a box, and I put 100 rocks into it. Of those 100 rocks, say 30 are diamonds, and 70 are normal looking stones. Now, I could tell you "I have 100 rocks, including 70 normal looking stones", but that wouldn't be the best way to describe what I have in my box, because there's an innate focus on the more interesting rocks: the diamonds. It would be much more common to state either "I have 100 rocks, including 30 diamonds", or "I have 30 diamonds and 70 normal looking stones in my box".

Okay, now let's work outward from this example, replacing diamonds with people who were wounded, and the stones with people that were mentally injured (Note: I don't mean to imply that mental injuries are in any way insubstantial, just that physical injuries are generally more life threatening, and more widely reported on). This extrapolation gives us two options. The first would be "4,262 were injured, including 1,489 who were wounded". The problem with this is that it sounds very odd, as the terms injured and wounded are sometimes used as synonyms, even though they can have different meanings, resulting in a statement that is likely to confuse a reader. That leaves us with the version that is currently in the article, the "I have 30 diamonds and 70 normal looking stones in my box" example, which I don't see any problems with, as it is both worded more explicitly and equally accurate. — George ^{[ talk} 03:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying "4,262 injured, 1,489 of whom physically" or "4,262 injured, including 1,489 physically wounded." Screen stalker 01:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I have heard no objections in a week, I will be bold and make this edit. If you want to discuss further, feel free to revert. Screen stalker 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

shouldnt israel be capitalized?( 69.251.127.235 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Someone incorrectly moved the page without discussing it first. I've reverted their move. — George ^{[ talk} 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that Israel lost it. Robin Hood 1212 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody loses in War, no doubt. The HA banner says "Nasr min Allah" which is literally translated as Victory from God which is different from Divine Victory. One meaning attributing the source of Victory, the other an adjective modifying the type of victory. Something gets lost in the translation. The most impressive result of the War was that the Xtian-Shiite alliance of former Lebanese Army chief Gen Aoun and HA head Nasrallah held, even though it is now being severely tested while HA sits out the fight between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Fatah al Islam.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am changing the article to reflect it.

I just had my edit reverted when I changed the summary box to reflect a Hezbollah victory. This has been discussed and I can't see how it's POV to say "Widely considered a Hezbollah Victory" if even George Bush thinks its a Hezbollah victory. I'm reverting it back. Pocopocopocopoco 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

please do not upset a delictae balance achieved on this article through months of debate. You are welcome to your POV that it was a Hezbollah victory, but please keep it out of the article, and understand that others have a different view. Isarig 05:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We should probably put something like "Hezbollah declared victory, but Israel contests such claims" if they do, in fact, contest such claims, or "Hezbollah and Israel both declared victory" if they both did. I don't actually know what Israel's official position is on the matter. Do they officially consider the war a loss and concur with Hezbollah's claim of victory, or do they claim victory for themself, or something else entirely? — George ^{[ talk} 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked this up. It looks like Nasrallah claimed "a strategic, historic victory" [23] while Olmert claimed that they had transformed Lebanon via the UN resolution (although that is obviously contested, as Hezbollah still hasn't abided by the resolution and disarmed). [24] Worth noting too that it was reported that the Israelis called the war a loss too. — George ^{[ talk} 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully to Isarig, Wikipedia articles are not static. Especially military articles. For these wars and battles, it might not be as clear right after the war as to who won but after the passage of some time, things might get clearer. Despite the "delicate balance obtained through months of debate" that debate has happened in the past and things are far more clear now as to the victor of this war. The only people that don't believe that Israel lost are the people loyal to Olmert along with the odd analyst. user:George posted a link that showed that even Israel believes that they lost. Even George Bush, who sees the war on terror with rose colored glasses thinks that Hezbollah won. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to put "Widely Considered a Hezbollah Victory" in the results column. Ultimately, we want the results column to reflect either win, lose, or draw and in this case, unfortunately it was a Hezbollah win. for more analysis see the discussion here. Pocopocopocopoco 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

George Bush is not an arbitrator of truth. In your own edit above, you concede that the statement that Hezbollah won is "controversial" - so it is clear that it does not belong here. Isarig 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned George Bush is that he would be someone who would express an pro-israel POV in this conflict and he said that he believes it was a victory for Hezbollah. The reason I said that it's controversial is that it might engender an emotional reaction from some wikipedians. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong. If Dubya's not good enough than how about the fact that most Israeli's believe they lost? If one side believes they lost, isn't it fair to list the other side as the winner in the results tab? Pocopocopocopoco 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If something is controversial, it does not belong. End of story. Isarig 15:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia isn't around to satisfy everyones delicate sensibilities. I'm changing it back to reflect a Hezbollah Victory. Pocopocopocopoco 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP isn't around to push POVs. Please don't change back a version which has enjoyed consensus for a long time into one which even you concede is controvesial. Doing so will likely be seen as disruptive editing. Isarig 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, now your just being argumentative. I have been expressing reasons why it should be changed and the only counter argument you have is that it's been like this for a while so we shouldn't change it. If you don't believe it should be changed, with all due respect, you need to present some better arguments. Pocopocopocopoco 16:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already gioven you the only relevant argument: The claim that Hezbollah won the war is a POV. As such, it is inappropriate. You have provided several arguments for why you think this POV is plausible, but it does not change the nature of it as a POV. This is not a usenet forum, and I am not interested in discussing with you the quality of your arguments. This is an encyclopedia, and POV statements are out. Please cease your disruptive editing. Isarig 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a POV shared by most hence the 'widely considered'. I have been nothing but civil to you and have tried to get comments for months before making my edit so cease and desist with your accusations of disruptive editing and cease your WP:WL Pocopocopocopoco 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just a POV. Read above- several editors have pointed you to sources saying most consider it a draw. When you are reverting a long-standing consensus to a version you concede is controversial, you are being disruptive, and your ludicrous accusations of WP:WL do not change that. Isarig 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Which editors have pointed me to which sources? I see user:George pointing me to a source that says most Israeli's believe that they lost. I've also explained to you what I meant by controversial and you are misinterpreting my meaning. Your accusations of disruptive editing are ludicrous and you are just throwing that out to badger me because you don't like my good faith edits. Pocopocopocopoco 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just poll the issue? Krynnish Conspiracy 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Did somebody say 1701? See 1701 for a full Vulcan explantion of this subject.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All kidding aside, everybody knows who won the war, HA, the IDF, all except perhaps some editors with an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. But I am not going to get in a wheel edit war w/ them. Last time that happened i got blocked for 45 days. The conflict related articles still erroneously describe the conflict action as guerilla warfare and still neglect the fact while the IDF might have overrun the literal surface of the ground of places like Maroun al-Ras, Bing Jbeil, etx, HA still was tunnelled underneath in the bowels of the earth and came up behind them over and over again. Those places were still contested at the end. One Haaretz commentator described it as Iwo Jima redux. Read between the lines. Here is what one expert who was in charge of HUMINT for all of the Middle East and Counterterrorism intelligence for the US says about the conflict.

The Israelis, as they have in all past wars, collected detailed information on each tank that was hit by enemy fire. Israel won't, for obvious reasons, release all this information. But they have provided some data. There were "several hundred" Merkavas sent into southern Lebanon in 2006. Of those, ten percent were hit by enemy fire (including mines and roadside bombs). Merkava faced modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) for the first time in 2006. Only 18 tanks were seriously damaged, and only a third of those were from several hundred ATGMs fired by Hizbollah. Only two of the 18 heavily damaged tanks were destroyed, and both of those were damaged by roadside bombs. In those two cases, the tank was over the bomb when it was detonated.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20070115.aspx

Flayer 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not of the article (sighs of relief) but why do we need four alternative names in the opening paragraph? Do we really need to point out every possible name it could be known by? I was happy for the names used in Lebanon and Israel, as they indicate that the current title is a compromise, but four of them seems excessive. Next we'll have to have a section for the names of the war... Iorek85 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the article title, and the ones used most commonly in Lebanon and Israel too. Adding descriptive names – 33-day war, 34-day (yes, both are used), summer war, and all the descriptive variants involving either parties or locations – will get way too long. — George ^{[ talk} 10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never even seen the name "The 33 Day War" anywhere except that article. Is it even used elsewhere? Krynnish Conspiracy 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it. I'm guessing it's just a description, rather than a name. I'll get rid of the other name, since there are no objections. Iorek85 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should address it somewhere. As i have tirelessly pointed out, the military experts have said it was not classic guerrila warfare but that HA in Lang's words "fought from fortified positions dug into the terrain and sited for mutual support." These positions were sometimes as deep as 20 meters, had steel blast doors, TV cameras, and were very sophisticated. Thus a position may be overrun on the surface but not fully occupied. This is why Maroun al-Ras was contested at the end of the war. I made the following edit. It was reverted by guess-who. It is key to understanding the War. It was not a guerilla war. HA waged an Iwo Jima or Okinawa type defense but prevailed.

"*Journalists Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry in their three part series HOW HEZBOLLAH DEFEATED ISRAEL in the Asia Times vividly describe the essential elements of this battle. The following is from PART 2: Winning the ground war

• "The difference between "pushing" out a force and invading and occupying a town was thereby set, another clear signal to US military experts that the IDF could enter a town but could not occupy it. One US officer schooled in US military history compared the IDF's foray into southern Lebanon to Robert E Lee's bloody attack on Union positions at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, during the American Civil War. "Oh I can get there, all right," Lee's lieutenant said during that war, "it's staying there that's the problem."

• After-battle reports of Hezbollah commanders now confirm that IDF troops never fully secured the border area and Maroun al-Ras was never fully taken. Nor did Hezbollah ever feel the need to call up its reserves, as Israel had done. "The entire war was fought by one Hezbollah brigade of 3,000 troops, and no more," one military expert in the region said. "The Nasr Brigade fought the entire war. Hezbollah never felt the need to reinforce it." " [25]Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that having Imad Mughniyeh as a Hezbollah commander in the war a little strange. Little is known about the man and even less is known about his involvement, if any in this war. I read the sources to his inclusion and they do not give any credible information about his involvement, Hezbollah and Israel have not said anything about the man, I do not think he should be included as a commander based on those two sources, a mention in the article some place is much more appropriate. Awaiting feedback Abufijli 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly did he command and who has given information about his involvement other than an Israeli right wing newspaper and a little known arabic newspaper, both of these articles give no solid proof for his involvement. If anyone has any other more reliable information please bring it forward. Abufijli 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Asharq Al-Awsat is a widely-known international Arabic daily, [26] and the Jerusalem Post story by Khaled Abu Toameh is based on Fatah sources. [27] Whether that justifies inclusion in the infobox can be discussed, but I'm not sure that we should necessarily strike it completely from the entry. Perhaps others disagree? Tewfik ^Talk 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this war different from previous assymetric conflicts? Hezbollah seemed more capable than other insurgent groups (such as those in Iraq) at taking on modern tanks and helicopters. IIRC, the US didn't lose a single tank going into Iraq, whilst the Israelis lost 5 in this conflict. Also, Hezbollah made extensive use of rockets, and were able to bombard Israel right up to the end of the war. I don't recall other guerilla groups doing this on such a scale.

Regardless of who 'won' the war, Hezbollah seems to have held their own remarkably well considering how easily forces such as the Taleban were defeated. If they have discovered new and better tactics to fight western armies, can we expect to see others copying these tactics?

I'm no military expert, so I'm not the editor to do this really. Could someone more knowledgable about such matters comment? Damburger 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the refrences at the article Battle of Maroun al-Ras There's a three part Asia Times article and Times online article Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in this article that won't be argued about? Anyway, multiple relaible sources state they were mostly civilians, including the Lebanese government. We've had this argument before, IIRC. You shouldn't tag every single number with a "claimed". It's not correct to state it is "claimed" that there are 200 or so countries in the world; or that it is "claimed" that 119 Israeli soldiers were killed. You use "claimed" when there are multiple disputing sides, and no reliable source, otherwise everything we have in wikipedia should be marked "claimed". In fact, that is why we attribute everything. The "claimed" is not necessary, because we link to who is claiming it. Using "claimed" just tries to add doubt by weasel-wording. Iorek85 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Per Wikipedia's words to avoid policy, we shouldn't use claim in this case, because the statement is attributed to more than one viewpoint; the Lebanese government is not the only group sourced as having stated this. — George ^{[ talk} 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what source disagrees with this statement? I can't exactly recall, but I can only remember reading one or two people (if that) that had stated that this was not the case, or unlikely to be the case. That would constitute a minority opinion that would likely fall under the undue weight policy. — George ^{[ talk} 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

the Lebanese gov't says 1191 citizens were killed, but does not differentiate between combatants and civilians. We had a long debate, months ago, around a reliable source (The Kuwait Times, citing another reliable source (STRATFOR report)) that claimed 800+ Hezbollah killed. If the latter source is correct, than obviously the majority killed were not civilian. Even now, the article has the IDF claim that 600 of the dead were Hezbollah - which is the majority of the 1191 Lebanese dead. We can't just report the clams of a number of sources as if they were fact, when that fact is disputed. Isarig 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this is correct, but there are several problems here:

• Who stated that a majority of those killed were militants? No one. I'll cover those who give a higher number of militant deaths in a moment, but I know of no individual or organization who explicitly stated that a majority of those killed were militants.
• Who gave a figure, that when combined with the Lebanese government's total death toll figure, would correspond to a majority of those killed being militants? STRATFOR gave an estimate of up to 700 fighters killed, John Keegan gave an estimate of up to 1,000, and Israel gave an estimate of up to 600. These were all estimates, and non of them, to the best of my knowledge, gave total death toll estimates.
• Who stated that a majority of those killed were civilians? The Lebanese government, UNICEF, HRW, BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the AP, the AFP, and others. These can all be sourced.
• So what's the problem?

1. Well, first off, we have three widely varying estimates on one side, versus a slew of fairly consistent statements from just about ever major news organization in the world, almost all of which state that "most were civilian" on the other. To quote undue weight policy: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties".
2. Second, the word "claim" is on the list of words to avoid, and is generally inappropriate in this case, as the majority of sources agree to this statement, whereas the minority opinion might warrant the tag "claim".
3. Third, none of those sources that give the higher militant death estimates actually claims to be a majority or minority of anything. The way their estimates are being merged with the Lebanese government's death toll figure is pure synthesis, a branch of Wikipedia's policy on original research. To quote the synthesis section of the original research policy, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." — George ^{[ talk} 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The claims of synthesis would have merit if and only if the article were to say something along the lines of "source X cliams the majority of deaths were nto civilian". But the article makes no such claims. As it currently reads, the article appears to contradict itself, providing estimates of 600-1000 Hezbollah deaths (out of a total of <1200 killed), while at the same time asserting as fact that a majority of the deaths were civilian. Isarig 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and as for the other two policy problems...? By the way, anyone have any thoughts on my original wording, that was something like "It was widely reported that most of those killed were civilians..."? — George ^{[ talk} 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to WP:UNDUE -the position that a majority of those killed were militants is the offical position of Israel - one of the parties to the conflict. It is hardly a violation of undue weight to present the view of one of the combatants - indeed, it is required by WP:NPOV. "Claim" is not a word to avoid, per WP:WTA, but one whose usage should be considered, depending on context. I believe it is ok in this context, but if you feel strongly about it, I am open to other suggestions, which make it clear this is not a fact. Isarig 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple quick thoughts. I don't believe that "the position that a majority of those killed were militants is the offical position of Israel". I haven't seen them make a total death toll estimate, nor have I seen them accept the Lebanese figures as accurate; all I've seen is them give an estimate of "up to 600". We can't say this is a majority of anything if we don't have a total deaths estimate from Israel to compare it to. That's what I was getting at with the WP:SYN discussion. Also, maybe others feel differently, but I felt that the second part of the existing message, that "the Lebanese government does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in death toll figures" was sufficient for making it clear that this wasn't an absolute fact. Thoughts? — George ^{[ talk} 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think neither of these comments belongs in the infobox. The topic is hotly contested - the article itself does a good job of presenting both side of the coin, saying that it was widely reported that the majority of the victims were civilians, while explaining that Hezbollah casualty figures are difficult to ascertain, and that the Lebanese civilian death toll is difficult to pinpoint as most published figures don't distinguish between civilians and militants, including those released by the Lebanese government. The infobox does not have room for explaining these nuances, and doesn't need to. We shouldn't be sneaking in a disputed POV claim (that the majority were civialins) into the infobox, when the article goes to lenghts to articulate both sides. Isarig 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This was brought about to re-balance the neutrality problems that arose from labelling the Israeli deaths as "Israeli civilians" and relabelling the Lebanese deaths as "Lebanese citizens". I'm also not yet convinced that the "majority" claim is contested by anyone other than Wikipedia editors. — George ^{[ talk} 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

there's no need for such balance. We report on the data we have - Israel makes a distinction, Lebanon does not. Similarly, Israel made a distinction between physically wounded and shocked, whereas Lebanon does not, and there is no sneaky POV introduced to "balance" it. As I wrote, there's no need to introduce this kind of POV into the infobox when the article goes to lengths to avoid it. Isarig 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

At the time this was added, we likewise didn't make a distinction between wounded and shocked. I actually tend to like the idea of balancing these two against each other. I propose we do away with all this details text as you suggest, and keep the existing Israeli wounded/shocked breakdown. They can be used to justify each other in a balanced way I think. — George ^{[ talk} 20:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do as you suggested and remove all of the explanatory text. I don't know how long it would last, however. Iorek85 10:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with George and Iorek. Italiavivi 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of these issues are quite similar in that we are balancing the coexistence of seemingly mutually exclusive statements with the need to avoid original synthesis. In the absence of RS discussing these problems, I don't think we have the ability to do anything except ensure that whatever RS reports we do have are represented clearly, perhaps juxtaposing them so that the reader can be aware of all statements simultaneously. I think on both counts status quo ante bellum would probably be best. Tewfik ^Talk 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Funky, I apologise if my edit summary wasn't clear, but the sourcing was only one part of the reasoning for removal of the image, the oter which was that an image highlighting a similar point already exists, and the weight of such images is even greater following the recent removal of several other images. The image's encyclopaedic value is also questionable, since Wikipedia is not a memorial. Cheers, Tewfik ^Talk 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't really the point of inclusion of the image. As you've correctly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we already have a picture illustrating casualties. Iorek85 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. I don't see the significance of specifically identifying a dozen or so of the hundreds of civilians who were killed. The existing image with the coffins being laid to rest is sufficient illustration for the section. — George ^{[ talk} 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• User:Teens! and User:Clintonesque have been participating in the editing of this article.
• They are sock-puppets of Isarig ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). See here.
• Both have been permanently blocked. PalestineRemembered 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this notice as being relevant to anyone who has engaged in good-faith discussion with either User:Teens! or User:Clintonesque believing them to have been separate distinct editors. It is impossible to understand consensus here without being aware of past sockpuppetry. Italia ^vivi 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He identified the Hezbollah defense during the Israel-Hezbollah July 2006 War not as classic guerilla tactics but as a defensive "belt" which he calls the " Tabouleh" Line. These were linked and fortified defensive positions integrated with the terrain and sited for mutual support. He had previously explored that concept in a paper written during the Cold War. ^[1] Lang has also applied an analytical criterion to determine who won the conflict:

"A basic lesson of history is that one must win on the battlefield to dictate the peace. A proof of winning on the battlefield has always been possession of that battlefield when the shooting stops. Those who remain on the field are just about always believed to have been victorious. Those who leave the field are believed to be the defeated." ^[2]

He agrees with news reports that Hezbollah is building a new "Tabouleh" line north of the Litani River on high ground just outside the UNIFIL separation zone. [28]Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When looking at a winner or looser in a war one must look at the objectives placed by both parties at the begining or before the war. Israel's objectives where clear from the start. Destroy Hezbollah, return of captured soldiers, placement of Nato forces in south Lebanon, reaching Litani river, and these objectives go watered down as the battle became fierce. Hezbollah's only objective was to make the war costly to Israel in terms of lives lost. It is clear who was able to achieve the objectives set out at the begining of the war. Therefore, I think the most reasonable statement would be that HA is widely believed to have won the war, but some observers say it was a draw. Abufijli 10:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are again reminded that this is not a usenet forum. Your personal analysis above is interesting (though factually incorrect and its conclusions doubtful) - but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Here, we only report on what other works have been published, and it is obvious that those published works describe a disputed outcome, with both side claiming victory and admitting mistakes. Isarig 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You described what I consider your wacky theories on usenet forums to me. Are you saying that user:Abufijli and I are the same person? Pocopocopocopoco 18:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The thought had not crossed my mind until this last post - in which you are replying in the first person to comments I made to user:Abufijli, and describing them as "You describe what I consider your wacky theories on usenet forums to me" - and signing as Pocopocopocopoco. Now that you bring it up, I think it's a distinct possibility. But that is beside the point. Whether you are two different people who agree with this analysis or a single editor and his sockpuppet, your personal analysis is interesting but irrelevant. Isarig 14:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys

The result of this war is clearly a political win of Hezbollah, I guess everyboy agree that... And, one year after the facts, we can admit it was a military draw- Israel couldn't totally destroy Hezbollah but severly injuried it- ... Whether you have several credible evidences (that excludes sources from Hezbollah, Israeli government, US current governement, islamist etc...) against these facts, please discuss with me on my talk. I will follow the fundamental principle of wikipedia : Assume good faith; remember that this rule "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Mrpouetpouet 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things: no one should (and I hope: will) use your talk page for topics that should clearly be discussed on this articles talk page.

Second: Telling editors in advance that they should "assume good faith" and that you most likely won't, may be a good enough reason not to (assume good faith).

As for the actual issue: propaganda/political victory is disputed, and subjective any way. It seams to me that erring on the side of inconclusive facts is better than a potential POV. Rami R 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Archived Background Discussion

The discussion on the background has been fizzling out, so I'm relaunching because the current version is still inaccurate but we haven't reached any consensus on change. This is the last message I posted on the issue, copied from above.

Sorry about my delay in re-engaging in this discussion. From what I can see the argument over the refugees doesn't seem to have advanced significantly. The problem with their absense remains. To mention the presence of the PLO without including the refugees aswell is misleading. The refugee camps provided the base and the flow of recruits for the PLO, and as such were as significant as the presence of the leadership itself. George's simile on a match and gasoline is a good one. The present version of events is inadequate because it struggles with more than an incomplete version of events, the absense of this information creates an inaccurate impression, it suggest that it was simply the PLO, and not an actual Palestinian population, that was in Lebanon. This gives the reader a dangerously false idea of the situation in Lebanon at the time. The complementary problem that Israel's perspective is given in describing its attack on Lebanon, but the Palestinian perspective in attacking Israel is not given. Tewfik's main argument is that there were many other factors equally relavent to the PLO's strength. But there weren't, certainly not in terms of the PLO's support base. Co-operation of groups like Druze, Shiites or Sunnis with the PLO was far more opportunistic, complex and peripheral. The PLO would almost certainly have been able to establish itself in Lebanon without any other group allying itself with them, but its highly unlikely they would have in the absense of the refugees. Though I know you dipute this, two sources I have provided do re-affirm this greater importance. Nwe 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A devils' adovcate could say the following: "the root of instability of Lebanon is, of course, the failure to return the Palestinian refugees to their homes per UN resolutions. Saddam was selectively fried for alleged failure to comply with UN resolutions but Israel ignores them with impunity. Likewise the present nuclear Iran crisis. One country is armed to the teeth with undeclared nukes but has laid down the marker that the Persians will not be allowed to have a peaceful program that gives them a military 'capability.' The unspoken hypocrisy is deafening." I don't know what kind of response could be made to that advocacy. But that is the background. A perceived hypocrisy. Treating "resisters" to occupation as enemies of Europe and the U.S. as well as the occupying power. Thus Hamas and HA are enemies of the U.S. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

At present the background mentions PLO attacks against Israel, Syrian, Black September and the Lebanese Civil War. To include all this and not the tremendous component of the Palestinian refugees is absurd. Nwe 14:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Without repeating what I've said above, WP:NPOV means we don't have an argument in the entry (much less in a brief summary), or balance one side's "bad" with the other side's "bad". Had the Palestinian exodus immediately precipitated the PLO attacks then its mention would be relevant, but it is otherwise just one of numerous events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The passage is after all a brief summary of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. Tewfik ^Talk 05:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The refugees aren't an "argument", they are a vital and hugely significant component of the conflict. As I have said, and explained with a multiplicy of reasons, their presence amounts to much more than merely one of numerous events, and just as relevant as the PLO attacks against Israel, Syrian involvement, Black September or the Lebanese Civil War. Nwe 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No response for a week, I'm going to have to see what I can do on my own. Nwe 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained this a number of times. You assert that they are directly relevant on the scale of all the others, yet sources like the IDC one you keep referencing don't say that. Moreover, as I said above, trying to balance one "bad thing" by introducing another is not neutrality. Again, this is about the conflict of 2006, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has without exaggeration hundreds of pages for its various subjects on WP. Tewfik ^Talk 19:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it has to be relevant "on the scale of all the others" in order to warrant a one sentence inclusion in the background; it just has to be relevant enough. And where do you draw this conclusion from? In fact, the BBC article Nwe cited appears to casts the refugees as the originating factor, and only attributes the "more frequent" raids to the PLO's move into Lebanon following Black September. The IDC document states that the PLO was "recruiting within the refugee camps". I guess what I'm still not clear on is why not to include the sentence? It seems entirely relevant and properly sourced, and it's a single sentence, so it won't increase the body of the article significantly. — George ^{[ talk}`

Yes, but if we don't draw the line at directly related issues, then any number of indirectly related points, especially those relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could be included, and creates all sorts of problems regarding undue weight. As far as the sources being presented, there are six words given over to it in the IDC document("its factions recruiting within the refugee camps") while it grants an entire paragraph to the Egyptian support, and also mentions other factors. While the BBC entry mentions the refugees first in its chronology, it makes no assertion that they had any role, instead saying in the next line that "the area became the centre of Palestinian political and military operations when Palestinian guerrilla forces were expelled from Jordan in 1970-1". Tewfik ^Talk 21:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read the Background section, and I think I'm more clear now on what is amiss with it. I think we've actually been missing the point in our discussion about their relation between the Palestinian refugees and Israel's invasion in 1982. The problem with the current background is that it explicitly states that it was the PLO moving into Lebanon after Black September that "exacerbated demographic tensions" as a lead up to the civil war. This could be true, but it would be a definite minority view. In fact, the issue of the Palestinian refugees was probably the primary demographic issue leading up to the war, as Christians were very afraid of losing majority numbers with the influx of predominantly Muslim Palestinians into the voting pool. — George ^{[ talk} 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it puts full blame on the PLO, in that it uses the limited word exacerbated. That said, the PLO's relevance in the background is as the precipitant of the Israeli invasions, and so I would have no problem removing the link between the PLO and Demographics of Lebanon. Cheers, Tewfik ^Talk 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! I have an idea by the way: I think that at some point we should make a list of all the military conflicts and other interactions between modern day Israel and Lebanon, and then evaluate each of them for inclusion in the background section. Right now a lot of the background reads like the background to an article on Hezbollah, rather than a background to this war or a background to the parties involved. I also think there's a lot lacking with regards to Hezbollah's opposition to Israel (calling for Israel's destruction) in support of a Palestinian state (aside from the very short blurb at the end of the last sentence). To paraphrase the current paragraph:

• The PLO moved into Lebanon.
• There was a civil war at the same time.
• Oh, by the way, there were some Syrians too.
• Israel invaded in 1978, but didn't finish the PLO.
• Israel invaded in 1982, and kicked out the PLO.
• Israel stuck around, so Hezbollah was formed in 1985.
• They kept fighting until Israel left in 2000.
• Hezbollah still hated Israel, and traded prisoners with them.

None of it is inaccurate per se, it just doesn't flow very well (especially the first half), and some of it doesn't make sense from the perspective of a background (why mention the Syrians? Or even the civil war?), some of it is unusually weighted (especially around the PLO, getting more mention than either Hezbollah or Israel), and other parts of what one would expect from a background might be missing (background on Israel possibly? what about Abu Nidal?). I'm on vacation for the next month, but hopefully I remember to pick the issue back up when I return. Cheers. — George ^{[ talk} 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So I've gone through this section again, dropping the things that seemed irrelevant to a background on this conflict, or possibly untrue (as the section lacks sources), or too heavily or lightly weighted, and came up with the follow:

"Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, in response to attacks from Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) militants expelled from Jordan eleven years earlier, and after failing to stem the attacks with a previous invasion in 1978. It successfully expelled the PLO from Lebanon, and withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of proxy militants in the South Lebanon Army (SLA). In 1985, a Lebanese Shi'a milita calling itself Hezbollah declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. On May 25, 2000, following the collapse of the SLA and the rapid advance of Hezbollah forces, Israeli troops withdrew to their side of the UN designated border, six weeks earlier than planned. However, citing Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region, and the incarceration of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah continued its attacks. In 2004, Hezbollah sucessfully used the tactic of seizing Israeli soldiers as leverage for a prisoner exchange."

Obviously I didn't include any citations, as I'd like to see how people feel about this version before going through the trouble. — George ^{[ talk} 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in getting back to this. Tewfik's current main assertion is that reference to Palestinian refugees is too indirect. The MERIA and certainly the BBC sources which I have provided dispute this and, as George has pointed out, there are several other equally or even more indirect facts mentioned in the background. George's above suggestion for cutting down on all indirect information is viable, but I think that in an article like this a fairly substantial background could be useful to people, so it would be more ideal to maintain the current indirect info mentioned above, and to add an equally relevant reference to the refugees and perhaps a few other matters. Nwe 15:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think regarding this article that it's important that although Hezbollah was by far the largest militia organization, and took the most part in the conflict, that even in Lebanon they (and other groups) are collectively known as the 'resistance'. As the article indicates this loose coalition includes the LCP, Amal and the PFLP-GC, and enjoyed great popular support not just as a partisan shia resistance by a national one, I think this deserves more recognition in this article. If I can quote the article linked in this wiki file:

" Despite persistent attempts to cast Hezbollah as an isolated "terrorist organization" of Shi'ite Muslims, the majority of the Lebanese population - including Christians and Sunni Muslims - have thrown their support behind the group. In one recent local survey, 87% of the population was reported to be supporting Hezbollah, including four out of every five Christians and Druze and nine out of every 10 Sunni Muslims.

But while most Lebanese acknowledge Hezbollah's leading role in fighting Israel, what many Lebanese consistently refer to as the "national resistance" is a broad coalition that includes virtually all of Lebanon's most important political forces, including Amal, the other main Shi'ite movement, the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP), other left groups and liberal democrats - and even the right-wing Free Patriotic Movement of General Michel Aoun.

"We have a joke that, in the average Lebanese family with seven children, four will be with Hezbollah, two will be with the communists and one will be with Amal - all of them with the resistance," says Khaled Hadadeh, secretary general of the LCP.

The LCP, a leftist secular party whose membership cuts across the confessional lines, has itself been very close to Hezbollah and fought alongside it in the frontlines in the south. According to Hadadeh, at least 12 LCP members and supporters died in the fighting. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.253.195 ( talk) 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very biased Zionist POV title, how can we change the title to something more neutral like the "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" or at least add the much accepted "2006 Israeli war on Lebanon"

"No the title = NPOV. You think that: "2006 Israeli war on Lebanon" is neutral ?? ^^ Mrpouetpouet 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "Indecisive", or something with it? Flayer 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with disputed? Hezbollah claimed victory, but some in Israel and the rest of the world dispute it. Some in Israel initially claimed victory also, though those claims largely died down following the subsequent government investigation and resignations. Disputed just means that no consensus has emerged. — George ^{[ talk} 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, "disputed" doesn't sound well, when it is said about a result of a war. "Indecisive" sounds better when it is about a result of a war or a major battle, and means the same. Flayer 07:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess, in my mind, there is a difference. Disputed means different sides have claimed victory; "Indecisive" means people are agreed that outcome of the war was that no one won. (As opposed to "decisive victory". I don't know which would be more accurate, though I have no problem with 'disputed', since both sides have claimed victory. Iorek 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my general take on it too. Both sides have claimed victory at some point, and various groups have sided with one or the other, with some stating that there was no real winner. The term "indecisive" indicates that those who claim that there was no real winner were right, but discounts the claims of victory by both sides. — George ^{[ talk} 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reading of the semantics as well. Tewfik ^Talk 09:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "contested"? Flayer 16:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine also. ← George ^{[ talk} 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that would mean the same as 'disputed'. I don't have a preference either way. Iorek 09:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonably clear that the Result was a hizbollah victory. There are plenty of sources that show this. Even the Israeli public largely believes that they lost. Even dubya believes that Israel lost. That's why I like the wording "Widely (or Largely) considered a Hizbollah victory". Pocopocopocopoco 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pocopocopocopoco a note must be added to say that if the military victory is disputed (even if Tsahal miss its first goal destroying Hezbollah), Hezbollah obiously got a major political victory ! Of course Irraeli's supporters don't agree but it's an obvious fact most of the media and expert, even Israeli agree with that conclusion !! Do you think that the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces Dan Halutz, announced his resignation after the war because he decided to leave the army to sell popocorn ! Guy let's respect the NPOV. I'm not Lebanese, I'm not Israeli, I would have prefer an Israeli victory on Hezbollah but facts are facts. If that war is not a failure none of them are ! Mrpouetpouet 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources that support putting "Widely considered Hizbullah Victory"

[29] [30] [31]

Discuss. Pocopocopocopoco 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• The first source does not load.
• The second source confirms that CoS Halutz resigned; The reason for his resignation is merely implied to involve the "conflict in Lebanon".
• The third does indeed confirm a widely considered Israel loss, but concluding a Hizbullah victory from this is a logical leap.

Rami R 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

YaLibnan is not all that stable as a cite. Nor is the Financial Times. But I was able to google it again. Just because you can't retrieve it again, doesn't mean, it wasn't there the first time. Ahh the problem with dead links. "US warns Turkey over Kurdish rebels By Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: April 29 2007 19:12 | Last updated: April 29 2007 19:12 As Turkey ponders a military incursion into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish rebel bases just beyond its border, the US has begun warning Ankara to learn a lesson from what some officials in Washington are starting to call Israel’s “strategic de-feat” in Lebanon under similar circumstances last summer. When a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations took effect in Lebanon last August, President George W. Bush – who had backed Israel in the month-long war against Hizbollah – declared: “Hizbollah attacked Israel. Hizbollah started the crisis, and Hizbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis”. But recently, in its effort to persuade Turkey not to attack Kurdish militants based in northern Iraq, the Bush administration has been presenting in private a different assessment of Israel’s experience. In lobbying Turkey to stay its hand, US officials have described Israel’s war against the Shia militant group as a “strategic defeat” that failed to achieve Israel’s military goals, brought widespread international condemnation upon it, and destroyed the “myth of the invincibility of the Israeli army”. US warns Turkey over Kurdish rebelsGodspeed John Glenn! Will 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Of course the Kurdish Press picked up the story [32] I also saw it at debka.comGodspeed John Glenn! Will 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The source does need to be retrievable if we are to discuss it. It is retrievable now, so i will discuss it now:

Again, as in the third source: "Israel loss", which does not automatically translate to "Hizbullah won". Remember: in the post-modern world, both sides are allowed to lose :) . Rami R 17:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my belief everybody loses in a war, but that's not encyclopediac. HA says they won. A lot of the IDF generals say they lost. The Israeli politicians say they won. Who to believe? Credibility is the guide. Even the Israeli public gives Nasrallah high marks for authenticity. "The participants of the poll were asked who gave them a sense of certainty regarding the continuance of the war, and who was most authentic. The results were unequivocal: The Israeli public chose Nasrallah's speeches as giving it both." Poll: Israelis believed Nasrallah over PeretzGodspeed John Glenn! Will 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

It is my opinion (and I have reason to believe that others share this opinion) that politicians have no credibility at all, especially when counting their successes. Anyway, I still haven't seen a source explicitly stating that Hizbullah won. Rami R 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

proposal: "Hizbullah victory disputed"

It seems to me that there is a clear consensus that Israel lost. However, If this means that Hizbullah won (and if Hizbullah won at all) is still disputed. I there for propose that the current "victory disputed" be replaced with "Hizbullah victory disputed", thus leaving no doubt whose victory is disputed. Any comments? Objections? Rami R 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Hizbullah victory (disputed)"? Putting it without the brackets sort of gives the impression that Hizbullah lost. Pocopocopocopoco 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, "Hizbullah victory disputed" implies that it is unclear if Hizbullah won, but it is clear that Israel lost (or at least didn't win). "Hizbullah victory (disputed)" implies that it is clear that Hizbullah won (and Israel lost), but certain "quacks" dispute it. Again IMO. Rami R 08:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Two things that should be fixed:

1. "However, given the response from Israeli military forces, which caused widespread destruction in southern Lebanon, as well as a new UN force to occupy what was formerly a Hezbollah controlled area, the conflict is generally seen as weakening Hezbollah militarily." This statement has a citation needed tag after it, make sure to add one.
2. "He said that Israel had lost "to a very small group of people, 5000 Hezbollah fighters, which should have been no match at all for the IDF," and stated that the conflict could have "some very fateful consequences for the future." Could also use an inline citation.

Other then this, the article still meets the GA criteria. Editors of the article should seriously consider taking the article to WP:FAC. I'd recommend getting a peer review and copyedit first, and make sure to have all of the inline citation templates consistently formatted. By the way, you might want to archive this talk page as well, it's starting to get a little long. At this point, good job, and I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, Nehrams2020 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By way of analogy no one would dispute the fact the U.S. Senator Larry Craig said he was not "gay." Although many would dispute the contents of his statement whether he was indeed "gay." Likewise the BBC and another source, inter alia, have clearly stated that Arab Israelie citizens say that Israel sites its military installations close to Arab population centers. The siting may or may not be true. Becuase of the heavy military censorship, it my be neigh impossible to verify or report out the verification, but it is irrefutable that the assertion of the siting has been made. Yet User: Tewfik has deleted the following reference twice.

• [Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]] leaders accused the Israel for using the Arab populations as "human shields" by placing artillery units beside Arab villages in northern Israel. ^{[3] [4]}

• How is the above edit different from this one?
• Israel also maintained that the civilian infrastructure was "hijacked" by Hezbollah and used for military purposes.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't no about the history of this but the passage your complaining that Tewfik removed is currently in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 16:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Poco x four. He says he works by consensus. Maybe he will now see a consensus.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you in this specific case (I don't see any reason it shouldn't be in the article), in general we can't just keep adding accusations that have been made; while repeating them might not indicate that they are true, there could have been a rebuttal from the other side, or the claims could be propaganda. If I were to claim you stole money from me on an article on you, (completely falsely), I don't think you'd want to leave it there, even if it just said "Iorek claims that Will stole $5000 from him". If at all possible, we should try to ascertain whether the claims are true, and whether Israel had anything to say about them. It can be a tricky line; NPOV doesn't mean a 50:50 balance of criticism for one side or the other (which at times this article has strayed towards) which can give an unfair picture of who was criticised the most by the world. We don't want to give undue weight to some claims. Iorek 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree regarding the need to watch out for giving minority views undue weight. I believe this likely constitutes a minority view, and I support the statements removal. If it is kept, it should be cleaned up since, to the best of my recollection, the source only cited a single Israeli Arab politician as having made this claim, not the plural Israeli Arab "leaders". ← George ^{[ talk} 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the truth content of the statement. It is irrefutable that it was made by former MK Bishara. If you believe in balance a neutral point of view then it should be in there. That's why I put the Israeli problematic allegation about HA hiding rockets among civilians above side by side for comparison. Now moving beyond the bare allegation and going to its truth content b/c it was raised. Jonathan Cook has this to say about it, which is irrelevant except to perhaps to help some editors discover their extreme POV. "As a first-hand observer of the fighting from Israel's side of the border last year, I noted on several occasions that Israel had built many of its permanent military installations, including weapons factories and army camps, and set up temporary artillery positions next to -- and in some cases inside -- civilian communities in the north of Israel." Further Cook says about HA rockets hidden among civilians (which were used to justify bombing civilian targets). This is the problematic statement I mentioned above. "

• Now Israeli front pages are carrying reports from Israeli military sources that put in serious doubt Israel's claims.

• "Since the war's end Hizbullah has apparently relocated most of its rockets to conceal them from the UN peacekeepers, who have been carrying out extensive searches of south Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah under the terms of Resolution 1701. According to the UNIFIL, some 33 of these underground bunkers ­ or more than 90 per cent -- have been located and Hizbullah weapons discovered there, including rockets and launchers, destroyed.

• "The Israeli media has noted that the Israeli army calls these sites "nature reserves"; similarly, the UN has made no mention of finding urban-based Hizbullah bunkers. Relying on military sources, Haaretz reported last month: "Most of the rockets fired against Israel during the war last year were launched from the 'nature reserves'." In short, even Israel is no longer claiming that Hizbullah was firing its rockets from among civilians."

• So there you have it, the reasoned view emerging is that Israel was bombing civilians in Lebanon under pretext, a war crime, and HA was bombing civilians in Israel while trying to bomb military targets b/c of the poor guidance of its weaponry, nevertheless also a war crime, but at least they were trying to hit military targets.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So someone else has also backed up those claims? Good. But in regards to your statement "It is irrefutable that it was made by former MK Bishara. If you believe in balance a neutral point of view then it should be in there." that is not the case. NPOV does not mean every point of view. Iorek 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorta with Will on this issue. I think that special treatment might be warranted in the article to present the views of the Arab population in Israel as normally their views are that frequently obtain by the media and that they may normally be afraid to present their views for fear of reprisals. - Pocopocopocopoco 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means BALANCE. If you put in Israeli allegations, then you put in counterbalancing allegations. Israel with its guided precise munitions pounded Lebanese infrastructure flat with overwhelmingly civilian casualties. Peres in previous operations had disclosed the reason- to make the civilians flee north to put psycological pressure on the government (while bombing the roads-see Grapes of Wrath). HA with its relatively unguided munitions inflicted mostly military casualties with some civilian deaths. Former MK Bishara who had to flee for his life. Nazareth Israeli resident Cook explain what he saw with his own eyes and what HA was aiming at. Because of the Israeli military censorship, that is as as good an accounting as you are going to get, period. I can spend half a day googling and probably find six more sources. Why should I have to? To meet Tewfik's objection about single sourcing, I found another one. How hi is the bar set? It keeps getting raised.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IT was obvious no news report would corroborate this topic or get past the military censors but human rights watch. Now that is anoter matter. Israel’s Obligations to Take Precautions against the Effects of Attacks. And it's a fair report. Castigating both sides. There you go Lorek. That's another synonym for NPOV- fair.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Balance and neutrality are hardly equivalent, and this should not just be a listing of claims and counter-claims, even if they were notable. In this case, there is the claim by one man, Azmi Bishara, echoed by Jonathan Cook on CounterPunch, not a reliable source. The HRW report explicitly rejects those accusations, lending discussion only to speculation as to whether the Arab-Israeli population received adequate protection, though I'm unsure as to whether including even an accurate version might not lend undue weight to a minor issue among many others. Tewfik ^Talk 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cpme on. Addressing Tewfik, Not concerned about the technical conclusions of the report but the facts that escape the military censors. The facts support the allegations that military installations are placed indiscriminately next to Arab and it appears artillery fired from Arab as well as Jewish communities in one identified case in the middle of a town street. This "mingling" is what HA was accused of. It also appears he the editor is determined not to give Bashar any airing. Facts from the report.

• During the conflict, the IDF presence in the north surged as the army concentrated its forces near and across the border. In some instances, the IDF fired artillery into Lebanon from locations quite near to residential communities, such as just outside the border village of Arab al-Aramshe, and near the town of Ma’alot-Tarshiha (see chapters above on these two locations). Two significant military bases are located near the village of Mghar (population 19,000) in the eastern Galilee, which Hezbollah hit with about forty rockets. Over the years, Arabs in several Galilee towns and villages, including Sakhnin222, have protested against the construction or expansion of IDF and defense industry facilities in their immediate vicinity.

^When Human Rights Watch on July 23 visited the Jewish village of Zarit, located some 750 meters from the border, we watched the IDF firing 155mm shells from 109 howitzer cannons parked on a residential street. The same day, we observed an artillery platoon firing into Lebanon from atop a hill just beyond a residential area of northern Kiryat Shmona (population 22,100). Col. Kuperstein, in charge of the IDF’s Department of Physical Protection, denied that the IDF placed artillery batteries next to or in civilian neighborhoods, claiming that they were all placed in open places. But when asked about the artillery unit Human Rights Watch had seen firing from a street in Zarit, Col. Kuperstein replied, “I think we could call it an open space. It’s a village on the northern border.”

• For example, the IDF fired artillery cannons during the war from the outskirts of the Bedouin border village of Arab al-Aramshe. Hezbollah rockets hit Arab al-Aramshe several times during the war. On August 5, one of them struck a house and killed three women.

• By the same token, by situating major military assets such as the IDF northern command headquarters in the city of Safed and the Navy Training Base next to Rambam Hospital and the Bat Galim neighborhood of Haifa, Israel exposes the civilian neighbors of these bases to the danger of enemy attacks on these assets.

• Wasn't the title of the section "Allegations of War Crimes?" Aren't Israeli Arabs able to allege that Israel intentionally sites military bases close to them? And when they do Over the years, Arabs in several Galilee towns and villages, including Sakhnin222, have protested against the construction or expansion of IDF and defense industry facilities in their immediate vicinity. it must not be mentioned in WP. Cognitive Dissonance?Godspeed John Glenn! Will 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this subject. Initially, all I saw was the one news article citing one Arab Israeli MP who made this claim, but after reading the HRW investigation and report Will cited, and given the fact that HRW would go to the lengths it did to investigate and publish the issue, I don't think that the subject still falls below the bar of inclusion set forth by undue weight policy. It's still a minority opinion, but not to such a degree that it warrants complete deletion from the article. ← George ^{[ talk} 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW says We found no evidence that Israeli authorities or the IDF intended to use civilians in northern Israel in this fashion during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah and the rest of the report deals with the broader issue of having military bases in cities, hence the charge is that of Azmi Bishara alone (echoed in an editorial in Counterpunch, which is not a notable occurrence). Upon emending the passage to accurately represent its references, its inclusion here seems quite odd in light of WP:UNDUE. I don't see how it is more relevant than a half-dozen other events consigned to the subarticle. Tewfik ^Talk 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made a big point about this, but i had seen the same point made many times. At least in connection with Haifa where HA asked the Arab residents to watch out (or move out) for rockets falling short on their way to the military harbor. Thanks for separating the different stages. First stage, a charge or allegation is made. Anybody can make an allegation. An allegation is like a pregnancy. To become real, it has to be delivered. If delivered, then it becomes a fact. Facts, even if they exist, may or may not support a conclusion. It is indisputable that the allegation of co-mingling of artillery, as well as proximity of military assets, to civilians was made. that's the allegation. That's all that one sentence in the article says and for balance and fairness it definitely needs to be in there. Moving beyond that there is a factual basis for it in the corroboration by Cook and the HW report. Moving beyond that, do the facts support that it constituted a "human shield?" That is a matter of conscious design and intent and reasonable people can disagree on that. Certainly all combatants would prefer their opponents to stand in the open away from all civilians and give them a clear shot at them. In the best light to the IDF, they have never had to worry much about the opponents "Air Force." This may explain why they shot their cannons from a street in a Jewish town. Not good practice, shooting from a civilian area. And if HA was shooting rockets from a populated town, they would have been likewise condemned. Praying for Peace to break out.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to have a novel in the factbox about who won nor write one trying to decide that. What may happen is a non-consensus outcome will get put in and then the article will get protected in that state. We can agree that the subject of the outcome is as disputed and contested as the outcome itself. Let's just put DISPUTED or CONTESTED and move one.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a risk of page protection as a result of an edit war, as so far editors have been more or less civil and discussed their edits (or proposed edits). That said, I don't mind if something indecisive such as "ceasefire", "provisioned by UNSC Resolution 1701", "contested" or "disputed" is placed as the result. I also don't mind if my compromise proposal is accepted. Rami R 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My introduction to wikipedia was the Juan Cole page which was protected iMHO in a defamatory state for what seemed like months. csloat has a funny line from that era on his user page. "the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere." --google translate. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Loathe am I to make major changes to the article, but I think the length of the article is unwieldy. For me, the reviews of the conflict and 'post conflict events' are the longest sections; perhaps we could merge the two and create a separate article for them? Compacting these sections, summary style, would cut about 30 references and a good few KB of text. From a quick check, the article prose is 8,300 words long, 53kB, and the whole article is 122kb. It lies in the middle of the 'to long' guidelines for size, so it isn't an urgent split, but one that should be considered. Iorek 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that in the infobox, it says that the two Israeli soldiers are POWs, while the Hezbollah soldiers are 'captured'. While you can stretch it and say that according to the Third Geneva Convention this would be true, you can also say quite rightly that the Hezbollah does not recognize the Third Geneva Convention, therefore the two Israeli soldiers are not POWs. Moreover, Israeli law insures that each foreign prisoner in an Israeli jail, whether a POW or not by definition, is treated as a POW according to the Third Geneva Convention. Therefore, if anything, the 13 Hezbollah soldiers should be POWs. However, for the sake of neutrality, I propose using the same term for both sides ('captured' would be fine, as it has no legal meaning AFAIK). -- Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 12:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Throughout editing this article there has been much talk about its name. Long discussions have gone by, and much arguing. There is no other encyclopedia, newspaper, or reliable source that has published a summary of this war and named it "Lebanon War". Other alternatives, per the naming policy, have been proposed. The best thing to do now is to move the page back to what it was called originally, 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Any other verifiable names that can be added with "...also known as...", making things easier, and this seems to be general and acceptable. This is to be done especially until a final decision is reached. It is in fact the original and properly refers to the article. This should not have any issues for now. Thank you. -- Shamir1 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I find quite a lot of trouble finding a single resource outside of Israel that refers to this as a "Lebanon War." At best, this is the "2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict." At worst, it's the "2006 Israel-Lebanon War." Simply calling it the "Lebanon War" makes it quite obvious that the title is reflecting someone's perspective. Here are several resources (including an American university library and Human Rights Watch) which DO NOT refer to this as the "Lebanon War." [33] [34] [35]

This title is inappropriate, and clearly implies that the article is from an Israeli perspective. Referring to it as the "Israel War" would be just as ambiguous and useless of a term. Further, the title of the article directly conflicts with Wikinews, which undermines not only the integrity of the article, but the integrity of all Wikimedia... You'd think at the minimum, the name would have been standardized across everything wiki, but clearly it hasn't [36] --- 68.43.58.42 09:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be two separate issues here:

• War vs. conflict: suggesting "conflict" over "war" is, IMO, ridiculous: the event is commonly called by Lebanese "The July War", [37] [38] [39] and in Israel it is officially known as "The Second Lebanon War" [40]. Want a none partisan source? No problem: from Britannica online: "The 34-day war and the political stalemate had a very negative impact on the Lebanese economy". [41]
• Lebanon vs. Israel-Lebanon: I'm somewhat indifferent to this issue, however I will counter the anons claim that the name implies Israeli perspective: A legitimate reason for "Lebanon War" can be that the war actually took place in Lebanon and not in Israel (as, other than the original kidnapping, no fighting took place on Israeli soil, but fighting did take place on Lebanese soil).

Rami R 12:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then we may as well keep the "War" part. I still feel as though Israel's name ought to be included. While all conventional operations took place in Lebanon, Israel was still involved and targets within Israel were still being fired at. I actually don't understand why the title was changed in the first place from Israel-Lebanon to simply Lebanon, because I haven't found too many sources which use this title outside of Israel. Why not 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, then? - 68.43.58.42 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking, all of you. I will show a very complete list of other sources with summaries of the war and what they call it, and I like the brainstorming. Remember that war is a type of conflict. Every war is a conflict, although not necessarily vice versa. (It cannot be called Israel-Lebanon War because, aside from the fact that very few if any reputable sources at all use that term, it infers it was a war between Israel and Lebanon). Also remember that attacks were being made on Israeli soil. I will post the list soon. -- Shamir1 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • PBS: Israel-Hezbollah Clash

• • Los Angeles Times: The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war
  • The Washington Post: The Israeli-Hezbollah War (Crisis in the Middle East) [42] [43]
  • San Francisco Chronicle: Israel-Hezbollah war
  • Reuters: War in Lebanon
  • The Boston Globe: Crisis in the Middle East (Israel/Lebanon Conflict)
  • The Jerusalem Post: Second Lebanon War
  • Ynetnews: Israel at War ('Second Lebanon War' links to here) (Note: These last two newspapers are Israeli.)
  • Newsday: Complete coverage: Israel and Lebanon
  • NPR: The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict
  • Associated Press: Lebanon-Israel Conflict

So far, all that have use "war" in the title have used Israel-Hezbollah, with the exception of one I recently found. 0 have used "Lebanon war."

• • Some others have such pages, but are also covering the conflict in the Gaza Strip, not this one specifically. (Others do not actually choose a name for the conflict as the title of the summary--which is what we are deciding on.) They are: Major Attacks in Lebanon, Israel, and the Gaza Strip from The New York Times, Middle East in Crisis from CBC, and Middle East crisis from ABC.

Personally I have long been in favor of 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, and have other sources, very many scholary, to support it. However, my list of such sources are all in favor of that name. In the interest of a neutral discussion, I have only posted the above list, which is everything I found from news media, regardless of which name used. -- Shamir1 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution would probobly be "2006 Israel-Lebanon War," while also conspicuously including that the war was primarily fought between Israeli soldiers and Hezbollahi guerillas within the lead of the article (which I believe the article already does). I think that seems reasonable, since it describes the nations and the factions involved. I think there are an overwhelming amount of sources, as have been posted, which verify that this "2006 Lebanon War" is not a widely accepted title. At the most, it can be included as an alternative name, which, even then, is suspect. I honestly don't understand why it was changed to this title in the first place. - MadarB 05:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon was not involved in war. -- Shamir1 06:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems worthy to note that according to google "2006 Lebanon war" is a more common name than "2006 Israel-Lebanon war": a simple google search of "2006 Lebanon war" yields 37,300 results, [44] while a search for "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" yields 10,200 results. [45] A google scholar search for "2006 Lebanon war" yields 28 results, [46] while a search for "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" yields 3 results. [47] Of course this is just google and doesn't bind wikipedia in anyway, but it does give an indication of the expressions popularity (as search terms). Rami R 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of those search results. There are several factors that make them uncredible, which I believe you note. It does necessarily prove any name as most common. (Some small example are that "Lebanon war" can return 'Lebanon. War...' even with quotes, and as much as you twist and turn your search to try to make it focus on this war, you still end up with articles on the 1982 war. None of this is very important, the search count isnt a source.) Anyway, what that also does not tell us is what the title of the summary of this war is called by sources. The vast majority of returns for Google Scholar are sources that are unreputable in regards to this war (for ex. the European Journal of Cardio-thoratic Surgery), are not even articles on this war (some barely make a passing a reference), and a few are talking about the 1982 Lebanon war. Also, 'Israel-Lebanon war' would be unacceptable anyway, so that is one off the table.

Try searching "Israel-Hezbollah", "Israel-Hizballah", "Israeli-Hezbollah", "Israel-Hizbullah", etc. I mentioned I have a strong list of those scholarly sources. You can see them if you wish to.

Anyway, I hope you got a chance to reflect on the sources I already posted, from news media. Any news source that had a page covering this war in general (as opposed to a news article of an event) was posted. At least, the ones I could find. I think it should give us all a good idea.

What I am getting at here is at least until any other name is thoroughly discussed and decided upon, I propose moving it back to the default title. With the original, we can discuss further. Sounds good? -- Shamir1 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds bad. I'll explain why, but first let me reply to the other elements of your comment:

• Irrelevant results are returned by both searches, and there is no reason to assume that these sampling errors appear more frequently in one search or another. As both scholar and simple searches results in an order of magnitude (more than 3 times) more results for "2006 Lebanon war" it is reasonable to conclude that it is the more common name.
• Please don't bring up the "Israel-Hezbollah" issue again, its been discussed to death (and for the record "2006 Israel[i]-H[e,i]b[o,u,a]llah war" gives a total of 3329 results, an order of magnitude less than "2006 Israel-Lebanon war").
• All Scholar sources are relevant, just as all news sources are relevant.

Now for your actual suggestion: Contrary to what you claim (or at least imply) the default is to keep the current name, which has been the name of this article at since April (more than 6 months ago) following a lengthy discussion, not change the name to something that no-one wants over something that some (mostly you) don't want. Rami R 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• We cannot make any such conclusion at all. That is definitely not reasonable, and is not the way of Wikipedia. What can be done is actually looking at sources.
• Long discussions have been made. (We should be discussing sources.) The very reasons that such discussions have been made is why I believe it should be changed back to the original.
• Of course scholarly sources are relevant, when did I say they were not? I am the only editor who has ever gathered a list of them. Sources should be considered always.

I truly do not understand that last mish-mush. There is still no other source that uses this article's current name as the title of a summary on this war. We must consider sources. Another note, when looking at encyclopedias, the only online encyclopedia with an article on the war is the Encyclopedia of the Orient: Israel-Lebanon Conflict 2006.

You had stated that you were indifferent on the issue. The original name seems more general. At least then, we can add verifiable names. That seems much less problematic, and I think can ease things a bit more. -- Shamir1 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Grumble. The original name seems wrong. Given, in addition, the original name (2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict) isn't used much, we should keep the current name. The previous discussion did not eliminate Hezbollah as a possibility. It was primarily about conflict vs. war, but "Lebanon" was the only component of the participant/location field that could be agreed on, due, possibly, to the ambiguity as to whether it is a participant or a location. Including Israel as a participant without including Hezbollah is wrong, even if it were commonly used. Including Israel as a location is problematic, as only the initial kidnapping and occasional rocket attacks were in Israel. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We might also consider whether the Encyclopedia of the Orient copied our article. They could have, you know. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Still going, Shamir. I like your tenacity. I'm not going to be arguing in this one, not after the previous marathon sessions. I'll just say that I still stand behind my support for this name (it is a geographic one that is not the best name, but a comprimise until the world decides what the real name is) because nothing has changed. There is still no common consensus, there are still many different names (most of which use war). Interesting to see you've shifted to Israel-Lebanon, though. I'm guessing that's because you think it will be easier to change it from that to Israel-Hezbollah. Have fun, because debating this endlessly sure isn't. Iorek 08:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering all the sources, my preferred name is 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, but the multiple possible spellings of Hezbollah might make it difficult to determine what the most common, marginally accurate, name might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Iorek, I havent changed my position at all. I feel like this article's name should at least reflect the name of at least another source's title on this war. (We've talked about discussing personal opinion of what we personally call it over sources, Iorek, but thank you.) Considering you said you are not going to debate, I am assuming your position is neutral or abstained to moving back to the original title.

Arthur Rubin does make some good points, and some not good ones. I agree that with war, it cannot be called "Israel-Lebanon", as I explained. 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (a conflict can be a war) is appropriate as it used by sources for the title of a summary they published on the war, and it can be described as a 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon. What is not so good is the "who-knows" argument that the the Encyclopedia of the Orient may have copied us. I understand the influence of Wikipedia, but everything must be verifiable. That argument is not, but the title they use is. That is what should be considered.

Dry facts. The above list shows every summary or full coverage report on this war from nonpartisan sources. The current name of our summary thus far does not match a single one. If anything, we can move back to the original whose name is used by another encyclopedia (LexOrient), the Associated Press, and all the others. I feel like this would be more agreeable to some, as it says what is necessary too: 2006, Israel, Lebanon, conflict. With that, other verifiable names can be added with ...also known as... to make things easier for all. Looking at the sources, I would also support a move to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, a descriptive title which would also reflect the names of summaries published by reputable sources. This is what we should be discussing.

These are the titles for summaries—what we are trying to figure out—used by sources, guys. We know this way it would not be a problematic one. Let's consider them and discuss. -- Shamir1 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)