Talk:2006–2008 Lebanese protests

I need people to jump in and help keep this article up-to-date. But be accurate and don't use materials that violate Wikipedia and/or copyrights rules and regulations. Thanks. - Qasamaan 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title is POV[edit]

To call the current political crisis a "revolt" is a POV, as this is the term that is being propagated by the anti-goverment party. There are no elements of a revolt. A more NPOV title should be used. I suggest "protests".--Thameen 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but for different reasons. I haven't really considered whether the term "revolt" is POV or not (it could be), but really what is going on is a "protest", not a "revolt". During the two months plus of protests and sit-ins, there was one day of strikes, and a couple days of clashes. This is very, very far from a "revolt". — George Saliba^[talk] 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I believe that we should use "Pro and Anti-government" instead of "pro and anti-US or Israel or Syria. So I substituted POV with NPOV description.--User:Sa.vakilian 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the correct terms should be pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian when referring to their opinion of Syria (which happens rarely), Western-backed or Iranian-backed when referring to who backs them (which happens rarely), and current government or opposition when referring to them by themselves (which happens most often). That's just my opinion on most NPOV names. — George Saliba^[talk] 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vakilian, 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 proest. Lcnj 08:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it man. Also, I'm removing the suggestion to merge... since the articles were already merged... — George Saliba^[talk] 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George, I could always see your clear NPOV efforts by introducing POV of BOTH camps (In Lebanon, that is ALL you can do). Now, suddenly the article is attacking the US and making Hezbollah look like a saint. What happened in less than 24 hours? Khaled. Lcnj 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm very busy at work to keep up, and on one side some people are reverting my edits and saying I'm too POV against Israel, and on the other side people are reverting my edits and saying I'm too POV against Hezbollah. Really, when it comes to such contentious issues, I think everyone has a right to their own opinion, and I think they should all be presented as fairly and honestly as possible, but the level of POV edits and reverts has been overwhelming lately. If you have time, please have at it. Hopefully I'm more free this weekend to go through these articles. — George Saliba^[talk] 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood... I am doing what I can... Although I have no involvement either way and only want to see the delicate TRUTH in journalism, I respect and encourage everyone's different personal POV but I insist on NPOV on Wikipedia. Lebanon, hystorically, has always had confilcting POV's and many parties unfortunately engage in lies, deception and half-truths. It is a journalist/editor's job to catch them in their lies and half truths and expose them (without being assassinated for it). The only way we can all adhere to NPOV on Wikipedia and still incorporate conflicting POV's, is for everyone to cooperate and present balanced POV's. You have been adhering to the NEUTRAL balance. That means other editors cannot push ONE POV and not present the other in their edits. Anyone who constatntly reverts, fasely accuses and engages in ONE single POV in Lebanon (his own) and not the other POV is making your job unnecessarily tedious and is in violation of NPOV on Wikipedia. Lcnj 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I immediatly stop reading after the mindless repetition of the pro/anti-syrian phrase. I don't think it adds much even if historically after all some partys or a majority (apparently) supported syrian influence in libanon. This is about the *lebanese* request for elections. That it is after 4 and 6 months still turned down or categorised as a new event is surprising. Mostly in the light of all the attention there always is in the media etc. for abbas wish for elections, wich as far as i know has not ever been protested, since fatah was occupied with protesting against hamas anyways after the escalation. 212.187.41.61 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

Dear Lcnj. I revert substitute your edition with what is perfectly conform to the reference. According to the lead of Yahoo's article:"Hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah members and their allies flooded central Beirut on Sunday demanding changes in the government's makeup as soldiers strung more barbed wire around the offices of the Western-backed premier."[1]--Sa.vakilian 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian. While I sicnerely appreciate your civil and very friendly tone, I resent your practice of removing my edits without my agreement. Please do not revert my edits again until this dispute is resolved and a consensus is reached. As an Editor, I am not obligated to plaigerize the exact wording of the source I provide. That would defeat my purpose as an editor. Another critical issue that you have not responded to in my comment to you above... while I welcome and encourage your having an obvious personal point a view, I respectfully request of you, as an editor to be NEUTRAL and not to express only ONE POV in ALL your edits. We all need to adhere to NPOV and you can present your personal POV as well as present the conflicting POV, whether you personally agree with it or not. This will help the rest of us maintain a NEUTRAL balance. Thank you for your cooperation. Lcnj 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1- I don't want to participate in an editorial war. I put your edition between  to maintain balance situation. I hope that I don't bother you. We do like this in a very controversial case to prevent editorial war between me and a Sunni.:talk:Ali#Ghadir Khumm

2- This is your sentences:Hundreds of thousands of po-Syrian and pro-Iranian Hezbollah supporters poured into downtown Beirut keeping Saniora and other Lebanese ministers under siege, paralyzing the the core of Beirut, threatening Lebanon's economy and security, and splitting Lebanon along dangerous sectarian lines between Sunnis and Shiites.

I don't think it's NPOV.First emphasizing on pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian instead of anti-government protesters doesn't sound good. Second is Aoun one of the Hezbollah's supporters! or he doesn't have any supporter!!! Third who is threatening Lebanon's economy and security? from the POV of pro-government it's completely true. But from the POV of anti-government it's completely wrong. Fourth "splitting Lebanon along dangerous sectarian lines between Sunnis and Shiites" is what some of the Sunnis have claimed and some others like Fathi Yekan, Umar Karami disagree with it. Finaly I think you should add other viewpoints if you want to maintain neutral(As you advised before: Another critical issue that you have not responded to ...).--Sa.vakilian 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at this sentence when I get this far down in the article. I've started from the top, and I'm working my way down. Regarding your points:

I agree it's unnecessary to say pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian every time we mention Hezbollah. I've tried to lay out, as fairly as I can, who supports who in th introduction and background sections of the article, and I think later in the article it's best to refer to parties as "the current government" or "the opposition group" as these are terms that are extremely neutral to both sides. That's my view at least.
Using "the opposition group", or something similar, also helps us having to always say Hezbollah, Amal, and FPM every time, or just mentioning Hezbollah, the largest group, which can wrongfully be interpretted as meaning Hezbollah and only Hezbollah by a reader.
I think unless there's some specific economic news (for instance, if they were to shut down the airport, block the port, etc. one day), let's leave the Economy to the Economic Impact section I added at the bottom, and instead of talking about Security we can deal with hard facts - the number of people injured in the clashes, the death of Ahmad Ali Mahmoud, the increased police patrols, etc.
The splitting of the nation along sectarian lines is an important point, but doesn't have to be mentioned in every paragraph obviously.

I think a lot of the article has gotten repetetive, since we're adding updates day by day, and the news has largely been the same each day - more protests, the country divided, etc. I'm hoping as I have time to go through the article I can clean up the text in general. I'm not only worried about neutrality issues on both sides, but also repetitive statements that just grow naturally when an article covers a current event like this one does. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you George. Although, I disagree with your supporting Sa.vakilian (and I will have to slap you a bit around with a large trout for it), I must concede that your contribution to this friendly dispute has weighed the consensus against me. So, unless someone else comes to my support in this dispute within the time period allowed by Wikipedia, our good friend Sa.vakilian, [User:George.Saliba|George Saliba]] or I can remove my disputed contribution in adherence to consensus. Cheers. Lcnj 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I side with no one – I believe you both have your points. The statement in question is not extremely POV, but very repetitive. For instance, saying Hezbollah is pro-Syrian isn't POV, but when every paragraph in the article says Hezbollah is pro-Syrian it verges on POV I think, and more over it just sounds bad (even if true). It's no ones fault so much as this article is a mess in its current state, due to the merging in of the original from the main Lebanon article, but I'm hoping that changes. I had to delete almost every word in the Background section, and way too much of this article is straight plagarism from its sources, which are often too POV (much more POV than your sentence). Also, I am a ninja at dodging large trout – consider yourself warned! — George Saliba^[talk] 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My intentions are to uncomment and re-write that sentence when I get there. I'm only up to mid-November so far though. — George Saliba^[talk] 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ninja Saliba.... Go do your magic... I will take a look after you are done cleaning up... cheers, pal... Lcnj 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point[edit]

Cleanup Co-ordination

This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
the article has multiple overlapping problems.
the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

Discussion[edit]

I found a lot of spelling and grammatical problems in this article. I managed to fix some, but I need some Wikipedians to help out with the rest. Since it's been a long time since the protest started, I need people to help shorten or combine paragraphs asap. Thanks. - Qasamaan 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help out here when I get a chance. Been a bit busy with other things, but this article definately needs some clean up. — George Saliba^[talk] 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the joys of my life that in the time it took me to log in to change "fractions" to "factions" it had already been done. -- Jon Quixote 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, new to this, so help me out if I do something stupid. I'm a journo, going to have a crack at the sp and grammar. Badawie 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Me again. I got as far as the fourth paragraph. I am finding it hard to edit something that is so biased in so many ways. I find myself fighting the urge to remove statements such as that referring to hez claiming victory...hang on..going to go find the exact sentence that set me off..Badawie 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) and here it is, apologies to whoever wrote it..[reply]

"On July 12, 2006, a Hezbollah raid across the Israeli border resulted in the capture of two soldiers and the deaths of three others, setting off a 34-day conflict between Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli army. The conflict resulted in the deaths of over 1,100 Lebanese, the majority of whom were civilians, [5][6][7][8][9][10] and the destruction of a significant amount of national civilian infrastructure, including Rafiq Hariri International Airport. However, due to the failure of Israeli forces to eliminate Hezbollah's leadership, halt Katyusha rockets and mortar attacks on northern Israel, and rescue its two captured soldiers, Hezbollah declared victory. By resisting destruction at the hands of a far more powerful opponent, Hezbollah's support in Lebanon increased significantly amongst sectors of the population. The ruling government, by contrast, was seen by some as impotent in comparison, for its failure to effectively combat the Israeli forces."

I know this isn't prob the right place to do this, but, how about: On July 12, 2006, a Hezbollah raid accross the Israeli border resulted in the capture of two soldiers and the deaths of three others, setting off a 34 day conflict between Hezbollah and the Israeli Army. By the end of the conflict, Israeli air and ground campaigns resulted in the deaths of over 1,1000 people. Lebanon's infrastructure (do we need to say civilian? the military also uses roads/bridges) was seriously compromised, with bridges, power plants, and the international airport all targetted (do we need to say hariri airport? makes the sentence long). At the end of the conflict, Hezbollah declared victory -- etc --- you get the idea. have to get some sleep Badawie 01:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badawie. Great work so far cleaning up the article! For the most part I like your suggested rewording of this section. I'm not sure regarding the term civilian infrastructure vs. just infrastructure. It doesn't make too much difference to me, however, I think that most of the targets were civilian infrastructure (power plants, the airport, etc.), and only a few were pure military infrastructure (not sure what exactly... though 50 or so soldiers were killed, so there had to be something). Again though, I don't really care either way. I do think you should try to find a better wording than "seriously compromised" though, as much of the infrastructure was completely destroyed. Remember we're talking about billions of dollars of destruction in a country of less than four million people. The original wording may be more appropriate: "Lebanon's infrastructure was significantly destroyed...", though I leave the exact wording up to you. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, thanks, wasn't sure if I was intruding..you're right about the infrastructure wording, am going to put an estimate as well (will be between 2 figures, ie, from $2.5bn-antother figure. so many numbers out there) etc. Thanks again for the reply. I may be too neutral (we all self censor at times I guess), so please feel free to come in after me and tell me!

Article name[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding the name of this article, given that the protests have now extended into 2007? Hopefully I'll get a chance to update this article with more recent events soon, but in the meantime I was curious what other editors thought about this. — George Saliba^[talk] 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the "Lebanese Anti-Siniora Protest"? It even sounds more specific. - Qasamaan 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is I don't think it fully encompasses the protests. While the opposition does oppose Siniora, the dispute is bigger than that. Replacing Siniora with someone else, without any other changes to the make-up of the Cabinet, probably wouldn't resolve the conflict. I was curious if they use some specific name globally or locally, similar to how the global media used the term "Cedar Revolution" in 2005, or if I remember correctly the local Lebanese media used the term "Intifada of Independence". It seems to me likely that Hezbollah has some such name for the protests, but I'm not sure what it would be, or if it would be NPOV, etc. — George Saliba^[talk] 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. Wikipedia already has a page on Intifada of Independence, which also links to two other articles (including the Cedar Revolution). But do make heavy research on the most likely name of the protest in Lebanon asap. We'll appreciate it a lot. - Qasamaan 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about "Lebanon's People's Revolt"? The protest is supposed to be a revolt after all, and I found this catchy name from this news website:

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=6274&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

- Qasamaan 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy, we should use the name most commonly used in reference to this event. My guess is anti-government protest is probably one of the most common terms used, so maybe we should just change it to something like 2006-2007 Lebanon Anti-Government Protests? — George Saliba^[talk] 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. - Qasamaan 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update, I'll probably be moving the article to the aforementioned 2006-2007 Lebanon Anti-Government Protests. However, I'm waiting until the current events die down a bit to be sure that a more common name doesn't appear in the media. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, although as a quibble I'd prefer 2006-2007 Lebanon anti-government protests, since the last fwe words aren't part of a proper name, but more of a description. --Delirium 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably fine. I'll have to review the naming conventions. I have no preference, just the old title used capitals. — George Saliba^[talk] 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 2006-2007 Lebanon political crisis ? --213.155.224.232 17:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll probably end up back to 2006-2007 Lebanon anti-government protests. A revolt generally has more weight than a protest, sit-ins, and a strike. Also, the term "crisis" may only be applicable from one sides view of the situation. — George Saliba^[talk] 21:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you move it to, please make it "Lebanese", not "Lebanon". Thanks! —Nightst a llion (?) 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, won't be anti-government protests express POV? However, both sides refer to the situation in Lebanon as a crisis for a while. And, did we consider crisis as one sided view when the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis was created? Part of this are also the leaving of the Hisbollah and allied ministers in November 2006, a fact, which so far isn't very prominent in the article though important, also because of the Hariri tribunal, and the political goal of the Schiits to gain more influence. Actually, the crisis already started short after the Lebanon war in summer 2006 ended. --213.155.224.232 16:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to "2006–present Lebanese political crisis". I think we can all agree that the term "crisis" is NPOV. The terms "anti-government" and "revolt" cannot be used as they only apply to Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies and not to the pro-government factions involved in this. -- Aivazovsky 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm curious though, which of the factions do you consider to be pro-government? I was under the impression that they were all opposed to the present government. — George Saliba^[talk] 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunnis, the Druze, and most of the Christians support the Lebanese government. The Shiites and a minority of pro-Syrian Christians support Hezbollah. -- Aivazovsky 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that some of the protestors were not anti-government. — George Saliba^[talk] 03:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Does this article still remain un-neutral or biased? And if so, in what cases? We need to damage control. - Qasamaan 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean what you say.... i suggest we remove the whole antagonist portraying of the matter against syria's interests. If syria needs to be mentioned to satisfy the sudden wish for factual accuracy of certain weapontraders i suggest you include a link to the article of hezbollah , amal and harriri and other islamists and socialists in libanon, after mentioning the aspect once. These article's will undoubtedly provide the naive reader with sufficient bias of their own. And perhaps some relevant historical situation as well.212.187.41.61 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Rating[edit]

I just rated the importance as high. Please correct me if I'm wrong --Umalee 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV 2[edit]

There is something disgusting in the article is that politicians in Lebanon are shown to be anti-syrians, or pro-syrians. As if in Lebanon, people are categorized regarding their "degree" of "syrianity", and not their degree of “being Lebanese”. Hope that someday this psychological problem could be overcome.

fpm here is also often categorized as "former anti-syrian" or even more surprisingly "pro-syrian" .

Well, The same thing could be said about most of the 14th of March alliance, where Hariri group and Jumblat PSP could be seen as "former pro-syrians" as they were during more than 20 years.

This kind of “Syrian-categorizing” of Lebanese people must not be so flagrant.

Regards, Captainm 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision about the murder of the 2 Lebanese youth[edit]

It is not up to us wikipedians to speculate that the murder of the youths recently is revenge for the anti-government protestor. Also I find it kind of offencive to say that, when an official investigation did not lead to that conclusion. Stop pushing your POV, or what you wish you wanted the truth to be on Wikipedia. Read this article on Hezbollah's website, it says both parties agree that the murderers are unknown, and no one has blamed the other. Hizbullah's Delegation Visited Victims'Families Ahmad Husseini 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The murders of the two youths is this event, correct?:

April 26, 2007 - After being kidnapped the previous Monday (April 23), two individuals (one a boy of 12) are found dead beside a freeway just south of Beirut in Jdara. Both come from families belonging to Walid Jumblat's Progressive Socialist Party. The killings looked to be reprisals for the death of a member of the opposing Amal Movement during the January 25 riot. The murders are widely condemned. [2]

Does this actually have any direct connection to the 2006–2007 protests? I have doubts that this event belongs on the timeline. Peter G Werner 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename[edit]

I'm not going to file a request for move just yet, but I wanted to bring up the point here anyways. I think this should be moved to 2006-2007 Lebanese political crisis, the reason being that while there is indeed an ongoing protest, the fact that the parliment is no longer meeting (and that the government is effectively in a deadlock and unable to operate) constitutes a political crisis. Just thought I would bring up the point here now to hear other editor's opinions on the issue, though I'll likely file a RfM at some point. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]