Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Title

Initial details[edit]

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War, with modifications.

Involved parties[edit]

Also known as simply "parties" from now on.

Articles involved[edit]

Issues[edit]

  • Title of the article
  • Sources used

'Straw poll'[edit]

OK, I think I have a neat idea here to just see how everything is panning out here. I want to try a straw poll-like system.

What I've done is listed a header for you all, with four numbers underneath. What I need everyone to do is list the four proposals (see below for the proposals) in order of their preference with regards to the 'common name' rule; most preferable and (in your opinion)-applicable at the top, least at the bottom. After listing the name, could I please ask you to give your 'preference' a value between 0 and 10 (0 being least preferable, 10 being most), with regards to the common name rule. Naturally, the numbers will decrease from top to bottom.

The four proposals submitted to date are:-

  • 2006 Lebanon War
  • Israel-Hezbollah War
  • Second Lebanon War [note that this would probably involve moving 1982 Lebanon War to First Lebanon War]
  • 2006 Israel-Lebanon War

So, if you could just list the bolded bit of the names below and their scores, so I can get a feel for where these proposals sit. I included an example below; note that it does not represent my actual opinion on the matter; in fact, I have no opinion or preference, and if I did, I wouldn't be mediating this :)

There's no need to give reasons or rebuttal at this stage. Cheers, Daniel 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

Please note the above comment - this is purely representative, used as an example, and isn't actually true for my (non-existant) preferences. Daniel 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Second Lebanon War (9)
  2. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (7)
  3. Israel-Hezbollah War (6)
  4. 2006 Lebanon War (2)


Shamir1[edit]

I can't say I clearly understand this, and do not see how it would prove anything with the naming policy, although I wish it were that easy. I will gladly comment on the names. I know you dont yet want reasons, but for this, explanations are all I can give.

  • Second Lebanon War - If this were two centuries ago and Israel were Britain, the name could work as the title of the article. In the eyes of an Israeli, it can easily be called the Second Lebanon War. In the eyes of anyone else in the world, especially Lebanese, the name does not make sense. There are articles on the war (not news stories, general articles on the war) that are entitled Second Lebanon War; but it is The Jerusalem Post.
  • 2006 Lebanon War - This sounds like an internal war. No source is yet to have a full report article on the war entiled "Lebanon War."
  • 2006 Israel-Lebanon War - This is an absolute no-no. It infers that it was a war between Israel and Lebanon. This is undisputedly not the case and this and any reference like this or that would suggest this is scarce.
  • 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War - Per all considerations of the naming policy, it is the best choice.

Sorry for doing things a little bit differntly. I hope this helped make things a bit more understandable though. --Shamir1 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George[edit]

  1. 2006 Lebanon War (8)
  2. Second Lebanon War (8)
  3. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (5)
  4. 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War (4)

Iorek85[edit]

  1. 2006 Lebanon War (7)
  2. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (6)
  3. Second Lebanon War (4)
  4. 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War (3)

Tewfik[edit]

  1. 2006 Lebanon War (8)
  2. Second Lebanon War (7)
  3. Israel-Hezbollah War (6)
  4. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (4)

I must say, though, that naming should ultimately be based on naming policies. I support the current name because I believe it satisfies our "descriptive" criteria. If, OTOH, we believe that a common name has arisen, we should support that with sourcing. TewfikTalk 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheFEARgod[edit]

  1. 2006 Lebanon War (8)
  2. 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War (4)
  3. Second Lebanon War (0)
  4. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (0)

Sm8900[edit]

I don't know. I abstain from the poll. thanks very much for asking anyway, and for setting this all up. thanks. --Sm8900 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italiavivi[edit]

  1. Second Lebanon War (8)
  2. 2006 Lebanon War (7)
  3. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (6)
  4. 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War (Zero. This naming is unacceptable for NPOV reasons.)

Main crux of opposition[edit]

The main reason for the opposition to the current name and the "Second Lebanon War" name is that it "sounds like an internal war". I would like to instigate some discussion about this so that the parties who support the current name/"Second Lebanon War" can put forward their opinion about why this isn't the case, and to give those who support a name change to express their rebuttal if they so please. Daniel 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should point out that my viewpoint differs from from that of some of the other editors, even those who support the same title.
  1. I support the current title because my research indicates that it is the most common name for the event, which is the primary criteria set down by the generic event naming conventions, as well as the WikiProject military history naming conventions. The specific term "Second Lebanon War" holds the largest plurality of occurences, while the term "Lebanon War" (which includes both "Second Lebanon War" and "2006 Lebanon War") is the term most used to refer to the event. I generally don't distinguish between the two, anymore than I distinguish between "Second World War" and "World War II".
  2. I fully agree that the title isn't perfect, and, based on the straw poll ratings, I believe we all agree on that. I also note, however that based on the same straw poll numbers, nobody has found a name they like more – that is, no one has seen a name which they feel is less promblematic – than the current one, with the exception of Shamir1.
  3. I could see how some might interpret "Lebanon War" to indicate a civil war, however the same could be said of the "Iraq War". Furthermore, this wouldn't match the naming convention of the civil war which took place two decades earlier, the "Lebanese Civil War", and changing it would delink it from the naming convention of the "1982 Lebanon War" (the so-called "First Lebanon War"). Lastly, if it's a real issue, we could follow the naming convention used in the War in Afghanistan, and retitle the article something like "War in Lebanon (2006)", "War in Israel and Lebanon (2006)", or similar.
So, in short, its commonality supercedes its problems, it's less problematic than other titles, and there is some precedent set forth by similar colloquial terms to support its use. — George [talk] 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because an internal war is a civil war. If it were an internal war, we'd have called it the 2006 Lebanese Civil War. I see their point, but there aren't many other options. Either you discount the effect of the war on Lebanon, or on Hezbollah, or make it too long (Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon 2006) Iorek85 09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one seriously suggests that readers will mistake the current Iraq War for an Iraqi-only civil war, do they? I don't understand this objection at all. Italiavivi 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say Second Lebanon War sounded internal, Lebanon War does. The Iraq War is fought over the government of Iraq, is internal as well, and takes place solely in Iraq. The Lebanon War (1982) was an internal war and saying that this one is the second one when it is not internal does not make sense. It makes sense for one nation and one nation only (Israel).
George, if you had research, maybe it would indicate something. The first step is actually researching.
Stop making baseless conclusions. What is this no-one-problematic talk?
Still, no source is yet to have created a general article or full report on the war that is titled Lebanon War. Not one. Even the Government of Lebanon's Higher Relief Council has used the term Israel-Hezbollah War, and several times. It is the Second Lebanon War to Israel and only Israel. It is not a "second Lebanon war" to any Lebanese or anyone in the English-speaking world.
George, I am sorry; this isnt about thinking of any possible name that would have the word "Lebanon" in it. You can continue that, but that is not what the naming convention is based on. Besides, you said your reason already: you believe Lebanon deserves a spot in the title because it was harmed. Great--but unfortunately, the naming policy makes no use of that. --Shamir1 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify your attempts to misconstrue my statement out of context, I've stated that from the standpoint of a descriptive title, I did (and still do) indeed feel that using the term Lebanon is acceptable, given that a majority of the damage and deaths were inflicted upon Lebanon in general, and not on Hezbollah or Israel. We're currently discussing common names however, so the point is moot.
Please hold off on the accusatory tone until we get to the stage where Daniel asks us to back up our statements. Thanks. — George [talk] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Shamir, you are wandering into an unwarranted uncivil tone. Italiavivi 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
George, re-read your comment. Find what part of the policy it falls under. Then, you'll have an argument. Do not make any claims unless they are sourced. You are a Wikipedian and know that. Picking a name yourself is not the answer. This is an encyclopedia. Try focusing on the outside world. Try the naming conventions.
Also, sounding harsh is one thing, but exaggerating it is another. You cant repeat the same claims that are apparently not possible to be sourced/confirmed and not expect me to be frustrated. I did not accuse you of anything. --Shamir1 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My answers were solely and specifically a response to what Daniel asked. If you have a problem with the question, then take it up with him. — George [talk] 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on what I see in the mediation so far, I don't think polling is the best, or even a preferred way of trying to decide on the title for the article; rather, the preponderance of the weight should be placed on policy, guidelines, and the quality of the sources supporting each position. From what I've read going through the evidence, it seems that:

  1. There is no single fixed name for the conflict yet (although this is typically the case, even with conflicts that happened decades ago).
  2. A small preponderance of popular sources use the term "Lebanon" in the name of the war, though not necessarily in the form "Lebanon war", and many popular sources do use "Hezbollah" in the title.
  3. A significant preponderance of the scholarly sources use the term "Israel-Hezbollah war", or similar names.

Regarding issues such as "NPOV", they're often in the eye of the beholder. However, it is clear that the main combatants in this conflict were Israel and Hezbollah; the conflict was initiated by actions of Hezbollah, participation by other groups was minimal, and, significantly, the government of Lebanon itself did not declare war on Israel, or even participate in the war in any meaningful or official way. To me these seem the most relevant points. Jayjg (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to watch Jayjg call himself an outside commentor when he is clearly continuing his past advocacy for the "Israel-Hezbollah" naming. Italiavivi 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Jayjg calling himself an outside commentator only helps the other side of the argument (meaning your side), as it means he is intentionally giving himself less of a role. So I'm not sure why you object to this. --Sm8900 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Italvivi, I am commenting on this dispute as an outside observer, as I have done (on very rare occasions) in the past. Commenting on the dispute does not make me a participant, any more than Daniel's actions make him a participant. I have never edited the articles in question, nor do I intend to do so. Now please address the issues. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your comments reflect your past Talk arguments. You have advocated for the "Israel-Hezbollah" naming in past dispute discussion, and do not deny this. Furthermore, you have threatened me with "sterner measures" if I note your participation in the naming dispute's arguments. I will not participate in this RFM is Jayjg is allowed to masquerade as an uninvolved party while making idle threats against editors who highlight his past arguments. Italiavivi 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with Jayjg in that I would rather we focus on policy, guidelines, and the quality of sources, rather than taking polls. Polls may indicate (though obviously not guarantee) consensus among editors, but I'm quite confident that the current title is also better supported by policy, guidelines, and sources. Unfortunately, Jayjg's statements about the sources is wrong, but I'd rather not jump into the details of how and why until the mediation is led down that path. — George [talk] 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about the sources; I can only tell you what I've seen so far, but I might have missed things. Are there specific Talk: page areas you think where it would be fruitful for me to look? Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are few useful pages, and they're buried under tons and tons of discussions. You can obviously review the half dozen past move discussions for the 2006 Lebanon War, though you've likely read a lot of those, and I think you'll just see a lot of the same arguments being made over and over. My best advise would be to:
  1. Review each and every source that has been put forth in the archive, as they're often inaccurately labelled and summarized.
  2. Look for other articles from the same sources, and determine if the source cited uses a single name, or if they use a variety of names, and only a specific one was presented as being used.
  3. Most of all, do your own research.
If all you're doing is reviewing the articles that other editors post on these talk pages, you're going to get a very warped view of the names used for this event. Doing my own research is what makes me disagree with Shamir1, not that what he posts is always inaccurate, just that what he posts is (in my opinion) a very selective subset of all the sources in the world, specifically chosen to support his viewpoint, rather than to determine objetively what name best fits policy. I'm really hoping we can collectively evaluate these names under policy, however I'm holding off until the mediation steers in that direction, as the discussions quickly get long, heated, and quite muddled. — George [talk] 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not edit war over whether or not Jayjg is a member to the mediation please. It makes no freaking difference. – George

It is important that an editor who has stated there to be "no reasons" against the "Israel-Hezbollah" naming in past Talk discussion, the first user to submit the "Hezbollah did 99% of their fighting against Israel" justification, to be identified as a participant in the naming dispute. For Jayjg to describe himself as "uninvolved" is disingenuous, and his threats toward me to keep his "uninvolved" appearance are not conducive to honest discussion on this subject. If Jayjg is allowed to continue here as if he was never involved in the dispute, I am removing myself from this RFM. Italiavivi 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed myself from this RFM pending Jayjg's actions concerning "sterner measures" against me. I will not continue discussion in good faith with him while he simultaneously threatens me with his sysop access on my User_talk page. Sorry, Daniel and others. Italiavivi 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I too tend to view him as a party to the dispute, I really don't see the point of disputing whether or not he's an involved party, or just a commentor. In any event, please discuss it with him or Daniel. Even if you are correct, the two of you just adding and removing his name all day won't get us any closer to solving the issue at hand. If you feel strongly about it, you can just become an uninvolved commentor also, but again, I really don't see what difference it makes. Given Jayjg's previous statements in the dispute, if he or she were the mediator, acting as an uninvolved party, then it would be an issue, but commentators have no more or less say than other parties to the dispute. — George [talk] 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained to Italiavivi more than once, I've never edited the article in question, nor do I intend to. In addition, I've only made three edits to the Talk: page in the past year, out of almost 10,000. Italiavivi's attempts to include me as an "involved party" were simply bizarre at first, but now have crossed the bounds of WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "bounds" of WP:POINT? For what point am I "disrupting" Wikipedia to make? I doubt you seriously believe that the policy guideline you just linked has anything to do with your current situation. Italiavivi 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I try to get out, they they try to pull me back in.  :-) --Sm8900 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing, but this will have real consequences if he doesn't stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep making threats, Jay. They are very conducive to an open dialogue. Your "uninvolved" facade seems very important to you, and it is now yours. I am (again) finished with this bad-faith mediation. Italiavivi 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to have "open dialogue" with you Italiavivi; remember, I'm not an editor of the page in question, nor am I a party to this mediation, so there would be no need for or point in such "open dialogue". If you wish to withdraw from editing the article, and therefore from this mediation, that's your own business, but it's between you, the other parties and the mediator - it has nothing to do with me. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given one party involved has now explicitly rejected mediation (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War), I am left with no choice but to close this RfM under the voluntary participation requirements. Although this is an unfortunate ending with no comprimise resolution reached, I hope everyone can leave this mediation with something to assist them in resolving this dispute. Sorry, and thanks for trying to resolve your problems via mediation regardless of the end result, Daniel 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. Why does this mediation have to end? Italiavivi didn't say he/she was withsdrawing their consent from this mediation. They said they were withdrawing themseleves as a participant. Given that fact, i feel that this mediation has every basis for continuing. --Sm8900 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw all of the above, Sm8900; my consent, and anything else having to do with this particular RFM's legitimacy. Italiavivi 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two points;
  1. I'm confused as to why the Mediation must end. Can't we just keep going, without Italiavivi? He wasn't, to my knowledge one of the main participants. If he wants to leave, that's fine.
  2. Shamir - "Bereaved mark one year since Lebanon war". Iorek85 09:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out they're using the article 2007 Lebanon conflict to refer to the battle between the Lebanese Army and a Palestinian group in one refugee camp! This seems crazy. This is just too much. Can't they be at least slightly descriptive? --Sm8900 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=1079274439"