Talk:Lebanon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Current Events

I've altered the first sentance because it sounded like the IDF forces were captured inside Lebanease territory, a statement that wasnt even varified by the sources given! And also was contradicted by the next paragraph. I will include the alternate point of view now.

Note: I have left the original sources for this bar one which was removed as a dead link

--Rick browne 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

I have deleted some passages that are neither balanced and not relevant (bold has been deleted):

"Initially, fighting began between these Palestinians (referred to as "anti-Lebanese militias" by some) and the indigenous Lebanese "leftists" (the communists and socialist parties). As the fighting intensified, the sides involved became more distinct. On one side was the Christian resistance led first by Bachir Gemayel and later by Samir Geagea. The other side comprised a coalition of Palestinian refugees, Sunni Muslim, and Druze forces who were united in their detestation of the 1943 National Pact. The (so-called civil) war left the nation with no effective central government." --Emirbachir 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops?

I have removed the word "accidentally" in referring to the Israeli bombing of the UN post. The facility was hit 15 consecutive times, so I guess that doesn't qualify as an accident. Also, you should check whether the damage was caused by an air strike. I believe it was ground artillery. Even so, the attack was certainly not accidental, which the next paragraph confirms (if it was a "tactical necessity" then that implies it was premeditated). And even if they were bombing the area close to the place and "accidentally" hit, why didn't they call the UN personnel and warn them to evacuate, just as they do in Gaza where they call people and tell them to get out of their houses before shelling them. Israel was just trying to show that no one can tell it what to do to scare the Lebanese who had hope that the UN wouldn't just sit with its arms folded. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 12:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Freedom

I have erased the "eradicating personal freedoms" part where Syria's effect on Lebanon is discussed. Now I'm not doing this in support of Syria, it's just that I can very well remember many people who spoke openly of the Syrian influence (or domination if you wish) on the Lebanese governemnet and critisized such an invlovement. However, the rights of Lebanses citizens to freely express their ideas and thoughts has been guranteed throughout Lebanon's history, which has certainly been (to say the least) the most deomcratic country in the Arab world. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 15:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

French Name

I added the French name of the country, since it is an official language. Take a look at Afghanistan, where the name of the country appears in both official languages.Heja Helweda 04:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Syrian intervention and consequent occupation of Lebanon

I believe that section is not very accurate, it mentions that the palestinians were pushed out of beirut by the joined syrian-maronite forces, to my knowledge the palestinians continued to control significant areas in beirut until the israeli invasion & seige of Beirut in 1982, I also didn't understand what(Ezzat)stands for. 213.42.2.23 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

Since nobody cared to comment I have removed the following sentence Together the Syrians and Maronites pushed the Palestinians out of Beirut and into southern Lebanon. & replaced it with the syrian army joined the Maronites in their fight against the palestinians, I think its more accurate since intense fighting was still going on in Beirut & other parts of lebanon between the Palestinians & Syrians-Maronites untill the israeli invasion of 1982. please let me know if any one object.213.42.2.22 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

Hariri assassination

This section claims, "others have suggested it was carried out by Israeli's secret service MOSSAD and/or the CIA, to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, making an Israeli invasion feasible." Since the author fails to cite this assertion or at least identify who "others" are, it qualifies as a personal opinion, and therefore, should be corrected or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.23.20 (talk • contribs)

Please note, Mr. Smartpants-who-forgot-to-sign-his-name, that while your objection is %100 accurate (I even went back to fix the "mistake" and attribute this conspiracy theory to actual people, only to find you have hastened to earse it) you fail (perhaps intentionally?) to notice that the same mistake has been committed when the author poses the "Syria-did-it" conspiracy theory (yes they are all consirpacy theories). Next time, you might want to look for a better excuse to try and omit an opposing opinion. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 14:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not noticing the similar mistake of the Syrian conspiracy. However, my obligation is not to identify and resolve every single issue of this article, even if a similar problem exists in the same paragraph. I merely noticed a mistake, commented on it, and then decided to fix it. I also believe the section on Syria should be attributed or deleted. My personal beliefs might have caused me to single out the Israeli conspiracy in particular, but like you said, my objection was "100% accurate." And since I learned how to sign (SuperKid 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, I didn't know you didn't know how to sign :), now you're just Mr. Smartypants. Anyways, please check the paragraph again and see if the fixes I made are suitable. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The revision as of 18:15, 27 October 2006 by LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC) with the summary "I tried to summarize a little, please always be as succinct as possible when adding to the History section, consider adding detail to the relevent article; minor fixes in wording". The result of this "summarisation" omitted anything that might cast doubt on the "official" version of events namely.

1. The fact that initially Austrlian air port security sniffer dogs trained to find explosives did confirm the Lebanese Security claims. The importance of this is the sniffer dogs and their handlers would not have been AFP, they would be Sydney Airport security and not a part of the Austrlian Intelligence agency community.

2. The reason why the UN investigator found additional circumstantial evidence to find the Australians to be regarded as suspicious i.e. the quote from the report "that there were six SIM cards used in connection with the assassination and that usage on the SIM cards had terminated at the time of the explosion. Noting that there were six suspicious Australians and six suspicious SIM cards, an unusual coincidence, the Commission believed that a review of the Australian and Lebanese investigations into this area would be prudent."

And then to change this to say... "The Australian Federal Police interviewed ten individuals in Sydney upon the arrival of the flight and tested three of the men for explosives, eventually proving these claims to be false."

...to say they found proof the Lebanese security officials claims were false, is a complete misrepresentation of events. They did no such thing! The AFP (perhaps deliberately) found no proof to support the claims of the Lebanese officials, they did not proove they were false.

Hypothetically IF the six Austrlians were the perpetrators of this crime, there is no doubt they could not have done this without the knowledge of ASIO and/or the CIA. Hypothetically the most likely scenario if they were guilty of this crime would be they were in fact members of an Austrlian or US security agency, executing an assassination authorised at a high level.

In that circumstance (being an Austrlian and knowing the history of the AFP) there is no doubt at all that the AFP forensic tests would be falsified. To suggest the AFP would expose a CIA/ASIO assassination of a foreign state's political figure is absolutely ludicrous.

Given that Mehlis found some security agency to be responsible, why is it less likely that ASIO and the CIA were involved as opposed to Syrian Security? Why did the Mehlis review of the AFP investigation ignore any possibility of a cover up? Particularly when the AFP investigation wound up just 48hrs after the event (thats rather short for any murder investigation, especially one of this magnitude).

I think these two pieces of information should go back in and you might also want to add that the other reasons sited in the Mehlis report for suspecting the Australians - which is a car used in the explosion was right hand drive (as is for Australian vehicles). To quote the Hariri report the vehicle used in the explosion was a Mitsubishi Canter stolen on 12 October 2004 in Sagamihara City, Japan. As an Australian I know it is very common for used vehicles to be sold in Japan and shipped to Australia, thousands of these vehicles arrive every year.

Plus according to the Mehlis report the Lebanese officials claimed that the Austrlians boarded in Lebanon with no luggage, yet in Austrlia they apparently arrived with luggage. Again anyone who knows anything about Sydney airport security would not be surprised if evidence were to arise that the flight arriving in Sydney somehow "acquired" the six Australians luggage only after arriving in Sydney.

This makes at least 4-6 pieces of physical and circumstantial evidence implicating the Australians i.e.

1. Lebanese security positive test for explosives. 2. Lebanese officials claim the Australians left with no luggage. 3. They co-incidently left Lebanon 3 hours after the assassination 4. Australians customs sniffer dogs trained to find explosives reacted positively to the seats of the Australian suspects. 5. The Japanese right hand drive vehicle used in the assassination. 6. The 6 sim cards used in the assassination.

When you combine this with motive? Who had the motive to destabilise Lebanon at a point when it was dominated by Syria and Hezbollah?

...? Lets think what has happened since - Syria has been forced to withdraw from Lebanon. Quickly followed by an Israeli invasion. Could this have happened in a Syrian occupied Lebanon?

To date there has been no justice for Lebanon, only war. No one has been brought to trial or arrested for the perpetration of this murder. The six Austrlians are the only persons ever to be physically linked to the assassination in any investigation.

So what I think Wikipedia section on Hariri should say is that there is a big divergence between the claims of Lebanese and Australian officials over the six Austrlians. Then list all the claims of the Lebanese officials, then all the claims of the Australian officials, and then a list of the irrefutable facts on the matter.

And it should do this, regardless of how popular it has been reported in the media. User:Micktion

I apologize if my edit removed relevent information. I really didn't look as deep into the matter as you have here. I repeat that I only attempted to summarize. I did not intend to conceal any important facts. You make a very good point in your reply, even though I believe it is all rather speculative or at least personal theory. Even so, my summary should be fixed for accuracy. Please tell me if you like the slightly edited version better. Finally, I suppose you must already know that Wikipedia cannot publish what you just presented (however convinving it is). Wikipedia is a place for portrayal of actual events, not drawing out conclusions, or even pointing out incongruencies between different claims. Anyways, thanks for your input. It's quite nice to see someone care so much about the issue. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I realise Wiki cannot draw conclusions on facts.

Seriously though, if you're going to write about the Hariri assassination, you need to actually read the Mehlis report. It's not that long. When you read the report it will be clear to you that I have focused on small sections of the report. However these sections are what the report should have been focusing on and that is the murder weapon and the events prior and immediately following the murder.

The murder weapon is always the most important piece of evidence in an investigation.

In this case the murder weapon was the Mitsubishi Canter which held the explosives and the 6 sim cards used to detonate the explosion. When you read the Mehlis report you'll see it doesn't really focus on the vehicle, or how it came to be in lebanon. How does a lorry stolen in Japan 4 months later end up in downtown Lebanon packed with explosives?

It's a lorry. It's big. You can't slip it in your luggage and smuggle it in to the country. It has to be shipped, there has to be a paper trail, if there's no paper trail to follow, then you would need to ask who can get a lorry out of japan and into lebanon without a paper trail? You live there how many right hand drive vehicles do you see floating round lebanon? I'm betting not many.

When reading the report it seems Mehlis investigation made almost no attempt to track the Mitsubishi Canter, even though it's quite clear that knowing the full history of this vehicle would reveal the guilty party. It claims the van entered Lebanon via Syria, although the basis of this claim is not on any official record but on testimony of a single witness who is supposedly an ex-syrian agent.

What is also odd to me is that the report makes no attempt to determine the origin of the sim cards. In Lebanon don't you have to give details and proof of identity when you purchase a sim card?

The hard physical evidence is the six sim cards and the Mitsubishi Canter. Wiki should mention the vehicle and that it was stolen on 12 October 2004 in Sagamihara City, Japan, it should also mention the six sim cards.

The key to the success of a murder investgation is the actions of the investigators immediately following the crime. The chances of solving a murder diminishes exponentially with time.

This is why it should mention the focus of the lebanese investigation immediately following the crime. The issue of the arrest warrants for the six Australians 3 hours after the assassination and the AFP investigation that followed.

Then it should mention that much of the Mehlis investigation focused on phone records of Syrian and Lebanese security before and after the assassination.

Personally I think the phone records which is the basis of the case against Syria is all quite flimsy and circumstantial.

But you're right wiki can't present what I have presented. My presentation would be that of a defence council for Syria or that of a prosecutor against ASIO and the CIA. I think wiki should be acting as a judge would in a court of law, which is to make sure the evidence is presented impartially and completely. Let the public be the jury, and draw their own conclusions.User:Micktion

I would have appreciated a link to that Mehlis Report. I did see it translated in an Arabic newspaper, but I don't have much patience for Arabic texts. Anyways, because you seem so much more knowledgeable on the topic than me, why don't you type out a small paragraph on what you think should be included in the article text, and we'll work on it here in the talk page? Let it be as biased as you want, we'll have plenty of time to make it a well-written NPOV (to either side) paragrpah. I'll be waiting. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to the Mehlis Report in the footnotes.

Here is what I would write...

On the 14 February 2005 former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others were killed in a car bomb explosion. This event triggered the Cedar Revolution in which a coalition of anti-syrian politcal parties led a series of massive anti-syrian rallies, which eventually forced the complete withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. This coalition later became known as the March 14 coalition and eventually went on to win the Lebanese general election, 2005.

The Mehlis report also made note that there were six SIM cards used in connection with the assassination and that usage on the SIM cards had terminated at the time of the explosion. Noting that there were six suspicious Australians and six suspicious SIM cards, and that this was an unusual coincidence, the commission made a review of the Lebanese and Australian Federal Police investigations. However, upon reviewing the Australian investigation, the Mehlis report came to the conclusion that "the investigation carried out by the Australian authorities and the findings obtained should be considered as conclusive."

Much of the Mehlis report details phone records of Lebanese and Syrian security officials. Based on this evidence and the testimony of witnesses it concludes that the available leads point towards the involvement of Syrian officials in the assassination.

This investigation into the Hariri assassination is on-going and has yet to be concluded, on 17 January 2006 the UN appointed Serge Brammertz to continue the investigation, the report from this investigation has yet to be published.

Sadly the Hariri assassination only marked the beginning of a series of assassination attempts that led to the loss of many prominent Lebanese figures. On June 2 2005, the journalist and historian Samir Kassir, also a founding member of the Democratic Left Movement was assassinated by a car bomb. Less than one month later, on June 21 2005, George Hawi, the former Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party was also assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut.

On September 25 2005, there was a failed assassination attempt on a Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation news anchor, in which May Chidiac lost her left leg below the knee and received severe injuries to her left arm, later resulting in the amputation of her left hand. Since then, May Chidiac won the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize 2006. Editor-in-chief and CEO of the An-Nahar newspaper, journalist Gebran Tueni, was assassinated by a car bomb in the suburbs of Beirut on December 12, 2005.

I think this is factual, fair and impartial, hopefully people can do some math and realise 10-3 > 6. User:Micktion

Sorry for the delay, but I won't be able to give full commenting till tomorrow. Thought I must point out that my opinion is really not the point here, but community consensus. We have to give it time to see what others say. Meanwhile, be bold, do what you feel is right. We can always revert later.LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 20:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of incorporating most of what you wrote up there into the article's text. You'll notice that I left out the part about the SIM cards, which I feel is a little overdetailed. I think you should gear your efforts towards imporving accuracy in the articles specific to this topic, because you already have excellent writing and a formidable knowledge of the subject. Again, sorry for the delay. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk LestatdeLioncourt 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like all factual information regarding the assassination has once again been removed from the main page and also from this discussion page !! UNBELIEVABLE !!

Everything I wrote has been removed. You know, I can't help think people just don't want to know about what really happened that day, and who was responsible for it. It seems obvious when you look at the facts that one of two things has happened. Either Syria assassinated Hariri and did a very good job of framing ASIO and the CIA, but a really pathetic job of anticipating and controlling the political fall out from the assassination. Or ASIO/CIA killed hariri and was very successful in achieving it's goals which were probably to force Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, and open up the doorway for a military assault on Hezbollah. And to send a strong message to Syria to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq or else.

As for the SIM cards, I think it is something that needs to be talked about. The reason being is that it is one of the most glaringly odd parts of the Mehlis report. In some ways you're quite right the SIM cards, going by the Mehlis report it is a minute detail. The SIM cards are only mentioned in one small section of the report, this is a quote from the report and out of 60 pages it is all that is mentioned of them -

"In pursuing this review, Commission investigators also

were aware that there were six SIM cards used in connection with the assassination and that usage on the SIM cards had terminated at the time of the explosion. Noting that there were six suspicious Australians and six suspicious SIM cards, an unusual coincidence, the Commission believed that a review of the Australian and Lebanese investigations into this area would be prudent."

That's it. Don't you think it's bizare that there is no other mention or attempt to explain how these 6 sim cards were connected to the assassination? The fact that they terminated at the time of the assassination suggests that they were destroyed in the explosion, which suggests that they were in the vehicle. Here's one theory as to how they were used. SIM1 - Left SIM2 - right SIM3 - break SIM4 - accelerator SIM5 & SIM6 - Detonation. This would also explain another fact mentioned from the report which was the truck was moving extremely slowly, much slower than traffic normally flows. You couldn't drive a remote control vehicle too fast because you would probably lose control of it.

So the two possibilities are a remote controlled right hand drive vehicle that was stolen in japan 4 months before the assassination, or a suicide bomber somehow talked into assassinating hariri by syrian security.

Anyhow I've done my best here to get the truth/facts to be heard on this very sad day for Lebanon, if it doesn't want to be heard fine.

I've moved what I assume to be the text you're talking about to the article detailing the Cedar Revolution. The level of detail the text went in to is more appropriate to the full article about the Cedar Revolution than what is supposed to be a summary of it. George Saliba 03:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean up 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

A lot of this should be merged into the main article -- Kendrick7 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please clean up this paragraph from obviously one-sided propaganda: "The 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was one of the most brutal Lebanon has witnessed. The level of destruction that has hit Lebanon has been described by the country's Prime Minister Fuad Seniora as "unimaginable."" I just have to scroll up two pages to see that every single conflict in libanon was several time more serious than the rather small Israel-Hizballah-war, eg. with 10.000 to 100.000 dead. -- Crass_Spektakel 03:28, 18 September 2006 (MEC)

I am the one who wrote that paragraph (I was trying to summarize the section). You say that "every single confilct in [Lebanon] was several times more serious than the rather small Israel-Hezbollah war." First of all, your statment is unsupported in that it presumes your complete knowledge of all the conflicts Lebanon has lived through; but, personally (no offence meant), I doubt that. At least you could have listed the conflicts which illustrate your point. Still, this won't change a thing. Reasons are as follows:

1. My parents lived through each and every and single one of the conflicts listed above, including the last (summer 2006). They didn't hesitate in declaring that it was much more brutal than all the previous conflicts with Israel. I myself have survived through the 1993, 1996, 1999, and the last conflict. I would easily give my vote to 2006. Although, I count first-hand experience as priceless, you may disagree. If so, please move to reason 2.
2. (First, I must apologize for not referencing anything I will say now with information from websites, but everything that follows I personally heard on local TV in statements made by Lebanese officials.) Economically, the war managed to destory more of the Lebanese economy than the 15-year-long civil war. Regarding human loss, the 2006 death toll was so relatively "low" due to the mass displacement of Lebanese civilians from the targeted areas. The first estimate of destroyed residential units was 15,000. With an average 5 persons per unit, you have 75,000 dead, not to mention those who would have died from serious injuries in areas close to the bombing site. I hope 75,000 is good enough for you. The only conflict in the entire history of Lebanon that reaped more lifes (even with the 1,200 death toll) is the 1975 Civil War, so I believe it qualifies as "one of the most brutal"; I didn't go so far as to call it the most brutal. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 08:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Being personally involved makes you biased and doing a math like "it could have killed theoretically 75.000 people" makes this point even more obvious. Rethink your position, it should be good enough to leave the citing of the president but not the personal evaluation of the situation. The hard numbers speak enough for themselves. Crass Spektakel 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard numbers themselves place the 2006 conflict as the third bloodiest war in Lebanon's history (the two others were the civil war and the 1982 Israeli invasion, even though most victims were Palestinians in the latter). This statement is a matter of fact, not my opinion. I think the statement will give the reader an idea of how to place the war in a wider perspective (relative to other Lebanese wars). If the statement annoys you in any way, then please delete it. I will not complain. I would just like to point out that your last reply was based on two myopic arguments: 1) being personally involved in all the wars makes a person more qualified to provide comparison than an objective observer (I'm an existentialist, so what?), though objective observation does confirm the subjective observation as in this case (see sentence 1). 2) I didn't deem the war brutal because it "could have" killed 75,000. I repeat that with the current death toll, the 2006 conflict remains the third most brutal. I suggest that we place the PM's quote as a reference to the statement; that'll make it less redundant. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I propose that the article be semi-protected (again) but this time permenantly. It has clearly become an arena for political debate and having it open to more and more people is the last thing you want. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 09:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection was declined a couple of weeks ago. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's It

I'm just so, so sick with all this debate that's going on around here. Here's what I'm going to do: I will move the "History" section to the end of the article and have all the other (neutral) sections pushed up. I think some of the most important aspects of Lebanon (such tourism and superior education) are being drowned in all the continuous obssessing over whether Christians or Muslims are the majority in Lebanon. If you're truly a patriotic Lebanese citizen maybe you should focus more on bringing positive light and publicity to your country, instead of making it look like it's a country full of politically-OCD people. We're just coming out of a war and Lebanon's tourism has been devestated (knowing that it is the most productive section of the Lebanese economy, along with commerce). Why don't you take a minute off and consider that maybe, just maybe, it'll help your country more to focus on topics like touristic attractions than to ramble politics?

Once I have a decent tourism section ready (everyone is naturally invited to participate and propose ideas here in the talk page), I am going to do the changes I just mentioned. I will also cut down on the History section as much as possible, just providing links to relevant articles. Seperate articles can be written (or already exist) about sensitive issues... maybe the debate can be taken there.

Anyways, here's my proposed new outline:

1. Introduction
2. Geography
3. Adminstrative Divisions
4. Demograhpics
5. Economy
   1. Commerce
   2. Tourism
   3. Agriculture
   4. Industry
6. Education
7. Culture
8. Histroy
9. Links, resources, etc... (these remain unchanged except perhaps for the spam links).

By section 4, the reader will have some basic information about Lebanon, like location, area, and population... no need to start right away with the civil war. By section 7, the reader has much more detailed and expansive information on Lebanon. Now, the usual symptoms of reading the History section for the first time can be avoided. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Official Langauge

Since I've noticed that there's been a large dispute over the official langauge(s) of Lebanon, I decided to include French as former official language just so nobody complains. French was indeed an official language, but a consitutional ammendment did make Arabic the only official language of Lebanon. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

French was never an official language, during the french mandate, france tried to impose it,it tried doing the same in syria, while the british tried imposing their language on their colonies, this was a procedure followed by all colonial countries to try & prolong their existence in the occupied countries. I think if you want to add french as a former official language in lebanon, you will have to do the same for all arab countries formerly occupied by france, Britain & Italy. I don't think it will be accurate to do so, however am not going to remove it since am starting to sense it is becoming rather personal, if you are convinced by what I just said, you can remove it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.28 (talk • contribs)

French is included as an official language of Lebanon in the pre-1942 consitution. Leave it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.99.60 (talk • contribs)

Was that the same constitution authored by the French while detaining the lebanese politicians in Rachia, I would like you to point out where i can find a copy, am sure there are lots of interesting stuff in it, the Libyan pre-independence constitution states that Libya is a state of Mousolini's italy, would that mean that libya was really a state belonging to italy, as i said, am not going to change it, you seem more proud to speak french than to be lebanese, but please post a website where i can find the pre-1942 constitution as i would like to see the rest of the articles in that constitution which you regard as a lebanese one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.28 (talk • contribs)

First of all guys, I need to remind you to please sign your names. No matter, I'll proceed. In response to the first paragraph, French was indeed an official language in the 1926 constitution. The amendment intoduced in 1943 made Arabic the only official language. Thanks to replier number 2 for pointing that out :)... In response to paragraph 3, I would like to tell him/her that I don't speak French and that I'm not even Lebanese. I only included French as a former official language because there was a very large dispute over the matter, and I thought it would pacify everyone to see it that way (apprently I was wrong). Unfortunately, I don't know any website where you can find the pre-1942 consitution (although it was under French rule, the constitution remains, in official terms, Lebanese). However, I can tell you that if you buy a histroy school book, you will find a consensus on what I just said (that French was an official language in the Lebanese constitution until the 1943 ammendment), which is saying something since consensus is an alien concept to Lebanese history books. I ask you to please leave it the way it is because I really think it seems fair to both parties. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem man, am sorry if I sounded harsh earlier, I just wanted to have a look on the old constitution for my personal infomation. This being the case can someone please rearrange the sentence regarding the official language, for example ( Arabic-Formerly Arabic & French), cause the way it is presented doesn't really specify whether formerly is regarding Arabic or French. As I promised earlier, I will not change or remove anything..am not lebanese either, & from my signature, you can see i don't know much in french too213.42.2.11 06:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)La vache qui ri

Hey, it's alright. God knows I've made the mistake of being harsh in replying many times. Your suggestion seems right. I must say though that I have seen this form "Arabic, French (formerly)" in a geography book, so it might be a sort of convention. In any case, I want to repeat my request for everyone to do their best to contribute to the other sections of the article (Geography, culture, etc...). Oh and by the way, I do know a little French (not enough to be fluent, but a working knowledge) so I thought I should tell you that it's "La vache qui rit" not "ri" ;). And one more thing, I saw this sort of poll on a talk page for another article, where people post their opinion for or against a suggestion, and I think we might find these very useful here. Look forward for one very soon. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I have moved a lot of the old discussion from this talk page to Archive 2. The talk page was much too large (114 KB), well above the recommended size. A lot of discussion was also old and inactive. And I really think we need more space to discuss future (non-political) changes. I hope every one is OK with this. I also think the To-Do list needs a lot of cleaning-up. Me to the rescue! LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll #1 - Talk:Lebanon/Temp: To Stay or Not to Stay

This poll is now closed. Please do not edit.

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning. Poll closed on September 30, 2006.

Delete the article, attempt to merge additional info

1. Support - I don't see the point of the article. Changes can be made to the original article, no matter how bold or extensive. There's no need to create a whole new article from scratch. I believe our efforts should be concentrated on one article instead of two. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it there... who knows?

Comment here

Dump this article

Comment here

History edit button?

I just went to correct a spelling in the History section, but clicking that section's edit button took me to an article section on sweden. Weirdest s***. I'm unable to return to this article anytime soon, so this is just an fyi. --Gbinal 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A Note on acronyms for school concentrations

Editors please note that the abbreviations of the concentrations available to 12^th graders are from the French names not the English ones. That's why Life Sciences is abbreviated to SV (Science de la Vie). This is the way the abbreviations are officialy recognized (you can see these abbreviations on www.schoolnet.edu.lb in all three versions of the website: Arabic, English, and French). LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 13:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Hezbollah?

Somebody changed 2006 Israel-Lebanon war to 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war. To whomever did this, please post here when editing the article (unless it's a minor edit). Still, it's not up to us to decide what to name wars. The events of summer 2006 involving Israel and Hezbollah are now known as the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, period. I realize you are trying to make a point about Israel targeting Hezbollah only, but Lebanon was directly and invariably involved in the war, perhaps more than any other party, and the widespread damage in Lebanon and Israel bear testimony to that fact. If you change it back, against official conventions, then you'll just be opening the door to all the US-Iran, Israel-Iran, US-Lebanon, Liverpool-Arsenal conspiracy theorists (no offence to any). Let's all just stick to conventions and have a good night's sleep for once. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag detail

To the user who reverted my edit in the Introduction, I just want to say that while I was reading the introduction it felt like too much detail. If someone is interested in finding out how the Lebanese flag is structured there is a whole article for that (plus the picture in the info box). When a reader is just starting to read an article they don't want so much detail right off from the start. Just saying that there are two horizontal red stripes is enough. It's all for the sake of clarity vs. too much information. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 11:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Victory celebration

I have removed the following statement: While his groups attack on an Israeli outpost, its killing of eight Israeli soldiers and its kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers precipitated this present "conflict" it would seem that Lebanon either does not have the ability or the will to disarm Hezbollah and fully reclaim its sovereignity over its territory.

It seems biased, or at least just a matter of opinion. The sentence starts out with a fact (a mutilated one for that matter; four of the dead Israeli died when they passed over a landmine in their tank), but then branches out into a political opinion. The fact can be stated elsewhere (just as is done in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article), but Wikipedia articles are not the place to voice out political opinions regarding whether Lebanon can or cannot disarm Hezbollah. Also, on another note, the sentence looks grammatically incorrect. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Events section summary

I have summarized the Recent Events section as much as I could, leaving only important facts (although I admit, further summarization may be needed). My reasoning is that a reader coming to this article probably wouldn't be dying to know every single detail about the recent political turnovers in Lebanon. Interested readers will find the many links to in-depth articles about the subject. Now, the Recent Events section just provides a succinct summary of... well... recent events — suitable for the slightly interested passer-by. At least we've chopped off 3 KBs of the page size, which is closer to the recommended article size. Please understand that I have done my best not to modify the intended meaning of the sentences, but I may have messed up, so if you have any objections please address them here. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I have removed the following two statements from this section:

• The conflict has divided Lebanon into two political camps: The Pro-Western March 14th Coalition of Christians, Sunnis and Druze and the Pro-Iranian, Pro-Syrian Shiites.
• The Lebanese Broadcasting Company and Future TV reported from the Lebanese-Syrian border and filmed hundreds of thousands of Syrians traveling from Damascus to Beirut to attend the rally.

The problem with the first statement is that it is redundant: this division has been established long before the 2006 conflict. If you insist on keeping it, it belongs rather to the Cedar Revolution section under the Demonstrations subheading. You may also need to modify it a little, because some Christians (those allied with the Free Patriotic Movement) have sided with the Shi'a.

The problem with the second one is a little more complicated. I can't contradict the statement itself because it is partly true (more on that later). The thing is, you're citing two biased references. LBC and Future TV are both great TV channels, but they are not impartial TV channels. It is common knowledge that each TV station in Lebanon belongs to this or that political leader or this or that political party. It is therefore impossible to extract importial, NPOV news from these sources (imagine, for example, what you would have done if I had cited al-Manar TV saying that the rally attracted 1.8 million). I am not disputing the fact. I am disputing the source. If you can find better sources (like CNN or AP) then by all means leave it there. Still, this brings to an even more complicated problem. You see, other TV channels reported that Syrian convoys (certianly not the hundreds of thousands you speak of, and, btw, I was watching LBC and it certainly didn't speak of such high numbers) mainly carried Lebanese people who lived in Syria, just as Lebanese people came from Kuwait and Bahrain to participate in the celebration. If you want to achieve total NPOV in this article, you're going to have to provide all sorts of point of views on the subjects, so you don't upset anybody. This is the main reason why I think we shouldn't talk about these things, because they are just too contrversial to have a place in an encyclopedia (a place for facts not theories). This is only a small section of an article. We can't enter into an endless exhange of theories in it. You might find that the article devoted to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is better suited for these needs.

Remember, I'm criticizing the statements, not you. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 08:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this statement should also be modified:

• Three days later, on August 14, 2006, the partial cease-fire came into effect, and both sides heaved a sigh of relief as Israel put an end to its bombing campaign and Hezbollah stopped launching rockets into Northern Israel.

Rocket attacks by Hezbollah and bombings by Israel actually intensified during the period between the cease-fire agreement and it officially coming into effect. That doesn't seem like both sides 'heaved a sigh of relief', practically just the opposite. - BTerran

Demographics

I deleted this sentence: "as well as Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Chaldean, Latin Rite Roman Catholics, Assyrians, Copts and Protestants". I did this because I think it's just way too much to enumerate every single sect there is in Lebanon. A reader who wants so much detail can go to the main article. These sects don't present a majority in Lebanon (with all due respect). I also think only Shia' and Sunni Muslims should be mentioned. By the way, Druze are Muslims, why aren't they mentioned with them? LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 10:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image POV

Hey there Mr. IP 69.172.115.230. I hope you're OK because it sounded like you were having a heart attack when you deleted that image. My advice to you: don't use "extreme" words when editing.

What I what know is what's so "extremely biased" about the image. I don't remember reading DIE ISRAEL DIE anywhere in there. You should be more specific. However, because you seem to be very offeneded that someone might actually know that there was a war in Lebanon, I am not gonna revert your edit. But I am going to upload another image with the fact box blacked out (which I believe was your complaint). Take a valium and have another look. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 11:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

HaLevanon Etymology

I'm no linguistics expert, but i don't recall ever hearing Lebanon referred to as HaLebanon in the Hebrew language.. all i remember is a biblical refrence to the high quality trees in Lebanon which were on trade with the hebrew kingdoms of judea and israel, those were referred to as "Arazei HaLevanon" i.e. the Erez trees [don't know the english name] from Lebanon. Jaakobou 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert in linguistics either, so I can't definitively say what you should do. I think a general piece of advice is that you shouldn't remove it unless you're absolutely sure it's wrong. I think whoever put there must have know this kind of information and didn't just come up with it on the fly. The name of the tree, by the way, is "cedar". LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, i did not intend to remove it myself - only to present the case for examination on the talk page. Jaakobou 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lestat, I think that's a weak argument for leaving it there. There's no justification for identifying a Hebrew link to the name of Lebanon unless there is proof that that is the source of the word. Otherwise it's just giving credit where credit is not due. Even if in Hebrew there's a word for Lebanon, doesn't mean the 'the' originated from the Hebrew word. You're making a generalization. Bloggingbeirut 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC+3)

You could very well be right. As I said I'm no lingusitics expert, but I don't believe in deleting material. I prefer adding and modifiying so everything fits together, unless of course something is obviously wrong. I consider all this etymology discussion (in the article itself) pure speculation — and meaningless at that. Believe me I have no opinion in the matter. Please, do as you see fit. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Curriculum in Lebanese high schools

The text in this section was drawing parallels with the French system, which, although initially adopted by Lebanon, is no longer used exactly as it was implemented. English readers are probably not familiar with the terminology of the French education system anyway (the backward progression for example). I have changed it to the layout adopted officialy by the Lebanese Ministry of Education. You can refer to the ninth grade civics book issued by the government. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 10:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Links Discussion

Lots of Hasbara going on in Wikipedia Lebanon. Multiple links to "the Jews of Lebanon" and YNET news (an Israeli Propaganda news service). The links section needs modification. Who do I need to talk to to get it modified without being overridden?

--finkployd--

Links need to be verified before being accepted. YNET links have been removed as YNET is in no way affiliated to Lebanon or for the welfare of Lebanon. YNET is well known to be a right-wing Israeli mouthpiece. Also, 'the Jews of Lebanon' links are misplaced. One link is necessary, and can be placed in an Ethnic Division section of the links, not as general information or web portal.

--Bloggingbeirut 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC+3)

Politics section POV

In the politics section, Hizballa is considered "A Shia Islamist group led by Shiekh Alsayyed Hassan Nasrallah", while The Lebanese Phalanges are "A radical Maronite group"? Sorry guys, but this is extremely POV. If the phalanges are "radical", then Hizballa is a terrorist organization. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.199.124 (talk • contribs)

Bachir who orchestrated the Sabra and Shatila massacres?

Who said so? Your parents? Where are your references that state that Bachir himself is responsible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.199.124 (talk • contribs)

Quick commenting request

• You need more inline citations and more references to support some claims present in the text. For example, take the Etymology section that has no references but needs to be supported with inline citations.
• Examples of loose writing :

  the country enjoyed remarkable regional prosperity.

  Lebanon is one of the smallest countries in the world

  Lebanon has a moderate four-season Mediterranean climate.

  • This article thus needs to tighten up its prose.

• The history section isn't well-balanced ... it goes from the Phoenicians, to the Greeks, to the Ottoman Empire and straight into the WWI events in a little more than a paragraph which is not enough and then the rest of the section is the coverage of the 20th century Lebanon in details. This sections should be subsectioned. Lincher 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the scarcity of inline citations makes GA passage unlikely. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 16:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your commenting. Here are my replies:

1. You're right about citations. I am currently working on this issue. The problem is that we have a lot of people who keep adding and adding material but don't bother to verfiy their contributions with referencing. Still, I'm quite sure I will be able to introduce sufficient citations into the article very soon.

2. I don't really get your point... "tighten up" the prose? Can you please be a little more specific with the term?

3. The unbalance you speak of has been noted before. The fact is that the vast majority of contributers to the article have been focusing on the Recent History section and ignoring other parts, including the History section. Both sections were much longer before, and I was forced to summarize both sections to maintain a reasonable page size. However, because the events detailed in Recent History are very sensitive and complicated issues, I could make little cuts to the content. I will, nonetheless, do my best to re-expand the History section a little to make up for the imbalance. Though I must say, I feel that the objection you raise is a little unrelated to GA criteria. The criteria don't state that an article must have full and comprehensive coverage of all the topic's aspects (in fact, the criteria state the opposite). I think it would be unfair to deny GA status just because a section isn't covered as comprehensively as it should be.

4. My final point is just a suggestion that you put the article nomination on hold while I address the above issues. I believe the article satisfies many of the GA criteria and should be at least given a fair chance. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

National Pact codified in Constitution?

This is still not that case, AFAICT. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)