Talk:Lebanon

Countries bordering Lebanon

Lebanon, as an official state, does not officially recognize the existence of Israel the country state, so I think it's fair and accurate to say, that officially, and according to Lebanese constitution, the country that borders Lebanon to its south is occupied Palestine, until Israel has been officially recognized by the Lebanese government. Until such time passes, hopefully never, it would be more accurately stated this way.

The country south of Lebanon is commonly recognized as Israel by the international community. This being the English Wikipedia, our goal is to be as clear to the average English-speaking reader as possible. ← George ^talk 09:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

that doesnt make sense, whatever, I know who u are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.151.18 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict on the lebanese Israeli war of 2006

And I looked at it and it was not sourced so I deleted it so that it can be prperly sourced. I personally, because am Lebanes, think hat MistaKay's previous additions were accurate, and since either ways, there are no citations for this paragraph, I don't know why you took them off. Anyhow, it's better to delete it all until it's accurately written and properly referred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.179.100 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If something in particular lacks a citation, you should tag it as needing a citation, not delete the section. You can read about how to do that here. ← George ^talk 08:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop Undoing my revisions Elie

I dont want any opinions written about the lebanese israeli 2006 war, especially not yours,because if you have anything coroborated by resources then u put it. your opinion is biased and I dont want anybody taking the Israeli side with this matter when it is very well known that they, murderers that they are, committed genocide in Lebanon. Your opinion is highly valued, but keep it to yourself. No resources no writy, I dont want to see you change anything on this page anymore. MistaKay (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to that, I put the real name of the mission and how it really started: when you start off the paragraph by saying Hizballah fired rockets at towns it is implying many things... I dont want to go into the debate, I didnt change the facts, I corrected them and gave them an objective tone. Dont undo my revisions...MistaKay (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Borders and ethnicity

I don't know where the source for: many christians believe they come from Phoenician descent and don't identify as arabs. (I don't see any sources for that and I think it's an over generalization with a subjective connotation to it and would hope that it is removed) I changed it into some right-winged fascists lebanese christians think so because so it happens that the only christians who say think this way are right winged christians on media well-known and I will soon bring some sources of interviews and articles they might have written about the subject. Moreover, whoever is editing this article, rest assured that Christians in Lebanon are Arabs, historically, they have always been and there is no source material or historical records that would not only prove but mention the opposite. This is a fabricated contemporary subject, only hearsay and opinion and should be removed from an ENCYCLOPEDIC article especially written about a COUNTRY. In regards to the border, officially, the Lebanese Government recognizes the state of palestine and so it becomes that Lebanon not only borders Israel but also Palestine and regions of occupied palestine. 80.91.212.67 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)MistaKay80.91.212.67 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The source is the CIA world factbook. Tho, mind you, it is quite vague in that assertion, and does not provide a source for it. Now I'm not advocating for the CIA factbook, but if you would like to change the article, go ahead but please provide a source that states otherwise. And regarding the southern border, Lebanon has no common border with Palestine.--Xevorim (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well its not an issue of right wing christian fascism . The lings between identifications Arabs or Any other ethnic groups is very blurred and the border is very porous. My grand parents used to speak Syriac and Arabic, and wright Syriac with Arabic alphabet ( its know as Karchoneh), the Maronite liturgical language, my mother learnt it a bit but forgot it now , i haven't, i speak Arabic ( and 3 other languages ) , i dont feel Fully Arab ( like lets say an Syrian or Iraqi might) but i can relate a bit. And same goes for a lot of other Christian and Druze. So generalizing as Arab isn't as fair as it seems , and saying that Lebanese are Phoenician is a ridiculous as saying that im elvis. I believe that as Lebanese is considered an Ethnicity By wikipedia ( check lebanese people), lebanese should be the ethnicity and the section concerning that should be developed .--Jadraad —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Jadraad it isn't fair to state that Lebanon is purly Arab or to state that it is completely Phoenician. By the way, it IS true that Lebanon was first populated Before Christ by the Phoenicians and that they stayed there for thousands of years. Their decendants also stayed in Lebanon and untill now there are many people that live in Lebanon with a phonecian descent. The evidence is all over Lebanon! Look at Byblos or Jbeil, look at Jounieh, at Heliopolis (Baalbek) of a billion different cities that have ruins of the things that the Phoenicians built. So you could state that Lebanon is Pheonician, but then recently many other people with different belifs and religions from the arab world have settled in Lebanon, so you could state that it is a mixture of both. Of course, that's just my opinion. --77.42.225.186 (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recomend removing the ethnicity from the table on the left.. since none of us will agree nor an official study has been done.. Frankly it is as ridiculous as stating the Native Americans are English... i will remove it pending further discussion/study--Jadraad (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Map should replace chart

There are many data's of the religions in Lebanon and would be very biased to present the data with one chart, the map should therefore replace this because it shows the main concentrations of the religious groups in Lebanon or the distribution in the country based on reliable studies. HaireDunya (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The map you uploaded conflicts with both sources, where's the reliability in that? Eli+ 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Elie plus is exactly correct - the map you're adding does not match the sources for it. I wouldn't mind having a higher quality map, which reflects the sources, in addition to the chart, but I see no reason to replace one with the other. If you have modern, reliable sources that give a different breakdown of the religious sects in Lebanon, by all means please present them here. If I have time, I may be able to create a better map, combining reliable sources for that data with existing maps of Lebanon. Also, your text regarding the Druze is poorly written, and goes into too much detail for this brief overview. ← George ^talk 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

the damage of the 2006 vwar in the intro???

1-The economic damage from the 2006 war has no place in the introduction of the article about the country. 2-The way the info is presented gives the illusion that lebanon never recovered from the war and is still in ruins. 3-not only did the country recover but it also achieved great economic progress during the worst economic crisis in decades.

Therefore i'm removing the pssage that bemoans the economic harm to the country. 91.142.61.4 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentences you removed say almost nothing explicitly about the economy. They're mostly discussing the impact of the war on civilian infrastructure. Now you've left the article's lead with no information after the end of the civil war in 1990. ← George ^talk 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The anon acted incorrectly by deleting the informaiton outright, and also by repeatedly inserting plagerized material that was even worse. However I do think that the introduction should be improved. The material on the last few years should be kept to a sentence or two.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree. In fact I suggested the same thing, probably a year ago, on this very talk page. I've been (very slowly) rewriting the infobox and lead for several months, sentence by sentence, cleaning up the wording and sources as I go, but I'm only up to the second sentence of the second paragraph. In general, the lead is unbalanced, only really covering the history of Lebanon, and gives highly uneven weight to certain periods during that history. I definitely plan to work on that when I have time, to eliminate the recentism. ← George ^talk 06:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Keep up the good work.   Will Beback  talk  15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

End of lead section change

An anonymous editor has expressed concern with the tone and content concluding the introduction, making these edits. I'm copying our conversation here as it's germane to this article.

Hello, i'm afraid i disagree with you as i see my edits completely constructive, how would you like it if ended the intro of americas article with a report on casulties of war?? lebanon has gone through many changes after the war and in fact i think you should highlight the fact that its the only country that has emeged a winner from the economic collapse of 2008-2009. the intro needs a lot of work but it should not be ended with that gloomy picture. thx. 82.198.19.131 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

After mentioning the importance of an edit summary to communicate the reason for a significant edit, my reply was

The introduction of an article should summarize it (see WP:LEAD), and the recent war is certainly an important recent event in Lebanon's history. You replaced it with something not expanded on in the Economy section, which ends on the "exorbitant debt levels" in 2008.

Article introductions should not necessarily end on a positive or negative note but be neutral point of view. How to achieve that is much debated. :) I don't have the wherewithal to debate that, but I'll mention your concerns [here] for those interested to do so. Toliar (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I moved the bulk of the late 2000s economic growth to the economy section of the article and summarized it in the lead. I also returned a slightly abbreviated bit about the 2006 war. I hope this helps resolve the lead issue. Mnation2 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Way to go Mnation, as far as i'm concerned the issue is resolved. good work. 82.198.19.131 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a product of the effort discussed above to minimize the weight given to the negative effects of the 2006 war, but the transition from mention of the war in the final paragraph of the introduction to the positive mention of Lebanon's performance through the Financial Crisis is incorrectly executed. The "However" is intended to mean something like, "On the bright side," but actually confuses the meaning of "civil infrastructure." I think it'd be a better idea to remove the "however" and pinch everything after it into a separate paragraph, with lip service paid to an explicit correlation between economic growth and recovery from the war. Gbsrd (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups: 96% Arabs, 4% Armenians ??????

I would like to stress on the point, and ask wikipedia to get more resources and more documented ethnic and human race studies that has been done on the population of Lebanon. Because saying that 96% are arabs denies the true and proud roots of a lot of the Lebanese people. some Lebanese are greek, some are of french roots, some are assyrians,.....but most importantly a lot are phoenicians. and this has been proven by a study done by a group of Lebanese, american and french doctors. the phonecian history in the region is huge and it has left a huge mark in the region and in the world. Please don't deny it on the descendants of this civilization, and don't erase it from the history books by overlooking these descendants.

i advice and ask wikipedia to reconsider and relook into these facts, and give this great civilization its right.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.201.87 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, its articles are subject to change and improvement. YOU can help correct these inaccuracies, so sign up now, get your references and edit out these errors (provided you have reliable sources). welcome to Wikipedia Eli+ 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

-Well its not an issue of right wing christian fascism . The lings between identifications Arabs or Any other ethnic groups is very blurred and the border is very porous. My grand parents used to speak Syriac and Arabic, and wright Syriac with Arabic alphabet ( its know as Karchoneh), the Maronite liturgical language, my mother learnt it a bit but forgot it now , i haven't, i speak Arabic ( and 3 other languages ) , i dont feel Fully Arab ( like lets say an Syrian or Iraqi might) but i can relate a bit. And same goes for a lot of other Christian and Druze. So generalizing as Arab isn't as fair as it seems , and saying that Lebanese are Phoenician is a ridiculous as saying that im elvis. I believe that as Lebanese is considered an Ethnicity By wikipedia ( check lebanese people), lebanese should be the ethnicity and the section concerning that should be developed .--Jadraad —Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Some notes on the article

The final paragraph of the introduction is highly misleading. It gives the false impression that Lebanon have never recovered from the 2006 war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concerns on the talk-page before making edits to the lead. I cleaned them up a little and hope you are satisfied with the result. Mnation2 (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic growth

I reverted back to the 'seven percent' version - per Bloomberg - Foreign Funds to Spur Growth in Lebanon, Salameh Says. The other source provided as backing for the 9 percent was only for the first 8 months of the year, so it appears the full year growth came in at 7 percent. Please do not change back without discussing it here. Thanks! Joshua Scott (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like growth was, in fact, revised upward by the central bank to 8.7%-9% sometime in February. Per [1][2] and [3] Mnation2 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I like the new wording you've put in the Economy section. Nice work! Joshua Scott (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"personal attack?" don't be a drama queen dude, when i edit i always add an external link, not only have u removed that link but you've also reverted to previous conservative estimate of 7%. i'm glad you see the truth now. cya.82.198.19.131 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add Lebanon

Lebanon is missing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_colors_of_national_flags

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk • contribs) 23:30, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Done Atmleb (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird sentence in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict section

The sentence "Of the seven Israeli ojetes in the two ojetes, two were fuked, three were peted, and two were escozided and taken to Lefanon." does not make any sense to me when I read it. I'm not sure if "ojetes", "fuked", "peted", and "escozided" are close to words in other languages or if this is just vandalism. I was just going to remove the sentence but it seems to be refering to casualties from the incident and the sentence following it wouldn't have context. Anyone have any idea?

AnalogWeapon (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Long form name

The CIA uses "Lebanese Republic." So does the WTO. So do the US Department of State and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. So also the United Nations. For non-official sources, the New York Times and the BBC both use "Lebanese Republic". It is true that the Lebanese government itself seems to sometimes use "Republic of Lebanon," but the balance of reliable sources seems to point strongly towards "Lebanese Republic". john k (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, reverted before I saw that you had opened up this discussion. There was a previous discussion on this issue, which you can read here. The points for Lebanese Republic were that it was used in the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, and by the CIA. The points for Republic of Lebanon were that it was the more common result for Google web, Google news, and Google scholar (that is, the more common term among English speakers), the Library of Congress, the Lebanese government (websites, and official documents), and the United States Board on Geographic Names (which "determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States"). It was pretty close, and could have gone either way, so I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on the issue. ← George ^talk 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If I can add another source to the pile, the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names uses "Lebanese Republic". Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The long form name is, by its nature, only used in the most formal of situations. As such, I think google results are not a very useful way to go. I didn't try anything sophisticated, but "Republic of Italy" and "Republic of France" both turn up more basic google hits than "Italian Republic" and "French Republic," respectively. The issue of the Lebanese government is perhaps more substantial, but I don't think government websites are that strong sources, either. Passports might be a better one, but assurances from wikipedia editors that the passports say "Republic of Lebanon" strike me as verging on original research. On behalf of "Lebanese Republic," we seem to have most reliable sources. In the earlier discussion, it seemed to be generally agreed that news sources use "Republic of Lebanon," but this was based on a google news search. Looking at the actual country guides from the BBC and the New York Times, which are probably the two most widely respected news sources in English, both of them say the long form name is "Lebanese Republic". As far as I can tell, the US and British governments also use "Lebanese Republic" - in addition to the State Department, CIA, and Foreign Office sources I noted above, one can note that the US Congress also appears to have used "Lebanese Republic" in formal resolutions. Here we see a resolution dealing with Lebanon. The original version introduced in the House used "Republic of Lebanon," but at some point the language was modified to use "Lebanese Republic" instead, which suggests that somebody decided that "republic of Lebanon" was wrong. The UN also seems to use "Lebanese Republic," including in formal resolutions and the like. Until and unless Lebanon explicitly insists upon "Republic of Lebanon" as the official English long-form name, I think that "Lebanese Republic" should be given as the long-form name, with "Republic of Lebanon" as a non-standard alternative in common use. john k (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So, the problem is Google Scholar and Google Books are both explicitly listed in the Wikipedia naming conventions for geographic names as places to look, both both are slanted towards Republic of Lebanon (twice the results in Google Scholar, and about 50% more votes in Google Books). That guideline also lists the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as a good place to look. The BGN website lists the full name as "Republic of Lebanon", and its Wikipedia article describes it as "a United States federal body whose purpose is to establish and maintain uniform usage of geographic names throughout the U.S. government," which to me trumps most other U.S. government institutions. I could probably scan and upload a photo of a Lebanese passport if it helps, but I'm not sure how much it will change things. The State Department also uses "Republic of Lebanon" sometimes (31 times vs. 9 instances of Lebanese Republic), as does the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (436 times) vs. 99, the United Nations (448 times vs. 697), the New York Times (6 times vs. 4), the BBC (5 times vs. 10), and the Library of Congress (45 times vs. 90). What does all that mean? I'm not sure, but it's not clear cut to me which way we should go... ← George ^talk 06:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't we go both ways? *giggle* Like "officially the Republic of Lebanon or Lebanese Republic" and keep the footnote to further explain divided usage?

In my opinion, using the most common English variant is far more preferrable than citing foreign government sources, which can be heavily opinionated (e.g. "Burma" v. "Myanmar"). And while this case probably doesn't carry any controversy, sticking to WP:COMMONNAME, and applying it as a general rule to follow saves a lot of hassle elsewhere. Where official usage differs from common form, in this case, common form should prevail. And if you are to rely on a governmental source, the Lebanese government is probably the only one that should carry any weight. Night w (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second, let's not just go by the straight google numbers here. If you look at the FCO results, you'll see that nearly all of the results are from "blogs.fco.gov.uk". And it's not 436 different times, it's the same two sentences over and over again: "Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon" (describing Frances Guy) and "This is a blog about the work of the British Ambassador in Republic of Lebanon" (describing Frances Guy's blog). Meanwhile the "Lebanese Republic" results are mostly from the main fco.gov.uk domain and include the FCO's page on geographical names and several official documents and treaties. Also, I don't think the US BGN should trump all other US government sources. Their principal goal is to name geographic features, like mountains and rivers. The State Department and CIA are much more reliable sources when it comes to determining what the US consider's a country official name to be. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the WP Naming Conventions are for determining page titles. They're in place so that English readers can easily find the page that they're looking for. They don't really apply to this discussion. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My basic issue is this: the long-form name is a formal name for use in formal treaties, speeches, and the like. That's not something that should be determined by common usage, but by sources which formally discuss what the long-form name in English is. The Lebanese government calls the country the "Republic of Lebanon," but I have yet to see any discussion from them in which they say that the formal long-form name is "Republic of Lebanon." Several of the claims for usage of this term seem to be assertions - Nowhere did anybody provide a link to the US Board on Geographic Names, for instance, and looking through their website, I can't actually find anything. In general, I'll say that the US Board on Geographic Names is the principal authority for the named of geographical features within the United States. That the CIA and Department of State use "Lebanese Republic" carries far more weight with me. The basic issue I have is that every source which explicitly says "This is the long-form name of Lebanon" gives "Lebanese Republic." And I agree with Orange Tuesday that WP Naming Conventions are irrelevant here. We all agree on what the title of the article should be: Lebanon. The question is the factual question, having nothing to do with article naming, of what the country's long-form name is. That should be determined by reference to reliable sources. Google Scholar and Google Books don't really impress me. The results aren't particularly conclusive - "Republic of Lebanon" gets more hits, but not by any order of magnitude. And a lot of the citations are to things like articles from scientific journals, which surely cannot be seen as reliable sources on what the country's name is. All sources which purport to give the full name of the country use "Lebanese Republic," and this is what is used in formal treaties, UN resolutions, and so forth. We should value sources which explicitly say they are giving the formal long-form name over sources which simply mention it. john k (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To search the US Board on Geographic Names, go here, click on "Lebanon" in the list of country names, then expand the section titled "Feature Designations", and select "PCLI,independent political entity" for the Administrative Region (this filters out everything else in their database, such as cities, towns, and districts within Lebanon, so that the only result from the search will be the country). In the name column, click on the conventional name to see more details. I would link to the result directly, but the search results cannot be directly linked to.

I'm not at all opposed to the term "Lebanese Republic" by the way. We could go with Night w's suggestion and mention both in the lead, but is there a better phrasing than saying that they are both the "official" name? Also, which would be preferable for the infobox - the English term the Lebanese government itself uses, or the term that other groups use? ← George ^talk 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

George, I was just looking over past discussions archived on this issue —didn't you say the "Republic of Lebanon" was written in the passport? Can you get a scan? I'm not opposed to the alternative either, but I think it's best to favour what the government uses rather than follow foreign sources —which by the way, are divided: the DFAT of Australia uses "Republic of Lebanon" (see here), as do the DFAIT of Canada (see here), and the MFAT of New Zealand (see here). As for treaties and UN resolutions: A search of the ICJ site brings up 24 v 5, and the UN main website brings up 50 v 43, both in favour of the "Republic of Lebanon". The results aren't enormously one-sided, but it certainly hinders the claim that "Lebanese Republic" is what is used in formal treaties, wouldn't you say? Night w (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I guess the evidence points in the direction that both names are used in formal contexts. I think both should be noted in the lead, with perhaps an explanatory footnote that the Lebanese government frequently (always?) uses "Republic of Lebanon" but that "Lebanese Republic" is the literal translation of the Arabic and French names, and that it is often used in formal contexts as well. I'm not sure which should be used in the infobox (and List of sovereign states)...I'd be inclined towards "Lebanese Republic," but at this point I don't think there's all that strong an argument either way. john k (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great way to go for the lead and footnote. I don't really have a suggestion (nor a preference) on which to use in the infobox, but names on the List of sovereign states is based on a single source, which, as you've concluded yourself, uses "Lebanese Republic". I do think it'd be helpful to know what they use in the passport, though. Night w (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Aid

I think it's misleading to note that "per capita," Lebanon is the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. foreign add. Go by total aid, that's clearer and a more usual ranking, in which case Eygpt is second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutugno (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite a sourced saying otherwise --200.95.132.17 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

drives on the RIGHT

Hi guys,

I just changed "drives on the left" to "drives on the right"...I have been living in Lebanon for one year by now, thus trust me on this ;-) regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.91.4 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

hello , im lebanese , and yeah we drive on the right.... --91.142.61.246 (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's very true --77.42.225.186 (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Demographics data

I've re-reverted material Humaliwalay added on the demographics of Lebanon, and would like to discuss the material here, and the issues I have with it:

• Hum added that 39% of the population is Christian, which the preceding paragraph already says. They also added that estimates ranged as high as 43%. This is true, but the source for the 43% is an older estimate, though I would be fine citing a range for this.
• Hum added that 35% of the population was Shi'a, citing this reference. The problem is that that source explicitly lists the figure at 28%, which we already write in the preceding paragraph.
• Hum added the the speaker of Parliament must be Shi'a, which is already mentioned in the Government and politics section, as well as the French mandate and independence section.
• Hum added that "Sunni notables traditionally held power in the Lebanese state together", which sounds like pure original research to me.
• Hum added that the Prime Minister must be Sunni, which is, again, already mentioned in the Government and politics and French mandate and independence sections.
• Hum added that 5% of the population is Druze, which is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

If Humaliwalay would like to address any of these issues, I'd ask that it be done here, and that consensus be reached before any of this material is re-added. I'm not looking for an edit war. Thanks. ← George ^talk 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I tender apologies for the mistake of unintentionally adding Muslim Republic name to the name of Lebanon, I agree that Lebanon is neither Islamic or Muslim Republic, even powerful Islamic party like Hezbollah denies that, It happened when I tried to revert the demographic section. Well now I did it separately and added Pew Research Center estimates specifically keeping your highlighted figures to avoid clash of reliable sources. Thanks and Happy editing. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On what page does the Pew report say that 25-45% of the Lebanese population is Shi'a? I don't see that anywhere in the report. ← George ^talk 10:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear George, Pew report says that Lebanese Shia population is between 1-2 million out of its total population of that time, taking into consideration the Lebanese population of slightly over 4 million you may do the percentage calculation. - Humaliwalay (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You should not take two different sources and combine them in that way. Have a read of WP:SYNTHESIS that explains it better than I can. Codf1977 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pew is a reputed authentic source and uniquely accepted worldwide, its data pertaining to demography has been specified to avoid clashes of sources and other reporting are also included from other sources, I do not see any thing worth arguing on this. - Humaliwalay (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

the problem is not with Pew, it is that Pew is not saying 25-45% of the Lebanese population is Shi'a? - they are saying Lebanese Shia population is between 1-2 million. Is not right to convert the Pew numbers into percentages unless Pew do so themselves. Codf1977 (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any problem of numbers into percentage, well if it is than we may add the numbers no issues, be happy. - Humaliwalay (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you've tacked less accurate figures (estimates of 1-2 million in a population of 4 million) from 2005 onto more specific number from 2007 (which are accurate to the percentage). Why should we include this information? The Pew report isn't a study of Lebanon's Muslim population, it's a study of Muslims worldwide. The 1-2 million figure is just a rough number, showing approximately what percentage of the world's Muslim population lives in Lebanon. And Codf1977 is entirely correct that the way you've framed the data is pure WP:SYNTH. I'm going to remove the sentence again. Please get consensus for you change, prior to reinserting it. I'd be happy helping you to file an WP:RfC on the issue if you'd like. ← George ^talk 16:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, removing the Pew source is not a good option, because yet the consensus has not been reached. Pew is an authentic think tank, if you have any problem then initiate a discussion about its authenticity. There has been no census in Lebanon since a long time, and Pew center's research is accepted worldwide. How come you say Pew is not telling about Shias in Lebanon?? It clearly states the Shia population of Lebanon between 1-2 million, and the study released is fresh latest in 2009. So on no grounds you should delete that. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus should be reached before adding material, not after. In Appendix C: Data Sources by Country, which says it "provides abbreviated bibliographic information identifying which general sources were used to provide estimates for countries", it lists the source for the figures for Lebanon as coming from the 2005 World Religion Database. Furthermore, if you look at the table that lists the Shi'a population as 1-2 million, right under it the report states: "The figures for Shias are generally given in a range because of the limitations of the secondary-source data (see Methodology for Sunni-Shia Estimates). Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding." If you read Appendix B: Methodology for Sunni-Shia Estimates, you can read why they have a hard time coming up with a specific figure. The report itself indicates why their figures aren't very accurate. And their data is very close to inline with that data already in this article. The Pew report says that about half of the Muslims in Lebanon are Shi'a. The current article says that there are about an equal number of Shi'a and Sunni, which means the exact same thing. ← George ^talk 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am with George on this as the Pew report is only claiming that the data is an estimate, they should not be included. As per WP:BRD, the edit should be revered now as there is not a consensus for it's inclusion, I hope that Humaliwalay understands that and self reverts now while this discussion continues. Codf1977 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's not keep it unless consensus is reached, i am with you all. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Have inserted estimates of UN, PEW, Now Lebanon and Library of congress. These all are authentic sources and hence their findings should be included with other estimates as well like the study of 2007. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You had some good sources mixed in with some not so great sources. I've gone through and cleaned out the less reliable sources, and expanded the section using the sources you cited. ← George ^talk 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You deleted authentic sources like PEW Research Center and Globalsecurity.org which I have reinstated, also you regarded the edits and the efforts of collection of multiple sources as SPAM here [4] if you have any issues with regards to authenticity of these sources please take it to WP:RS/N and then shall we proceed further with either deletion or inclusion. Humaliwalay (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations in Wikipedia are not based on how "authentic" sources are, they are based on how reliable sources are. I've already filed a request at the No Original Research Noticeboard regarding your citation of Pew, and your edit was found to be synthesis. And I think you may still be missing something -as the editor who is attempting to add controversial and poorly sourced material to the page, you are the one who must go to the reliable sources noticeboard and establish a consensus that your sources are reliable, before adding the material to the article (I believe the need for establishing consensus before making edits has already been explained to you, repeatedly). Once the reliability of your sources is established (and you've established what they're reliable for), then we can discuss the content of your edit. As far as I can tell, the bulk of your addition was citation spam which was either largely repetitive (we don't need 10 sources that say the exact same thing - pick the strongest two), wasn't directly supported by the sources cited, or cited to non-reliable sources. Perhaps it would be easier to discuss the issue if you would pick a single sentence from your addition (instead of cramming as much crap into the article as you can), tell us exactly what paragraph on what page of what specific source supports that sentence, and we can go from there, working on a agreeable phrasing. ← George ^talk 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe it would be helpful if I address your sentences one by one, and tell you what's wrong with them:

1. "As per UN estimates also supplemented by other sources, Shi'a Community is largest Muslim sect and also the largest of all 18 sects accounting between 32% to over 40% and Sunnis between 18%-25%, Maronites around 16% of the population of Lebanon."
   • The English grammar in this sentence is very poor.
   • The source you cited is not the UN, it is Minority Rights Group International (MRG). The source you cited is from 2007, whereas a 2008 report by the same group cites the exact same report we already cite in the article, and lists a figure of 28% Shi'a; it is misleading to say that the UN estimates 32% to 40%.
   • When citing specific numbers, you should put the source for those number immediately after the figures. Once you've identified which specific source gives which specific number (32%, 40%, 18%, 25%, and 16%), then we can discuss which of those sources is reliable.
   • Several of the (too many) sources at the end of this sentence are clearly not reliable. Adding bad sources to good ones does not make your case stronger, it makes it weaker.
2. "Also as per Pew estimates in year 2009 Shia community in numbers is between 1-2 million of entire Lebanese population."
   • This figure is needlessly vague, as evidenced by the source itself. When more specific data is available, we should use that.

It looks like those were the only two sentences you added. You also mentioned that you didn't like my removal of globalsecurity.org, but it isn't clear what is being cited to that source. Let me know if you have any questions. ← George ^talk 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with anything that does not mean that it should not be included, I said if you have any issues take it to WP:RS/N, secondly you rated the English grammar very poor, please cite the error in grammar and then proceed with blaming, this site is not about online English learning. UN estimate is done by UNHCR which clearly indicates that it's UN estimate. Secondly the synthesis declaration is not supported at all as the Dmcq said that PEW estimates are of 2005 rather its of 2009. So I have reinstated the figure. Third point if you are asking me to take it to notice board then please refer the discussion there, in case of Pakistan's demography it was discussed that if reliable sources clash on the authenticity then specifically all figures have to be added. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You are the one attempting to "add or restore" material, so it is up to you to go to WP:RSN.
2. Yes, the English grammar is poor. No, I don't have time to give English lessons.
3. The estimate you claim is a "UN estimate" is clearly not. The document says right at the top that it was created by Minority Rights Group International. Your reluctance or inability to read your own sources doesn't interest me.
4. Dmcq clearly stated that your use of the Pew figures constituted synthesis. Your refusal or inability to understand that doesn't interest me, either.
5. If reliable sources disagree on figures, then we absolutely should give all the figures, properly cited. However, you are clearly cherry-picking sources, citing older reports published by the same groups, or citing reports with rough estimates (which explicitly state that they are rough).

Your actions in this article make it clear that you're POV-pushing. It's late here, but I will return tomorrow to report your edits as such. ← George ^talk 09:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

George - Please be polite and understandable, firstly the sources cited are latest ones some are of 2009 and few of 2007 findings. Secondly if you have any problem with grammar then please correct that rather than shouting without any error reporting. Thirdly I have already taken this matter to Reliable sources Noticeboard. Fourthly you are dammed by your own point that If reliable sources disagree on figures, then we absolutely should give all the figures, properly cited. I exactly did that but you keep on distorting the edits so many sources all are vague as per you just because you disagree with them. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to POV-pushers, which you clearly are. I've explained the problem with your edits to you. Dmcq at the no original research noticeboard explained the problem with your edits to you. Fifelfoo at the reliable sources noticeboard explained the problems with your edits to you. Codf1977 explained the problems with your edits on this very page. Your poor sourcing and "I don't heat that" mentality is not conducive to improving this article, and comes across as tenditious. I highly suggest you self revert until you're able to build a consensus for your edits, or I'll be forced to report your behavior at the appropriate noticeboards. ← George ^talk 19:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no POV push, it's just that you are unable to swallow the sources, If you happen to remove the sources without proving that they are unreliable I shall reinstate that. This is still under discussion. You just cannot refute other sources by sticking to one. Shiites are the single largest community in Lebanon this claim supported by various reliable sources. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not have to prove the sources unreliable, you have to prove that they are reliable. It's clear that you're ignoring that, as myself and others have told you at least three times already. You can "refute other sources by sticking to one" if the one is more recent, and more reliable. I do not disagree that some sources have reported that Shi'a are the largest religious group in Lebanon, but that is a strawman argument, as it is only part of what your edit said (and something which my rework of your edit still mentioned). ← George ^talk 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I may have reinstated disputed content because an IP address had removed information without explanation. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the discussion is ongoing and the IP should have identified the reason for their edit. ← George ^talk 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay - Since you've decided to start editing this article again, without rejoining this discussion, can I ask that you identify, specifically, which of your sources says that "over 40%" of Lebanon is Shi'a? I want a specific sentence, from a specific page number, from a specific source. After you've provided that, I'll take the source to the reliable sources noticeboard myself to ask if it's reliable for the fact or not. Thanks! ← George ^talk 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This link [5] says 32% another link here [6] says 41% then 40% here [7]. Multiple links almost all major and reliable sources say Shias are largest community in Lebanon. This has been already discussed on Reliable sources notice board, you are not able to digest this hence tend to be asking more and more. I have collected more sources on this and shall be adding soon. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding what I'm saying and Wikipedia policies, but I'll try to break it down for you:

• The first link isn't useful. We have a newer link from the same group with a different number. That trumps the older number.
• The second link isn't useful either. It's from 1987.
• The third link is more reasonable. I'll work that into the article.
• Nobody is arguing that the Shi'a aren't the largest community. You keep saying that, the article says that, and nobody disagrees. I have no idea what point you're trying to make by repeating it over and over.
• Apparently you were "not able to digest" the RSN feedback, because the way you were using most of your sources was found to be OR.
• I think there's a big thing you're missing here. More sources is not better. You can add a thousand sources, and that doesn't make the article any better, and it doesn't prove your point. We want better sources, not more sources. You should never be citing more than two or three sources maximum for anything. Figure out which two or three of your sources is the best, and remove the rest. That's the way Wikipedia works. ← George ^talk 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not teach me what to cite and what not to cite and how much to cite, you say that no one disagrees with Shia population of Lebanon. However you were the very same user who scribbled in my talk-page asking me to prove the figure of Shia community here [8]. Aslo I have reinstated the very latest study of PEW Research center which you had deleted. The sources is specified by the name hence does not clash with the other sources so do not delete that. RSN feedback never ruled out including the Graham Fuller sources [I have reinstated]. All sources are cited now, let me know if we can close this demography issue and proceed with contributions in other sections as well?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Your edits go against the advice given to you at both the NOR noticeboard and the RS noticeboard, and are in violation of Wikipedia's policies. And yet you keep pushing them. Why are you adding more and more older and older sources??? There is absolutely no reason to add sources from 1987, 1991, 1994, and 1996, when we have figures from 2005 through 2010. Editors at the reliable sources noticeboard have already told you that more recent figures from more reliable sources should be used instead. (Fifelfoo on October 2, 2010 @ 10:21 wrote that "using outdated statistics isn't as reliable as using in date statistics."[9]) All you're doing by adding less reliable, older sources is making this article worse. You cite the Pew paper, which editors at the RS noticeboard told you wasn't a good source. (Fifelfoo on October 5, 2010 @ 1:14 wrote that Pew "is only reliable for the fact, 'Lebanon's Muslim population was estimated in 2005 as 2,504,000 persons, comprising an estimated 59.3% of Lebanon's population.'"[10] - Only for that fact. - and told you to "seek a better source than this.") So what did you do? You found a source from 1996 that says 1.3 million, and added it as a source for the sentence that the population is between 1 and 2 million. This is extremely poor sourcing and editing.

Now, I doubt you're stupid. Maybe English just isn't your first language, and you're not understanding what other editors are telling you. Or maybe you're just not too familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I don't know which, but you need to stop adding more and more out of date sources. If you find a source that you think is great, mention it on this talk page, get feedback from others, or open a request for comment, but spamming the article with sources is not good. ← George ^talk 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have gone abusive and I think you have lost brain now. No further comments. I requested and you abused in return. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does "gone abusive" even mean? And watch the civility; if anything, I've shown a great amount of patience dealing with you and your inability to listen to others. ← George ^talk 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made a request for a third opinion on this issue. Specifically, Humaliwalay and I dispute whether or not to include the sentence: "Also as per Pew and Graham Fuller and Rend Francke estimates in year 1989 and 2009 Shia community in numbers is between 1-2 million of entire Lebanese population." To any uninvolved editor who stops by, please note that the Pew Research report in question is an analysis of the billion plus Muslims worldwide, not of Lebanon's demographics specifically. It gives figures in the millions, and lists Lebanon's Shi'a population as 1-2 million. My opinion is that this is a needlessly inaccurate data, relative to Lebanon's small population of only 4 million people, and we already have much more accurate estimates for the population breakdown (e.g., 28%, per the U.S. State Department). This source was presented at the reliable sources noticeboard, where an uninvolved editor weighed in that the source wasn't reliable for this statement (Fifelfoo on October 5, 2010 @ 1:14 wrote that Pew "is only reliable for the fact, 'Lebanon's Muslim population was estimated in 2005 as 2,504,000 persons, comprising an estimated 59.3% of Lebanon's population.'"[11]) The full RSN post can be read here, and the lengthy discussion on this talk page is above. Thanks for anyone willing to take the time and weigh in as a third opinion. ← George ^talk 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly i have filed a report since abusive language and direct verbal attacks are not acceptable behavior here and i quote Humaliwalay "I think you have lost brain now. No further comments", so unless users can be civil with each other this article will be taken straight to hell; secondly citing inaccurate sources, adding more sources and twisting them out of context to prove a claim isn't the way to go, i agree that the Pew research center document is not accurate enough to be included in the article. I wish for this trolling and fanatic obstinateness to stop. Eli+ 09:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please be unbiased and quote the statement of George where he used the word stupid here [12]? Who are you to judge behavior that too on your biased approach?? Also your allegations were refuted here [13] you accused me of something which I did not do, but was left by me by mistake that too I admitted long back. About including the work of Graham Fuller and Rend Francke I reached a consensus at RSN here [14] - Humaliwalay (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I said "I doubt you're stupid" - saying you don't think someone is stupid is not a personal attack. Elie plus confused your edit for that of another IP editor, because you restored that IP editor's vandalism (by mistake, I believe). You never gained consensus at RSN that the Fuller and Francke could be used to say that "1-2 million Shi'a" - the editor there told you specifically not to use it for that, and said if you want to use it, use it for their own number, which is 1.2 million. If you want to add that "In 2001, Graham Fuller and Rend Francke estimated that there were 1.2 million Shi'a in Lebanon." that would be fine. But that's all Fuller and Francke said, and that's not what you wrote when you cited them. When you add a source to a sentence that doesn't say what the sentence says, that's intellectual dishonesty. ← George ^talk 18:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Elie deliberately accused and said it was not done by mistake here [15] Elie was not confused by another IP anyways his allegations were not accepted. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I'm here to offer a third opinion,

• I see no need to include the less accurate Pew report data, or any of the older estimates. The more recent, accurate, estimate is sufficient.
• Please watch the civility here.
• It's not necessary to get prior consensus before making an edit, however, once that edit is challenged, the editors must establish consensus for the edit.

Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Gigs - it's appreciated. I also agree that consensus isn't necessary for making an edit, but that it should be sought before making controversial edits. Given that all of these edits are nearly identical (throwing a dozen different sources at the same sentence to see what sticks), I'm hoping we can get consensus for it before it gets re-added. The only reason to unilaterally re-add it at this point is to edit war, something I hope we can all avoid. ← George ^talk 05:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What justifies the PEW as inaccurate, secondly it's not outdated and the think tank is reputed one reliable one and the report was released in 2009 so it's latest. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An estimate in the millions is inherently less accurate that one in the thousands or tens of thousands (which is what single percentage points represent in a population of 4 million people). I can see no reason that anyone would support the inclusion of less accurate data when we have more accurate data right already. ← George ^talk 05:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For any particular reason? ← George ^talk 06:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Following the recent edit war, I've protected the page for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire country IS an edit war. I should know, I was there for 9 years! protect it indefinitely. Sherwelbuilding (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested Edit

Lebanese people are a seperate ethnic group and nation. Genetic studies show them to be descended from Phonecians, their appearance is more Europeanized than Arab, Lebanese Arabic is one of the most unique forms of Arabic, and their culture, although Arabized, is a rich blend of both local and foreign elements. That's all according to Lebanese people. As such, I request a change in the "ethnic groups" section of the infobox, from 95% Arab to 95% Lebanese.--RM (Be my friend) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but the source the page cites, the CIA World Factbook, uses the term Arab. In order to change this, we'd need a source that says that Lebanon is 95% Lebanese (which is a bit redundant); otherwise, we're in the realm of original research. ← George ^talk 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Then use a source from the article Lebanese people.--RM (Be my friend) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What source in that article says that 95% of Lebanon's population are from the Lebanese ethnic group? ← George ^talk 17:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need an article. Go there and see for yourself, they look nothing like the Palestinians. Sherwelbuilding (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Persian?

The article's infobox lists Persian both as an official language. I'm almost certain that the official languages section previously listed French in place of Persian and doubt its status as a spoken language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.162.148 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the article is wrong, and is insulting for me ( a Lebanese) the official languages are Arabic and french , Armenian and English are secondary languages. --Jadraad (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

French is official?

It is not offical since 1943, and the english is more used there nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.110.233 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Medieval times = Emirate of Lebanon

An artical should be written , lebanon was rule by lebanese "emir"(it mean prince) from 1500s until 19860. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.45.17 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not midieval , its remaisance lebanon, the Maan dynasty and the chehab dynisties rulled from the 1500s...before that the Mamluks ocupied lebanon, and befor that the crusades, and before that there were the Maradite states... --Jadraad (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Maronite history/identity

The history seems to be glossing over a key facet of Lebanese history. It was during the crusades that contact was re-established between the Maronite Christians and Western Christians (until then the Maronites had been a relatively isolated community). It was because of this contact that the Maronites gained power in this region (i.e. the Franks/French supported their "Christian brothers"). Even during the later Turkish occupation it was the Maronite identity that very much defined Lebanon as a separate entity from Syria and that continued during the later French occupation and the early part of the state's history. It has only been more recently that the Maronite domination has given way to power sharing. Those details should be more explicitly brought out in the history.

--192.88.165.35 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Best Lebanese Singer(Nancy Ajram)

There is a complete article on Nancy Ajram. I'm not sure why we'd have a section on her in this article, or refer to her as the "Best Lebanese Singer".[16] While it may be true, it's an opinion rather than a fact. Since Lebanon has a rich culture, highlighting a single singer in this way is unnecessary. Probably a single mention of her as a prominent performer is more than enough.   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon Cuisine

I would be interested in information about lebanonese cuisine. The Jul2011 National Geographic has an article titled: "Baghdad's New Life." In the article is a photo of vendors preparing "lahm bi ajeen" Wiki search currently refers to Palestinian cuisine but my internet search popped up Lebanese Pizza. Wonder who is first or are they the same? Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.25.207 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Internet isn't reliable.. most [levantine cuisine] is referred to as Lebanese due to the large [Lebanese diaspora]. Although one should note the plethora of regional variation--Jadraad (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)