Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 29

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive27#General Discussion
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive28#General Discussion
  • Why you can't pinpoint when the conflict started, NPOV ceasefire, NPOV, Name of Hezbollah operation, Quoting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, re: United Nations forces, Indonesia, Malaysia and Israel, Infobox, Seymour Hersh, again (yes, YOU, Tewfik), Kidnap Capture debate (outside WP), Four way infobox?!, At what point do we move past these contradictory "estimates"?, External Links

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

Propaganda

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

There are lots of doubts about the reporting from the Libanon side. Reports that Hezbollah threatened reporters. A few links : http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

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

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

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

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

Amesty's accusations

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

When you have some evidence of this, then please, put it in. Until then, you can't say Amnesty is wrong without evidence. It's not at all POV to leave a comment unrefuted when you can't refute it. Iorek85 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty called Israel not to use depleted uranium. Israel didn't use depleted uranium. These are simple facts. You keep deleting it, but I can't prove what has not been done. You want only one side (Amnesty's accusations) to remain in the article - this is not NPOV, you should show both sides of the issue. --Gabi S. 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rich. "Israel never used them and my word is proof enough that they didn't, but if they did you would still have to prove that they did because your word isn't proof." Does that about sum up your arrgument? Carbonate 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Screw AI, they're in bed with Hezbollah, anyway—it's a bunch of islamofascist crackheads spouting propaganda. I tell you, the IAF dropped pink balloons, and that's all there is to that. Kosmopolis 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget the IDF. They can lie better than the rest. Carbonate 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mnw2000, above you wrote: "Are there any honest brokers out there anymore? You have to admit that democratic governmeents are being held to a higher standard than non-democratic instituations by these so-called non-political organizations [AI, HRW, etc]? This, by itself, is unfair and shows the bias." But shouldn't democratic governments be held to a higher standard than non-democratic ones? Isn't it reasonable to expect more excellence in the actions of the governments of the USA or Israel or Sweden, than, say, of the governments of North Corea or Sudan? After all the actions of a democratic government reflect on the entire population, and I daresay reflect on the very principle of democracy. Conversely should one's expectations of the democratic government of Israel be the same to one's expectations of the governments of North Corea or Sudan, wouldn't this be demeaning to Israel? - You write that AI, HRW, IRC, UN have all been wrong sometimes in some of their statements. What other organizations would you suggest are more reliable as a source of information about current wars? Dianelos 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Since Amnesty's call to Israel to refrain from using depleted uranium did not materialize (Israel did not use such weapons - there would be clear evidence if it did), I suggest to delete the whole accusation paragraph. It is irrelevant. Please write your opinions here; I will wait a couple of days before changing it. --Gabi S. 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Gabi S. 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was this changed to war?

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

While you may believe in wikivoting — I urge against that and opt for careful discussion, as was the ten day-long discussion over the renaming; but regardless, please do not create an inconsistency between the lead and the title; that is really basic style criteria. El_C 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know, as well. User:El C moved it, without comment, and despite the fact there is no consensus on moving it. Iorek85 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there will be no vote. I moved it for the reasons stated, after waiting ten days. And I understood that there was consensus. El_C 09:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

7 to 5 is a consensus? I don't think so. Iorek85 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That certainly wasn't the tally at the time of the re-naming, nor is it the tally now. I submitt that you are confused on this point. El_C 10:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iorek85 and JBG seemingly intent on maintaining paralysis and preventing substantive discussion. El_C 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. You're the one who moved it without consensus, not me. I welcome substantive discussion, just as much as I welcome the opinions of the editors who voted in the polls according to procedure. Iorek85 02:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And moving the article while there is an ongoing discussion of where to move it is real productive, El C. Here's a thought, wait until the discussion here is done before moving the article to save on rework. You complained here about Arthur Rubin abusing his admin bit to revert your move, what about your abuse of your admin bit to move it away in the first place. --Bobblehead 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that I was going to rename it if there was no strong objections, and there was no strong objection. There is no excuse for wheel-warring, even if it serves your own ends. El_C 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there was no consensus to move to the name you chose arbitrarily and not moving does not equal paralysis. There is substantive discussion going on, you're just chosing to ignore it. Also there are obviously strong objections now ;). JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Moved back in response to lack of consensus for move, as well you would know if you read the arguments. Some of the "votes" for conflict gave valid reasons. I was assuming that User:El C had agreed not to move the article without consensus. Do we need to take this to RfAr again? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is your (misguided) interpretation. You over-ruled an admin action without discussion. I was not aware there was an RfAr (again?), but regardless, I would'nt at all mind your wheel warring being looked into there. El_C 13:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. User:El C said that he would move the article unless there was strong objections. That is out of process — moves should only be made if there is consensus. There were objections, clearly showing there was no consensus for the move.

I've never brought an RfAr before, but there was an RfC on this article already, which suggested that moves should not be done without consensus. If someone else brings up an RfAr, and lets me know, I'll make a statement. I think it's time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mister Arthur Rubin, you will be a party to such an RfAr, not merely a commentator. El_C 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. Still, I was following process WP:RM; even if I believed your move was made without requesting comment at first, it was still made without consensus; and you never got around to fixing double-redirects, as should be done with any move, requiring Admin or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, can you not use italics instead of bold? It's much more understated. Regardless of what happnes here, if I ever see you wheel warring again, I'll be filing the RfAr before you're able to, belatedly, start explaining why you wheel warred. El_C 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You could not have followed process because you wheel warred. You had to discuss the matter first, and you didn't, which is way out of process. El_C 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no wheel war here. This page was protected against vandalism, not due to an ongoing content dispute. There is no prohibition against making content related changes (which is what a move is) when the protection is for vandalism. Further, if you consider moving a protected page to be wheel warring, then both El C and Arthur Rubin wheel warred, since it was protected at the time of both moves. But let's not claim wheel warring when it does not properly apply. NoSeptember 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but wrong. You don't over-rule (move war revert) an admin action without discussion. El_C 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all admin actions are created the same, content actions on vandalism protected pages are not the same as reversing blocks or deletions, and you know this. Don't confuse an edit war with a wheel war. By your definition, every time an admin edits the Main Page he is wheel warring by reverting at least in part a previous admin. That page, like this page, is only protected from vandalism. You may want to check WP:WW again, the actions on this page do not fall into that policy. NoSeptember 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but, IIRC in the Israeli Apartheid matter, moves of move-protected pages were found to be Admin actions, and reverting such actions, even if the actions were unjustified, were found to be wheel warring. I should have remembered that. Still, are we going to have to bring this to RfAr so I can avoid having multiple messages on my talk page and move the discussion to one place? (It's presently spread in three sections of this page, and on WP:AN/I, User Talk:El C and my talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well you can tell that I don't watch this page or related discussions about this page or middle east topics in general. I imagine that such a ruling was based on a history of page move warring. Is there a history of move warring on this page? If not, it seems premature to apply that standard to this page. It seems hard to believe that ArbCom intended to apply a rule to thousands of articles that did not have a previous history of move warring. But you guys may know the particulars better. NoSeptember 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of any rulings on this page. AR could have informed me of these before move-reverting me, but he didn't, thus, sowing all this discord for naught. All I know is that I facilitated a discussion for ten days, a discussion that at the time of the move enjoyed consensus. It appears someone started a poll about the War rename two days after I had initiated this much more substantive discussion. A discussion that kept being moved (and archived!) against my wishes. It seems impossible to get anything done on this talk page. You can't start a discussion without the thoughtless specter of "let's vote on it." I'm out. El_C 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by move warring. A quick check of the move history for 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict, 2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, and 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis finds 6 moves between July 13 and July 22 when Cyde move protected the article here with instructions not to move against consensus. --Bobblehead 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, I did not look at the move history closely, nor should that be key to any of this. I saw that the Hebrew wiki renamed their entry to War, so that reminded me that I wanted to see the English one renamed to war quite a while back before that, but never got around to it. Then I facilitated a ten days discussion (which obstructively kept being archived and moved around from the foot) on re-naming it. After ten days (at.the.time.of.the.move, not after) there was consensus for it, so I moved it. End of story. But I am no longer interested in speaking to you at this time. So don't waste your breath, I am leaving this page for a long while now, after having extensively contributed to it, if I may add. El_C 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz, one of the main Israeli newspapers also calls this a war, in fact it calls it the "Second Lebanon War". See here. [Yedioth_Ahronoth], another Israeli daily, also calls this "Lebanon war", see here. So does CNN, see here. So does BBC, see here. Frankly it's hard for me to understand why so much energy is expended in discussing this issue; why not change "conflict" into "war" in the title and invest our time on improving the article itself? Dianelos 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not a war, it's not a war, even if every newspaper on the planet were to call it a war. Valtam 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

True. In this case though it's like every newspaper and also every relevant watchdog organizations (UN, AI, HRW, ACRI), and the two fighting organizations themselves (Hezbollah, IDF), and the relevant leaders (Israel's prime minister, Lebanon's president, etc) all calling this a war. I think under these circumstances an encyclopedia should call this a war too. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

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

this art. is continuously and deliberately skewed towards pro-israeli pov. and you be careful. according to the hist. you've screwed up the intro 3 times already in < 24h. -- 80.135.175.130 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

External links again

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

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

• We should link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." (WP:EL). By any sane reasoning, coverage from CNN, the BBC, the NY Times and other media outlets provide such material and should be linked to. Contemporary news coverage is never irrelevant for those who wish to track the day-by-day developments in a more in-depth way than we could in an overview article.

• The links should not include non-neutral and inaccurate sources. Iorek's preferred list plainly does, including things such as "video about photo fraud at the war" (sic) and the deeply tendentious hirhome.com website (whose webmaster seems to have been anonymously spamming links into articles all over Wikipedia - I must have nuked 30 or 40 of them by now). We need to take care that what WP:EL calls "Links normally to be avoided" don't creep into the list.

• Nor should we single out individual news stories - that's why the external links go to compilations of news stories from reputable news organisations.

• The list of links should be structured. A mess of undifferentiated links is unhelpful.

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

WP:SPAMHOLE is where this article is. We should aim to have five links, tops. HawkerTyphoon 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're exaggerating. :-) It could probably do with shortening (do we need to link to blogs?) but otherwise it seems about right to me - we certainly need to link to the major combatant and international news outlets' coverage of the conflict. Compare 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#External links. -- ChrisO 07:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary news coverage is never irrelevant for those who wish to track the day-by-day developments. I couldn't agree more! But the conflict is over - hence the lack of a need to link to the general conflict pages on a variety of news sources any more. Same goes with the blogs. I was happy to have them when the conflict was ongoing, so readers could get the latest, unique information (I defended their inclusion repeatedly, in fact) but now the conflict is over, they don't provide anything unique or important. As for bad links - I culled based on the links claimed content, not the reliability of the source. I thought specific articles were fine - detailed analysis should be included, of course. I just deleted the links to the israel-lebanon section of the newsagencies. As for structure, sure, but ideally, there should be so few as to not require headings, as with most pages here. Iorek85 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Background section

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

I know, it's long, arguably too long at the moment. I am at it, right now, looking at which parts can be spared. Kosmopolis 10:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to put the Background section after the description of the conflict? That way, a reader could move on to the background after reading about the events of July and August 2006. Valtam 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Discussion about the name of the article

Rename to "war"

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

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

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

It took place in Israel and Lebanon; we're not gonna call it IDF-Hezbollah war.

Further arguments for "war" are based on clear rationals:

1. Political echelon & media in both Israel and Lebanon call it "war"
2. Sustained high-intensity warfare throughout a period of weeks
3. Unlike in Gaza, entire divisions were mobalized (in Israel)
4. Scholarly sources call it "war" (e.g. lib.utexas.edu)

Where it took place is not as important as who fought it. --Doom777 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

El_C 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

While I opposed calling it a war previously in order to err on the side of caution, I think that now that time has passed we can faithfully call it a war with legitimate backing. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Iorek85's contention that "I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war" is clearly mistaken; it involved the entire territory of one country and a good third of another, the number of casualties was far higher than in other recent conflicts universally called wars (cf. Falklands War) and the scale, scope and tempo of military operations was consistent with a full-blown war. I'll support El C's proposal to move the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. -- ChrisO 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

It's interesting to note that the Israeli government opposed (and still opposes) calling this conflict a "war", because it has economic implications, dealing mainly with recompensations for damaged property. Instead of "war" it is formally called "fighting". However, "2006 Israel-Lebanon fighting" doesn't sound very encyclopedical. --Gabi S. 06:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflict seems to fit best. This was not a widespread incident with a small number of casualties that took place between a country and a terror organization. There generally has to be two countries for there to be a war and it usually has to be declared. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since scope isn't apparently an issue in whether action is called a war or not, it seems to be only popular opinion that gives it the name. I agree with tewfik, but I don't know how one would go about collecting enough sources, or which sources should be used. I disagree that voting isn't important, though - wikipedians are members of the international public after all, and thus decide whether it was a war or conflict just as the public do. Iorek85 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Then what is a conflict? As I said "size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary". Iorek85 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole poll is really not the proper manner for deciding on a name change, rather as I've said before, there should be an attempt to analyse the various relevant sources, and name based on what is most used in them. Tewfik^Talk 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)