Talk:Bachir Gemayel

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Middle Eastern military history task force

Article moved from

I moved this page from BASHIR GEMAYEL. I am aware that in many English language publications his first name is spelt BASHIR, but every official document that I have been able to find uses the French spelling, BACHIR. Moreover, even the English language website of the Bachir Gemayel Foundation, run by his widow, uses the French spelling. I don't think we should anglicize the spelling, any more than we anglicize the spelling of French names. Davidcannon 22:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is not NPOV. It is a direct copy of http://www.lebanese-forces.org/bach/biography.htm

John Ball

I am aware that much of the information in the article is derived from the source you cited. That does not make it a "direct copy" (when I found the article, I did my best to rewrite it to the extent of de-plagiarizing it). Nor does it necessarily make it non-NPOV. NPOV simply means statement of facts, rather than interpretation of facts. All the article does is state historical details about Bachir Gemayel's political and military career. Now, can you provide sources to disprove the factual accuracy of anything in the article? You would probably call the source on which much of the article is based, POV, and I would be inclined to agree with you. Just because information is derived from a POV source, however, does not make the information POV. Facts are never POV. Interpretations of facts are. As far as I can gather, the historical facts presented in the article are not contradicted by any other source. Whatever spin on those facts you may have found in the source article is not to be found in this article. David Cannon 11:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many of the articles relating to Lebanon are drawn from right wing Christian sources. There is a lack of balance. It's not that facts are wrong, it's that there are other facts which are omitted. John Ball 23/07/04

The article says year prior to that, in 1970, he had been briefly kidnapped by Palestinian militants, in an incident that may have influenced his later hostility to the Palestinian cause

I don't think he was hostile the Palestinian cause (definitely to the palestinians who were living in Lebanon but it's slightly different). He was definitely against the palestinian cause/presence in Lebanon (well that's a secret ;). Same for Camille Chamoun who was cynically for the palestinian cause OUTSIDE Lebanon because he hoped that it would allow palestinians to leave Lebanon one day. As for Bechir alliance with Israel, it was a pragmatic one (and, at the beginning a secret alliance), not an ideological one such as Etienne Saqr

As Etienne states the above quote is pure speculation. Anti-Palestinian policies were a part of Kataeb's image, and Bashir was likely stooped in these policies even before being kidnapped by Palestinian commandos. The section should be edited so as to reflect Kataeb views, not speculate regarding Bashir's possible personal issues with "Palestinians" (whatever that is supposed to mean in the context of so many Palestinian groups being found in Lebanion)Also, there must be a separation of issues; the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian presence in Lebanon are two completely different things. Raffeman 09:21, 18 June.

David Cannon, could you explain the section on Bashir's (Bachir) assassination? I believe Shartouni was indeed apprehended and confessed to the crime; that's how they knew he did it. Could you cite some sources that says otherwise so we can straighten this out? --64.231.226.200 01:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most sources would agree that Bashir was assassinated by the SSNP, probably on Syria's orders Raffeman 09:21, 18 June

The Article

There are many issues with this article. I have little respect for Gemayel and am negatively biased against him, so I am not a candidate for this job. I am hoping that someone who's neutral will take this task upon himself because the article is almost entirely unsubstantiated. Shaque 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gemayel and Israel

I would like to refute the following sentence in the article:

Although Gemayel did not cooperate with the Israelis publicly, his long history of tactical collaboration with Israel, whether real or suspected, counted against him in the eyes of many Lebanese Muslims.

Collaboration with Israel is very generally admitted even by the LF. I personally know LF who were trained in Israel and my cousin who was an LF (he disapproved a lot of LF policies but serving was mandatory for young Christians at one time) was evacuated by Israeli ships from the chouf in 1983 (an episode that left bitter memories toward Israel as the Israeli brutally withdrew in a couple of day and left the LF lines defenceless ).

If you want written evidence about Israeli/LF collaboration, you can always read the Kahan Report on Sabra and Chatila (it’s negative biased toward LF but this is not the point). You can also read Sharon’s autobiography (you’ll find it in any University Library). You'll get a pretty good picture of LF mentality if you go to this forum CLICK HERE. I am not validating its content, I am only providing it as evidence.

Now something that is disputed is if that collaboration was ideological or pragmatic. LF opponents (Baath, PSNS) claim that they were Israeli agents while LF claim they were using the Israelis to promote their agenda. I would say each party was trying to use the other (more evidence below). It means that LF-Israelis alliance was pragmatic since Bachir tried to kept it secret at the beginning (contrarily to the guardians of cedar who were open about it and ideologically advocated an alliance with Israel).

Fact is that Hobeika tried to dismiss that alliance after 1985 which shows that the ties were not ideological in nature and that the LF would forget about Israel if they believe it was their interest to do so. He was dismissed because he tried to sign an agreement with Syria, not because he weakened that alliance. At the end of the 80’s, the alliance with Irak was more important than the alliance with Israel as most weapons were provided by Saddam, a Baathist who was anti-Syrian in practice but who wanted to built a greater Syria (in theory at least) (which shows that the LF were pragmatic). My opinion is that Israel is truly sympathetic to LF and vice-versa because they see each other as victim of muslim/palestinians terrorism (if this is true is another issue). But each party has a different agenda and none is ready to put the other’s guy objective above his own.

To be short about LF-Israeli relations: tactical collaboration is a fact. Strategic collaboration is an issue.

--equitor 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the above statement. It is quite clear that the LF collaborated with Israel; it has been stated by the group itself and most books that deal with the Lebanese Civil War will say so, with good sources. In the case of Gemayel there are shifting lines of collaboration. After becoming the president-elect, with Israeli acceptance and wishes for this to happen, Bashir however kept a low profile. He himself had no open or very clear collaboration with Israel after this point, although he did before. That sentence should be changed, alternatively the entire topic should be problematised and discussed. AS Equitor states there is also the issue of tactical and strategic collaboration, and it should also be stated that the LF shifted its alliances (as did all Lebanese militias) to suit their own interests.--Raffeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffeman (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to kidnap Tony Frangieh

The attempt is acknowledged by Josheph Abu-Khalil and Karim Bakradouni. Please check both their accounts on the incident in this documentry (Jump to 26:48)

I even chose not to include Karim Bakradouni's implies that Bachir expected a massacre. WisamFarouk (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much on this subject, but it may make more sense to identify who exactly says that Gemayel sent Geagea to kidnap Frangieh, something like "Joseph Abu-Khalil and Karim Bakradouni, two Phalangist leaders, said that Bachir sent a Phalangist squad led by Samir Geagea to kidnap Tony Frangieh, the commander of Marada Brigade." (I don't know that they were Phalangist leaders, but you can put some credentials in there for why their statements are important) If this is something that isn't widely reported in the news, sometimes it helps the neutrality to identify which groups or individuals state these things. ← George ^[talk] 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a widely reported incident. Your suggested wording sounds well toned and referenced but implies that the "claims" are exclusive to both figures while in fact they are widely reported. Anyway, if a dispute arises that needs resolution, your wording would be a fine with me. WisamFarouk (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tagging

While I can't speak for the other sections of this article, those concerned with Bachir's policies appear to have been lifted whole sale from a single source here. These might do with some trimming and citing from other sources. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of term "sheikh"

The term "sheikh" is used throughout the article to denote its subject. However, the term is "a honorific term in the Arabic language" that means "scholar" and is commonly used to designate a "revered wise man". It is inappropriate, from a neutrality aspect to use such terms. They should be deleted.-The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

File:President Bachir Gemayel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:President Bachir Gemayel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)