Talk:Cedar Revolution

Israel Lebanon war

The motive claimed by the syrians and the pro-syrians about the presence of the syrian soldiers in lebanon "being a protection for possible israeli threat" has not been adequately enphazised, and nowhere has the Israeli military attack on lebanon in 2006 been mentioned. In the Middle East this was seen as a confirmation of the Syrian fears and the pro-Syrian lebanese's. Please add to the article to explain these points. Also note that the article is indeed extremely misrepresentative, and help in fixing it is progress.

NPOV

This article is quite poor. Firstly, on at least seperate occassions it contraditcs itself. Secondly, it's amazingly biased. Robert Frisks prophecies transpired to be unfounded, and I can't find another source to verify, from an already verifiably false article, the piece about Hariri's sons.

Where exactly is mention of Abu Adas? Do your own research. This is a fact known. It was in the newsZerolando 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very very poor article.

--195.7.55.146 14:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Well you are certainly welcome to fix it MPS 17:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's right. Fix it, discuss it, or leave it. I have removed cleanup and NPOV tags. The article was heavily biased and anti-Syrian. I revised it for neutrality. If you have any issues, discuss them with specifics please.--A. S. A. 03:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

1. Where is mention of Abu Adas?
2. The Title itself is not NPOV, It implies there was/is a revolution. There was not, there was some civil unrest. The President is still President and the elections are still going ahead in May. Syrian troops have sped up their already planned withdrawl, and the prime Minister stood down for a short period of time (Less than Two weeks).
3. "one million confessionally diverse Lebanese, including significant numbers of Christians, Druze, Shiite and Sunni Muslims, rallied in central Beirut .... with estimations of a turnout ranging from 400,000 to more than one million" - That is a direct contradiction of itself contained within a paragraph.
4. Et Cetera --195.7.55.146 09:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was considering myself changing the title to Cedar Spring not Cedar revolution. I think it might be advisable to wait a while, to observe the course of events. As matters stand now, "revolution" seems inappropriate, and not used either by international media or Lebanese media, as far as I can tell. As for Abu Adas, what about it? What is your objection and your suggested remedy? I just rephrased the numerical contradiction, so that's taken care of. I don't know why you didn't do it yourself.--A. S. A. 10:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

This article sounds more like Fox news propaganda, than informative analysis.

• Could you be more precise? (You should also add a signature to every message you add) 500LL 11:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am going to concur with anonymous guy with respect to the "Wave of Democracy" section. Quoting people saying, "I guess invading Iraq was a great idea" is not NPOV. You have to remember that bringing democracy to the Middle East was not our grounds for invasion of Iraq; bad intelligence about WMD was. Like the controversy over Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq will be controversial for decades to come. Some would argue that the Cedar Revolution has more to do with the existence of satellite television than any US foreign policy decisions. [1] Not to mention that the assasination of Prime Minister Hariri had nothing to do with any so-called Bush Democratization Policy. my signature: MPS 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) (btw I agree that anonymous guy should have posted his ID)

• I agree that it should not be encyclopedically presented as "Bush invaded Iraq therefore there is freedom in Lebanon." However, it is significant to note that because of the events in Lebanon a significant number of articles appeared asking the question "Was Bush Right?" There were several in major European newspapers (Le Monde, Der Spiegel, etc), and a few by liberals in U.S. newspapers. That is a significant occurrence, and should be included in the article. —thames 23:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While it's true that WMD intelligence was the ostensible reason for invading Iraq, the idea of spreading democracy to the Middle East has been at the crux of neoconservative foreign-policy doctrine, which has influenced Bush's agenda. With this being an ongoing event, it's probably impossible to adopt a perfectly NPOV stance. For the time being, many believe that the elections in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are emboldening the pro-democracy movement in Lebanon. Maybe that view will change - who knows. -Funnyhat

I agree, Funnyhat. I think that the silence over the impact of the neocon agenda is the crux of the NPOV dispute here and the Elephant in the room in the discussion of the Iraq war in general. The article makes implicit assmuptions about the causes of the iraq war (the neocon agenda) that not everyone accepts. (btw use four tildes in a row to mark your name). MPS 17:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The UN's FitzGerald Report independently confirms the account of a personal threat issued by Bashar al-Assad to Hariri:

According to these testimonies, Mr. Hariri reminded Mr. Assad of his pledge not to seek an extension for Mr. Lahoud’s term, and Mr. Assad replied that there was a policy shift and that the decision was already taken. He added that Mr. Lahoud should be viewed as his personal representative in Lebanon and that “opposing him is tantamount to opposing Assad himself”. He then added that he (Mr. Assad) “would rather break Lebanon over the heads of [Mr.] Hariri and [Druze leader Walid] Jonblatt than see his word in Lebanon broken”. According to the testimonies, Mr. Assad then threatened both Mr. Hariri and Mr. Jonblatt with physical harm if they opposed the extension for Mr. Lahoud. The meeting reportedly lasted for ten minutes, and was the last time Mr. Hariri met with Mr. Assad. After that meeting, Mr. Hariri told his supporters that they had no other option but to support the extension for Mr. Lahoud. The Mission has also received accounts of further threats made to Mr. Hariri by security officials in case he abstained from voting in favor of the extension or “even thought of leaving the country”.

— Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Lebanon inquiring into the causes, circumstances and consequences of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, 25 February – 24 March 2005 (the "FitzGerald Report"), paragraph 10.

Last I checked, the United Nations had not been subverted by Fox News or the Bush administration. NPOV complaints denying or challenging these facts are just whistling in the dark. In fact, the "analysis" added about Jumblat is NPOV -- I'm deleting it. Riccati 20:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of NPOV is fantastically convoluted. The Fitzgerald report in no way confirms any account, it only quotes, and does so from Hariri aides, who are naturally highly partisan sources. It specifically reads: "The Mission has also received accounts." Receiving accounts is not confirming them. The analysis of Jumblat is referenced and will stay. Revision to follow.--AladdinSE 02:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, please explain you concerns in Talk when you add a NPOV tag to the article. I have removed it until specific concerns are outlined and put forth for consensus building.--AladdinSE 00:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

March 14 demonstration

I think that someone should add a photo about the demonstration on March 14 that gathered one million and half pro-Lebanese. 500LL 14:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Anti Syrians? The Pro-Syrians consider themselves Pro=Lebanese too. --195.7.55.146 09:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. This is an indication of the bias of some ultra-nationalist Lebanese who forget that those hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who turn out in support of Syria are expressing what they think is best for Lebanon. We cannot allow the passions of these nationalists from Lebanon or Syria to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda outlet for the current crisis.

Comparative sizes

I see merit in both User:Riccati's edit and User:220.233.68.197's. The problem is that both the inclusion and exclusion of the data could be considered POV. IMO, to attribute the claim to the international media (where it was reported) is as neutral as we can get - at least that way it's not WE who are making the claim. David Cannon 12:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Curious

Regarding Fox...

Why is Fox News called a propaganda? Why? Are you saying that Fox News has no informative analysis? Assuming, Fox News is biased, what of CNN and Al Jazeera? All forms of media have their own quirks. Is the media station only perceived biased when one does not approve the delivery of the news? Just curious. I had a hand in writing the Rubinomics page before with a few experts as a guide, but a group of objective individuals overpowered my months' work just because it sounded like Fox News, and I am reluctant to work on the Rubinomics article again. I am neither left or right but I want to hear everyone's voice, but I guess there really is a systemic flaw here regarding NPOV. Gosh, so many people regard Fox News negatively without even understanding true media professionalism.

Regarding the article...

Mention the data, and where the source came from, and the stand of the source. That would about do it. Humble Guy

• hey HumbleGuy: Sorry to hear about your troubles editing Rubinomics. The Cedar Revolution article is not the place to debate the biased-ness (or not) of Fox News. Check out FOX news and Talk:FOX News to fully examine the diverse views on this matter. Quoting Fox News and Al Jazeera as sources are as ok as initial news sources, but if the wikipedia article selectively includes and excludes facts (even if they are not, strictly speaking, false) to convey only part of the story, then people WILL call it POV. (oops here's my ID a few days later MPS 00:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC))

*SIGH* I wish you guys would sign your posts :-( --A. S. A. 22:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Regarding the recent (and reverted) renaming to "Social Unrest in Lebanon in 2005." I believe if any renaming were to take place it should be to Cedar Spring. I'm still observing Lebanese and International media to determine if Spring or Revolution is more appropriate. --A. S. A. 22:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Google gets 51,200 hits for "Cedar Revolution" vs. 224 for "Cedar Spring" (in connection with Lebanon). For news sources, Google News gets 768 hits for "Cedar Revolution" vs. 0 for "Cedar Spring". Wikipedia:Naming conventions is quite clear on this: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. As for Civil Unrest in Lebanon, 2005, Social Unrest in Lebanon, 2005, and any other ideas Tom might have, rest assured they all break Wikipedia:Naming conventions rules in several different ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I thought we had an obligation to have an NPOV? Cedar Revolution, or Gucci Revolution, is the perspective of one side in a conflict. It's a POV. Wikipedia should be aiming for a NPOV. Am I wrong?

If you are right, then you would agree that "Israeli West Bank barrier" ( 1,204 Google Hits) must be renamed "Apartheid Wall" (111,000 Google hits). --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I had already written a response, but damn computer deleted it. Rewriting: Your analogy is false. First of all "West Bank Barrier" (27.900 hits), "Separation Wall" (70.700 hits) and "Apartheid Wall" are all names. The first of these is the most likely to be considered neutral. Certainly there's nothing in the word "barrier" or "wall" to give a moral context inherently, but "separation" and "apartheid" both indicate a purpose, while "Apartheid" especially is obviously a propaganda tool. All of them have tens of thousands of hits, West Bank Barrier seems the most neutral of all, so it wins.

However your "Social Unrest in Lebanon" is not even a name, neutral or otherwise. It's only a vague lame *description* and one I'd definitely dispute given how the cedar revolution is about something much more specific and political than the words "social unrest" indicate. And there's nothing *inherent* in the words "Cedar Revolution" to favour one side or another. We still use the word "revolution" in article titles such as Cultural Revolution or October Revolution or Cuban Revolution, but that doesn't mean all of us support it. Point is: Find us an actual *name* of the *specific* events other than "Cedar Revolution" which is atleast as specific as "Cedar revolution" and even more neutral than it, and then you'd have something to discuss. But not unless you do have such a more neutral *name*. Aris Katsaris 20:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Organizational note: I reverted the move of one of my previous Talk postings because it was in response to other threads of discourse other than the naming issue. Now, as regards, "social unrest" and titles along those lines, I don't believe they apply. Although "Spring" seems to be more in vogue with Lebanese media then "Revolution," according to the naming conventions guidelines, "revolution" is more appropriate, and is used more often by international media (from what I can tell from the observation of the past few days). In one of my revisions I made clear the secondary naming of "Spring." That should satisfy encyclopedic considerations.--A. S. A. 01:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Cedar Revolution" is definitely more prominent in the media, but it would help to point out that the phrase originated in a U.S. State Department publication,[2] and that it is an inappropriate (or at least misleading) use of the term "revolution." But there is no question that the State Department's language has caught on in the Western media. It wouldn't hurt to add that the Lebanese use a different phrase. --csloat 02:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed. Your edit smacks of POV, which is why I removed it. This is an article which has generated some controversy, but a number of editors have hammered out consensus version which I don't want to upset without a good reason. I consider your changes, made without consulting other editors or waiting for their feedback, to be unhelpful. If you keep on making that edit in its present form, I will keep on reverting it until some of the others involved have had their say. David Cannon 12:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think his last contribution was terribly POV. It could use some fixing up, but let's face, if the Lebanese media doesn't use the term, that very much ought to be mentioned. I don't think the namespace of the article ought to be changed, but it certainly deserved to be mentioned that the 'Cedar Revolution' name is the western name for the events in Lebanon, whereas they use other terms. I think Commodore Sloat ought to put back in his edits, and we should edit them until they're NPOV. —thames 13:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, I'd like to comment on the strategy cited in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions about the use of Google. For example, Jayjg has had 224 hits when searching for "Cedar spring". But if you use the advanced search option, and search into pages that were modified during the past 3 months (since the Cedar revolution had started on 14 February 2005), the results drops to 169. And if you look closer, you discover that most of the pages doesn't concern Lebanon but american cities (see Lebanon (disambiguation)). So I associated the term syria to my search, then the results had droped to 11. But my main idea, is that I disagree with the term "Cedar Spring" for two reasons:

1. First, as a Lebanese who lives in Lebanon, the main term used is "Lebanon spring" (Rabiee Lubnan) and not "Cedar spring (Rabiee el Arz) like cited in the article (and neither Cedar Revolution, but it's the name mostly used by the media)
2. Second, Search in google for the term "lebanon spring" associated with syria, and for pages modified during the past 3 months, and you get 125 hits, and 3 in Google news, while you get 11 hits, and 0 news with "Cedar spring".

So I think that the name "Cedar Spring" is very misused for this article, and shouldn't even be mentionned. 500LL 14:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested that "Cedar Spring" be used at all. If you look through your google hits, of the 11 that are relevant, how many point back to copies of this wikipedia page? I am going to rv to my edits as per Thames' comment above. I did read this talk page and saw no mention of these facts. The fact that the Lebanese media doesn't use the term and the fact that the term originated in the State Department, and the fact that the term refers to the U.S. preference for the Christian minority in Lebanon are all quite relevant. If you think my working is POV feel free to tweak it, but the wholesale reversion is destructive.--csloat 17:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

500LL, I see no problem with removing the term "Cedar Spring" as per your research, and replacing it with "Lebanese Spring". Just to firm up the change: what are the google hits for rabiee lubnan and rabiee el arz (when written in lebanese newspapers, i assume in arabic script) respectively? I think you both, Commodore Sloat and 500LL, can put your changes in the article, because neither are mutually exclusive. —thames 17:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, the term "lebanon spring" have more hits than "lebanese spring" on Google. Second, while using Google in arabic, I found out that "Rabi' Lubnan" (Lebanon Spring) have 32 hits, while "Rabi' al-Arz" (Cedar Spring) have none. So from where did the term "Cedar spring" came out in the first place? 500LL 21:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I suspect it came from the U.S. State Department, as did the term "Cedar Revolution." "Cedar Spring" is a bizarre contraction of European history ("Prague Spring") with Christian symbolism (Cedar) that is hardly relevant to the population of Lebanon, which is mostly Muslim (although it is true that there are probably mostly Christians calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops). And it didn't even begin in the Spring!! So the idea of "Cedar Spring" is laughable. "Cedar Revolution" is only slightly less laughable in terms of accuracy, but the truth is that the State Dept. has been highly successful in encouraging the Western media to pick up this term. As the Washington Post correctly identified, this is a successful feat of PR on the part of the state department rather than the name given to the uprising by the Lebanese. --csloat 22:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat, your sounding very unknowledgable here, it started in February but went on for the months of March and until April when the Syrians withdrew from the country. As for your Christian symbolism remark, it shows your lack of knowledge of the Lebanese situation. First of all Lebanon is slightly more to the Muslim side on the inside of the country but the Lebanese diaspora form around 15 million people (while those in the country are only 3 million) the majority by far of whome are Christian. The March 14 movement was built upon concepts that the Christians in Lebanon have historically always demanded, and were especially relevent to the Qornet Shehwan Gathering in the years leading up to the Independence Intifada and were directly sponsored by the Lebanese Patriarch! Please don't assume things about the country just because it happens to be in a Muslim region! --A Gooner (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article name should be that which is used by those than initiated the movement in Lebanon, and it is a wide consus among M14 activists that the name of the movement is Independance Intifada because of the link between the Lebanese movement and the Palestinian Intifada of the time, furthermore its quite controversial that it's a US term and not a Lebanese one! As for Cedar Spring, the term was used for a short while and later on the term 'Beirut Springs' was turned into a photography book that timelined the movement. Please consider the name change to Independence Intifada. comment added by --A Gooner (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cedar Spring

I started a new section to discuss this since we're really not arguing over the article name, I don't think. I see that AladdinSE added the Cedar Spring reference with a cite that does indeed use the Arabic phrase. I think if the phrase is used commonly in Arabic language media it should be noted here, but probably not in the first paragraph of the article. I also wonder why Arabic language searches for the phrase by 500LL are turning up nothing at all. As I said, it's a strange construction under the circumstances, but these things are not always logical. In any case, I think "also called 'Cedar Spring'" is all that is necessary in the introduction, with a link to the indiatimes article. --csloat 03:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we have to agree that "Cedar Spring" should no longer be used, and the reference added by AlladinSE should be deleted. Also I made some researches into lebanese media, and the terms used where: Rabi' Lubnan (Lebanon Spring), Intifadet el-este'lal (independance uprising or smth like that, see Intifada), and Independance 2005. Also that the first paragraph of this article should start by a definition of the Cedar Revolution. The mention of its other references (but not "Cedar spring") should be written after, or in a new paragraph (Name for example). And finally its reference to the Prague spring should be deleted, because I think it is irrelevant. 500LL 13:55, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

We do not agree to this deletion at all. I have seen Lebanese media use the Cedar Spring reference, as well as the Lebanese Spring, although not as common as Cedar. In any case the reference is sourced. It is in the right section, and conforms to how other articles usually mention other names used. The Prague Spring is a crucial parallel is a major reason why anti-Syrian factions have used the Cedar Spring term, to evoke the same associations. --AladdinSE 05:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I respect your idea, but despite my search I just couldn't find any reference to "Cedar Spring". On the Daily Star newspaper website, I found only one article talking about the event's name: WASHINGTON: The U.S. State Department named anti-Syrian street demonstrations in Lebanon the "Cedar revolution," in reference to Lebanon's majestic trees that are celebrated in the Bible as a symbol of well-being and are at the centerpiece of the national flag. [3]. I could tell you that "Lebanon spring" (or "Lebanon's spring") have been cited many times on the Lebanese Future TV. So I'll be glad if you give me a reference to "Cedar spring". 500LL 20:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The statement is given a source in the article, and "Cedar Spring" was used on LBC and Future TV. --AladdinSE 08:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you give me a proof of the utilization of this statement, like a website, and explain why it doesn't give any result in Google Arabic? 500LL 09:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I did give a source, as can be seen in the article. Television broadcasts are not websites and cannot be cited as proof, I only spoke of them in Talk just as other editors mentioned what they saw and heard. I have no idea what your Arabic Google search was about, this is the English language Wikipedia, I am only concerned with English texts as far as websites are concerned. --AladdinSE 10:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have searched for "Rabi' el-Arz" (Cedar spring), in arabic characters, using Google in arabic, and I had no results. So why a term you said is used by the local arabic media can't be found only in a Pakistani newspaper and in english?500LL 13:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) (I'm sorry I forgot to sign)

OK, AlladinSE, Some articles are using the term "Cedar Spring". But I'm still conviced that it is not used by the local media, unless you show me an article from a lebanese newspaper. 500LL 13:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Asad Abu Khalil uses the term "Hummus Revolution" -- should we include that term here too?--csloat 21:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't mention every information just because we found it on one site. In other hand, It's the first time that I hear this term, unless it refers to another event. Talking about the origin of the name, it could refer to hummus a dish that apparently does not belong only to the lebanese cuisine, or it could (I think) refer to a Syrian city Homs. So mentioning this name would be both ways unsuitable and could be an offense to the lebanese. Unless you give me evidence that it's used widely.500LL 12:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Abu Khalil uses the term to refer to the dish; and I think he is making fun of the term "cedar revolution" when using the term. I don't think it is used any more widely than "Cedar Spring." That was kind of the point. --csloat 18:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Article Name (Revisited)

I agree with Aris Katsaris about the most recent edit - the article should be about the event itself; issues of naming should be secondary. Therefore this article should be named "Social Unrest in Lebanon in 2005" with a section on the various names for the events (including "Cedar Spring," perhaps). But if it is to remain called "Cedar Revolution," then the information about the name should go back into the introduction. It is quite relevant and significant that the name was invented by the State Department.

How is it "quite relevant and significant" to the *event* if the name was invented by the State Department? How did the name's origin affect any of the actual events? So how can you claim it "quite relevant and significant" when you yourself just claimed that "issues of naming should be secondary"?

You are confusing two different issues. As for "Social Unrest in Lebanon in 2005", the unrest is not social but political, "unrest" doesn't even accurately describe what is taking place either way (given how unrest gives implications of much less focus), and either way it's bad form to use a description when a name is much more specific. Aris Katsaris 04:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the name should be discussed at the outset, at least in a case like this, when the name was explicitly manufactured for public relations purposes. This is not a tangential point; it is central to understanding the phenomenon. Especially when the term itself is not used in the Lebanese press. --csloat 17:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've not yet managed to make a coherent argument. First you say "issues of naming should be secondary" -- now you say "this is not a tangential point; it is central to understanding the phenomenon". Can you make up your mind? Either way my version actually devotes more sentences in discussing the name's origins than yours did - the difference is that it does it in a section of its own, so that it doesn't crowd out the discussions of the actual events. Aris Katsaris 17:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're intentionally misreading what I have to say. I said issues of naming should be secondary which is a good reason to call this "Political Unrest in Lebanon" or something of the sort. By using the term manufactured by the State Department, we have made the issue of naming primary. So if you think that naming issues are secondary then we should go back to the old name (or something similar). But if we call it "Cedar Revolution," then, yes, the naming issue becomes primary.

In any case I'm not going to fight about this any longer - you're correct that your version does preserve the naming information; if other folks agree that it does not belong in the intro I will back off. The separate issue of why the hell "Cedar Spring" is included at all, is probably a more important discussion. --csloat 18:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the origin of the name is the very first section after the intro, and is well-referenced, I think it gets appropriate prominence. As for the name itself, regardless of the origins, "Cedar Revolution" is by far the most common term used in English, so Wikipedia naming conventions would indicate it be used as the name for the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Cedar Spring" now in the intro? Shouldn't this be in the name section? And I thought it was concluded that this phrase never actually appeared in the Lebanese press; shouldn't it be mentioned that this is not a very common construction? The article seems to suggest that the "cedar spring" is as common as "cedar revolution"--csloat 08:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have agreed with AlladinSE that the term Cedar Spring isn't a common term and shouldn't be in the introduction, but he reverted my edits, so I'll revert his. 500LL 12:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The article clearly says that "Cedar Revolution" is the most common international term, but that both Cedar and Spring Revolutions are not widely popular locally. It is common in many Wikipedia articles to find a brief mention of secondary names in the introduction, which are then elaborated upon in an "origins of the terminology" type section. 500LL, you are mistaken: I have never agreed with you that Cedar Spring should not be in the introduction. Please check the Talk discussions, I have made no such comment. As for reverting my edits because I reverted yours, that is utterly childish and completely against Wikipedia policy. What's more, I did not do a blind revert, I considered all changes carefully and retained some, though not most, that I deemed to be superior. --AladdinSE 14:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think "Cedar Spring" belongs under "Name." It is not a common name at all, it does not seem to be used in the Lebanese press at all, and the implication of putting it in the intro is to suggest that it is used far more often. If it's going to be included at all take it out of the intro. I don't want to join the edit war; I think consensus would be better, but we should make the change.--csloat 21:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read it over again, and since new names have been added recently since I fist made the Cedar Spring reference, like Lebanon Spring, Lebanon Independence and Independence 05, it does make better sense ot move the Cedar name to the origins section, which I just did. --AladdinSE 22:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Current event

I saw that the current event template was removed. However I think that the cedar revolution is still going on (at least till the end of the elections) since a number of its objectives weren't achieved.500LL 09:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

The elections started today. Syrian troops have been out for a month. The Cedar Revolution is officially over. If you're talking about other objectives like the disarming of Hezbollah, that has nothing to do with the Cedar Revolution.Yuber^(talk) 18:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"The Cedar Revolution hasn't ended, but it has acquired different meanings for different people." --Nizar Hamzeh, professor of political science at American University of Beirut. [4] --Viriditas | Talk 05:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That isn't proof for anything. This article cannot be inconsistent. If the first sentence of the article defines the Cedar Revolution as a series of demonstrations that started February 15, 2005, then it is over. There haven't been demonstrations in over two months now and the elections have just ended today. Syrian troops have withdrawn out of Lebanon as well. Nizar Hamzeh is defining the Cedar Revolution in broader and unencyclopedic terms.Yuber^(talk) 05:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"As the so-called Cedar Revolution rolls toward its fourth month...while the West celebrates the Lebanese quest for "democracy" through "revolution," the Lebanese mantra is one of "independence"-- from all foreign intervention and designs...."We want true democracy, free from foreign intervention, but if it happens overnight it will be a mess..."-- Khaleej Times [5] --Viriditas | Talk 05:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, these quotes are irrelevant to the article. If you want to rewrite the opening paragraph and redefine the Cedar Revolution in a more vague way then go right ahead, maybe it will stay current for the next decade. Going by 500LL (an actual LEBANESE user) he said it is current until the elections are done. Well, the elections are now done.Yuber^(talk) 05:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

According to [6] the election won't be over for another month. ...voting is conducted over four Sundays, beginning tomorrow in Beirut, where Mr Hariri is likely to replicate his father's clean sweep in the last election. Next week voting is in south Lebanon, where Hezbollah will take all the seats it wants. The real jockeying for power will begin after the final round of voting in north Lebanon on June 18. --Viriditas | Talk 05:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Already voter turnout numbers have come and the turnout was 28% and Sa'ad Al hariri has won 9 out of the 19 seats his party was eligible for. Maybe I was mistaken in that the first round has only finished, I'll wait for 500LL to confirm this. In any matter, I have redefined the Cedar Revolution to suit the current label.Yuber^(talk) 05:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's right, the elections won't end until the end of the month (there's still the south, the north, the mountains, and the beqaa). Regarding the fact that this revolution is still an current event, there's many clues. First according to the Cedar revolution site, out of 6 objectives, 4 haven't been accomplished, in addition to new demands that emerged (the release of Samir Geagea, the making of a syrian embassy...), even though most of them aren't likely to be achieved soon. Although there's no longer any important demonstrations, (even the lebanese feels that this period is over) I suggest that this article remains a current event at least when the elections and the investigation on Rafiq Hariri's death is over (But I'm still open for suggestions). 500LL 07:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if Samir Geagea's release is a Cedar Revolution demand or a Right Wing Kataeb/LF demand. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Muslims who demonstrated don't care about the warlord. I have added your information about the CedarRevolution.net. Also, watch out for Jayjg as he is blindly reverting information without even consulting the talk page, bad faith editing as I see it. As for the investigation on Hariri, do you know a source where I can get updated on how it's going?Yuber^(talk) 14:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course I consult the Talk: page, and I suggest yet again that you refrain from personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Check this site [7] for news about the investigation. The article FitzGerald Report could give you some informations. And thank you for contributing for this article. When I'll have time, I will work on its informations and structure to make it a featured article. 500LL 18:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why was the version considered POV?

After discussion on this page I feel that listing the goals of the Cedar Revolution is a very useful thing. I used the site that 500LL recommended; those six goals show what many Lebanese consider needs to happen in order for the revolution to be over.Yuber^(talk) 22:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to include a section on what that specific website lists as the goals, that might make sense, but it certainly doesn't belong in the introduction. Nor do your musings about what it is or when it might stop. That website isn't the Cedar Revolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be something about the goals, if you want to create a goals section right after the introduction then go right ahead. That version isn't POV by any stretch of the imagination.Yuber^(talk) 10:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One website isn't going to give you the goals, if they can be encapsulated at all, and in any event it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. The current version is actually quite NPOV; it's not clear what you specifically object to. Regardless, including your POV musings about what the Cedar Revolution is all about can only make POV issues worse. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here. Who is "cedarrevolution.net"? I'm removing it for now unless someone can establish its significance. csloat 19:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's not clear what I specifically object to, then how is it clearly POV? I was merely noting the accomplishment of the main goals of the Cedar Revolution. As for commodore, Cedarrevolution.net is a Lebanese protestor website. It is pretty credible.Yuber^(talk) 01:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is it associated with? There are various "Lebanese protesters" -- whose goals are these specifically? I'd be more comfortable with more sources cited in this section if we are to keep it.csloat 05:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it claims to be speaking for both Lebanese Christians and Muslims. Although the picture of Gemayel on the homepage leads me to think it's coming from a Christian point of view...Yuber^(talk) 10:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of template

Well, elections are over. Any objections to the removal of the template?Yuber^(talk) 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gucci revolution

Concerning the Gucci revolution claim "The BBC also named it the Gucci revolution in reference to the large number of upper class protesters."

I did not merely google the claim as you did, I had a look INSIDE the pages that were hit by google. For example:

Some people here are jokingly calling the phenomenon "the Gucci revolution" - not because they are dismissive of the demonstrations, but because so many of those waving the Lebanese flag on the street are really very unlikely protestors.

To make you understand my point: if the BBC says that Ben Laden called George Bush an idiot, this doesn't mean that BBC is calling George Bush an idiot. The BBC never called the "cedar revolution" the gucci revolution. It just reported than someone else did.

Take a closer look on the google results--equitor 03:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The new version is looking like this now:

The BBC reported that some in Lebanon jokingly refer to it as the Gucci revolution in reference to the large number of upper class protesters.[6]

While this joke actually existed (I use to tell it myself) I still disagree why an anonymous joke on an historical event should be mentionned. People joke on all political events, and it's not usually mentionned in wikipedia. Thousands of jokes were told during the clinton-lewinsky affair, not one is mentionned in the Lewinsky_scandal article. Moreover plenty of jokes were told on the Hezbollah demonstration, yet none is mentionned (which is absolutely normal). There's specialized magasines for reading jokes and it's also possible to work on a future wikipedia sister project called wikijoke but wikipedia is not the place for this.--equitor 09:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, the "Gucci Revolution" is only used in internet forums, I don't think it was widely used in the media. CG 10:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

BBC is not an "internet forum." This is a joke but it is a relevant joke that was used by significant numbers of people at the time -- probably more than used the rather silly "Cedar Spring" -- and it was not just a "joke"; it was a relevant comment on the revolution that clarifies how it was perceived by certain groups of people. I'm going to put it back in.--csloat 04:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that I ever read a joke in the october revolution article, the French revolution, the Hungarian revolution etc... This is an obvious attempt to bash the content of an article on partisan opinion and I will not accept it.--equitor 06:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Slow down. I don't have much of a partisan opinion on the "Cedar Revolution" to speak of, so you can't say I am trying to bash the content of this article. The claim was not just a joke; it was a relevant social commentary. If such commentary exists for the French revolution that you know of, feel free to add it to that page - I certainly would consider it relevant. It is quite notable that people joke about these events in this way and that many don't take it seriously as a "revolution." The name of it did come from the US Department of State, after all, so it's not even surprising that there was this reaction by some. It's not like it's from some guy's blog; it was reported by BBC. But look don't paint me as pro-Syrian or something because I think this line is relevant. I'm going to let others comment before I add it back, but I think it should be in the article.csloat 08:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No the claim is not a relevant social commentary, it's a joke, that is not even relevant. As I pointed before, I never saw an encyclopedic article on a revolution that contains jokes. And no, I will not add any the jokes I know on any revolution because they are irrelevant. Finally, it is your right to take your informations from Mr. Abou Khalil's blog, a man who advocates the dismantlement of Lebanon, but I doubt that it makes you neutral. I am not saying it's wrong but that you can't present yourself as NPOV. It is of course a recognized wikipedia right to be partisan, your claims only need to be relevant rather than neutral.--equitor 17:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is both a joke and relevant social commentary. I am not saying any joke is relevant, but one such as this certainly is; as I said, it was likely used much more than the "Cedar Spring" reference which is mentioned in the article. The point is that many people were skeptical of the "revolution" and this joke is very telling in terms of why. I'm not sure why Abu Khalil is relevant here; I did not bring him up here - the source is BBC. Please do not distort that. If I wanted his opinion in this I would have included the claim calling it the "hummus revolution". Also the fact that I read that blog does not mean I agree with everything he says. I did not say I was "neutral" -- nobody is -- but I do not have a strong opinion about the "Cedar Revolution." And I do not advocate the "dismantlement" of Lebanon, whatever that is, nor am I pro-Syrian, or anti-Cedar-Revolution, which seemse to be your implication. In any case my point is this is relevant not as a joke but as social commentary that many appear to have used (even yourself by your own admission).--csloat 17:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I never said (nor implied) that you were advocating the dismantling of Lebanon. Concerning Mr. Abu Khalil I was referring to your comment below and not above. Still, the Gucci revolution is not a relevant social commentary. Private conversations on politics happens all the time, and unless there's a public issue at stake, they shouldn't be on wikipedia. I do not understand why a private 'social commentary' is relevant. To my knowledge, the description is never used in Lebanon (and elsewhere) except on a few blogs, it's really a minor joke (like plenty of other jokes) that was reported once in a BBC article. Gucci revolution is no more relevant than 'hummus revolution', meaning it has no place here.--equitor 17:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

BBC is not a "private conversation." It is a public news source, and it reported that the term was used in Lebanon, regardless of whether you personally heard it there. It was probably used more than "Cedar Spring", which certainly has been put in this article.--csloat 22:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of putting this joke. Like equitor said, this joke is practically never used in lebanon. Do a search in google and you find that most of the links point out to non-lebanese blogs. The term must have originated from the BBC report, but I really would like to know the sources of this report, since no lebanese press have used this term. So, as for my opinion, this joke mustn't be used in this article. I'll take the opportunity to highlight a NPOV issue in the article. The Cedar revolution isn relatively far from what the article describes. It's not a lebanese POV that is represented but an American POV. I'm not sure, but you seemed, Equitor, that you live in Lebanon, and you must have witnessed the big downfall that happened after the revolution, which is not cited. Even the "opposition" name must be defined. And the 2005 election weren't regarded as fully democratic by a great number of lebanese. And the big paradoxes that are happening aren't well documented. People often mistakes American POV with Lebanese POV as opposed to Syrian POV; but in fact, their are all different POVs. CG 18:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do we have about its use in Lebanon other than the BBC report, which says it was used? I would like to know the sources of the BBC report too but that is original research - I think it is fair to say here that this is what the BBC reported; I would not assert in the article anything beyond that. The other points you make are well taken and I think these things should be included in the article too. I am not trying to enforce a particular POV here; I just think it is strange that people react so negatively to including a relatively mild criticism of the event that was cited in a BBC report. I was not the one who originally put it in there but it seems entirely relevant to me that the revolution was criticized in this manner.--csloat 22:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I never said that nobody used the qualification. This is not the point. It's a minor joke and it's irrelevant. You might as well add humus revolution or ninja demonstration (in reference to the veiled women in the Hezbollah demonstration). --equitor 16:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Jumblatt's comments

I am looking at the following paragraph:

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt remarked to a reporter of the Washington Post, "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world". In this sense, the Cedar Revolution may also prove to be a dividend of the Bush administration's global war on terror, however, as stated previously, Jumblatts views are not entirely respected as they seem to change regularly. Indeed, Middle East Media Research Institute, a media monitoring service, recorded him saying "The oil axis is present in most of the U.S. administration, beginning with its president, vice-president and top advisers, including [Condoleezza] Rice, who is oil-colored, while the axis of Jews is present with Paul Wolfowitz, the leading hawk who is inciting (America) to occupy and destroy Iraq".

It seems to me that Jumblatt's views here are distorted; while they may change often, the first interview quoted is a view that he has specifically renounced; apparently he has been consistent about it since, and the WP quote makes it sound like he sometimes supports the occupation, which is definitely not the case. This is what Abukhalil writes in response to Hitchens using that quote in his debate against Galloway: "He also cited Walid Jumblat's ONE interview with David Ignatius shortly after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri (Jumblat's friend AND patron) when he cited the American war on Iraq as a source of inspiration, and he referred to it as if this IS the position of Jumblat. But Jumblat later renounced and denounced that one interview, and has given tons of interviews and speeches against the US war and occupation. Just today, Jumblat's party issued a statement in which they attacked Zarqawi's murders but supported 'Iraqi resistance'."[8] I think either this quote should be removed entirely or it should be contextualized; the way it sounds now is completely misleading.csloat 03:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is correct but I am familiar with Mr. Abu Khalil weblog and his relentless racism and bashing against the Lebanese people. So when it comes to Lebanese issues, don't take his holy word for granted.--equitor 06:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know his work that well but I have not seen anything I would characterize as "relentless racism and bashing against the Lebanese people." He was born in Lebanon which makes me suspect such bashing would be unlikely. I have seen what I would call bashing of American and Israeli foreign policy, but that hardly constitutes racism against Lebanese. I don't see any reason to distrust the above comments (and apparently you agree?). -csloat 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

When I read titles like 'the falsity of Lebanese culture' I cannot but wonder. I still remember his 'I am opposed to Lebanon as a project'. The guy wants to dismantle Lebanon (it's his right of course), because like all Arab nationalists he's opposed to its existence. This pseudo-nationalism is based on racist myths about the inhabitants of the Middle East. The fact that he was born in Lebanon changes nothing. Just look at Bobby Fisher or Walker Lindh, the American taliban. Anyway, this is out of topic here. His article is here: As`ad AbuKhalil--equitor 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like he is an anarchist, not a racist. I don't know his work that well but I have read one of his books and I sometimes read his weblog. I have seen a lot of his bias - he is very opinionated - but have not seen any "pseudonationalist" sentiment. In fact it seems to me he does not like nationalism very much at all (which makes sense as an anarchist). I am not certain I have seen him refer to himself as anarchist before but it seems vaguely familiar and the comments you cite prove it. Anyway you're right it's off topic I just wanted to understand your charge that he was "racist". --csloat 22:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding here. I did not use the term racist in the popular American meaning (saying that one race is superior to another). He's an Arab nationalist, and most of them (but not all) consider that Arabs are one nation sharing the same ancestors (this is called an ethnicist/racist definition of nationalism, and it's an academic term that is not pejorative) . To tell the truth, I don't know Abu Khalil's position on this point. The Arab nationalist movement has several variants. --equitor 04:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually have yet to see a link cited by Abu Khalil where Jumblatt actually renounced the interview. - Jude

Politics of Lebanon template

What is the objection to this template? This article is all bout the politics of Lebanon and mentions politicians, elections and political parties a great deal. --AladdinSE 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A History of Lebanon template would be more appropriate for this article. CG 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As no such template exists, this is the next best thing. I would go further. The politics template is very apt because of the extensive discussion in the article about the different parties, partisan politics, elections etc.--AladdinSE 01:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's really not suitable. Every history article (like wars, revolutions) has extensive information about politics. But politics templates are about governement, and political structure of a country and not for historical events. CG 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. I'm reverting. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I don't want to start a revert war, so I'm leaving this template. CG 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a guideline or policy page that supports your position? —Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a policy or a guideline issue. I just think that in one hand politics templates are not for historical events. And in the other hand, every historical event concerns politics (Lebanese civil war, Syrian presence in Lebanon...) but these articles don't have this politics template. CG 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic

Arabic: ثورة الأرز - thawrat al-arz

Be wary of people who edit the name in Arabic, I just fixed it back to thawrat al-arz ثورة الأرز, because someone changed it to Thawarat al Sharameet which means "Whores' Revolution"

"Two-year anniversary", "three-year anniversary"

Just to be pedantic, the correct form is "second anniversary", "third anniversary", "fourth anniversary", etc. The "ann-" prefix means year, so saying "x-year anniversary" is redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.214.15 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Anniversary

I have tagged this section as POV push for not citing any sources. Please introduce some reliable sources to build up the section. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading pictures

All the photos are from 2006, long after the "Cedar Revolution" protests, so either they should be removed or the captions should mention this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cedar Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050421001846/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=619657 to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=619657
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050412000120/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/common/story_page/0,5744,12813616%255E2703,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12813616%255E2703,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cedar Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080609104746/http://www.allacademic.com:80/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/5/0/p151501_index.html to http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/5/0/p151501_index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216003654/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cedar Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cedar Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314202513/http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7326 to http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216003654/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007212503/http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/4/224847/?AKmobile=true to http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/4/224847/?AKmobile=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cedar Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008044423/http://beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=1359 to http://beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=1359
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C12813616%5E2703%2C00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=%2Fnm%2F20050306%2Fwl_nm%2Flebanon_hizbollah_dc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323232401/http://gs.14march.org/ to http://www.gs.14march.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cedar Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519191231/http://yalibnan.com/site/gallery/ to http://yalibnan.com/site/gallery/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Revolution or Intifada

The Cedar Revolution is the most common designation in the West, but the orginal Lebanese name for the events was Intifadat al-Istiqlal (the Independendence Intifada). I think that both names should appear in the lede, as it does in the Arabic sister-page. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)