This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 14, 2014 and February 14, 2015. |
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.
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 news Zerolando 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a very very poor article.
-- 195.7.55.146 14:59, 21 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.
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)
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)
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)
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
*SIGH* I wish you guys would sign your posts :-( -- A. S. A. 22:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, elections are over. Any objections to the removal of the template? Yuber (talk) 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
I am looking at the following paragraph:
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 actually have yet to see a link cited by Abu Khalil where Jumblatt actually renounced the interview. - Jude
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)
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)
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"
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=%2Fnm%2F20050306%2Fwl_nm%2Flebanon_hizbollah_dcWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 14, 2014 and February 14, 2015. |
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.
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 news Zerolando 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a very very poor article.
-- 195.7.55.146 14:59, 21 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.
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)
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)
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)
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
*SIGH* I wish you guys would sign your posts :-( -- A. S. A. 22:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, elections are over. Any objections to the removal of the template? Yuber (talk) 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
I am looking at the following paragraph:
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 actually have yet to see a link cited by Abu Khalil where Jumblatt actually renounced the interview. - Jude
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)
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)
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"
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=%2Fnm%2F20050306%2Fwl_nm%2Flebanon_hizbollah_dcWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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)