Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LimerickLimerickson (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 12 February 2007 (→Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lebanon has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Lebanon GA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6: POV issues

Religion in Lebanon

This article fails to address the religious demographics of--and state of inter-religious relations in--Lebanon. My own great-grandmother and great-grandfather were Lebanese Protestant Christians. Most people simply assume that, because Lebanon is an Arab nation, its population is vastly Muslim. If anyone out there has the time and the knowledge of specifics to add a section on the religious beliefs of the Lebanese people, please do so. Such an addition would boost the informative potential of the article greatly. --The Berzerk Dragon 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article already details the sectarian distribution of the Lebanese population in the Demographics section. The text clearly indicates that population is not "vastly Muslim". However, the reported numbers should be taken with several pinches of salt, as no official census has been conducted for over 70 years. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is more to it than a simple numerical breakdown. The religious dynamics of the nation come with sociological and cultural implications that extend beyond simple percentages. --The Berzerk Dragon 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As well as beyond the scope of this article. Your objection was "Most people simply assume that, because Lebanon is an Arab nation, its population is vastly Muslim." Anyone reading the article will certainly be able to tell that's not true. We have many articles concerning the complexities of Lebanese culture. A simple wikisearch should suffice. —LestatdeLioncourt 10:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That was more of an example of why some more info might be good than anything else. It was by no means the only shortcoming I perceived. I just thought the article might benefit if someone wanted to address the matter in some greater detail within the article. Whether the matter is addressed in other articles is beyond the scope of my interest. It seemed sensible that Lebanese religion should be addressed in some good detail in the "Lebanon" article. You seem hell-bent on being right here, though, so we'll say you win. Bravo. Now you can sleep at night, right? --The Berzerk Dragon 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You kidding??? I won!!!! Yay!!! —LestatdeLioncourt 14:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi BD. I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting, but you sound upset about something at any rate. Can you offer an example of a piece of text you would like to see added, so that we can evaluate, critique, and discuss what exactly you're suggesting? After reading through this discussion, I hoenstly have no idea what you're looking to have added to the article, beyond the religious demographics figures already there. — George Saliba 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Population Estimate

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50261.pdf
Table 1: Political Dynamics
Lebanon’s Population. The following estimates of Lebanon’s population were taken from Lebanon’s Political Mosaic, published by the Directorate of Intelligence of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, NESA 92-10020, LDA 92-13537, August 1992. There has been no census in Lebanon since 1932. Not all Lebanese agree with the CIA figures cited, and some maintain that the Christian communities are understated.
Table 1. Population Estimates, 1991
Number Percent
Shia Muslim 1,140,000 38%
Sunni Muslim 690,000 23%
Maronite Christian 600,000 20%
Other Christian 360,000 12%
Druze 210,000 7%
Total 3,000,000 100%

I'd format and add to the article later. TopRank 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your source quotes 1991 statistics. The source cited in the article is much more recent (2006). LestatdeLioncourt 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re recent edits in Demographics. A breakdown between Shia, Sunni and Druze cites the CIA Factbook as a source but, as far as I can see, there is no such breakdown in the Factbook. This is the entry as of today, 1 February 1007:

" Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant), other 1.3%

note: 17 religious sects recognized " Kahuzi 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep this article NPOV

As I've noticed there is somebody who would like to push POV . Please use pro and anti government attributes instead of pro and anti Israel, US, Syria and other countries.--Sa.vakilian 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian, I assume the "pushing POV" comment was aimed at me, which is disappointing as I try to maintain as much NPOV as possible. I believe the pro-/anti- Western, Syrian, Iranian, US are all extremely important, as this is viewed by many as the crux of the situation. Many references paint the protests as a conflict of ideologies, and I believe for us to not mention this would do the article a disservice. — George Saliba 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is written "the anti-government rally and sit-in showed no signs of waning, as the Western-backed government vowed to hold out against the siege led by pro-Syrian, Iranian-backed Hezbollah" .

But according to your reference " As if domestic tensions aren't enough, international rivalries are pushing the quarrel beyond Lebanon's borders. The U.S., which considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization, is supporting Siniora and accuses Syria and Iran of fomenting instability. On Dec. 2, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, called the Hezbollah demonstrations part of an ``Iran-Syria-inspired coup effort.Hezbollah, which last summer sparked a 33-day war with Israel when it abducted a pair of Israeli soldiers, opposes Siniora's friendship with the U.S. and wants new elections. "

I think this sentences are more NPOV than what is written in the article. Of course I prefer this article as a more NPOV one:Hezbollah and the Political Ecology of Postwar Lebanon--Sa.vakilian 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree. I believe we should point out both sides, with appropriate references. Give the reader all the information available, and let them make the decision. Removing factually accurate information, however, is tantamount to censorship, which I don't view as NPOV. — George Saliba 07:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Using adjectives like pro-Syrian for one group is a form of POV pushing unless we add pro-US for other group. Thus I prefer to add detailed information instead of labeling any group.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Western-backed was intended to be short for US-backed, France-backed, German-backed, British-backed. If you prefer, by all means change this to pro-Western, Wester-supported, pro-US, etc. As long as factually accurate, I have no qualms with this. It is not meant as a positive or negative label, only as a fact about a group to help the reader better understand the situation described. — George Saliba 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added anti-Syrian, as this seems the most accurate. On one side is a group who opposes Syria and is backed by the West, and on the other is a group who supports Syria and is backed by Iran. How do you feel about this change? — George Saliba 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me throw my two cents in this dispute. I believe vakilian has misunderstood George's efforts to maintain NPOV yet show a balanced POV of both camps. Unless you are a "politically not involved" Lebanese or a person of lebanese descent with no political invovement yet very well infomed about that little country, you will not understand the importance of showing both sides of the equation. Hope this helps... Lcnj 08:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with a "balance of POV's" as long as I see a "balance"... but I am seeing that George is doing all he can to bring a "balance of conflicting POV's" while vakilian is pushing ONE POV. vakilian, can you give me a civil response to my question re: NPOV ? Thanks. Lcnj 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "He urged supporters not to give up their demand for a unity government, and he demanded that the death of Ahmad Mahmoud should not be served as an excuse for any violent clashes. He emphasized that the protest was "peaceful, civil and civilised," and pledged that the death of a Shia opposition supporter after violence on Sunday would not lead the protesters to violence. "Hezbollah calls for more protests", AlJazeera International"? Is this POV? If so, we can quote from both sides ,Nasrallah and siniora.--Sa.vakilian 10:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure who you're talking to, or what you're talking about, but this doesn't seem very POV to me. It should be cleaned up grammatically, and summarized (as it's very repetetive, basically saying the same thing twice), but other than that seems fine. — George Saliba 10:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure either. I am sure George and Lestat are keeping a close eye, just like I am. All I ask of vakilian and any other Editor to make sure that he adds BOTH POV's not just his own side. This makes it easier on all of us to maintain NPOV. Thanks Lcnj 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Lebanese Anti-Government Protest

There is another article for 2006 Lebanese Anti-Government Protest. I propose leaving an abstract and merging details to that article.--Sa.vakilian 07:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. We have to be careful though, as not everything in the Current Situation section is related to the protests, but in general it should be moved to the main article. — George Saliba 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you since the protest will be having a major impact on "current" events. The day to day details should be in the main article 2006 Lebanese Anti-Government Protest with critical abstracts under Current Situation. All this is is surreal, to say the least!... Lcnj 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did it.--Sa.vakilian 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merci, agha... but, I think you removed more than the protest. Unless you or George object, I will bring back the progression of daily events with minimal info on protest. Lcnj 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think super fast George is already organizing and bringing back some current info to the main article. I will let him do his magic and check on it afterwards. Lcnj 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of schools

I have looked far and wide and I still can't find any source for the number of high schools in Lebanon. Can anyone help? LestatdeLioncourt 10:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This site quotes a subscriber-only article on the Daily Star site: "UNICEF's back-to-school program helps Lebanon's 1,153 primary and elementary schools, 270 public high schools and 375 private schools that receive government subsidies. The majority of Lebanon's approximately 1,400 private schools, according to data from the Ministry of Education, have already started their semesters." I'm not sure if that covers all of them, or just the ones that received aid from UNICEF, though it sounds like the former. — George Saliba 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it does sound like the source is talking about schools in general, not just ones helped by UNICEF. In either case, thanks. LestatdeLioncourt 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.18.76 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Copyviolation in Culture

The original text for this paragraph seems to have been copied from this page. I'm moving the text here so we can decide what to do with it. I have already changed some of the phrasing, but some of it is still copied word by word.

The text was added by IP 82.110.178.63. I have posted the appropriate warning template on the IP's talk page, though I'm afraid we might be a little too late :). LestatdeLioncourt 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the text and reworked it into my own words adding content that I felt would fit well. I tried to be as unbiased as possible and think what I came out with fits pretty well what Lebanese culture is.

David Jacques 3:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm blown away. Bravo! —LestatdeLioncourt 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hello again,

The article is looking really topnotch! I have a few thoughts:

• Lebanon's confessional system of government is notable enough to warrant a sentence in the lead section.
• In the lead, this phrase:"...there were widespread efforts to revive the economy..." is vague & unclear. You don't want to go into great detail in the lead, but "widespread efforts" could mean "widespread help from the international community" or "efforts by Lebanon's government to revive key sectors of the economy" or.... I dunno what it means.
• I really hate to tell you this, after all the hard work you've put in, but unfortunately (and in my opinion) you're still gonna need many more citations. That is especially true in the "politics" and "recent events" (including "assassinations") sections. It is unfortunate that the situation in Lebanon is so controversial, but controversial situations are probably going to be held to a higher standard of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

But I do want to say that the work done here has been outstanding. The editors involved here are, in my opinion, a credit to Misplaced Pages.

Good work! --Ling.Nut 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict between Syria article and Lebanon article

The Syria article says:

The Lebanon article says: Lebanon and Syria both gained independence in 1943

There is a direct contradiction between independence in 1936 and 1943. Could it be that Lebanonand Syria gained independenc from each other, not from the French mandate, in 1943?

Please fix. 76.168.48.249 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the CIA World Factbook, Lebanon gained independence from France in 1943 however Syaria continued to be administered from France until 1946, 3 years later.

So both articles are incorrect. I am going to fix this now.

David Jacques 5:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon and Syria both gained independence in 1943, while France was occupied by Germany. General Henri Dentz, the Vichy High Commissioner for Syria and Lebanon, played a major role in the independence of both nations. The Vichy authorities in 1941 allowed Germany to move aircraft and supplies through Syria to Iraq where they were used against British forces. The United Kingdom, fearing that Nazi Germany would gain full control of Lebanon and Syria by pressure on the weak Vichy government, sent its army into Syria and Lebanon.

The above text contradicts both the Syria article which states that Syria gained independence in 1936, and the CIA World Fact Book which states that Syria gained Independence 3 years after Lebanon in 1946.

I am changing it to the following until someone better decides how to more accurately include the parts on Syria:

Lebanon gained independence in 1943, while France was occupied by Germany. General Henri Dentz, the Vichy High Commissioner for Syria and Lebanon, played a major role in the independence of the nation. The Vichy authorities in 1941 allowed Germany to move aircraft and supplies through Syria to Iraq where they were used against British forces. The United Kingdom, fearing that Nazi Germany would gain full control of Lebanon and Syria by pressure on the weak Vichy government, sent its army into Syria and Lebanon.

David Jacques 5:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to correct myself above, they Syira article is actually correct. It does not say Syria gained independence in 1936 but says they began negotiations for independence in 1936. The article correctly states that they won their independence in '46.

David Jacques 5:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello people!

Wow...this article is simply amazing! I am surprised at how much is now know about my country! Anyways, since this would be the first time I post anything - and I am not even sure if this is where this post should go - I would like to know if it would be interesting to add something about the different Lebanese Presidents since the day the Ottomans and the French left the country... I could write that out, I would only like to know if it's feasible... thx!

==Absolut Life 09:08, 03 January 2006 (GMT +3:00)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! This is indeed the place you're supposed to post in to discuss the article. Anything you can contribute will be very helpful; this is what Misplaced Pages thrives on. You can make your edits directly to the article or jot down a draft right here, improve it, and then post it in the main article. I would adivse you to get a good idea of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR before making any major edits, because they are very important policies. Believe me, they will make life a lot easier for you. —LestatdeLioncourt 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the encouragement! But before I actually discuss about the Presidents, I feel there is more that we can do to describe the Lebanese history, especially when it comes to Ancient Egyptians, Napoleon and the Ottoman Turks having been in Lebanon. Below is a short article about the Ottoman Turks. It would be a good idea to (obviously expand on it first!) put it in "9.1 Ancient History". The reason for the article is that leaders (including Presidents) in Lebanon, mostly got their powers when the occupational forces in Lebanon granted them the power (i.e. it was the French who put the 1st President in office after their independence). Anyways, this is (part of) the article:

"In 1861, Turkish Ottomans took control of Lebanon after the 5 surperpowers of the time (France, Great Britain, Russia, Austria and the Ottoman Empire) decided on a solution for the conflict in the Lebanese mountains. Mount Lebanon became a Mutasarifiya (an autonomous Ottoman province) administered by a Mutasarif, a non-Lebanese Catholic selected by the Empire and approved by the other European powers. By 1914, eight Mutasarifs had succeeded each other,and the Mutasarifiya was thriving. When World War I began, the Ottoman Empire joined the Axis (Germany, Austria and Hungary) against the Allies (France, Great Britain and Russia) and subsequently abolished the Mutasarifiya and delegated a Muslim Ottoman governor instead. In 1915, the situtation in Lebanon deteriorated calamatically as the Allies imposed a maritime embargo and crickets ravaged cultivated lands, leaving the Lebanese to die of hunger, while typhus and cholera epidemics spread among the region's populace. Lebanese Christians and Muslims, secretly aided by the Allies, tried to get rid of the Ottomans, who had been imposing unpaid labor and conscription. In May 1916, the Sykes-Picot agreement was reached..." (to be discussed first then expanded) Absolut Life 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We certainly need to expand the history section some more. But please be aware that sections within this article are meant to provide an overview only; detail goes into the article concerning the the specific topic. So, as you develop your ideas, consider adding them to the proper articles while adding summaries (highlighting major points) to this article. I've made some edits to your paragraph (hopefully, improvements). Here are some comments:

• In transliterating Mutssarrifiya (Arabic: متصرفية), I don't believe you need to have so many double letters. The concept of stressing a letter by writing it down twice isn't applicable to English. So I suggest using the simpler Mutasarifya transliteration (there's an a vowel after the t, if you follow the standard Arabic pronunciation, which you seem to do because you're spelling the terminal vowel as a).
• You say that the region was thriving. I changed that to the Mutasarifiya was thriving, for clarity. But either way, the statement is incorrect. The Mutasarifiya seriously lacked agricultural land and trading ports and wasn't at all well-off economically. I suggest removing the underlined sentence. —LestatdeLioncourt 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Confessionalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/Confessionalism is a disambiguation page -- I believe the correct link ought to be to http://en.wikipedia.org/Confessionalism_(politics). HasanDiwan 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. — George Saliba 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

etymology

i just want to add the fact that the name Lebanon is recorded in Ancient Egyptian as "RMNN", where the letters "r" and "l" were interchangeable in Egyptian.

won't somebody unlock this page at least for that?

Flibjib8 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article won't be protected for long, so you might want to wait a little and make the edit yourself. Please make sure you can provide references for the information you add. —LestatdeLioncourt 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested edits

The last three items on the to-do list. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Robdurbar 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Robdurbar. A few comments:

• The farms should be spelled Shebaa Farms, and should wikilink to the main article.
• The "occupied Palestine" lacks a close quote, and should use double quotes instead of single quotes.
• I believe we should get rid of the quotation marks around "act of war", as we're now stating it as a government policy rather than a quotation by the Prime Minister of that government.

Cheers. — George Saliba 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll deal with these minor issues once the article is unprotected. The important thing right now is modifying the content per Jaakobou's request, to get the discussion moving. You can still request the changes if you want to. And of course thanks Robdurbar for making the edits. —LestatdeLioncourt 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Motto

A very small nit to pick indeed, but I believe the motto "Kūllūnā li-l-waṭan, li-l-'ula wa-l-'alam" should more acurately be translated as "We are all for the nation, the glory and the flag" rather than "We are all for our Nation, for our Glory and Flag!". 88.113.179.51 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone I have been very busy. Thank God for George and Lestat. My 2 cents on this issue here. You are right on one point. There is no "our". Watan وَطَن is translated country. Ummah أُمَّة is nation. عُلى is not glory but glory is good enough until someone comes up with the EXACT translation. Lcnj 07:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lcnj! Would "heights" be a better translation? —LestatdeLioncourt 12:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Original poster here. Right, "watan" is more accurately translated as country. "'ula" does indeed have connotations pertaining to height, but I believe just translating it as such loses some of its meaning. 88.113.179.51 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about "grandeur", or "greatness", or "magnificence"? I don't speak Arabic, but these all have some underlying size meaning. — George Saliba 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lestat... We're getting there, folks... but no cigars!.... loftiness comes to mind... also highness (yes, it is an English word)... greatness has the exact spirit but not the correct translation. Heights seem to be a good translation but does not reflect the exact spirit. Lcnj 10:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd warn against using the term "highness", as it is far more often used to refer to kings and queens than height, and would almost definately make the motto sound like a reference to a monarch that Lebanon does not have. :) — George Saliba 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I like "grandeur" and "greatness" (although the word is plural).
• I realize "heights" is just a literal translation. It doesn't have the required connotation.
• I agree with George that "highness" is too royal. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• ditto, Lestat. We should be able to get it right soon. Lcnj 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the collection of words I got from a Thesaurus. It's a bit lengthy and drifts away from the meaning we need, but it'll provide us with many choices.

Distinction, note, notability, name, mark, reputation, figure, réclame, éclat, celebrity, vogue, fame, famousness, popularity, renown, memory, immortality, glory, honour, credit, prestige, kudos, account, regard, respect, reputableness, respectability, repectableness, good name, illustriousness, goloriousnoess, dignity, stateliness, solemnity, grandeur, splendour, nobility, nobleness, lordliness, majesty, sublimity, greatness, highness, eminence, supereminence, pre-eminence, primacy, importance, elevation, ascent, exaltation, superexaltation, aggrandisement. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is really a tough one to get right Lestat... Thank you for this word collection. Sublime seems to be near perfect but it also has a Divine connotation which may be very accurate... Let me sleep on it. Lcnj

Sublime is perfect but it is just an adjective. We need a noun. Lcnj 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

When there is a will, there is a way... My initial instinct was correct. "Al 3ula" العُلى is correctlly translated as "the sublime". It appears that "the sublime" is an accepted noun... . I will move to change the translation and close this debate unless someone else disputes my conclusion. Lcnj 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good! "The sublime" it is. —LestatdeLioncourt 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I've never heard the word "sublime" used as a noun. Nonetheless, I think it can be used as a noun. One thing to note is that the way it is now doesn't make "the sublime" sound like it has any relation to Lebanon. For instance, if I say "For Lebanon, the people and the flag!" the term "the people" tends to be associated with the term "Lebanon". However, to my ear at least, using the word sublime as a noun sounds more like if I were to say "For Lebanon, the humor and the flag!". That is, again, to my ear at least, the noun "the sublime" sounds like something not necessarily related, if that makes any sense. I don't think it's necessarily grammatically wrong however, and the meaning of the word seems to fit, so I'm leaving it for now. — George Saliba 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"al-'ula" here does refer to an abstract idea, not something related to Lebanon, so the translation "the sublime" is correct. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lestat often amazes me with his brilliance and concise pinpointing of the exact issue at hand!... As for George... well... whattadmatta you?... see Sublime... read and learn!... As Lebanese, we are heavily influenced by the work of world philosophers including, but not limited to, Victor Hugo, Kant, etc... Lcnj 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you :). —LestatdeLioncourt 13:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah and "occupied Palestine"

I've commented out the references regarding Hezbollah and "occupied Palestine": Hezbollah declared that it would not stop its operations against Israel until this area and what they proclaim to be "occupied Palestine" were liberated. Neither reference mentions either the Shebaa farms or "occupied Palestine" as a reason for continued operations against Israel by Hezbollah. Please look for such references for citation after this statement. — George Saliba 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hezbollah-led"?

I'm just wondering why "Hezbollah-led" is more NPOV that "Opposition". The FPM is also a major party of the opposition, and played a significant role in the Tuesday strike. I feel it's POV to suggest that Hezbollah called for and led the protest, when in fact the opposition as a whole coordinated the strike. —LestatdeLioncourt 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lestat... Here, I must respectfully disagree. It is less a POV and more a fact. Relative to Hezbollah, the FPM does not have the say in mobilizing massive demonstrations, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah does and it should be stated as such. Lcnj 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is biased about using the term "opposition"? —LestatdeLioncourt 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lestat here. To state that Nasrallah called for a strike is not POV (and factually accurate to the best of my knowledge), but the term "Hezbollah-led" can be considered POV, even if true. To say it was "Hezbollah-led" can be interpretted as meaning "called for by Hezbollah's leadership" (which it was), but it can also be interpretted to mean "Hezbollah members led the rioters and caused the ensuing violence", which wouldn't be neutral. I don't believe this was the original intention, but the meaning is vague. I don't see anything particularly POV about using the term "Opposition". Just my thoughts. — George Saliba 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then this friendly dispute is settled... I was out numbered by 2 people I respect. Opposition it is. Lcnj

I'd suggest considering adding a note about Nasrallah's speech calling for the strike in also, as it is factually accurate and makes the point that I think you intended – namely that Nasrallah called for the strike to occur. — George Saliba 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a good wording would be "the Hezbollah-led opposition" which I came across in several news reports and is a correct, neutral portrayal of the situation. I'll be making the change now. Feel free to revert if you disagree :). —LestatdeLioncourt 09:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds accurate enough to me. — George Saliba 09:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Thank you Lestat and George for your help. God save Lebanon!... What is about to happen is unconscionable!... Lcnj 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. —LestatdeLioncourt 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FA status

Great work from George.Saliba and LestatdeLioncourt Lcnj ;) on the Lebanon article and other Lebanon-related articles. Would you think about working to get this page to the Featured article status? I was going to start this project, but due to the lack of editors, I quickly quit it, plus I've been (and still) busy. CG 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CG. I'm still a bit busy myself currently, but I'll try to check in when I can. Have you thought about bringing the issue to WikiProject Lebanon? If we got a subpage there with links to the FA article requirements, as well as a list of peoples key concerns with the current state of the article (gap analysis), I think that would go a long way. Cheers. — George Saliba 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A peer review is what you're looking for George :). Do you think it's time we had one? —LestatdeLioncourt 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Soon perhaps. I think we really need to clean up the current events section first. The whole thing can probably be reduced down to two paragraphs – one regarding the background of the protests and sit-in started December 1, and one talking about the violent events that have occurred (especially the recent strike), as well as efforts by the Arab League and Turkey (and possibly others?) to broker a compromise, thus far unsuccessfully. — George Saliba 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey CG... I know George and Lestat should be credited for their good work... but it is really not nice at all to ignore the work of Lcnj!.... Just kidding of course. :) Lcnj 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

January 26, 2007

No violence took place on January 26. The clashes reported happened on Thursday January 25th. I'm also going to delete the "snipers were captured" bit, as an official statement clearly said that the snipers have not been arrested yet.

CodeName_88 10:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

green Lebanon cedar, or Lebanon cedar in green?

This is a pretty minor issue, but I'm going through the article and trying to make it the best that I can, bit by bit. The original sentence regarding the flag stated:

The flag of Lebanon features the Lebanon Cedar in green against a white backdrop, with two horizontal red stripes on the top and bottom.

I've changed this to:

The flag of Lebanon features a Lebanon Cedar in green, set against a white backdrop, and bounded by two horizontal red stripes along the top and bottom.

I think this reads and sounds better, but it's all stylistic, so feel free to disagree. My question is if people think that "green Lebanon Cedar" denotes a different meaning to people than "Lebanon Cedar in green" – i.e., that there are different colors of Lebanon Cedars and this one is green, versus a normal Lebanon Cedar colored green. I think the "green Lebanon Cedar" sounds better in the sentence (since we could then remove the first comma – "...features a green Lebanon Cedar set against a white backdrop..."), but I don't want to change the meaning. The variation I'm considering would look like:

The flag of Lebanon features a green Lebanon Cedar set against a white backdrop, bounded by two horizontal red stripes along the top and bottom.

Any thoughts? — George Saliba 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've actually changed the sentence back similar to how it was originally:

The flag of Lebanon features a Lebanon Cedar in green against a white backdrop, bounded by two horizontal red stripes along the top and bottom.

Pretty minor changes, but basically I changed "the" to "a, "with" to "bounded", and "on" to "along". — George Saliba 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi George... I would propose a little simplification "The flag of Lebanon features a Cedar tree in green against a white backdrop, bounded by two horizontal red stripes along the top and bottom." - I am not sure I like the word "bounded" however. Any thoughts from you? Lcnj 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was initially thinking of the word "flanked", as I'd like to express that the tree is effectively touching the red stripes (by definition it goes right up to the red), without directly saying so or adding any additional words, but "flanked" generally has a horizontal connotation. Another option was "bordered", but that has a connotation of four sides usually. I'm open if people have other suggestions. Also, changing it to just Cedar is probably a good idea (less repetetive), as long as the cedar links to the Lebanon Cedar article. — George Saliba 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just Cedar is far better... You can link it to the Lebanon Cedar article if you want, but I don't find it necessary or even aesthetically appealing... I still don't like "bounded"... but definitely not "flanked".... I would have proposed "The flag of Lebanon features a Cedar tree in green against a white backdrop, with two horizontal red stripes along (or at) the top and bottom." but I do not want to hinder your effort to "express that the tree is effectively touching the red stripes" even though I don't find it that necessary. So, I will borrow from Lestat's techniques and introduce random Synonyms:

belted, bordered, boundaried, circumscribed, compassed, confined, contiguous, defined, definite, delimited, determinate, edged, encircled, enclosed, encompassed, enveloped, fenced, finite, flanked, fringed, girdled, hedged, hog-tied*, limitary, restricted, rimmed, ringed, surrounded, walled Lcnj 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"edged" might not be bad. The main flag article uses "enveloped", though that sounds kind of funny to me. I may just go back to "with". P.S. "hog-tied"? lol — George Saliba 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"hog-tied" is sure funny as hell... lol... I briefly noticed it but was too lazy to take it out. Anyway, Geprge... Good News!... EUREKA!... "The flag of Lebanon features a Cedar tree in green against a white backdrop, contiguous to two horizontal red stripes along the top and bottom". I think this will work!... Lcnj 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent events section

The "Recent events" section is overwhelming. It takes slightly less than half of the article. As all its contents are found in the Cedar Revolution, 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and 2006 Lebanese Anti-Government Protest, It should be shrinked to just one or two paragraphs that covers the after-Taef period (maybe one about the internal situation and one about the conflicts with isreal). It propose this draft (my English is not very good):

• After the end of the civil war, Lebanon saw a period of relative calm...with the Syrian military presence.
• former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated...demonstrations...more assassinations and bombs...withdrawl of Syrian forces...new government...Anti-government protests.
• A mention about the withdrawal of Israel from the south, the Operation Grapes of Wrath, the fightings with Hezbollah, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

I just realised that this is a lot of materials to be fit in 2 paragraphs. What do you suggets? CG 08:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know that we need to limit it to exactly 2 paragraphs, but in general it needs to be cleaned up and summarized. It would also be great to get more information on the other several thousand years of history. I'm not sure one short paragraph does the ancient history section justice. Do you think it better to create a subpage to start trying to collapse all this data at once, or is it better to incrementally change the existing article? — George Saliba 09:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The two-paragraphs is just a suggestion but their should be a balance between the different periods. You can't shrink the civil war, which is historically much more significant, to one paragraph and write two pages about the last few months. The same concept applies to the 4000 years of Lebanese history. And in the same time the History section should not be very detailed and should not take a lot from the article. Check some country FA's for examples. And modifying the article or rewriting in a subpage both work for me. CG 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Here's my initial suggestion for shrinking the Assassinations section, though I think that these sections should all be merged. I haven't put this into the article yet, it's just a first, rough draft.

On February 14 2005, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in a car bomb explosion. Millions of Lebanese blamed Syria for the attack, but Syria denied any involvement. In the following weeks and months, many other prominent Lebanese politicians and journalists were injured or killed in a series of assassination attempts, including May Chidiac, Samir Kassir, George Hawi, Gebran Tueni, and Pierre Amine Gemayel.

Again, just a rought start. — George Saliba 09:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice start :) Some comments:

• I'm against mentioning the names of May Chidiac, Samir...Pierre Gemayel. Comparing to other assassinations, Bachir Gemayel and Kamal Jumblatt are much more notable. Therefore I suggest we keep the name of Rafic Hariri. In addition, some assassinations (especially that of Pierre Gemayel) and their relation with Syria are controversial, and since this article is not the place to discuss it, they should be removed for NPOV.
• Millions of Lebanese blamed Syria for the attack. It has also a little bit of POV (Lebanon is only 4 million people).

Here's my suggestion:

On February 14 2005, the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri triggered large demonstrations and led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The following months saw a series of bombings and assassinations of politicians and journalists.

Much more compact. So we have the place to discuss the new gov and the anti-gov protests. CG 09:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. I'm not really that familiar with all the various politicians and journalists who were assassinated. Also, the "millions" was just from the source that the article currently cites. I think the "and led to" should be changed to "that led to" – that way it sounds like the demonstrations led to the withdrawal, rather than the assassination (which may have, but only indirectly by way of the demonstrations). Also, maybe add "prominent Lebanese" before the "politicians and journalists" at the end, just to make it clear that they were in Lebanon, and that they weren't like local mayors and such, if that makes sense. — George Saliba 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds also good to me. So here's the result:

On February 14 2005, the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri triggered large demonstrations. That led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The following months saw a series of bombings and assassinations of prominent Lebanese politicians and journalists.

CG 10:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New gov and anti-gov protests

Here's a first draft of the second part:

New legislative elections took place and a new government was formed with Fouad Siniora as Prime minister. However, disagrements and ____ triggered a series of Anti-Government protests led by the opposition.

CG 10:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While I salute your efforts to summarize the Recent Events section, I can't help but feel that two paragraphs wouldn't be enough. I think two paragraphs for the Cedar revolution and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and perhaps one for the Current Events section is a fair distribution, considering the importance of these events. What do you think? —LestatdeLioncourt 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lestat here. Also, with all due respect, while I salute CG's and George Saliba's efforts, I feel that George is obviuosly unfamilar with much of Lebanon's political history and people (a critical part of it is not even found on the net), let alone the delicate details and nuances. I just know that he keeps Lestat in check!... :) Also, I don't know for sure yet how knowledgeable is CG with all the intricate details of Lebanese history and political mess... So, on this issue, I am siding with Lestat... Lcnj 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments but I disagree. This article aims at giving a general view of the country, and in particular the history section should be an overview of the events that marked Lebanese history. There also should be a balance between different events. In its current state, the article describes 4000 years of history in one small paragraph, 70 years (mandate to civil war) in 3-5 paragraphs and one year of history in over 6 pages. I didn't say these should be proportional but somewhat balanced. While the last events are notable on historical timeline, there are also more important events that shaped the country.

As I said to Saliba, taking the examples of the people who were assassinated (from Hariri to Gemayel). They are notable, but there were more important assassinations that shaped the country (Bachir Gemayel, Kamal Jumblatt which triggered massive massacres). In the same way, the last claches that led to the death of 5-10 people doesn't compare to the thousands of death in the civil war. Also, this government wasn't the most controversial one, Aoun and Hoss triggered more international reactions. The last war wasn't more destructive than in 1982. Briefly, the article is not the place to discuss latest events even if they look important enough due to their recentism (see Misplaced Pages:Recentism), that's why overemphasizing recent events is a type of systemic bias and I feel that the last events should not exceed 2 paragraphs. CG 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the key here is to remember recentism, and just generally tidy things up. I don't think we should necessarily restrict ourselves to 2 paragraphs, or any set number of paragraphs – let's just clean it up. Lcnj is right, I'm absolutely no expert on the intricacies Lebanese politics, but CG is also right that the article currently gives undue weight to very recent events (for which there are other articles).

Rather than coming up with a set number of paragraphs, what do you all think of coming up with a general ratio of information? For instance, for every paragraph in the last 10 years of history, we aim to have one paragraph for the last 100 years, and one paragraph going all the way back to ancient times? I don't know what the exact ratio should be, or what time periods we should aim for, but I think the key goal here is to balance the history section out a bit. — George Saliba 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I highly suggest reviewing some of the other FA country articles, such as Turkey. They seem to be excellently balanced, and we should try to do the same, in our own way. — George Saliba 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about creating a separate section for discussing improvement to each section that needs it? —LestatdeLioncourt 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on improvements to the introduction

I have some suggestions regarding the introduction that I think will help better lead the article.

• I'm pretty happy with the first three sentences of the first paragraph, but the last sentence needs work. I don't think we should go into any political depth here, but rather explain Lebanon's diversity and how it has shaped the country into something unique. Think "East meets West", Arab and French intermixed, Christians and Muslims, etc.
• Next we have a paragraph that talks about Lebanon prior to the civil war, but only by 20-30 years(?). Personally I'd rather see some older historic background on Lebanon, that shaped the nation we see today. The Pheonicians, Greeks, Persians, Greco-Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, and Ottomans mentioned later in the article. Nothing too deep or specific, but maybe some discussion regarding how some of these influcened the architecture (Baalbek, Byblos, etc.), art, literature, language (French and Turkish flavors on top of the Arabic base I would think). Then maybe finish with something alluding to the periods of violence Lebanon has seen as a result of the diversity that shapes it as a nation.
• I'd make the third paragraph dicuss the civil war. Mostly an overview of its complexity, and the toll it took on the nation and the people. Finish by maybe mentioning the Cedar revolution and the war in 2006, but only briefly (one good sentence each maybe). I don't think I'd even mention the current protests/sit-ins until we have a better idea of where it ends up going (avoiding recentism).

Just laying out some general thoughts as I start to look through this. — George Saliba 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice thoughts, according to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, and Lebanon wasn't all history and wars. Here's my proposals:

• • The first paragraph should be cut from Israel to the south. I don't feel we should waste space from the lead to describe the flag displayed right next to it. If you want we can say The Lebanon Cedar is the emblem of Lebanon
  • The second paragraph should be a quick overview of its history. barely a mention of Lebanon's relations with Israel and Syria.
  • The last paragraph should be devoted to the complexity of the lebanese society which led to its unique political system and culture. CG 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions too. We should look to Turkey, a country article that has achieved FA, for a good template of how to balance these out I think. — George Saliba 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Some moving around

I moved the sections of the debate that was going around with Jaakobou to a subpage because it was taking up too much space (epsecially for an inactive debate). When he decided to resume the debate, we can retrieve them from that subpage. I hope no one minds. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — George Saliba 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Open War"

I know that we agreed that '"open war" against Lebanon' and '"open war" against Hezbollah' are out of the question on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict section, but I am wondering why when someone wrote in '"open war" between Hezbollah and Israel" this change was reverted. Why was it erased? Okay... so he/she should have discussed it (ergo why I'm now doing this). But that statement is correct, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I m dude2002 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I reverted it as it seemed to have the same neutrality issues that the original statements had. However, I'm entirely open for discussing the matter if people would like. — George Saliba 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement under discussion doesn't involve a declaration of war against Hezbollah or Lebanon by Israel, merely a statement that Hezbollah and Israel were engaged in "open war." I think that is a fact that no one can dispute. I m dude2002 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence. If we changed it to "The operation quickly developed into a widespread 'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel, as Israel's air force continued to bombard large areas in Lebanon, resulting in the near-total destruction of Lebanon's main infrastructure, the displacement of over a million Lebanese civilians, and placing over three million civilians under siege.", the statement effectively states that the civilian infrastructure targets were attacks against Hezbolllah, and it makes no mention of the attacks on Israel by Hezbollah. So it has neutrality problems from a couple different angles. It might work if it was broken into separate statements or something though. — George Saliba 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised that you of all people should dispute the current wording. Take a look the Archive 6 if you need a reminder. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at archive six, as you advised, and in light of this I regret having ever accepted the current terminology. What I wrote there was "The bottom line: in order to justify the claim that Israel declared open war against Lebanon, one must find a reliable source which states that Israel produced a declaration of war against Lebanon." In fact, if you consider all of the sources listed in that archive, they do indicate a mutual declaration of war between Hezbollah and Israel. The only declaration of war explicitely quoted is from Nasralla., but these are nevertheless numerous credible sources who didn't share the problems of that particular CNN article originally used. Merely leaving the statement "open war" begs the question "open war between whom?" Moreover, the following statement implies open war between Israel and Lebanon, which remains to be proven. "open war between Hezbollah and Israel" clarifies that statement in a way that correlates with the source. What about the following wording:

"The operation quickly developed into a widespread 'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel. During this conflict, the Israeli Air Force (AIF) bombarded large areas in Lebanon, resulting in the near-total destruction of Lebanon's main infrastructure, the displacement of over a million Lebanese civilians, and placing over three million civilians under siege."

If you so desire (and I think this would be a good idea), you can even add "while Hezbollah fired a continuing flurry of rockets at civilian population centers in northern Israel." I m dude2002 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't looked at these articles in a while. Initially I thought that "open war between Hezbollah and Israel" would be fine, but based on the CNN article it would seem that this isn't at all what is cited. The CNN piece frames Israel's pseudo-declaration of war as being aimed at Lebanon rather than Hezbollah. I'd prefer remaining with the neutrally vague current statement than various other alternatives to this statement though (unless someone comes up with a less vague version that is equally neutral and accurate). — George Saliba 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The CNN article has, to me, lost its credibility, since it accidentally inverts the word "direct" with the word "indirect." (See discussion in Archive 6) It is the only source of which I am aware that says Israel declared war on Lebanon, and yet I don't trust it to have distinguished between war on Lebanon and war in Lebanon. The other six sources in the discussion show that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel.

I think the problem with the current wording is precisely that it is vague. Someone reading it may think that Israel was at war with Lebanon. In fact, this is entirely incorrect. The parties to the conflict were Hezbollah and Israel, but not the Lebanese government. 68.97.31.184 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think this is intentional, letting the reader reach their own conclusions. For instance, from what I've read, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the statement "Israel was at war with Lebanon." Billions of dollars of destruction to civilian infrastructure, including the international airport and the power station, along with significant civilian and Lebanese military death tolls, and the stated blame placed on the Lebanese government makes this an entirely reasonable conclusion to some. This blame, by the way, wasn't specific to this CNN article, as it was the official Israeli government stance – as filed with the UN, they viewed the Hezbollah kidnapping as a declaration of war by the entire nation of Lebanon. — George Saliba 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe President Bush said that Iran committed acts of war in Iraq by attacking US soldiers. That doesn't mean the US is at war with Iran. Likewise, Lebanon did not declare war on Israel, but merely engaged in "a belligerent act ... violating all UN and Security Council decisions." Israel may have bombed dual-purpose targets (or even civilian targets), but there were no battles between the Israeli military and the Lebanese military. It is true, of course, that Israel bombed some Lebanese military outposts. I have no idea why... but that was not part of the war. I m dude2002 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think if the United States had "fired back" in a significant manner, hitting targets in Iran, then a case could definately be made than the US would be at war with Iran. Also, while I'm also not sure why the Lebanese military was bombed, I don't believe that they were accidents, or confused with Hezbollah militants. From what I've read, they seem to have been quite specifically targetted for being members of the Lebanese army. I'm not sure how we can conclude that this wasn't a part of the war, given that it occured at the same time. — George Saliba 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The goal of an encyclopedia should not be to let "the reader reach their own conclusions" in matters of fact. I think that a statement which calls upon the reader to deduce the parties to a conflict is not specific enough. That having been said, it is tragic--and, to me, unacceptable--that practically all of Lebanon was collatoral damage. But that doesn't change the fact that the Lebanese military did not participate in the fighting (at least not under that capacity). So the war was between Israel and Hezbollah. If it is your argument that the above ynet article proves war between Lebanon and Israel existed (which I think is a fairly reasonable argument, though not necessarily true), then the article ought to read that Lebanon declared war on Israel. Of course, that is far from true. I m dude2002 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that who was and wasn't "party to the conflict" is a matter of some debate. On the one hand, Israel's primary goal was likely to recover their soldiers and eradicate Hezbollah militants or leadership, and Hezbollah's primary goal was probably to prevent Israel from doing so, while firing rockets at various targets inside Israel. On the other hand, however, various Israeli politicians stated that they held the Lebanese government responsible, there was significant damage to the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, and most of those killed were Lebanese civilians (arguably). Also, the Lebanese military servicemen who were killed, regardless of if they fought back (or even had the means to), were specifically targetted for being members of the Lebanese army, not because they were thought to be members of Hezbollah. Please note, I'm not specifically disagreeing with you, I'm just outlining how the matter can be reasonably disputed on both sides. I prefer the vague wording specifically because the topic is so disputable that I don't think the issue can be completely resolved at present (consider reviewing the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict's 36-page Talk archive for what I mean). — George Saliba 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article specifically lists Hezbollah and other Shiite paramilitary organizations as combatants in the conflict, but does not list the Lebanese government. I think the reason for that is because neither the Lebanese government nor the Israeli government (a) declared war one against the other, (b) authorized the deliberate use of military force against the other, (c) authorized the bombardment of civilian or military infrastructure in the other's borders intended as acts of war against the other, or (d) engaged in large-scale open battles against the military of the other nation. As far as I can recall, both Olmert and Senora made it clear that the Lebanese military was to stay out of the conflict. Even if there had been such instances, the delineation between war in Lebanon and war on Lebanon was critical during Summer War. The difference between those two was a key point in Israel's justification of the conflict, and so I think that distinguishing between them is crucial to understanding this chapter in Lebanon's history. After all, it wouldn't make much sense that the deployment of the Lebanese army in Southern Lebanon would be a critical part of the ceasefire agreement if that army was at war with Israel. Wouldn't you say that that is true?

It is indeed clear that the Israeli government held the Lebanese government responsible for the attacks of Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah has adopted as its goal the destruction of the state of Israel. But holding a nation responsible does not constitute a declaration of war. There was a declared, established, clearly defined war between Hezbollah and Israel. What occurred between Israel and Lebanon was at worst a collection of Isolated scuffles, low-profile targetings and a hot exchange of accusations and biting words. Was there war between Hezbollah and Israel? Absolutely. Was there war between Lebanon and Israel? I think it possible to argue that there was something that could be classified as war (and I would disagree), but it is certainly not as well-established as the fact that there was a war between Hezbollah and Israel. So why is there an objection to writing "'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel"? Do you not agree that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel? I m dude2002 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to go through these point by point.

• At one point the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict did in fact list Lebanon as a combatant, but I agree with it being removed. However, combatant and "party to a conflict" are two very different things. I guess one could make the argument that killing people who don't fight back is more of a slaughter or massacre, but good lucky getting any wording that POV into an article. ;)
  • I am happy to see that you can approach this conflict so humerously. I, unfortunately, have to view it realistically. There were Lebanese combatants (i.e. Hezbollah). So to say that Israel killed people who didn't fight back is a slight exaduration, especially considering that it is widely agreed that Hezbollah launched the war. But the Lebanese government was not in a state of war.

Ack. So many bullets. Ok, let's see. For this point, the "people who don't fight back" I was referring to were the Lebanese military, and only them – not Hezbollah. Sorry, thought this was obvious. Also, please don't confuse my personal lightheartedness with any sort of humor regarding the issue at hand. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• While there was no formal declaration of war by either side (in fact, many nations no longer make declarations of war), we do have quotes such as:

  called a press conference, in which he declared that “Today, war was declared on Israel from the northern border,” a declaration of war by Lebanon on the State of Israel, he explained.

  • Why do you think that he is referring to Lebanon and not Hezbollah? After all, Hezbollah acted from Israel's northern border and declared "open war" against Israel. Don't you think it's OR to say that he meant Lebanon declared war on Israel? Even if there were sources saying that, they can't read his mind. They can't extrapolate what he meant.

I think such since it was reported as such. Remember, we can only repeat what reliable sources say. If they had said Hezbollah, I would have said Hezbollah. How they came to their conclusion is entirely their problem. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bit misleading to say that the Israeli government didn't "authorized the deliberate use of military force" against the Lebanese military forces, as saying so means that the attacks on Lebanese military targets were mistakes – something which I believe the facts show is blatantly false. At best, the Israel army showed great restraint in it's attacks on Lebanese military targets. That's very different that attacking someone on accident, however.
  • I think Israel's behavior was unforgivable in its attack against non-Hezbollah military and civilian posts within Lebanon. But, understand, they were not bombed in their capacity as Lebanese military outposts, but rather in their capacity as dual-use facilities for Hezbollah. Of course, it would help if the Lebanese government broke down the figure of 1,200 killed to show how many of them were military and how many civilian. But, by Israeli and UN estimates, it appears at least half of those were members of paramilitary organizations, not the government.

If you have some references that state they were bombed because they were being used as dual-use facilities for Hezbollah, that's fine. I've just never heard that before. Also, which Israeli and UN estimates are you referring to? The last number I heard from the Israeli military was 530-532 identified (of 600 estimated), and the last I checked the UN didn't release any official estimates. Regardless, I don't know that 50% militant kill ratios say anything about whether or not they were "authorized" to hit Lebanese military targets or not. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Let's not fool ourselves. If Israel had declared war on Lebanon, the Lebanese army would have been pulverized or would have surrendered within a matter of days (at most).

Again, it's not out place to make the determination that because Israel didn't pulverize the Lebanese army, and showed great restraint, then they were not at war. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• • You don't refute the argument that the deployment of the Lebanese military was a crucial requirement of the ceasefire. Does it make sense to you that a condition for Israel's agreement to withdraw from Lebanon would be the deployment of the army they were just fighting accross the border? It doesn't make sense to me. Israel seems to like the idea of a buffer zone where enemy armies can't enter (like the area outside the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula). Just another factor that leads me to think Israel did not fight the summer war against Lebanon.

I don't refute the point because I believe that the deployment was indeed a crucial requirement of the ceasefire. However, making the conclusion that this means that Israel wasn't at war with Lebanon is a bit of a stretch. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Declaring that the bombing of civilian (or military) infrastructure inside Lebanon wasn't intended as an "act of war" against Lebanon is purely original research. If you have some reliable sources that state such, that's one thing, but we can't just assume that this is true without evidence. In addition, it's a fairly difficult argument to make, given the preponderance of evidence on the other side.
  • The Australian Broadcasting Corporation states: "Israel did not declare war on Lebanon."
  • The Idaho Observer states: "Israel has not declared war on Lebanon and is not claiming conflicts with the government of Lebanon are being used to justify bombing population centers throughout Lebanon."
  • The Beak states: "Israel never declared war against Lebanon, only against Hezbollah."
  • News Vine expresses the opinion that Israel should have declared war on Lebanon, rather than just focusing on targets of value to Hezbollah (I don't share this view, but still, the fact that they are calling on Israel to declare war on Lebanon five days before the ceasefire should show there was not a war against Lebanon for the first 29 days of the conflict).

I have found some reliable sources that "state such." This is not OR.

Please note, I was looking for sources that stated that the bombings were not "acts of war". I don't at all dispute that Israel never formally declared war on Lebanon. This, however, has been established as unnecessary to refer to wars as "war", as some nations choose not to declare war (See: Vietnam war). — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I again believe you're wrong to state that there was a "declared, established, clearly defined war between Hezbollah and Israel", as, from my understanding, Israel made no official declaration of war whatsoever. Also, please read the article on declaration of war, noting that Hezbollah is not a "national government".
• It is my understanding that Israel did declare war on Hezbollah. However, if Israel made no declaration of war, then let's look to Hezbollah's: (a) The article quotes "open war" from Nasrallah's speech, and (b) Hezbollah might as well be a sovereign government; they control Southern Lebanon.

From my understanding, Israel never made a "declaration of war" period. Various politicians stated that they considered the kidnapping an "act of war" by Hezbollah or Lebanon, or both, and that they blamed Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions, but a "declaration of war" is very specific thing under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which I don't think ever took place here (voted on and passed by the Knesset, notifying the United Nations and neutral states, etc.). Also, the quote by Nasrallah states something like "If they want open war, we'll give them open war" or somesuch (my paraphrasing), which I don't personally read as a "declaration of war". Furthermore, the status of Hezbollah as a sovereign government has been discussed on these Talk page (see the archives), and while some hold the same opinion, Hezbollah itself doesn't claim to be a sovereign government (to the best of my knowledge), and no other nations recognize them as such, so the point is moot. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have certainly not seen evidence of a declaration of war by Israel. Let's follow your logic: why do we say there was open war if you say there wasn't a war?

Also, allow me to refer you to the quotation by Danny Gillerman that you brought up.

Finally, this calls into question how we define a sovereign state. Was the Confederacy a sovereign state? It was the argument of the North that it wasn't. If so, the American Civil War wasn't really a civil war, but a civil conflict, according to your definition. The Vietnam War would not have been a war. And so on and so forth. What's required for "open war" is the authorization to engage in massive operations against enemy forces for the purpose of targetting them as hostile forces. In the case of the Summer War, this applies to the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, but not to any conflict whatsoever between Lebanon and Israel.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I wrote. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of the point I was trying to make. Was this a war? Absolutely. Why was it a war, from the standpoint of Misplaced Pages? Because it was called a war, not because there was any outright declaration. The same holds true for my example, the Vietnam war - no declaration, but still a war. However, the "parties" to this war are what is in dispute here, not whether or not this was a war. — George Saliba 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, this is a key point here. Yes, of course there was warfare between Hezbollah and Israel. However, it's a logical fallacy to state that because there was warfare between Hezbollah and Israel, there could not also have been warfare between Lebanon and Israel (or war on Lebanon). When you state "Was there war between Lebanon and Israel? I think it possible to argue that there was something that could be classified as war," that's the whole point – because this issue is so debatable, we've favored the neutrally vague wording approach rather than trying to explicitly state what any one of us believes to be "truth". This is also why we don't use the phrase "'open war' between Lebanon and Israel", or "'open war' on Lebanon" - everyone has their own opinion, and we favor the most neutral approach possible by just listing it as "open war". If a reader is curious, they should go read the main article surrounding the conflict. — George Saliba 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you disagree with the statement that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel? Do you think this is a contented statement?

I do not disagree with the statement. However, such a statement can be interpretted to mean that because there was "open war" between Hezbollah and Israel, then there was not war between Lebanon and Israel, which is a contentious, POV statement. Please see half-truth – "the statement may be true but only part of the whole truth". I favor a neutral vague argument over a more specific, less neutral wording any day. — George Saliba 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The most neutral way of writing is to write nothing whatsoever. But that is also vague. Do you prefer that? Nothing whatsoever tells the whole truth. But it is absolutely true to say that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel.

Obviously not. We report what we can readily verify from reliable sources. We can readily verify that there was a war, and the article states such. We can readily verify that Israeli and Lebanese civilians and military were hit, and that most of the fighting was between Hezbollah and the IDF. However, I believe that explicitly stating that this was a war "between Hezbollah and Israel" is misleading, and possibly a half-truth, and as such it's worth leaving those four words out. — George Saliba 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the following facts:

1. There were hardly any--none that I am aware of--instances in which the Lebanese military targetted an Israeli citizen in its capacity as the Lebanese military (although I'm certain many Lebanese soldiers are also members of Hezbollah).
2. The instances in which Israel targetted the Lebanese military, or any outpost of the Lebanese government were few (relative to the total number of bombings).
3. Many of these bombings were accidental, caused either by faulty intelligence or by human error in bombing.
4. In many cases, these targetted rocket launch sites that only happened to be located near centers of the Lebanese government.
5. Many of these places--at least according to Israeli perception, which is critical to this question--served a dual purpose for Hezbollah use.
6. The Lebanese government at no point declared that a state of open armed conflict existed between itself and the state of Israel. Nasrallah certainly maintained through words and actions such a conflict.
7. As far as is publically known, no high-ranking Israeli official ordered any attacks against Lebanese governmental buildings, with the exception of Nasrallah's office (clearly a dual-purpose facility at best). On the other hand, Olmert and his cabinet personally authorized the commencement of armed conflict against Hezbollah.
8. Out of the 1,000-1,200 Lebanese dead, about 600 were Hezbollah fighters (by all estimates except Hezbollah's), whereas (at least as it appeared to me) less than 50 were Lebanese soldiers.

Clearly, there was a serious armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. The case for a serious armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon is much more difficult to make. That is why I don't think it's a half-truth to say that there was "open war" between Hezbollah and Israel, whereas there was no "open war" between Lebanon and Israel.

Ok, let's go through these "facts". I've numbered them so we can more readily discuss them, point by point.

1. I agree with this.
2. I agree with this.
3. I have seen no proof whatsoever that indicates this. If you have proof of such, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I consider this to be your opinion.
4. Again, if you have proof of this I'd be interested to see it. I've seen claims that at least some civilian targets hit were intended to take out rocket launchers, but I've seen no such claims around either Lebanese military targets or civilian infrastructure targets that were hit.
5. Again, if you have a source to quote regarding "Israeli perception" I'd like to read it. However, without a source we're still just talking about opinions.
6. I'm not aware of the Lebanese government making any such declaration either, and Nasrallah did indeed indicate that he was at war with Israel (and likely feels that he has been for years). However, we also have Israeli government sources quoted as saying they interpretted Hezbollah's attack as an act of war by the nation of Lebanon, which I haven't seen recanted.
7. I'm not exactly sure what the point of this is. If no high-ranking Israeli officially is known to have publicly ordered attacks against Lebanese military or civilian infrastructure targets, then all such attacks must therefore have been either accidents or rogue agents in the Israeli army? Do you have some Israeli government meeting minutes from a Cabinet meeting that state that their war was authorized "against Hezbollah"? From PM Olmert:

   "I said from day one, and all the way through, that the purpose was not to destroy Hizbullah. The purpose was not to destroy every launcher. The ambition was not to catch every Hizbullah fighter. The purpose was to impose a new order on Lebanon that would remove to a large degree... the threat to the state of Israel that was built up over the last 6 or 7 years to an intolerable degree."

   I don't know about you, but imposing a "new order on Lebanon" sounds to me like, at the very least, it's possible that they had more in mind than just targetting Hezbollah.
8. I tend to agree that the Hezbollah death toll is greater than the Lebanese military death toll, though the civilian death toll was also quite large. I'm not sure the relevance though.

Bottomline: I agree that there was armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, but I don't agree that the case for armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon is "much more difficult to make." That's why I favor the neutral vague wording, rather than adding four words which, while possibly being more accurate, run the serious risk of being POV or half-truths. — George Saliba 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am short on time right now, so I can't give sources to prove all of my claims at this very moment. But here is evidence that neither the Lebanese military nor the Israeli military fired one against the other during the Summer War: The Middle East Times stated today: "Israeli and Lebanese soldiers traded fire for the first time in decades." I m dude2002 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "trading fire" would not include, for instance, Israeli forces firing upon and/or bombing the Lebanese military, when Lebanese military forces did not fire back. First time they've "traded fire" in decades? Maybe. First time either one has shot at the other in decades? Definately not. — George Saliba 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As an update, to try to incorporate your concerns in a neutral manner, I've changed the wording of this sentence to the following:

Fighting quickly escalated into open war, as the Israeli Air Force (IAF) bombed areas throughout Lebanon, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) fired artillery across Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah rained hundreds of rockets a day onto Northern Israel.

Let me know if that covers your concerns with the wording of this sentence. Cheers. — George Saliba 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem, as it does not specify between whom the fighting is occuring, and furthermore takes away the source. In my opinion, not specifying the parties to a conflict is a half truth. For example, it is correct to say "The United Kingdom fought in Falkland wars." However, that omits the fact that the UK fought Argentina during this war. It's certainly more neutral. After all... one can argue that since Galtieri was a dictator, it was his own personal war, and not the war of the Argentinian people. It would be more neutral to say that the UK fought during the Falklands War than to say it fought against Argentina, is that not so? But if that "vague argument" that you prefer "over a more specific, less neutral wording any day" is the only information Misplaced Pages provides on the subject, then it's of little use.

Back to the numbered points:

1. Agreed. :-)
2. Agreed. :-)
3. This point applies to 2, 3 and 4: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states: "Israel only targeted facilities which directly served the terrorist organizations in their attacks against Israel." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Dayaa compound (which Israel gives as an example of this targetting) was a Lebanese military outpost. Furthermore, it states: "Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon, but rather, Hizbullah military assets within Lebanon. Israel avoided striking at Lebanese military installations, unless these were used to assist the Hizbullah, as were a number of radar facilities which Israel destroyed after they helped the terrorists fire a shore-to-ship missile at an Israeli ship."
4. Addressed.
5. Addressed.
6. Today, the Vatican declared China's ordination of three Bishops without its consent an act of war. Bush called Iranian actions within Iraq which target US soldiers acts of war. Unless you accept that China and the Holy See are at war, and so are the US and Iran, this point is moot. Moreover, Lebanon does not consider Hezbollah's actions an act of war on its own behalf, and Israel does not consider any action it pursued in Lebanon as an act of war against the Lebanese government (as far as I have seen).
7. I disagree with your interpretation of the quotation. I think it means an order without Hezbollah in Lebanon. To answer your question regarding whether I have evidence the Israeli war was not against Lebanon, see the quotation provided in #2.
8. This is relevant because a war is something larger than a scuffle. If 600 Hezbollah fighters died in the conflict and less than 50 Lebanese soldiers died, it is much easier to assert it as a war between Hezbollah and Israel than one between the Lebanese army and Israel. I m dude2002 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that makes the same assertion as this reference? I don't dispute that some parts of the Israeli government and military are probably of the opinion that their strikes were completely justified, aimed at Hezbollah and only Hezbollah, and any innocent civilians on the ground who were hit were all Hezbollah's fault. However, it would really be better to find a neutral, reliable source that makes a similar claim, rather than just accepting the published claims of one side or the other. And to the best of my knowledge, you are wrong about the Dayaa compound. Dayaa is a suburb of Beirut, and the compound (from what I've been able to gather) wasn't used by the Lebanese military at all. Also, please note that the section you're quoting from is from a FAQ question regarding the civilian infrastructue hit – not the Lebanese military. Furthermore, remember that actions speak louder than words. I'm not sure that what happened on the ground agrees with the point of view expressed on this site.

Regarding point #6, as soon as the Vatican starts dropping bombs on China, I will absolutely consider them at war. Same goes for the United States and Iran. Before that, the issue would be entirely debatable.

Regarding point #7, again, I don't disagree per se with your assessment. I do think, however, think that by playing the role of Devil's advocate, I've shown that issue is debatable, and thus the vaguer, more neutral wording is preferable.

Regarding point #8, remember, I'm not disagreeing with calling this a war. I'm only disagreeing with the explicit declaration of sides to the war, or intentions. The exclusion of Lebanon may leave something lacking, since non-Hezbollah Lebanese military personel and cilivans suffered signficantly, and the inclusion of Lebanon may go too far, since they did not fire back at Israel (or Hezbollah for that matter). I'm also not saying that we should call it a "war between the Lebanese army and Israel", as that's even more inaccurate than "between Hezbollah and Israel". I also don't believe it should be called "war on Lebanon", as that has the same issues, even though it comes from the opposite point of view.

Remember this isn't the "only information Misplaced Pages provides on the subject". We have a whole article dedicated to the event. Also, this isn't an extensive summary of the event. Since this is the Lebanon article, it's a summary of the event in regards to how it relates to Lebanon. If this was the Israel article, it would be entirely accurate to summarize the event differently, focusing on its impact on Israel. Do you have any suggestions for a neutral statement that you think would better convey the event? — George Saliba 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would first like to say that I agree with you that, at least in this case, the more neutral wording is absolutely necessary. That is why I think we need to replace the wording that the article now uses--one which implies that Lebanon was a party to the conflict--with a more neutral version which clearly defines the combatants. In other words, we need to say that the conflict escalated into open war between Hezbollah and Israel.

1&2. Still agreed.

3,4&5. You wanted evidence as to the mindset of the Israeli government, which would show that the intention of the war was to attack Hezbollah, not to attack Lebanon. I do not understand why you would ask me for minutes of the Israeli cabinet meeting saying this is not a war against Hezbollah, and then say that a source from the Israeli government is unreliable. We agree that the Lebanese government did not consider this a war against Israel, and information from and Israeli governmental website says that "Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon." So both sides agree they weren't at war.

6. In that event, we can agree that when nation A says that nation B committed an "act of war" against it, that does not necessarily constitute war (unless, of course, nation B agrees). Which means that any statements by the Israeli government saying Lebanon declared war against them cannot be used to make the case for war unless Lebanon in fact concurs and says it did declare war.

7. I respect your logical abilities tremendously, and I hold you in high regard for them. But I don't think that they issue of whether Israel and the Lebanese government were at war can be subjectively evaluated. Is it debatable? Certainly. The color of the sky is debatable. But there is still one right answer: Israel and Lebanon were not at war during 2006.

8. While I do agree that only information pertinent to Lebanese history should appear in this section, it is clearly relevant to Lebanese history whether it was Lebanon who fought this war or Hezbollah.

I have every intention of continuing this quest for rhetorical neutrality in the "2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict" article as soon as I get it sorted out in the "Lebanon" article. So much work... such little time. I m dude2002 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more sources:

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (different page) stated on August 12: "Israel stated that the campaign is directed not against Lebanon, but rather against Hizbullah, and that Lebanon is not a party to the dispute. It also stated that, with the end of hostilities, Lebanon must impose its sovereignty over its territory and deploy its army in the south."

Israel's Prime Minister's Office stated on July 25: "Prime Minister Olmert emphasized that Israel has no interest in harming the Lebanese population and added that Israel's war is against the Hizbullah terrorist organization and not against either the Lebanese Government or the Lebanese people."

Olmert himself stated on July 31: "We do not pursue innocent civilians, we do not fight against the Lebanese people and we do not seek to topple their government."

I understand that there is great anger within Lebanon, and I am certain that the perception that Israel was trying to kill civilians and members of the Lebanese military is prevalent. But this was not a war against Lebanon, as I hope the above statements by the Israeli government, and the previous statement, should help clarify. I m dude2002 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm glad that you can see the possibility of debate on the subject, but I disagree that it is as straightforward as the sky being blue. In fact, I think most sources (be they news sources, historians, politicians, or just random, everyday people) would disagree with your assertion that "Israel and Lebanon were not at war during 2006." You may want to consider filing an RfC.

I'm also very curious why you think that "the wording that the article now uses... implies that Lebanon was a party to the conflict". My edits were intended to leave this decidedly vague, neither implying that Lebanon was a party to the conflict, nor denying that it wasn't. Again, however, I'm curious if you have some wording variations in mind that you believe is more accurate but equally neutral that we could discuss. — George Saliba 09:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We can agree do disagree, but we also have to agree on a wording. I will file an RfC... but I've never filed one before, so please tell me if I'm doing it right. The reason I think the current wording of the article is not as neutral is it could be is because it implies that Lebanon could be a combatant in the conflict. I think that since neither Israel nor Lebanon considered themselves at war with one another, the wording should specify who was fighting in the war. I m dude2002 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did it right to me. I've editted the list of my previous statements on your RfC, but you should feel free to add more of your own as well (to balance it out). Just two last points I'd like to make: First, you're assuming that a neutrally vague wording implies that "the governments of Israel and Lebanon were at war". This wasn't the intent. The intent is specifically to leave open the question of whether "Israel and Lebanon" were at war – not specifically Israel and the Lebanese government. The original debate on the wording (that resulted in this version) was whether to call this a "war between Hezbollah and Israel", or "war on Lebanon" (again, note that this wasn't a reference to the Lebanese government at all). This vague wording was chosen as a compromise between these two versions, not the third version that I think you believe it implies (a version that you believe implies the Lebanese government, which neither of these two did). Second, I'm still hoping you can suggest some possible wordings. Even if we disagree on this point, it's possible that you could come up with a suggestion which we could both agree was neutral enough to change to, but you need to make specific suggestions of what you'd like to change the text to, otherwise we'll be stuck discussing the issue ad nauseum. — George Saliba 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War"

This is a dispute over whether or not Hezbollah and Israel should be explicitely mentioned as combatants in the Summer War, or not specify combatants at all. 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• I think the neutrally vague wording is intentional, letting the reader reach their own conclusions. For instance, from what I've read, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the statement "Israel was at war with Lebanon." Billions of dollars of destruction to civilian infrastructure, including the international airport and the power station, along with significant civilian and Lebanese military death tolls, and the stated blame placed on the Lebanese government makes this an entirely reasonable conclusion to some. — George Saliba 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think the biggest problem is that who was and wasn't "party to the conflict" is a matter of some debate... Various Israeli politicians stated that they held the Lebanese government responsible, there was significant damage to the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, and most of those killed were Lebanese civilians (arguably). I prefer the vague wording specifically because the topic is so disputable that I don't think the issue can be completely resolved at present. — George Saliba 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• We can readily verify that there was a war, and the article states such. We can readily verify that Israeli and Lebanese civilians and military were hit, and that most of the fighting was between Hezbollah and the IDF. However, I believe that explicitly stating that this was a war "between Hezbollah and Israel" is misleading, and possibly a half-truth, and as such it's worth leaving those four words out. — George Saliba 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that there was armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, but I don't agree that the case for armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon is "much more difficult to make." That's why I favor the neutral vague wording, rather than adding four words which, while possibly being more accurate, run the serious risk of being POV or half-truths. — George Saliba 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• We agree that the Lebanese government did not consider this a war against Israel, and information from an Israeli governmental website says that "Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon." So both sides agree they weren't at war. ... I think that since neither Israel nor Lebanon considered themselves at war with one another, the wording should specify who was fighting in the war.I m dude2002 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Here is a case where it is SO obvious that Lebanon was not directly involved in the war that I normally wouldn't be in favor of specifying Hezbollah and Israel as the combatants. I would have thought that it would go without say that the war was between Hezbollah and Israel. But this discussion shows me that the general public reading Misplaced Pages may need to be educated as to the fact that Israel did not fight against Lebanon, nor did Lebanon fight against Israel. LimerickLimerickson 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology - help to remove junk text

How can we delete this text in the Etymology Section: "lebanon sucks lolypops and i hate the little train that could"?

When i try to edit the section this text does not appear, but for some reason there it is in the article itself.

Thanks Johnny911 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.144.94.203 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Johnny911. You may want to check (clear) your browser cache. I can't see the text you're referring to anywhere in the article. Cheers. — George Saliba 09:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

2. http://en.wiktionary.org/sublime

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• GA-Class Lebanon articles
• Top-importance Lebanon articles
• WikiProject Lebanon articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles