Talk:Lebanon/Archive 9

The Lebanon?
I read yesterday that Lebanon was, in the past, often refered to as "The Lebanon" like "The Congo" or "The Ukraine" but this was dropped due to the colonial implications. Is that true? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be untrue? It should definitely be mentioned somewhere, maybe the etymology section. Just need sources. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was always told in English it's The Ukraine and The Lebanon. That doesn't make it true, but I think it should be investigated. I was pretty sure that in (British, at least) English, this was still an alternative name... No idea for sources though... Hrcolyer (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just checked Encyclopedia Britannica online, which makes no mention of "The Ukraine" or "The Lebanon", although it mentions "The Gambia", so maybe it fell out of use, or you only say "The" if referring to the region, not the country (I think this is true of the Ukraine, not sure about Lebanon though). Hrcolyer (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"$20,000 LIVE LIKE A KING":ABDUL OMAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.29.11 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of the 1958 Lebanese Civil War?
I'll admit this article is decent, but it still suffers from huge holes in the history of Lebanon. For instance the first Lebanese civil war started in 1958 and 15,000 American troops were sent to stabilize the situation, and that is not even metnioned. Honestly, I think this article suffers from too many internet sources and not enough ones from books. By the way, my figures come from 'From Beirut to Jerusalem' by Thomas L. Friedman. --67.234.209.142 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all you have to do is add it. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but let's not be bitter just because you haven't heard of it, or don't have enough knowledge of it to write about it.--67.234.220.13 (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Me? My grandfather participated in it, it has its own article on Wikipedia (1958 Lebanon crisis), but the point is, if someone wants to add something, no one is stopping them. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, my bad. I'll get to work on it. --67.234.208.91 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The IPA uses /ɒ/, which suggests this is supposed to be the British pronunciation (the US pronunciation would use /ɑ/ in this position). I'm sure that the standard UK pronunciation has a schwa in that position. &mdash; Paul G (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION
Gingembre (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)== Introduction ==

Hi folks

I came upon this article looking for objective information about the history of Lebanon and was very surprised by the some of the contentious comments published, in particular in the introduction. This does not conform with wikipedia's minimum standards. Two sentences stand out in particular:

"Syria and Iran have undermined Lebanon over the last number of years throught the use of meglomaniac religious leaders formenting militarism, death and destruction"

A sentence of this kind, quite apart from the fact that it is ungrammatical, belongs in the comment section of a blog, but has no place in an objective historical article. It is vague ("the last number of years" - again bad grammar) and is an unadulterated value judgement, ("meglomaniac religious leaders" (spelling problem), "fomenting militarism, death and destruction" - why not AIDS and the Plague for good measure?), with nothing backing it up. A sentence like this adds nothing, explains nothing. You might have a case for saying that Syria has regularly interfered in the internal affairs of Lebanon to further it's own interests or that there is alleged Iranian involvement in the arming of groups like Hizbollah, but then you would also have to mention the interference of many other regional players, including Israel, who has sided very clearly on several occasions with the Maronite community and has invaded and destroyed its infrastructure twice in the past 20 years, as well as occupying for extended periods parts of its territory.

Another sentence that caught my eye was the following :

"Israeli air attacks during the 2006 war caused major damage to Hizbollah infrastructure even though it was surely not enough from July 21, 2006 until a ceasefire went into effect on August 14, 2006 at which time Hizbollah, operating as a terrorist organization, once again continued to undermine the Lebanese government by importing all types of military hardware from Syria and Iran.[9]"

Once again, quite apart from the ungrammatical syntax, this is manifest political bias ("even though it was surely not enough")in the same way that this phrase : "Hizbollah, operating as a terrorist organization, once again continued to undermine the Lebanese government by importing all types of military hardware from Syria and Iran" is contentious and has no place in a factual, objective summary. Hizbollah has, it might be remembered, elected representatives in the Lebanese parliament and until recently, several government ministers and represents a large section of the Shiite community, which represents more than half of the Lebanese population. This sentence is blatantly supporting the narrative of one section of the community against another and should therefore be removed.

I don't want to get into political arguments here and I am not supporting Hizbollah against any other faction, but I think that bias of this magnitude destroys the credibility of the entire article. I'm not going to edit it now, I'd rather those who have been working on it discuss these points and make a decision. If however such one-sided commentary remains, I will report it to Wikipedia, because it is a blatant violation of its standards. Thanks.

Tsourkpk

Thanks for the revisions - obviously the above sentences were introduced by a troll, which explains the ungrammatical syntax and spelling. Kudos for having the patience to keep this site clean. Two questions - is it possible to block persistent trolls through their IP address? - I do think a mention should be made of the 2006 war - perhaps something neutral along these lines : "Israeli air attacks during the 2006 war caused major damage to Lebanon's infrastructure from July 21, 2006 until a ceasefire went into effect on August 14, 2006"


 * Yes it is. Simply bring it up on WP:ANI and some admin will place it under semi-protection, so anonymous IPs won't be able to edit it.  As for your second point, I think your sentence is fine and you should go ahead and add it.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok then, will do both. Thanks for your help - being new here, it's not easy to find one's way around. Cheers!

I believe the following section is NPOV:

In 2006 however, the Israeli army attacked Lebanon with intense airstrikes and artillery fire alongside numerous ground incursions by Israeli forces - the extensive attacks were in response to a single incident of rocket fire in which two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The month long conflict caused significant civilian loss of life and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure (including Beirut's airport). The conflict lasted from July 12, 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on August 14, 2006,[9][6] the country's economy is still struggling to recover.

There were far more than a single rocket attack against Israel, as I understand it, and the two Israeli soldiers were captured in a border incursion by Hezbollah, not a rocket attack.

The section, as written, makes it appear as though Israel's response was completely out of proportion.

WRLO56 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed this back to my more neutral rewording of the paragraph. I think that this may have been accidentally reverted, but I'm not sure. ← George [ talk  ] 11:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WRL056 comments are noted however I think he/she is incorrect. Granted, Hezbollah have fired rockets at Israel on numerous occasions however the introduction in fact suggested that Israel's attack was in response to a single incident of rocket fire during which Israeli soliders were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The introduction I edited - correctly - suggested that Israel attacked Lebanon with prolonged and intense air strikes, heavy shelling and numerous large ground incursions. WRL056 believes that my version made it appear that Israel were responding out of proportion by sending dozens of jets in to Lebanon to bomb, blocking it's Air Routes and shelling it's infrastructure causing hundreds if not thousands of civilian deaths - now I'm not trying to be funny here but the facts suggest a disproportionate response, if my intro suggested the same then it was only representing the factual events of the conflict.

Give me one section of my intro that was factually inaccurate and I will edit it for accuracy. Though note that I said factually inaccurate - it isn't wrong just because it makes Israel look bad. --AreaControl (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some issues with the grammar in your preferred version, but let's ignore those for a moment. I think the main issues I have with this wording are:
 * It lists Israel's attacks before Hezbollah's attack. In the interest of neutrality, it should list them in the order they happened - that is, Hezbollah struck first. To switch the order they are listed can be misleading to the reader.
 * What is the source of the term "numerous" ground incursions? It may well be true, but we need evidence that there were "numerous" incursions. Sufficient evidence would be reliable sources stating that there were many incursions, or a list of the incursions that we could agree would be considered "numerous".
 * It is inaccurate to say that the Israeli attack was a response to a single rocket attack. It was a response to the capture of their soldiers in a cross border raid, which occurred simultaneous to a diversionary rocket attack.
 * The addition of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 isn't wrong, just unnecessary. We have a full article on the 2006 Lebanon War, so we really don't need so much detail in this introduction.
 * In general, I'm not even sure if any of this paragraph belongs here. It hints of recentism - that is, of the thousands of years of history of the region, to promote this recent one-month long war as something critical to understanding Lebanon seems a bit off. ← George [ talk  ] 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with the points in the order you presented them :
 * Absolutely - the chronology of the section needs to be dealt with.
 * If you wish, we can replace "numerous ground incursions" with "ground incursions" or I could find sources suggesting more than one ground incursion by IDF.
 * In that case we can tweak the section further - e.g "in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah during a diversionary rocket attack"
 * I think the resolution provides an explanation as to why the conflict was finally ended and makes clear the fact that Israel would have gone further if the UN hadn't stepped in (though I didn't add it myself).
 * Of course the conflict is significant - it set back years of economic development.
 * With regard to my grammar - I still make mistakes despite living in the UK for twenty-five years (I am a non-native speaker of English). --AreaControl (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.
 * The thing is numerous doesn't mean more than one, it means an "indefinitely large number." It should only be used when referring to something so large in number that we can't count it. The correct word to use really depends on how many incursions there were, which I'm not sure of. Until we figure that out, it's probably best left as just "ground incursions".
 * Yes, I think that's better.
 * I'm not totally opposed to the inclusion of the information on the resolution, as long as it isn't overdone.
 * I haven't removed the paragraph yet, as I'm not convinced that it shouldn't be included, but one should remember that this is a historic account of modern day Lebanon covering nearly five thousand years. We have one paragraph talking about the civil war (1975-1990), one talking about after the civil war until the 2006 war (1990-2006), and one paragraph talking about the 2006 war and beyond (2006-2008). That's three paragraphs of the five in the introduction talking about only the last 35 years. There's no information in the introduction about the Phoenicians, or the Arab conquests, or Napoleon and the French, or the Ottomans, or any of the other periods in Lebanon's history prior to 35 years ago. Now, compare that to the article on the United States, for example. They have a single paragraph covering the period 1800 to 1945 and beyond. They don't mention the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf or Iraq wars, nor the economic busts and booms seen from decade to decade since 1945. Again, I'm not going to remove it now, but it's something we need to consider rewriting at some point.
 * I'll leave it up to you to clean up the paragraph on the 2006 war and implement some of these changes, if you like. No worries about the grammar, that's pretty easy to fix once you get the content to something we can all agree on. Cheers. ← George [ talk  ] 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The introduction needs to maintain long-term historical perspective. Details of the war are explained in the 2006 Lebanon War article. There should be an introductory concise overview in accordance to a Lead section without major emphasis on Recentism. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Selecciones de la Vida... Firstly : I suggest you read the above. Secondly : Recentism? We're talking about an event that wiped out a thriving economy, killed hundreds and left a prosperous country struggling to cope. That isn't recentism, rather it is a defining event in Lebanon's long term history. You are being completely rigid in your comments, do you live in Lebanon? Have you ever been to Lebanon? Do you have family there? I have little doubt that the answer is no to all three and I further suspect that you have no real in depth knowledge of the current economic climate in the country in which case a uniform wikipedia policy will not work - this is a unique situation in world events. AreaControl (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy should be used as a guidance that will strengthen the article. The introdcution is an overview that should include as many significant points in Lebanese history. You should refrain from placing emphasis on the 2006 Lebanon War, when you have the Phoenicians, 1958 Lebanon crisis, Cedar Revolution, and the current 2008 conflict in Lebanon left out. More than one editor is arguing against the inclusion of so much detail involving the war, yet you fail to see that. There is no clear consensus and the introduction will continue to be worked on. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is anyone supposed to get around with people like you removing everything they place on the site. I know this edit is relevant and needs to be in the lead don't think I don't understand your policy documents. However I no longer feel that this site is the place for me - I think that Selecciones de la Vida has been unhelpful if not rude, how can he possibly expect a newcomer to understand those unexplained links to policy? I can't deal with a place where one is expected to understand the rules without any explanation of them. I have left Wikipedia - I may return but for now I am at least on a break. See my userpage AreaControl (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The content you added was moved to a corresponding section. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

8 or 6 Mohafazats
I've started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lebanon, and I'd like if someone could add his thoughts. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Lebanon being part of biblical Israel
This artical says Lebanon was the home of the Phoencians etc., but makes no mention that Lebanon is technically part of biblical Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.40.74 (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When, and based on what? During the time of Christ, Israel wasn't a country; the whole area was part of the Roman Empire. Maps of the more ancient Kingdom of Israel show it covering a tiny part of modern day Lebanon, while the Phoenician empire likewise covered a tiny part of what would become modern day Israel. I don't see any reason the Lebanon article should cover this tiny area of control, any more than the Israel article should cover the tiny area of Phoenician control. ← George [ talk  ] 07:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He might be referring to Greater Israel, which is a rather obscure subject to non-Jews. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I see, the original poster was talking about the Hebrew bible, not the Christian bible. I guess the biblical Israel they're talking about then is the conceptual Land of Israel, and not any actual historical country... unfortunately, that makes this a pretty silly suggestion. Lots of people have claimed different lands as theirs, and that's why we have articles like the one on the Land of Israel. There's no reason to include divine claims here. ← George [ talk  ] 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yeh I agree with you George, I guess "69.225.40.74" should check the article ,The Land of Canaan.« Hiram 111  Δ TalK Δ 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much criticism in the Politics section
I believe there is too much criticism in the Politics section for an article that is supposed to be introductory and NPOV. There are three ideas I oppose in this section:
 * The whole paragraph about Syrian involvement and presidential elections. This section should describe the political system of Lebanon and what are its different elements, and not analyze its history and irregularities, especially when this subject is too recent compared to other incidents like the controversial 1951 general elections, the assassination of several presidents and prime ministers, the fact that there were no general elections during the whole civil war period.
 * The civil marriage (which I removed): This is just one of too many controversial subject in Lebanese politics. Why should we privilege this one.
 * The military courts: I don't know about this subject, but is it really a significant Lebanese law topic? And again, I don't see how Human Right concerns should be included in this introductory section.

Compared to other articles (see Russia and Iran), this section seems to portrays that Lebanon isn't a democratic system and has significant human rights abuses. Whether it is true or not is again not relevant in this introductory and NPOV article. Eklipse (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! The very idea of mentioning military justice procedures in the "Politics" section of a nation article is absurd. In an article about the military or the legal system perhaps but not here. I also support the removal of the civil marriage. AreaControl (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole part about military courts. The facts about Guantanamo bay was just too much for an introductory article about Lebanon. Eklipse (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thought a comparison would serve to wake up the reader. Your removal is much better though AreaControl (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying right now to revamp this section. I admit that my english is not so great so feel free to comment and modify. Eklipse (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
I tried to rework the introduction. The current one is totally unbalanced and gives a large portion to the recent events. This is currently an unfinished draft and I admit I'm not very fluent in english, so I'll be glad if you could comment on it. Thank you.

Lebanon ( Arabic: لبنان Lubnān), officially the Republic of Lebanon or Lebanese Republic (الجمهورية اللبنانية), is country in Western Asia, on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Syria to the north and east, and Israel to the south.

In the early 12th century BC, the Phoenicians, a seafaring people, established several city-states on the eastern Mediterranean coast, mostly on the territories of present-day Lebanon. The area has been subsequently fallen under the rule of several empires: the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic Seleucid and Roman empires, until the advent of the Arab conquests and the domination of successive Islamic empires or caliphates. In 1860, an autonomous Mutasarrifiyah was established in the Ottoman empire, to which other provinces were attached after World War I to become the state of Greater Lebanon under a League of Nations French Mandate. The Republic of Lebanon gained independence from France in 1943 and witnessed a period of prosperity until the advent of the 1975-1990 civil war.

Due to its sectarian diversity, Lebanon is commonly described as a model for the coexistence of 18 different religious communities (Muslims, Christians and Jews). The state provide for the representation of each community by the means of a unique political system, known as confessionalism, based on a community-based power-sharing mechanism. Due to its religious diversity, Lebanese culture has been characterized as a unique blend of Western and Middle Eastern culture, and has enjoyed some of the highest press freedom in the Arab World. Although a founding member of the United Nations and the Arab League, relations with Syria has worsened since 2005. Lebanon's emblem is the Lebanese Cedar which grows on its mountains.

Eklipse (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to change "Lebanese culture has been characterized as a unique blend of Western and Arab culture" to "Lebanese culture has been characterized as a unique blend of Western and Middle Eastern culture", otherwise I'm sure we'll get a lot of Phoenicianists on our neck. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok done. What do you think should be added? I wanted to put something about the languages, and the fact that Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy, but I didn't know where to put them. What do you suggest. Eklipse (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't that already covered in the infobox? Does it need to be repeated? FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest should be added? Eklipse (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The long conflict with Israel should perhaps be mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe, but I wanted to strip the lead of cliches and present new interesting information about the country. Eklipse (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, isn't the stuff about Phoenicia even less relevant to the modern state of Lebanon? That's the cliché, I'd say. The conflict with Israel is just a fact which has affected Lebanon for all of its existence. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:cerniagigante 10:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened before 12 BC? There is plenty of evidence that Byblos/Jbeil (to name one) was populated long before that.  Also caves and other paleolithic evidence must be documented.

User:cerniagigante 10:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterise the Phoenicians as "seafaring", but rather as Canaan-Semitic speaking. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Phoenicians had a "national counscienseness" and your sentence implies the opposite.  You may want to specify "a Cannan-Semitic population, that became known to the Greeks as Phoenicians, organised into loosely connected, and often commercially competing, sea-trading city-states along the coast of current Lebanon (Tyre, Sidon, Byblos), Syria (Arwad) and Israel (Askalon, Cesarea)".  Ok this might be too long, but I hope you see my point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.241.59 (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese people = Arabs?
This is slightly off-topic, but this still may be the best place to ask this question. Category:Lebanese Americans (along with similar categories) is a subcategory of Category:Arab Americans. I had always thought that, while Lebanon includes several ethnic groups, Arabs were not a majority. Is it correct to categorize all Lebanese people as Arabs? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define "Arab" itself. There are plenty of definitions. FunkMonk (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's based on how Wikipedia defines "Arab". I see that about half of the entries in list at Arab American are Lebanese, and it appears that Wikipedia defines anyone from Iraq to Morocco as "Arab". That seems awfully broad to me, but if everyone else is content with it then that's OK too.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't write itself, so "it" doesn't define anything. If you think those lists (or anything, for that matter) are wrong, you should change them. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Wikipedia may not build itself, but it is built by on the consensus of editors. If those who care more about this than I do have reached a tacit agreement, then that's fine. I think it's a bit odd, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to seek a major change. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, many times editors just write what suits them, and if no other editors know enough about the subject, it is just left as it is. There might never have been a consensus to begin with, yet there are no one to contest the content. I see you're an administrator, so what I wrote might be pointless... FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To elaborate on the discussion--there are many views of "Arab". It can either be used as a linguistic definition or geneological. Most people that define people from Morroco to Iraq Arab are using the linguistic definition because those countries have a dialect of arabic as an official language. This is rather inaccurate because there are groups from this area seperate by blood and geneology from the Arabs. One such case is the Coptic people(decendants of ANCIENT eGYPTIANS). In the case of Lebanon--many people especially the Christains are said to be decendents from the Phonecians and prefer that term. However-there is not a very clear distinction in this case as there is in Coptics. Schnitzel  MannGreek . 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another good example is the Syriacs(Assyrians. These are decendents of Assur and the ancient Assyrians that spoke an Aramaic dialecet. They were conquered by the Arabs and adopted some of there culture but retained their identity. They have their own language(which they speak besides arabic) and culture(revolving around the Syriac Orthodox Church. In this case- it is inaccurate to label Assyrians as Arabs because of the fact that they can speak arabic because they are a seperate culture/decent. In fact they are trying to form their own country(see Assyrian Independence) Schnitzel MannGreek . 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay, the ugly arguements of self-determination and ethnicity has popped up again in a section about the Middle-East. Well as far as I know from a few medical papers I exploited with my uni access (I'll try and post here ASAP), there are more genetic/geneological differences between two people calling themselves Arabs than and Arab and non-Arab. Arabness is an ethnicity - neither based on language nor descent - though both are used. This is because many Arabs do not speak Arabic, and people claiming Arab descent are genographically "different races". My point is, to avoid a (according to my experience) unsourced debate that will waste all our times - with stupid arguements like "Lebanese people look different/have different culture", lets keep ethnicity as self-determined. That means Lebanese people are whatever the choose to call themselves, as per the self-determined definition of ethnicity. That is most usefull in the Middle-East and is the system adopted by most Western countries. As far as I know, probably the majority of Lebanese people consider themselves as ethnically Arabs - but if most believe they are Phoenecians or a mixture called Lebanese, then fair enough. We should try and find a valuable source for such a concensus if one exists.

By the way, would it be OK to send a heads-up message on my page's discussions when anyone replies, because I am not getting any email notifications. Thanks very much. TC Pink Princess (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Languages Spoken in the Country
Hello to all,

Having lived in the country for three years, I noticed that most of the Armenian population there knows Turkish, as do some Northerners (in the Tripoli area mostly) and Kurds. I've added Turkish on that account to the relevant section, but would like to know whether that was appropriate. Cheers,

Hamsuptan (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that, maybe some do and some Lebanese words do have a Turkish origin and Turkish Language was influenced by the Arabic Language, but I don't think we can consider Greek or Turkish as commonly used languages probably few Kurds and Armenians might know Turkish though you probably know the extent of hostility when it comes to the relation between these two communities and Turkey or the Turkish culture. « Hiram 111  Δ TalK Δ 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

small error?
Five years after gaining independence, Lebanon joined the Arab League in invading Israel within hours after its independence.

five years after independence, a few hours after? how does that make sense?

~EJDO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.126.9 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Five years after Lebanon's independence; a few hours after Israel's. Vonschlesien (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israel War section changed for the worse
In these, , edits, User:Myusedupname changed the 1948 Arab-Israeli War section from three different well-researched, reasonably NPOV versions into blatantly POV material. Does anyone know how to get it locked into a neutral POV against this kind of Edit Warring? Vonschlesien (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly Christian?
Hi, I wanted to address the wording in the section French Mandate and Independence, specifically the notion that in 1920 Lebanon was "Christian (mainly Maronite) enclave but also included areas containing many Muslims and Druze." Is there a source for this? I was under the impression from the CIA worldfactbook that the percentages were apprixmately 60% Muslim to 40% Christian. In addition, Druze consider themselves Muslim, so it's misleading to make a distinction between the two without clarifying that Druze is a sect, like Sunni or Shia.

--SunshineOdyssey (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The CIA World Factbook you're citing is stating the current statistics; not the statistics from 1920. The population distribution was quite different 90 years ago. Also, there's disagreement between Druze, Shi'a, and Sunnis as to whether or not Druze are considered Muslim or a separate religion. ← George [ talk  ] 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, there should be a source for statement. There are no specific numbers given, and there really is no indication that christians were the majoriy in the 1920's.  In addition you must be aware that the CIA World Factbook numbers were the same for as early as the 1940's when the numbers were first gathered.  Finally, Druze consider themselves Muslim, most literature on Lebanon will not contest that.  There is a section in the article that says otherwise, but again it is unsourced.  You might be referring to the fact that muslims consider Druze a separate religion, but as far as the Druze go, they consider themselves Muslim.


 * The Lebanese diaspore is approximately 15 million, 90% of whom are Christian. These people are recent immigrants, therefore the 1920 figure you seem to be confused about is totally accurate. Only after the Christians started leaving and Muslims arriving in Lebanon did the demographics shift so dramatically to their current figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.105.71 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

--SunshineOdyssey (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC) DaveBurstein (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Remove several comments that had few facts, no strong source, took space and added little. They were both pro and anti Israel. I also removed the the description "democratic" from a system of government that has weighted voting, not clearly justified.

Lebanese Language?
Hi, there seems to be a section mentioning something about Lebanese being a totally different language rather than a dialect of Arabic. This sounds absolutely horrendous, and the source seems to be very highly politically motivated to break away Lebanese identity for Arabs - probably for Western-influenced politics or something, or maybe as a backlash to Syrian oppression. Anywho, it sounds complete rubbish, and for such a large claim, at least some peer-reviewed data should be provided - not a clearly propoganda site known as lebaneselanguage.org or something. The Arabic language is very expansive, and yeah, only because say an Egyptian wont ever understand my own dialect doesn't make it a different language.

Also the demographics section seems a bit odd too - again with this dissociation with Arab identity. I understand ethnicity is usually all self-imposed, but I highly doubt the majority of Lebanese identify themselves as not Arab, especially with the business/livelihoods they are recieving from the Emirates with singers etc... This might be true for the Christian population, but I very much doubt so for the muslim or athiest/unaffiliated population. Again proof please. I changed them to make this article sound less ridiculous, but please change back if you have proof to discuss/debate. Thanks. Pink Princess (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Language ? thats a joke, am removing it, seems to me the full article needs to be re-written, lebanese is a dialect, not a language, hell the country's national anthem is in Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.13 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from a Lebanese language...I do believe that its legitamate for some Lebanese to seperate from an Arab identity because its true. Lebanese people especially Christains view themselves as decendents from the Phonecians who were conquered over the ages. Schnitzel MannGreek . 21:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However--there isn't that clear of a distinction as with another case-the Syriacs(Assyrians. Assyrians are clearly different from Arabs. While they are called Syrians because they are from Syria...they are different than Syrian Arabs. They decended from Assur and the ancient Assyrian Empire. They have their own language called Aramaic which they use in the Syriac Orthodox Church as well as the catholic church of theirs. They have been trying to get Assyrian Independence and make a country. So when you say Syrian oppression please note that not all Syrians are arab such as the Assyrians. In fact--most Assyrians(like me) hate the oppressive Syrian Arab government. Schnitzel MannGreek . 21:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this page, but am never getting any email notifications with replies? Does anyone know how to fix it? Anyway, that's the reason for my late reply - appologies for that. Anyway MannGreek, I am very aware of what Syriacs are, however, calling them Syrian under any circumstances is unacceptable since Syria is a country. Syriac is an ethnicity centred around a completely different language(s) they speak - however that is going offtopic. Lebanese Arabic is a dialect - and as much as they self-loath about their own identity and want to break away from the Arab world, they cannot call a different dialect a different language. Since ETHNICITY is self-determined (often blatantly going against genetic evidence), those Lebanese can freely start calling themselves Phoenicians, Assyrians, "Freaking Zombie Demons from Outer Space" or whatever they want and people are inclines to accept it as a new ethnicity. However, language determmination has many defined criteria such as a gramatic structure uniquely related to somesort of signs, unique pragmatics and semantics. I'm no language expert, but the "Lebanese language" does not meet any of those.
 * If those peole don't want to be Arabs - just don't call yourselves Arabs, but instead Arabised (ie Arabic is the only language they are able to speak) Phoenecians/Assyrians. Stealing another people's language and raping it by calling it otherwise is a poor excuse for self-determination - and shows only an identity crises and self loathing. TC. Pink Princess (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Two unsourced statements I'm removing
I'm removing two statements that are rife with original research and aren't sourced: "'The Phoenicians were able to pay taxes to all invading nations in order for them to be able to keep living in the mountains on their own accord. They could live peacefully under the conditions that they cause no trouble, pay taxes and follow basic laws.'" "'Many people would consider Lebanese people Arabs but truly they are not. They look different and have very significant cultural differences. They even have a different language, although their alphabet is the same. Lebanon would be considered by most Lebanese as Phoenician which may be true but they can better be known as Mediterranean.'" Unfortunately, LebaneseZp's statement that "my father and my grandfather... tell me stories that have been passed down generation to generation" is not sufficient for inclusion of this material. ← George [ talk  ] 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Third Opinion - Where exactly is the dispute here? Who is the other editor involved? ƒingers on  Roids  01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I left the user a message on their talk page a while ago, but they haven't stopped by to discuss the issue, preferring to edit war over the issue. ← George [ talk  ] 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the above, according to wikipedia's definition of an arab, Lebanese people are very much under the category, lebanese don't have a different language, they have a special dialect, so does every other arab country, as for the culture, lebanese culture is very similar to that of the arab countries surrounding it (Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian), some lebanese might be descendants of phoenycians, the same way some egyptians might be of ancient egyptians, or palestinians from canaanites, & so on, never the less, by today standards they are all considered arabs, i think the above mentioned paraghraphs should be removed as it reflects a certain POV, Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have highlighted that paragraph for being highly controversial and making unsubstantiated claims as to the ancestry and current identity of the Lebanese people. There isn't a single reference from a reliable source, or any source for that matter, that substantiates those claims. I know that it doesn't add much to the discussion in terms of proof, but I found claims that Lebanese aren't Arabs because of the way they look, their culture and language to be quite outlandish. After all, the Sudanese are black, the Syrians are very fair and yet nobody is saying that they are not Arabs (with the exception of Southern Sudanese). The people of the Near East, though possessing different ancient roots, has become compacted genetically due to the long time influence of Islam, which opened up borders and encouraged migration, as well as inter-marriage between different communities. Culturally the whole region has been a melting pot for millennia and cultural roots are very much intertwined. Even to a very careful foreign observer there are not more difference between many of the people there than there are between the Southern states of the US and the North or between Geordies in the North of England and Londoners. As far as language is concerned, that's a whole different story, but not one that warrants a different nation altogether. There isn't a single Arab country that speaks one unified dialect, even within Lebanon there are plenty of dialects, ranging from the posh upper-class dialects of Beirut that have many Francophone and Anglophone words mangling the speech to the dialects of the Felaheen in the rural areas. Despite this, Arabic dialects pale in complexity and difference to the variety of Italian dialects found on the Italian Peninsula, yet nobody is trying to argue that there is a different nation for each Italian dialect. In the end, cultural and linguistic variations are normal, even within small nations, let alone within nations that span thousands of miles. Unfortunately, the people of the Near East are plagued by politics which often seek to break them apart rather than bring them together for the common good. As long as this state of affairs will continue we will also continue to see edit wars on humble Wikipedia articles and heated polemics on internet forums, people from the same country rallying for different things, a failure to come to understand the other side's views and fears, religious clashes and further violence, war, widespread suffering, misery and death in the region. Sufitul (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Input

 * Comments by other users
 * Please forgive my intrusion but I felt like something should be said on behalf to this incident. ke this before. I read the edit made by the user about Lebanese people not being Arab. Its true that his tone is making the article sound biased but frankly there is truth in what he's saying. If the paragraph he wrote could be rewritten to make the tone more neutral and put it in a section about Demographic of Lebanon--I feel that it will have proper wiki status. From genetic testic and history tracks--Lebanese people have been identified with somewhat of a different culture that Arabic. While the Arab did conquer Lebanon and many people were Arabized the Lebanese still had a Mediterranean-Phonecian lineage. Schnitzel MannGreek . 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its sort of similar to the Syriac-Assyrians in Iraq and Assyria.They were conquered by Arabs but a multitude retained an identity of Assyrianism with the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Aramaic Language. The only difference is that Assyrians don't have a nation yet. But the Assyrians are more known for being a seperate group while the Lebanese have kinda of assimilated to a degree where you can't tell the clear boundary between Arab or another idenity-- Schnitzel MannGreek . 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for intruding on something I wasn't in but I had this on my heart that I wanted to say--this user had a legitament point, in away. Please discuss anything regaurding Phonecian identity on the Lebanon talk page. :) Schnitzel MannGreek . 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * HiSchnitzelMannGreek, and welcome. You should feel free to voice your opinion here, in any discussion. My issue with the edit is that it is being inserted into the lead of the article on Lebanon. The issue of Arab and Phoenician ancestry of modern day Lebanese citizens is covered in quite some detail in the Lebanese people article, so I see little need to go into such detail here. Even if it were included here in some way, the placement is wrong, as it's not important enough to belong in a lead. Lastly, the information was completely unsourced, and controversial materials in Wikipedia must be cited to reliable sources. ← George [ talk  ] 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the reply. Your right and as long as its in the article of Lebanese people and it explains"Phonecian lineage"--than I guess the informatiom is sufficent to cover the substantial controversial area of Lebanese origin. Personally--I believe that some Lebanese aren't of Arab decent, but like you said its in the Lebanese people article. Its very similar to part of my heritage. I am Assyrian which is also known as Syriac. We are an Aramaic speaking people who live in the northern Middle East and decendent of Assur and the Assyrian Empire. We were conquered by Arabs and adopted their culture to some extinct(but remained Christain) though we retained our language and a more distinct identity. We have cultural links to the Greeks as well and I happen to be half Greek. Thanks for listening(check ouut Assyrian independence to find out more about a proposed Assyrian nation). Thanks:) Schnitzel MannGreek . 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. But then, don't you propose, in the interest of fairness, that we modify all other articles about nations and specify that Jordanians have Greek and Canaanite lineage (partly in common with the Palestinians) or that the Sudanese are of Nubian lineage and that the Moroccans are actually Berber and the Iraqis are Babylonians and Mesopotamiams and the Turks are Hittite? We could go on to say that the Romanians have Latin, Etruscan, Sabine, Greek, Turkish, Slavic and of course Thrace-Dacian lineage as well. In the interest of being very accurate we may wish to go on to define the English as not being English but as Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Viking-Latin or the French as being Gauls-Latins and Franks, after all, that would be more specific, correct? So I vote we define the Lebanese as Phoenician-Canaanite-Greco-Turco-Frankish-Arabs. Sufitul (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully protectected
Please discuss issues here on the talk page, and/or engage in WP:Dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to invite editors to join the existing discussion just above this one, which covers at least two of the statements being reverted. ← George [ talk  ] 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LEBANON AGAIN REVIVED AND RESTABILIZED!!
Until July 2006, a considerable degree of stability had been achieved throughout much of the country, Beirut's reconstruction was almost complete,[10] and an increasing number of foreign tourists were pouring into Lebanon's resorts.[8] This was until the one month long 2006 Lebanon War, between the Israeli military and Hezbollah, which caused significant civilian death and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure. The conflict lasted from 12 July 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on 14 August 2006.[11] After some turbulent political times, Lebanon was again able to revive and restablize its economy and government.

im sorry This is not clear...You seem to make your own assumptions and foreign reference.. I lived through this war and previously all the bombings...since 2004!and till now there seems to be no revival and restabilizing..please back up your information.There is a great deal of bias!or denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.64.129 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lebanone Air force
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/lebanon/airforce.htm I added it as reference, the article needed sources. Feel free to adjust it the way you guys think it will be portrayed better. --Saab 1989 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cedar Revolution
What happened to the opening few lines of the section on the Cedar Revolution? Aren't they missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.84.52 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct you are! I dug through the revision history and found it. Let's just hope it's removal was unintentional and not vandalism. Mnation2 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Syndicates
The last item presently a part of the "to-do" list for this article is to obtain a list of syndicates for various groups in Lebanon.

I found a fairly detailed list here:. Click on a specific type of association and the one or more associations present in Lebanon will appear.

I am unsure as to how this should be included in the article. As a part of external links? Help would be appreciated. Thanks! Mnation2 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can check List of Lebanese syndicates and orders. Eklipse (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Extensive cleanup in one edit
I have done the following in one edit, because that is my habit:
 * 1) Removed unnecessary extra spaces throughout the article
 * 2) Changed some wikilinks because they were repetitive or they pointed to redirects e.g. Elias Khoury (writer) is a redirect to Elias Khoury
 * 3) Corrected grammar within Wikipedia guidelines (e.g. no change between American and British spellings)
 * 4) Removed the designate tag from Saad Hariri
 * 5) Condensed as many citations as possible - there is no need to lay them out vertically
 * 6) Removed Jonathan Trumbull's name from the references in the lead - he was born in Lebanon, Connecticut, not Lebanon the country
 * 7) Removed the Bashir Shihab narrative from the Ancient history section, because it looked like it had been unceremoniously dumped in the middle of the previous narrative without any care for how it reads
 * 8) Removed the alignment field from the Beirut barracks bombing image under the Civil War section, because thunbs are aligned to the right by default
 * 9) Removed the bracketed information from the weather table because it is not really necessary
 * 10) Please note that Lebanon is not hosting the next Asian Winter Games in 2009; they will be held in 2011 in Almaty, Kazakhstan
 * 11) Removed the entire gallery below the movies section because all of the images were of dubious copyright

Green Giant (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great job!! ← George [ talk  ] 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable sources
There are four questionable sources currently cited to support the concept of a "Lebanese language" and a "Lebanese people" as an ethnicity, rather than a nationality. First, let's review WIkipedia's policy on reliable sources and verifiability. Policy states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, ... etc., are largely not acceptable." There is an exception made when the publisher of the material is an expert in the field, which can be validated by other reliable source citing them. The four websites in question are: All four of these sources are extremely unreliable. If someone can find a reliable source that makes similar claims, the statements can stand. Likewise, if editors can verify that any of the people who wrote these pages are experts in their field that are used by other reliable sources (i.e., not just some random person), then we can consider them for inclusion. Until then, they will be removed.
 * - this site gives no information about who writes it or reviews it, except one email address.
 * - this website doesn't list an author, but is an exact copy of the first website.
 * - this blog doesn't cite its source. It lists four people as making up the group. Their expert status in this field needs to be verified.
 * - this page is cited to the second website above, which in turn copied it's material from the first website.

——— Simply because they have different points of view doesn't mean they are questionable. Also, if anything, the Lebanese people are the result of the mixing up of all the different peoples and empires that passed through the country. The oldest continuously inhabited city in the world is Byblos in Lebanon. Which means the Lebanese were around a long time before the Arab invasion.

Furthermore, a lot of Lebanese do not even consider themselves Arab to start with. Also, genetic testing confirmed that Lebanese are not simply Arab. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_people#Genetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikita Oscar Angel (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the sources isn't their viewpoint, it's their reliability. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources - newspapers, books, scholarly papers. Anyone can create their own website, so in order to use a website it has to be created by someone that is an expert in their field. None of those websites (as far as I can tell) is created by an expert in the field of linguistics, for instance.


 * I don't understand the point of the second part. I added a note in the article stating that many Lebanese identify themselves as Phoenician. The article you reference says that some Lebanese people have some Phoenician ancestry, among many different things. Reliable sources, however, refer to their ethnicity as "Arab", not "Lebanese". We only care about what reliable sources say, not whether it's true or not. To quote Wikipedia's policy on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that you need to find reliable sources that agree with the point (if they exist), and the sources that were used before aren't sufficient. ← George [ talk  ] 08:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Population figures don't add up
150,000 Armenians = 4% of the Lebanese population, estimated 100-150,000 Kurds = 1%?

According to the CIA Factbook, 95% of the population is "Arab", 4% Armenian, and 1% other. If indeed the population of Kurds in Lebanon does number that estimate, then the percentages given are wrong, and a mention of the substantial Kurdish population needs to be made in the percentage figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.105.71 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the Kurds are non-citizen residents of Lebanon. The CIA World Factbook's estimate for ethnicity and religion are of citizens only, not residents. The same issue arises with Palestinians and guest workers. Mnation2 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, fair enough :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.101.190 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Republic vs. Republic of Lebanon
Curious which we should be using. Lebanese Republic is used by the CIA, and is the more correct translation of the official Arabic name. However, "Republic of Lebanon" returns more hits than "Lebanese Republic", particularly among Lebanese government websites. Thoughts? ← George [ talk  ] 06:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A google search gives 40,100 results for "Lebanese Republic" and 48,200 for "Republic of Lebanon" (almost evenly split). And you're right: there seem to be a tendency for government sites to use "Republic of Lebanon", although this is not the best translation of "Al-Jumhuryya al-Lubnanyya" or "Republique Libanaise". Since English has no official status in Lebanon, there doesn't seem to be an official rule dictating which term to use, and there shouldn't be in Wikipedia also. I suggest we use them interchangeably in WP articles. Eklipse (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise, Google News give 479 for "Lebanese Republic" vs. 691 for "Republic of Lebanon", Google Books is 807 for "Lebanese Republic" vs. 930 for "Republic of Lebanon", and Google Scholar gives 653 for "Lebanese Republic" vs. 1,050 for "Republic of Lebanon". And just to quantify, a Google search for "lebanese republic" site:*.gov.lb (a search for the term across government sites) yield 358 results, while a search for "republic of lebanon" site:*.gov.lb returns 11,700 results (mostly due to many documents indexed at a few government sites, but still a very significant difference).


 * However, it's also worth reviewing Wikipedia's naming conventions for places. Point 1 says to "Consult English-language encyclopedias". The Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica both list the official name as "Lebanese Republic". Point 2 says to "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits", which favors "Republic of Lebanon" (though slightly). Point 3 says to "Consult other standard histories and scientific studies" - The Library of Congress country studies' search results favor "Republic of Lebanon" of "Lebanese Republic" by 7 to 4 – not a lot of results to go on. The CIA, however, lists the official name as "Lebanese Republic". Point 4 says to "Consult major news sources", which, per Google, tends to favor "Republic of Lebanon" (slightly). Point 6 discusses "translating or explaining the official name", and would favor the more correct translation of "Lebanese Republic".


 * So, while I definitely agree that the terms can be used interchangeably, I'm trying to decide which to put in the lead and infobox. I'm leaning towards sticking to "Lebanese Republic", and adding a footnote better explaining the other common usage. ← George [ talk  ] 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the United States Board on Geographic Names, which is listed under the naming conventions policy as BGN and "determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States", lists the conventional name as "Republic of Lebanon"... ← George [ talk  ] 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And Kamal Salibi uses "Lebanese Republic" in his House of many mansions. About the BGN, the policy states that this source is not a guideline to follow, it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question. There's really no official or scholarly preference, and (fortunately) the naming doesn't have any controversial issues. Your proposal of putting a footnote is adequate. About what to put on the infobox, I am leaning towards "Lebanese Republic", mostly because of the Britannica reference and because it is a more correct translation. However, I advice you to be bold and put whatever you prefer. Eklipse (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that makes sense. I'm going to leave it mostly the way it is, with "Lebanese Republic" in the infobox and body, and a footnote in the body. However, the footnote needs some serious work. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow. Thanks for your input! ← George [ talk  ] 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I've changed my mind on this issue. I was looking through some documents today, and I noticed that right on the inside of the Lebanese passport, it lists the name of the country in Arabic, French, and English, and while the Arabic & French translate most closely as "Lebanese Republic", the government wrote "Republic of Lebanon". I think such an important, official document, that many Lebanese would have, shows a clear preference in terminology – more so than the ministerial websites made by who knows who. That, combined with the Google results, now makes me think that we should in fact list the common name as "Republic of Lebanon", and relegate the more proper translation of "Lebanese Republic" to the foot note (explaining that it is also used sometimes, and is the more accurate translation). I'll probably do this in the coming days. Cheers. ← George [ talk  ] 11:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your logic. Eklipse (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention Phoenician descent?
On the site, it shows that the majority of the population are "Arabs", however the majority of the civilians in the North of Lebanon (North Lebanon/Mount Lebanon) are original Maronite Christians since the 5th Century ( Saint Maroun, he brought Christianity to Lebanon), whereas the religion of Islam began in the 7th Century (Prophet Mouhammed being exiled in 622 etc..). Therefore the Christians in Mount Lebanon were there before the Muslim Regime began, and they are still there (even after the Ottoman Empire and it seems very unlikely that they converted.), therefore we should include Phoenician descent into the list. And we must not forget that Beirut is divided in two: the Christian district and the Muslim district. And I'm more than convinced that the amount of Phoenician descendants in Lebanon is more than 1% (considering that the Population of Lebanon is around 4 million, and Mount Lebanon is a massive district and not to forget the Christian district of Beirut). And I would like to finish by saying that Phoenicians have no relations to Arabs; they are not classified as the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.208.62 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, you raise some very good points there my friend. However, there is no genetic not geneographic data from a trusted source to confirm either way. You must also understand that it is unfeasible to think of all Muslims as ethnically the post 622 immigrants into Lebanon, or the Christians are decended from the Phoenicians. This is because it is widely known, from many very reliable historical texts that many of the Phoenicians also converted to Islam and were Arabised - many Arab tribes back then freely allowed anyone to join - sometimes they don't even make the person convert! So therefore there will be some Phoenician decent in the Muslim Lebanese as well.
 * Also, Arabs like the Ghassanids immigrated into Lebanon, and throughout the Middle East a long time before Islam. Many of those people where Christians, and they surely would have also mixed in with the Phoenicians. They even mixed with the Romans - like Philip the Arab!! This has happened to all races in the Middle-East, so we are all a bit mixed. Genetically, people from the Middle-East - even people who are not semetic like Kurds, are genetically very similar. Geneographically, I would bet that 99% of Lebanese have ancestories in both the Arabs who arrived very late, and also the very early ancient civilisations like the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans. Even maybe some of the French too, and not just Christians, but Muslims also.
 * Inshallah, one day I will try and do such a study for my PhD if I choose Genetics, but until then, I cannot find a single reliable source which reliably, and accurately states genetic geographical origins of people ofthe Middle-East, except for Jews in Israel. But even those are often highly politically biased! It is also difficult to find accurate remaining DNA samples from certainly/reliably known ancient populations. Virtually none of the articles I've read have been accepted via peer review, nor published in a journal.
 * So the question of genetics is useless without good sources. If you have any reliable, unpoliticised and peer-reviewed geneographic surveys, please send them to me, I'd love to read them.:)
 * Otherwise, the question of the ethnicity of the Lebanese, and also the Iraqis, the Syrians and some Jordanians can only determined by the alternate (and more accepted in the West/developed countries) defining parameters of ethnicity - self determination. This basically means what the Lebanese people choose to call themselves. If they call themselves "Phoenicians", then they are "Phoenicians". If they say they are "Lebanese", "Arabs" or "Aliens", we must put that as what they are. That is what I believe was done with the survey. Lebanese people were asked what they say their ethnicity is, and only 1% said Phoenicians. To be honest, I think there are a lot more Phoenician DNA in them, but there is no good tests and studies to show so.
 * Take care mate, and hope that explained. Sorry for it being very long-winded. Please if you reply, can you tell me you did so on my user page's "Discussions" Tab, so I would know and reply to you ASAP? Thanks. Pink Princess (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Inscription in Phoenician?
The letters of the inscription in the image don't look to me like they're in the Phoenician alphabet--it looks more like Greek lettering. And I wasn't aware that Phoenician was still spoken in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Byzantine era. Anyone here have enough authoritative knowledge to confirm or deny the photo's caption? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not by any means authoritative on the subject, but the (or what look like, anyway) "P","T',"H", and "B" in the inscription look nothing like the Phoenician alphabet I see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phoenician_alphabet.svg.Mnation2 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look through the history of the page, someone changed this within the last year from Greek to Phoenician. Since it's unsourced, I've changed it back to Greek. ← George [ talk  ] 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thank you for straightening that up! 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arab or Mixture of different peoples?
The Encyclopedia Britannica states that "The Lebanese are ethnically a mixture of Phoenician, Greek, Armenian, and Arab elements". This would make sense this the Lebanese have been around a lot longer than the Arabs have. The oldest continuously inhabited city in the world is Byblos. The Holy Bible gets its name from Byblos. Again, the Lebanese have been around a log longer than the Arabs have. To say that the Lebanese are 95% Arab simply belies the reality.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica does indeed state that the Lebanese are a mixed ethnic group. It's hardly surprising given how many different cultures have traded with or invaded the area. Unless you can find a source that says that Lebanon is 95% Lebanese though, I don't see any other option. Britannica lists Arab as one of the ethnic elements that makes up the modern day Lebanese, but it doesn't say if they make up 1% or 95%; the CIA does, making it the best source we have. ← George [ talk  ] 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The CIA also states that Lebanon's area is 10.400 km and that there are only 2000 UNIFIL in the south of the country; Both of which are obviously false. The 95% should be used to state that 95% of the population is Lebanese. Then add footnotes describing what the CIA says and another stating what the Britannica says. This would be a fair.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The second source (Britannica) doesn't say that 95% of the population is ethnically Lebanese, and neither does the CIA. We can't just mix numbers around to make them say what we want instead of finding a reliable source that states something explicitly. Wikipedia's policy on synthesis states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research." ← George [ talk  ] 01:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Found a different, and far more detailed source;

" The main ethnic group of Lebanon, the Lebanese Arabs, are a result of millenniums of migrations. Most of Lebanese blood predates the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th century CE, their former identity were that of the Phoenicians and Canaanites. "

Ethnic groups Figures in 1000. Arabs	2,500	63.0% Lebanese	1,500	38.0% Palestinians	500	12.0% Syrians	300	7.5% Iraqis	100	2.5% Egyptians	70	1.8% Other	50	1.3% Phoenicians *)	1,000	25.0% Armenians	150	3.8% Kurds	100	2.5% Assyrians	40	1.0% Circassians	35	1.0% Greeks	8	0.2% Italians	5	0.1% Other	180	4.5%

All from, Encyclopaedia of the Orient. This source seems to be more accurate than both, the Factbook and the Britannica.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide the link to that source? ← George [ talk  ] 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for forgetting to provide the link.. Anyways, it is http://i-cias.com/e.o/lebanon.peoples.htm :)Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So unfortunately this source was found to not be a reliable source in a previous discussion on the reliable source noticeboard. You can read that previous discussion to see why editors felt that way. Encyclopaedia of the Orient/LookLex is writen by individual users, like Wikipedia. The author of the page on Lebanese people is Tore Kjeilen. While I'm sure he's a nice person, there's nothing that indicates that he's an expert in this field, or that he's ever even been to Lebanon or the Middle East. You maybe want to try searching on Google Books or Google Scholar. ← George [ talk  ] 02:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely pathetic - and what I'd expect from ethno-centric teenagers - to even consider Arab means 100% genetic Arab, or Phonecian, Assyrian/Kurd means 100% of that genepool. All humanity is mixed to some degree - especially the people of the middle-east which has been conquered time and time again by all sorts of empires from the far east to western europe. That is a very obviously known fact, I hope people are not going to challange it - but if so I have plenty of peer-reviewed scientific papers to post.
 * The question here is ethnicity - what the people consider themselves to be. Generally in Lebanon, I'd probably say the majority would call themselves Arabs, Christian minorities probably with an almost identical genetic origins would lean more so towards Phoenician identity, most likely political or to distance themselves from Arabs elsewhere - so there are also Phoenician Muslims and Arab Christians.
 * I'd love to see any reliable peer-reviewed and published genetic information (not unpublished crap from nationalist lab assistants) claiming one way or another, but until then, we have to use what most Lebanese call themselves. Pink Princess (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Third infobox footnote
The reason this makes no sense is because nothing links to it. It's covering the same topic as the second, so it should be included in the second footnote. Also, it must be reworded - copying text for a source word for word is plagarism. ← George [ talk  ] 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with rewording it. But the reason I included it is because, even though the factbook says that 95% of the population are Arab, the Lebanese people are more mixed than that. So I added the 3rd footnote as a sort of disclaimer to make that clear. Its relevant because it clears up that question. We could leave the 3rd footnote but reword it if you want. Making readers think that the Lebanese people are simply Arab excludes the other characteristics and heritage of the people.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why add a third footnote? There's already a footnote right there describing the complexities of assigning a label to the Lebanese. It should be include in that footnote (the second one). ← George [ talk  ] 22:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. Include it in footnote 2. But, how about we use this sentence:

Lebanese ethnicity is a mixture of Phoenician, Greek, Armenian, and Arab elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with your wording; I've changed it in the article. ← George [ talk  ] 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. :)Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Byblos in the lead
There's no need to dedicate a full sentence to Byblos in the lead. Byblos has its own article, which covers the issue in depth. Also, the claim of Byblos as the oldest continually inhabited city on Earth is disputed by some other cities; again, it's not something worth mentioning here. We don't mention Tyre or Sidon in the lead, and we can't include every piece of trivia on every town in Lebanon in this one article. ← George [ talk  ] 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I included that sentence was to show exactly how old Lebanon was. But I suppose we could remove that sentence but keep the one about the Bible because that paragraph mentions Lebanon in the Bible along with a few other facts.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence before this - that civilization started in Lebanon over 7,000 years ago - shows how old Lebanon is more than saying just mentioning Byblos. And now the first sentence is referring to Byblos already. It's also complicated because there's much dispute over which city is the oldest continually inhabited in the world (see: List of cities by time of continuous habitation) - many different sources say that different cities have this title. ← George [ talk  ] 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, we can leave out the sentence I had included but keep the one about the Bible since the paragraph itself talks about the mentioning of Lebanon in various items, etc (including the more than 70 times in the Bible.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a mention that the Bible was named after Byblos in the section discussing the Etymology. ← George [ talk  ] 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you and God bless you. :) Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bible in the Etymology
There's no reason to include mentioning that the Bible was named after Byblos in the article on Lebanon. Mention it in the Bible article? Yes. Mention it in the Byblos article? Yes. But here? No. Just because Byblos is in Lebanon doesn't mean that this article covers every single detail of every single town, village, or city in the country. That's why we have separate articles for each city. ← George [ talk  ] 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed this, not because of relevance, but because it's not really correct. "Bible" comes from a word for "book".  The word for "book" does come from "Byblos", but that's not the same thing as naming the Bible after Byblos. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

French settled in Lebanon?
This unsourced statement is in the demographics section: "As a French colony, a fairly large French minority settled in Lebanon, though most French settlers left after Lebanese independence in 1943."

I can't find any evidence that the French ever settled Lebanon. If no one else can find some sources within a couple days, I'll remove the sentence. Mnation2 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that this sounded fishy as well. Support its removal if no source is provided. ← George [ talk  ] 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Mnation2 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Official Language
Article 11 of Lebanon's Constitution states that "Arabic is the official national language. A law determines the cases in which the French language may be used". It does not say Arabic is an official national language, nor that French may sometimes be considered an official language. It merely says French may be used. This article in the constitution was amended on 9/11/1943. It used to say "L’arabe est la langue nationale officielle dans toutes         les administrations de l’Etat. Le français est également          langue officielle, une loi spéciale déterminera les cas          où il en sera fait usage." or Arabic is the official national language in all the State's administrations. French is equally an official language, a special law will determine the cases where it shall be used. The amended version removed the reference to French as an official language. So at some point, both Arabic and French were official languages, but not now. --Fjmustak (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed this for now, though I'm not particularly happy with either version. From the official language article: "An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration. However, official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) a legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken." Now, the Constitution says that Arabic is the official language, but it also makes a special status for French, which should be reflected in some way. For now I've moved mention of French to the footnote, though I'm not fully convinced either way, and may change my mind at a later point. ← George [ talk  ] 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind on this again, after reading the official language article more fully (which made me support the inclusion of French initially). Arabic is both the de facto and de jure official language; that's obvious. However, while French isn't a de jure official language, it does have some legal status as an optional de facto official language. Before we decide on this issue, does anyone know what law is being referred to when the Constitution states that "Une loi déterminera les cas où il sera fait usage de la langue française."? Does any such law actually exist? ← George [ talk  ] 02:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi George, Here are a couple of random thoughts that come to my mind: In Algeria, Arabic is not recognized as an official language, however, it is probably more widely used than Arabic in official and non-official capacities (I guess the difference in Lebanon is that there is some form of recognition of the French language in the constitution, albeit not as an official language. I do agree that it should be mentioned somewhere as well). In the United States (see article), it states that there is no official language (at the federal level), yet there is a national language (English), which is spoken by the majority of the population, in addition to being the language used in legislature, etc...  --Fjmustak (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, I'm not completely against categorizing French as something other than the official language, but we have to figure out what to label it as. One problem is that the infobox template only allows us to list two sets of languages - the official languages, and one other set. Right now we list official and spoken. We could list the official as just Arabic, and then list the national as Arabic and French, but then where would we put English and Armenian? Would those be national languages as well? I tend to think not. We could leave it as official and spoken, and only mention French in a footnote, but that seems a bit off as well, since it's a sort of "semi-official" language. While the constitution doesn't say that French is an official language, the way it is used and the way it's singled out in the constitution makes me think that it may count as a de facto official language anyways. I'm really curious what that "law" the constitution talks about is... ← George [ talk  ] 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of something like this: official_languages      = Arabic, French (semi-official) ?  This way we wouldn't have to touch the spoken languages section.  As for spoken languages, I would put Armenian before French and English, because (correct me if I'm wrong), Armenian is spoken as a native language (among Armenians), as opposed to French and English (which I'm sure are spoken very fluently by many Lebanese, but are not used in day-to-day communication among the Lebanese, besides using French and English loanwords and phrases in Arabic). Anyway, I think all of this would be better explained in a "Language" section (possibly under "Culture"), rather than just in the infobox. --Fjmustak (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, we definitely need more information on the languages, but I don't know when I (or whoever) will get around to writing it. I think the order of the spoken languages was taken from the CIA World FactBook, and is based on the percentage of people who speak that language in the country (almost everyone speaks Arabic, less speak French, even less speak English, etc).
 * I think your suggestion for the infobox is a good one though. What do you think of using the word "conditional" rather than "semiofficial"? Something like: Arabic, French (conditional), with the footnote and such. I think that's a bit more precise. ← George [ talk  ] 08:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've used conditional. I will start the language section (on my userpage). I hope we can come up with enough meaningful info to include in the article. P.S. Some of the info is already there under the Demographics section. --Fjmustak (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)