Talk:Lebanese Forces

Two Official Sites

There are currently two official Lebanese Forces websites. At the moment everyone keeps changing the links from lebanese-forces.org to lebanese-forces.com and vice versa. I believe BOTH official sites should be listed. This will be fair to both sides. --usurp 13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Was just reading the NPOV and I believe wikipedia should have a neutral point of view on this issue and not be biased towards either side. Readers should be aware of the two websites. I also just invited the wiki user Fadib83 to this discussion since he continues to remove the link to the other official site. I am hoping we can resolve this issue here and not continue to revert each others changes. --usurp 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone recall that an organization has 2 official sites with the same title? Obviously, there is a problem between both sides. The Lebanese Forces responsibles that I have contacted said that the LF website "www.lebanese-forces.com" is the only OFFICIAL website of the party. The other one is held by an individual person that supported the LF for years (and maybe is still supporting it). A divergence in the different points of view resulted in that he refuses to remove the mention "Official" from the title of his website. On the other hand, when Wikipedia publishes an article about the LF, I think it should only contain an external link to the official site. Thus I suggest that no blogs should be linked to. The article must be edited in a formal way. Fadib83 10:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I know is that at the moment there is an internal conflict and that both sides are official but each site is supported by a different group within the party. You have the old generation of fighters on one side and the new politicians on the other side. This is why I believe that wikipedia should not support either one of the two sides and be a neutral party and mention both. About the blog, there is no rule in wikipedia saying blogs are not allowed. As long as a link is informative and can help readers looking for more information then it is allowed. It could be a blog, a personal site, a flickr account, it doesn't matter what it is as long as its serving a purpose. --usurp 12:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

When we talk about OFFICIAL website, we mean the one held by the LF party, not by individuals. Officially, the licence of the LF belongs to Dr. Samir Geagea and his executive committee. And they have stated more than once that the website "www.lebanese-forces.org" represents the opinions of its webmaster only. So when mentioning the latter website, it is erroneous to call it Official. It may be referred to only after changing its title to "Unofficial". Regarding the internal conflict in the LF, there is no such thing at the moment. Every person that didn't accept the actual positions of the LF is not an LF member anymore.

I insist that on the LF article page, there should be no personal links because every LF blogger would want to put a link to his blog. Fadib83 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadi the LF Blog is not a personal geocities website of an LF fan with copy pasted articles from other sites and basically providing no new information whatsoever. The LF Blog is a collective effort by organized and educated LF members who are publishing interesting and informative articles related to the LF. Its not a personal site, there is a difference. --usurp 08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fadi, The Lebanese-forces.org was founded in 1996 and declared the LF official site. It has kept the LF Cause and the LF thought intact throughout the years and kept demanding for Hakim's release while other LFers were busy 'exploiting' Hakim's suffering.

What happened almost 2 years ago is that few LFers initiated a fight with the Lebanese-forces.org team and decided to open another 'official' site and launched a war on that other site and exploited their close ties to Hakim to proclaim the site as unofficial.

Hakim is not aware of what is happening online, and the administrator of the lebanese-forces.org site dispatched a letter to Hakim and is still awaiting his response.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese-forces.org will remain official and if the other site insists, it can call itself official as well, L-F.org is not suing anyone or claiming anything unlike what the moderators and administrators of the other site are doing.

The solution is in the hands of Hakim, so there is no point in debating that issue.

Regards, --N10452 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

N10452,

With all my respect to what you think and said, the fact remains that the LF, as a legal political party, has declared that the ".org" website is no more the Official website. This mention is only attributed by the executive committee of the LF and not by the webmaster of a website.

The ".org" team has done a great job during the imprisonment of Hakim. And maybe they are still in the historical path of the LF but one thing is sure: the LF itself wants the ".com" website to be the official one and we have to respect their will.

I also find this claim that Hakim is not aware of things going around him a little bit exagerated. He already said his word and that's why there is no need to debate this issue.

Finally, I don't think that Wikipedia readers want to know about the LF internal quarrels. They only want to be linked to the official LF website. Fadib83 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So guys what are we going to do? I believe both sites should be listed but maybe the wording of the links should be changed. --usurp 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we mention only the official website. You haven't convinced me. Fadib83 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't not mention the Lebanese-Forces.org site. It has the most amount of articles and information then any other site. How could it not be mentioned? --usurp 09:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said, it shouldn't be mentioned because it's still claiming to be the official site while this issue was made very clear by the LF party. We will mention it only after changing its title. Fadib83 13:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The site will be linked because wikipedia doesn't care if they are still calling themselves official when they are not. Lebanese-Forces.org has the most available information relating to the Lebanese Forces among all the LF sites and so is a very important resource and thats why it will be linked. It also has the most active LF forum and that will also have to be linked. What we need to decide on now is how to list both the official sites, do we call one the old official site and the other one the new official site? I suggest we call one "Official Lebanese Forces site" and the other one "Previously Official Lebanese Forces site". What do you think?--usurp 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds fair. We mention both links as follows: "Official Lebanese Forces website" for the .com, and "Former Lebanese Forces Official website" for the .org. I also suggest that we do not mention any link to personal blogs and we stick to the official forum.Fadib83 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so we got one issue out of the way. Lets tackle the next one, the blog. The blog is not a personal site. If you check it at the moment you will see it contains information, articles and views that are not mentioned on any of the other LF sites. Also if you haven't noticed already, blogs are the new thing and no other political website in Lebanon has a blog. This is an important thing for the LF and it should be linked. Also as I mentioned earlier there is no rule in Wikipedia that says blogs can not be mentioned.--usurp 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This blog, as it is mentioned in the top banner of it, represents "personal views and opinions of lebanese forces members". First of all, there exists nothing in the LF such as official membership (at least for the moment). Second, there is no control on the topics and material posted on the blog since it isn't an official blog maintained by the LF party. Finally, I did as you said: I checked it and found that a great part of the topics are mocking pictures and jokes. This is not convenient when referring to the LF as a political party on its Wikipedia page. Fadib83 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets just stop this childish play and put both websites on the page, i put the .com website as de jure website, and the .org domain as a de facto official website. Both websites can't be ignored in this article.--Darko3d (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

dear all,

please note that the only official website of the lebanese forces is www.lebanese-forces.comlink title and no other website should be listed as so. we can provide you with a picture of the lebanese forces headquater in Maarab Lebanon where the website is shown on the podium. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.21.5 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright notice

this is straight from http://www.lebaneseforces.com/about.asp, but there is no copyright notice on that site, and it may be the author. Christopher Mahan 19:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the second time this material has been posted. The first time, it was deleted as a copyvio on 17 September 2004. Unless it's clear that the source is PD or appropriately licensed, we have to assume that it isn't. I'm holding off from speedily deleting it as a repost, but that may happen anyway. --rbrwr^± 23:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A friend of mine.

A friend of mine from Lebanon, whose family was actually IN the LF disputes the factuality, and the neutrality of this article.

He says that Samir Geagea was not such a pretty man as is made to believe, and there is a profuse lack of detail and analysis in this article.

I am therefore marking it NPOV, and DISPUTED.

ironyWrit 06:52 07/28/05 (UTC)

That's good enough reason to remove the NPOV and DISPUTED tags, and I'll do so forthwith, on two counts: quoting a friend constitutes original research, which is against Wikipedia's policy and rules. And unless he can quote some recognized authority, his word is no more valid than that of Joe Bloggs who runs the corner store. The article DOES NOT make him out to be a "pretty" man. Lack of detail and analysis does NOT make an article POV. As of now, the tag is gone. David Cannon 11:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

POV rewrite

62.215.3.61 completely rewrote this article; his/her version is here. It was reasonably well written and not obvious vandalism, but quite POV and not nearly as good as what it replaced, so I reverted it.

Would someone familiar with the topic please review that version and see if there's anything worth keeping? Thanks, Tualha (Talk) 10:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That rewrite is the familiar text from the official website, which was deleted as a copyvio six times between December 2004 and June 2005 (which is how I come to be watching a page on a topic I know very little about). We should presumably link to that page. --rbrwr^± 10:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have reverted yet another replacement of this page with a cut'n'paste from the official website, and added a link to said site. I suggest that if anyone feels that this article is biased or inaccurate or bad in any other way, they either make an improvement without deleting the current content; or come to this talk page and explain what the problem they see is, so that others can help them improve it. —Stormie 12:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, wiki isn't very user friendly so there was no way I would know about this "talk page". The reason I have been complaining about the current article is because the person who wrote it seems to be from the Free Patriotic Movement and not the Lebanese Forces. Saying that the LF was collecting taxes and tarrifs illegally and that the LF was responsible for the Liberation war when infact it was Aoun is very naive. First paragraphy mentions that there is evidence the LF dealt with Israel, where is the evidence? What is the evidence? This Lebanese Forces page on wiki is lacking information and is inaccurate. Now what I am suggest is either replace the article with one that is more accurate and detailed off the LF websites (which you are free to copy) or replace the whole page with a 1 paragraph summary of the LF without going into controversial details until there is someone who is willing to write a more detailed description. Hope this info help. Please reply. --62.215.3.51 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, glad you're here now. Could you clarify some points about the blurb from the Lebanese Forces website? When you say we're free to copy it, do you say that because you represent the LF? Or because you have been granted that permission before? Or does it say so on their website? And if we're free to copy it, are we then free to modify it further as we wish? If we aren't, it is useless to us. --rbrwr^± 12:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

When I say you are free to copy it I mean you are free to copy it. This information is available on LebaneseForces.com, Lebanese-Forces.org and numerous other LF sites because its meant to be shared. You are also free to modify it as it has already been by other LF members on various sites. Now can it be modified to reflect negativly on the LF, the answer is no. Now if I believed I was qualified enough to rewrite the page on the LF myself I would. But I am not qualified enough. What I will do is add a link to on LebaneseForces.com encouraging LF readers to come in and edit this page. Hopefully that will solve the problem. --62.215.3.51 13:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (update: just added the request on the main page of LebaneseForces.com --62.215.3.61 14:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)) Another update, i created an account now. --usurp 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia article must of course be written in accordance with the NPOV policy, meaning that both supporters and opponents of the LF should recognise it as being true. However, Wikipedia's licence allows anyone to take it and modify it as they see fit, and their version might "reflect negatively" on the LF. If we can't relicense the LF blurb under those terms, we can't use it. For better or worse, that's the way Wikipedia works. Having said that, we can make fair use of short sections in the form of properly attributed quotations, just as we can quote any appropriate source. --rbrwr^± 17:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Another revert

I have reverted a whole spate of POV and copyright violations. I serve notice that I am watching this page, and that I'm not going to allow it to be overrun by people attempting to push an agenda. Speaking for myself, I'm sympathetic towards the LF - always have been, but this is an NPOV encyclopedia and I cannot and will not allow it to be transformed into a propaganda organ, even if I agree with the propaganda. Persistent violators are documented, and disciplinary action may be considered, especially in the case of copyright violations, which appear to be escalating. David Cannon 21:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, please leave this page alone. We can't be violating our own copyrights. The articles on LebaneseForces.com and Lebanese-Forces.org was written by us. Now if we feel we want to use some of it here we are free to do so. You are not an LF member and I doubt you know anything more then what you just read online. I have already posted on the main LF.com website for people to come in here and edit the copy. One of the people who came (194.126.24.4) and spent an hour writing was a friend who writes most of the articles you see on LF.com and L-F.org. If you see a grammer mistake, please go ahead and fix it. If you find errors in the text or if you have issues, please use this page to discuss them. This is an encyclopedia and it must contain facts and truth. I do not have any power on wiki like you do but that doesn't mean the Lebanese Forces section is your section. --usurp 05:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Usurp, I'll freely admit that I am not an LF member and I certainly don't know anything more than what I've read in this article and on the LF website. And I agree with much of your earlier criticism of the article. The claim "there is evidence that the Lebanese Forces accepted military and financial support from the government of Israel," without any mention of what this evidence is or who has claimed it, is completely unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. Where said that the LF "was collecting taxes and tarrifs illegally", I assume that it should be clarified that the illegality was a claim of Michel Aoun's government, not a statement of fact. These are clearly areas where the original article can be improved.

But I have to say that Wikipedians take a very dim view of articles being replaced wholesale with something completely different. Especially when the replacement actually says a lot less. In terms of detail (names, dates, etc.), a lot has been removed. That is why we would prefer you to work with the existing content, add to it rather than replacing it, and if there is anything which you really feel should not be in there (e.g. the unsourced allegations about the LF receiving support from Israel), remove it and mention that you did so on this talk page. Because according to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, when there are allegations and denials, we need to cover both, clearly listing who made the allegations and why, as well as the response to them.

I'm not going to revert back to the original article right now (although I won't be surprised if someone else does), but I will attempt to find the time to come up with an edit which removes some of the objectionable content of the original and adds the extra detail from your version. Please work with us to come up with something which fairly covers both the points of view of the Lebanese Forces and their enemies. —Stormie 09:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

(Reply to Usurp) Even if it's not a copyright violation, it's still POV and I will not allow it. The article must be neutral, neither in favour of the LF nor against it. A Wikipedia article cannot therefore be of the same substance as one on LebaneseForces.com or Lebanese-Forces.org. Articles that are obviously sympathetic or unsympathetic to a cause are NOT ALLOWED. BTW, I resent your claim that I have any special "powers" on wiki. I don't. As a sysop/administrator, I'm simply a user who's been trusted with the responsibility of enforcing policies that were made not by me, but by the Wikipedia community as a whole; almost all of these policies were around long before I even knew that Wikipedia existed. The NPOV policy is not mine; I did not make it, but it is my responsibility to enforce it and I intend to. This page is not "your" section either. You wrote: "Now if we feel we want to use some of it here we are free to do so." Yes, as long as it's neither for nor against the LF and its policies. If you want a wiki where you can bias articles towards your own point of view, there are other wikis available, such as Wikinfo. Don't try it here. I'm warning you that you're just wasting your own time trying to upload your biases here, because I'm going to keep on reverting them until you get tired. As I said, I'm an LF-sympathiser, but that's all the more reason why I cannot be seen to be biased that way. Same to you. David Cannon 09:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you stormie for clearing things up. I understand more clearly now and I will start adding and removing anything I see wrong with an explanation for each without replacing the whole document. On the other hand David, I think you are a hypocrit and a terrible administrator. Instead of explaining your actions you went on attack mode banning me from day 1 and then sending out warnings and threats without highlighting the problems. Your action made me keep repeating my mistakes due to the fact that I wasn't told what I was doing wrong. I believe you have taken my actions of removing your inaccurate post on the Lebanese Forces personally because you had written it. This is why you are not an objective party in this discussion and this is why I think you have been unfair and aggressive. I believe if this section needs to be fixed, then you will have to open up to the idea that what you have written is not perfect and that there will be changes. If you can't handle that and will start reverting back to what YOU think is right everytime we fix something then I won't waste my time here. Please state your position on this issue so that I can either leave this section alone or help make it better. --usurp 12:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't claim that my work is perfect, and other editors (including Lebanese, such as User:Equitor have changed things that I've written with no objection from me. But blatant POV is not acceptable. BTW, LF cooperation with Israel is attested by international newspapers and such encyclopedias as Britannica, so I've reinserted it. YOU will have to open up to the idea that not everything in the article is going to be favourable to the LF. David Cannon 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, I believe you should work for the Lebanese government. The reason for this is the Lebanese government wasn't able to prove that the LF worked with Israel yet you somehow managed to prove it. Please provide us with links to your evidence. Until then, I believe this articles facts should be disputed. --usurp 21:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I just read the Wiki guidelines. Basically it says that when stating an accusation like the one posted that the Lebanese Forces were working with Israel, then you should cite the source. Until you can cite the source I have removed the paragraph. I am just following the wiki general policy. --usurp 21:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I am still reading the discussion page. All conflicts can be solved with some methodology. First of all, let us discuss the disputed claims one by one, it will be easier. Also, when you claim that the article unNPOV, please provide the specific allegation that you feel is unNPOV. Otherwise we cannot debate about it and the article is bound to remain UNPOV. If you feel that some facts should be inserted please tell us what and if the claims are disputed, we'll specify the sources.

Concerning the claim that the LF worked with Isreal, I always thought that it was a widely acknowledged fact. I personnally know LF who were trained in Israel, but that is not the point since we don't use primary sources on wikipedia. Most if not all the books written on Lebanon's war support that claim (in fact I never read any book that denies it). If you need to reference these facts, here are some books on this subject that I consider good. You also have evidence of cooperation in Robert Hatem's book and also the Kahane commission, even if it's not why these reports were publiched. Both report are available on the internet. There's plenty of other sources if we need more.

ISBN 2226121277 - Alain Ménargues

ISBN 0060921455 - Andrew Cockburn

ISBN 0671601172 - Bob Woodward

--equitor 03:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Now we are getting somewhere. Robert Hatem's book, From israel to damascus is highly regarded as lies, but I will use it as an example cuz its available to read online for free. Robert Hatem worked for Elie Hobeika. The only mention of Israel you will ever see will one way or another will be connected to Elie Hobeika. The thing is though, Elie Hobeika was the intelligence chief of the Lebanese Forces. But, if you read on him you will know that he went and did things byhimself without the approval of the LF and was later kicked out. Now a good english written book that describes the relationship of Bachir Gemayel, the leader of the LF and Elie Hobeika is ISBN: 0747508194, Love and Death in Beirut. In this book the writer talks about how Elie Hobeika had his own agenda and how he later became allies with Syria. Finally, you have to understand, if the Lebanese government had accused the LF of something it doesn't mean its true. One example is the Toufic el Hindi (a LF lawyer and advisor to Samir Geagea) case since thats fairly recent. He was arrested and drugged, and then video taped saying that he had dealt with Israel, except the video turned out was doctured (ie, cut n paste) to make it look like he admited to working with israel. When they couldn't charge him for treason they charged him a lesser charge and he spent a year in prison.

One more thing. If an LF worked with Israel, then they would have been charged with treason and would have been executed. The SLA for example worked with Israel and most of those leaders are not allowed to come into Lebanon because they would be charged and executed. With the LF though, our leader was just recently freed and was never charged with working with Israel. --usurp 06:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Most christians have worked with israel during the civil war, this include the Ahrar, the phalange and the LF the descendants of the Kataeb. There are clear statements by many political leaders (At this time I only remember Karim Bakradoni) that christians has collaborated with Israel including LF.

And another thing: I think you're lebanese and you understand how issues are delt in lebanon. We cannot just accuse Joumblatt of the massacres that he commited in the mountains, or Suleiman Frangieh for working with Syria, or Hezbollah for deteriorating lebanon's foreign relations. This applys also to Geagea (I know it would irritate you, but my POV represents the POV of a large number of lebanese), not being charged doesn't proove that he hasn't done anything. And don't forget that the LF is still officially banned from Lebanon (which the article doesn't mention, POV).

And about the lebanese in Israel, it's a controversial issue that was raised lately by Aoun (if you follow the news), and there's opposite POVs: while Hezbollah wants to execute them all, Aoun requested a fair trial with the statement that they haven't all stayed in Israel by there free will. CG 06:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

A large POV or a small POV is still a POV and we are here to state facts. Karim Bakradoni is also an ally of Syria and anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. I also don't have a problem with the Lebanese in Israel. My only issue is that saying that the LF dealt with Israel is a bold and dangerous statement and unless there is hard evidence which there isnt then it should be removed, thats all. You saying that most Christians work with Israel during the war is a POV. My POV is that Hezbolla also has dealt with Israel, but I don't have any hard evidence but its a widly regarded POV still. Finally I understand you are very pro Aoun but I am also extremly Anti Aoun. But you don't see me going and putting my POV on his page even though I could put a lot of things he did which were bad and have articles to provde them. I also could show Aoun look bad in the article about the LF but I won't, the reason for that is as I said it should remain neutral. --usurp 07:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia NPOV policy, it states that every point of view should be mentionned if it mentionned in a book of a newspaper and agreed by a large number of people. That means every criticism of anything should be mentionned. You're christian, but check the John Paul II article, it has a criticism section that irritates christians, but i have to be mentioned. Rafiq Hariri is said to have been killed by Syrian, but there's no proove, it would be totally inaccurate not to mention it in the Rafiq Hariri article, as long as theories involving USA, Israel, and even lebanese politicians. And you're right I'm pro-Aoun, and I would like the Michel Aoun and Free Patriotic Movement to be expanded, but I expect that it will have a huge criticism section, like Samir Geagea and Lebanese Forces should have. CG 07:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

CG you say that "We cannot just accuse Joumblatt of the massacres that he commited in the mountains, or Suleiman Frangieh for working with Syria, or Hezbollah for deteriorating lebanon's foreign relations". You can say this but you have to provide the information on the context in which these information were made. Concerned Geagea alleged murder, only the one of Karame is (probably) true, but you are right to say that there is no proof and that the trial was a joke.--equitor 17:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Description contains POV

"Despite public denials, there is evidence that the Lebanese Forces accepted military and financial support from the government of Israel in the early years of the civil war."

Where is the evidence? I have removed this from the Lebanese Forces description but David seems to think it belongs there. If there is such evidence I believe it should be linked to it or mentioned. Unless evidence can be attached to this statement, this line should be deleted. David seems to want to keep this although he has no evidence.

I'll provide a source later. I'll leave that section alone for now, but will reinsert it when I get the source - and yes, I will get it. David Cannon 01:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For the sources I'd recommend ISBN 2226121277 - Alain Ménargues as I said before . I can provide you with quotes if you really can't find any- but I don't live in Lebanon right now and it's comicated for me.

"Aoun demanded that the LF hand over taxes and tarrifs collected illegally, Geagea counterattacked."

I also rephrased this sentence to remove the word illegally since this is a POV of Aoun, the Lebanese Forces enemy at that time. Unless proof can be provided that these taxes and tarrifs were illegal, then this is just an opinion. Although I rephrased this quote, David seems to think it should remain.

It IS illegal for anyone except a government, anywhere in the world, to collect taxes. That's just common sense. Nevertheless, I'm not too upset about the word "illegal" being removed.

Technically it's right, but given the circumstances of the Lebanese war, the tone of the sentence is very aggressive. Also, Aoun legitimacy as the head of state is fragile. Note that, Geagea handled the port of Beirut to Aoun at first, arguably as a sign of good will. Afterwards aoun asked for other ports and territory under LF command, Geagea refused and this + the Taef issue lead to the war.--equitor 03:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that, Equitor. Not being Lebanese myself, I sometimes find it difficult to understand the complexities of the civil war. I assure you that I didn't mean anything aggressive by calling the taxes "illegal," and in the light of your explanation, I'm happy to see that word removed. By the way, many thanks to both you and CG for your excellent work of brining a semblance of order out of the chaos that's marked this article for several days. The reason why I posted nothing yesterday or today was to let you two sort the matter out, without my being divisive. David Cannon 12:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

glad I helped, it's good to have your foreign POV alos--equitor 01:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

During the war Lebanon was divided in many areas. The LF controlled area was the most organized and advanced. Many Americans who came to Lebanon were always surprised by the LF, they always expected to see a small group of unorganized militia but instead find a large highly developed organization. The LF controlled areas had taxes, like you do in the States. These taxes provided benefits to the people in the area. They had health care, free schools, food ratios and more ameneties. --usurp 06:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

True, the LF provided a level of administration that did not exist in other areas--equitor 18:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Israel

Could someone explain to me why David is going against Wiki policy? I have provided strong argument, while David has provided none. I have removed the controversial and inaccurate information but David keeps putting it back. Who can I send a complain to about Davids actions? --usurp 21:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just noticed that the links to LF websites and LF related articles were removed. No reason was giving by David ofcourse. Can someone tell me why those links were removed? --usurp 21:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I simply hit the ROLLBACK button, which automatically reverts your entire edit. I haven't got time go over your POV-laden edits with a fine-toothed comb to separate the objective from the subjective. BTW, I am NOT saying that your assertions are wrong, I am saying that they are not neutral. That's the problem. Anyway, I'm going to get a couple of Lebanese blokes who have been manning this department on Wikipedia to have a look at this whole article, and will defer to them. I hope you will do likewise. David Cannon 01:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that when we have an article about a political party, it's standard policy to put at least one link to the party's homepage. Having multiple links can be allowed but these links should not bring to highly unNPOV pages (note that I did not read the concerned articles, and I am not judging them). Also, we don't usually put any external link in the main text, except, maybe, as a reference.--equitor 03:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, there is strong evidence that shows Israeli support for the LF including Gemayel's own meeting with Israelis. Although revisionists such as usurp may want to hide this it should still be included.Heraclius 04:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I posted my reply above. Basically, anyone who deals with Israel would be charged with treason. Bachir Gemayel was elected president, how could that be if he was a traitor? So one more tiem i repeat, there are "assumptions" that the LF worked with Israel, but not facts. This is why no one would be able to provide us with facts here. --usurp 06:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No he would be accused of treason by some which is not the same as being a traitor. But I understand your POV, as soon as you have some kind of relation is established Israel, some people accuse you of being a zionist agent. Still, there's nothing shameful in working with Israel and, even if Bachir Gemayel worked with Israel, he did this to promote his own agenda. He was not an 'agent' who carried Israeli order. This was (supposed to be) a win-win relationship. LF were never an israeli proxy such as the SLA and there are case where LF and Israel had a tense relationship such as the withdrawal of the Shuf in 83--equitor 18:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

If there's nothing wrong with working with Israel, how come usurp here is trying to be a revisionist and claim that Gemayel had nothing to do with Israel. Let's be frank here. Being an Israeli-supporter/ally makes you unpopular amongst the majority of Lebanese people, regardless of religion.Heraclius 01:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

regardless of their religion is your POV. But this is not the point here, the point is that the LF enjoyed good relations with Israel at least until 83. There's enough sources concerning this matter.--equitor 02:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's not really my POV. There were plenty of Muslim collaborators with Israel as well.Heraclius 15:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting solution

I wish I could help but I don't have much historical knowledge. I'm rather a supporter of Aoun, and I've heard a lot of criticism of Geagea and his LF (That's what this article lacks of). I found it great that you put a invitation-like in LF site for LF members to participate in the creation of the article and thus bring more editors to wikipedia, but it would be wiser if you also post a similar message in theFree patriotic movement forum explaining the POV issue and the need for different points of view (with the risk of more edit wars :-> )

Another thing, since this article reflects mostly an LF POV, I suggest this article [1] about the lebanese civil war, that by its tone, It shows that (I guess) it's slighter Aounist. CG 05:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

although in writing sounds good you can't have an FPM member write about the LF or help in editing. You will have to accept that there was a war at the time when there wasn't any Internet. Information wasn't well documented. You bring an FPM and an LF member in a room and you will have a never ending argument. Both parties would be able to provide their own facts on why they are right. This is why I suggested earlier that you either keep this article neutral towars the LF, by that I mean don't say anything positive or negative about them, or have it with more of an LF POV. For those who don't live in Lebanon you might have a different idea of who the LF are. The media isn't always right, or if they are they don't tell the whole story. After Samir Geagea got his parole many media in their reports while describing who Samir Geagea was, they mentioned that he blew up a church and that he killed Danny Chamoun. Both of these accusations turned out to be false and doctured but the media didn't mention that. People seem to think the government is always right and what they say is officially true and what happened, but it isn't. The government was always under the control of Syria until just recently. So again, my advice, if you don't want edit wars here is to keep this article on the LF neutral. Will the article get effected that greatly by mentioning Israe? Will it get that greatly effected by removing the word illeagally? --usurp 06:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

What you said doesn't reflects any of the Wikipedia policies. Being a controversial article doesn't mean at all that it should stay on one side and prevent edit wars by preventing others POVs to collaborate. But you're right If the government doesn't admit it, that doesn't mean that it did or didn't happen, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentionned in the article, in a NPOVly manner. This situation is similar to many other, while the US gov denies it, but some claims that Roosevelt had known about the attack of Pearl Harbor without taking any measures, it is denied, but having a lot of supporters, there's a slight chance that it could have happened and therefeore it should be mentionned. And about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, it irritates a lot of Bush-supporters, but believed by a large group of people, it has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Returning to our subject, Geagea may or may not have blown up the church (I personnaly think he didn't), or killed Danny Chamoun (I personnaly think he did, and there's a statement by Karim Bakradoni), but both of them are believed by a lot of lebanese (especially Aounist) and have to be included in the article to achieve NPOV.

ps:I suggest that you read Wikipedia policies beginning with WP:NPOV. CG 07:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

And I forgot smthg, in the LFPM forum (I gave you the link above), there's a lot of non-Aoun-fanatic people, and most of them have neutral and opposite ideas about Geagea and Aoun. By inviting and stating clearly the NPOV policy, it should give the best results. CG 07:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok can you first please using Karim Pakradoni as your source. That just destroys any credibility you have in your argument. Karim Pakradoni is just a Syrian pawn, I am sure you know that. Here is an article by Dorry Chamoun, Danny's brother absolving Samir Geagea from the murder. http://www.lebaneseforces.com/2005_04_01_archive.asp#111441752577910231

The LFPM forum you mentioned is full of imature people who follow aoun blindly. The forum is full of Anti LF attacks, remarks, comments and more. I can even provide you with hard evidence showing how the administrator of the forum was very happy when Pierre Boulous, and LF member was brutally murdered. He posted it in the forum and we have a screenshot of his post. To advertise in their forum to come and edit this article is calling for trouble. --usurp 07:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, man what's this attitude that could get you expelled from Wikipedia? I've written paragraphs and you still don't understand! There's a lot of people that doesn't have the same opinions as yours, and you're just ignoring them. Wikipedia states clearly that all point of views must be mentionned wether you like it or not. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. CG 08:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem with different POV's. I have a problem with the fact some people here have one POV in their heads and are not open to others. You stated that Samir Geagea assasinated Danny Chamoun and you didn't provide any proof just thats its your personal opinion. On the other hand, I said Samir Geagea wasn't involved and showed you evidence that backs up my POV. Wikipedia isn't a place to spread rumors or gossip which is what you are doing. You either provide information with facts and citations or you don't. Wikipedia is open to all POV's as long as it is backed up by facts. In any case, I did my best here to fix things but it seems I won't get anywhere. You guys are free to change history as you please. I'm out. --usurp 10:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion isn't relevant here. I meant that the fact that for example Geagea is accused to have blown up the church should be mentionned in the article, and the same that the assassination of Dany Chamoun. The same thing apply to Aoun: we should mention the fact that he imported money from Iraq and he allied wuth pro-Syrian, the same thing applies to Jumblatt with the massacre of christians and so on... These are all accusations with no real proof, But the fact that Hariri was killed by Syrian does have a proof? I don't think so, so we shouldn't put this opinion in the Rafiq Hariri article? But here what the Wikipedia NPOV policy states (I reformulated it): In order to achieve NPOV, for facts that are disputed we should use the words He is accused of, he is believed to, some think that. Therefore we cannot say "Geagea has assassinated ..." but "Geagea is accused of ... by...", especially when these criticisms are accepted by a large part of lebanese. And to reach a neutral tones, all the things you LFers like about Geagea should be mentionned.

ps: you don't have to get out from this dispute, Wikipedia has noticed a lot of edit wars, but eventually a consensus will be reach if we stick to Wikipedia policies. CG 11:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

ps':here's the message that I posted in the previous subject that you maybe missed it:

"::Reading Wikipedia NPOV policy, it states that every point of view should be mentionned if it mentionned in a book of a newspaper and agreed by a large number of people. That means every criticism of anything should be mentionned. You're christian, but check the John Paul II article, it has a criticism section that irritates christians, but i have to be mentioned. Rafiq Hariri is said to have been killed by Syrian, but there's no proove, it would be totally inaccurate not to mention it in the Rafiq Hariri article, as long as theories involving USA, Israel, and even lebanese politicians. And you're right I'm pro-Aoun, and I would like the Michel Aoun and Free Patriotic Movement to be expanded, but I expect that it will have a huge criticism section, like Samir Geagea and Lebanese Forces should have."

The case concerning Chamoun's murder is completely empty. Even Dory, the brother and successor of Dany has dismissed the accusations. Concerning Rachid Karame, the LF are probably behind this one, but there's no proof of this but Omar Karame accuses Geagea to be behind his brother's assassination and this also should be specified. Also, Geagea's trial should not be presented as a fair example of justice, because it was a politically-motivated move to eliminate an opponent. He was after all, the only militia leader to be judged and he's arguably not the worse of the bunch. You can read accounts of the trial done by human rights organization such as amnesty. Defense rights were grossly violated and prisonners/witnesses were submitted to torture and various pressure.

There's a guy called Fawzi el Rassi that died of a 'heart attack' during his incarceration. To make an euphemism, the Lebanese juridical system in a period like the early 90 was everything but justice. The context of the trial should be documented so that the reader can make his mind with all the relevant information.--equitor 20:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"especially when these criticisms are accepted by a large part of lebanese." Who would these ppl be? Just cause you dont support geagea and believe what you want to believe doesnt mean that a large part of lebanon is the same. Why dont you take yourself and Aoun and run back to france for another 13 years cuz your doing no good in lebanon. Speak ur words somewhere else where ppl think like idiots.

Respond to "Suggesting solution"

Just a little note about Rachid Karame assasination. The bomb was planted in a Lebanese army choper and this choper was in a trip from tripoli to Lebanese international airport. The invistagations shown that the planted were a lebanese army people, and taking orders from leb army secret services, where Lebanese forces doesnt have any power over them. It is true that the Lebanese forces disliked Rachid Karameh and maybe said in an occasion or two that this guy should go away, thats where the killers try to blame LF on it.

Respond to "a friend of Mine" input

The whole story seems very unreal or should I say fake. There wont be any LF member who is a disgrace to his leader, therefore the story behind flamming Dr. Samir Geagea is just another cheap way not only to insult that great leader, but also making Lebanese forces members bad people. Conclusion: your input is not valid, and it is null.

Totally agree with you, The lebanese forces never made it mendatory for christians to join the cause... Had you not agreed with your leader you where free to leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.93.65 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:212.36.213.26

Listen User talk:212.36.213.26 , I know the LF suficiently well to know what I am talking about. You have a point of view that is different and it's your right. But wikipedia policy states that controversial topics should be discussed on the talk page. If you want to push you point of view you must provide sources or evidences for your claims. That's how it works. If you keep reverting without providing evidence for your allegations, I'll have to report you again and considering your previous history of vandalism you'll be blocked for a longer duration. You say that the LF cross symbolizes a sword 'to be driven in muslim hearts' (your words). For the LF cross, I advise you to look on their un-offical website. After all, the LF chose this symbol for reasons that belong to them, not you. lF website

Please show some evidence supporting your claims or stop your actions.--equitor 09:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Lebanese Forces and war crimes

I dispute the neutrality of this article because it did not mention the role these forces played in:

-The Sabra and Chatila massacres in September 1982. It has been established through many reports and inquiries, chief among which is the Kahan commission report. This act was found by the UN General Assembly to be an act of Genocide.

-The role in the so-called Mountain War conducted against the Druze. In the course of these confrontations both sides committed atrocities.

For this article to be realiable and neutral, it needs to mention these decisive facts and disclose the Lebanese Forces' involvement in crimes against humanity. For there to be a history, all the facts need to be told. This is not an effort to single out the Lebanese Forces, I encourage everyone to shed more light on the events of the LEbanese Civil War.

Thank you for your your comments. If you find this article non-neutral, just add the information you think it's missing, but by citing sources. I also recommend you to read the Wikipedia NPOV policy, and if you'd like to be a regular contributor create a username. And please always sign your comments by adding ~~~~. CG 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that could be mentioned, in an unbiased way, where the LF defense is also cited. But the suggestion which was inserted on the page previously, and deleted by CG, was not unbiased enough, in my opinion. Arre 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Marada-man

Someone very interested in the Marada Brigades keeps entering an anti-LF in these articles, and also keeps crashing the links I just fixed in the process. I think parts of these edits could be valuable, but the need to be a) rephrased to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view, and b) sourced with Internet links or literature. Until that happens I will keep reverting them, but I'd be happy to discuss here on talk too. Arre 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The LF Cross

Please note that the LF cross is not considered a logo of the Lebanese Forces any longer. Dr. Samir Geagea has removed it following his return from France at the request of the Lebanese Greek Orthodox clergy. I sadly do not have a source, but it can be supported by visiting the official LF website www.lebanese-forces.org where it will not appear. I suggest either a removal of the cross as a symbol of the group or to make it clear that it does not symbolise the group any longer.

--62.215.248.85 14:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Actually Samir Geagea did not say the LF cross is not an LF symbol. Samir Geagea asked that the LF Cross not to be used during demonstrations and instead the Lebanese flag be used. He also said that a lot of people (Students mostly) were abusing the LF cross and its meaning by spray painting it on walls. He asked this be stopped. The LF cross was never and will never be the official logo of the Lebanese Forces. The LF Cross is and was always just a symbol for the Lebanese Forces. The caption under the cross mentions that already.

--I dont know why everybody is making a bid deal out of this. Yes it is true that the war had alot of ups and downs when it comes to leaders of militia's and believes. But, When it comes to lebanese forces thats different. The lebanese forces did defend the christians in lebanon no doubt but they were not the only people to defend them. However there leader had more goals then just to protect us but he wanted to take the president position. Thats when the conflicts and the relations started with isreal. No doubt they did if it was through elie hbayka or samir gaegae thats not right. About the assassinations of samir gaegae thats a total diffrent story. Yes he was accussed about the killing of tony frangieh which is a fact no doubt and yes the killing of Rashid karami is not proven ( which I dont Really Believe ) and the explosion in the church that i have slight believe it happened. Basically what i mean with all this everybody over protects LF and they are the most militia that had alot of mistakes in the past and sleiman frangieh that everybody is judging is the only guy that should be mostly respected he is the guy that stood up in front and said what he said and wasnt with Feb. 14 how many people sold themselfes for a position with Said Al - Al Hariri. And everybody in Lebanon is 100% sure that Syria had nothing to to do with the assassination that happen in Feb 14 we all should open our eyes and see.

--your obviously the syrian supporter...who are you to say that samir geagea had anything to do with those assassinations? they were not proven...about ur little "and the explosion in the church that i have slight believe it happened." If you knew what you were talking about then you would have never said that...why would the patriarch have anything to do with Geagea if he blew up that church. you know so much you tell me...so i need you to shut your mouth and get the facts before you start talking. You try siting underground for 11 years just for believeing for your countries freedom, or you wouldnt know anything about that because the ppl you support ran off to france for 13 years. ALLAH OUWET HAKIM OU BUSS

--10:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) this is typically lebanon and the lebanese people... everyone think he knws everything and everyone thinks that he got the truth and he is right while everyone is just being manipulated by his leader to the no where. please everyone just check the history and try to see if any lebanese party any lebanese party was able to change anything in lebanon.. it has always been told what to do from outsiders... who cares about little details that no one knows about them.... the world is so big.. no one cares about little details that no one of you no one knows it.because the truth is that everything is like a chess board and we are not the players not even the queen. thank you and please if u are a suporter for the LF dont try to make it the perfect party or the angel one... this is not true...and if it is perfect but not angel it wouldnt have led christians in lebanon to what they have been through... no political party is good enough.

To Fadib83

Well, you think that the LF "fought for the cause of Lebanese Christians" and for the defence of Christianity on Lebanon. It's your opinion, maybe other persons share it, but there are also other people that don't share your point of view. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia and it should remain that way.

Just to give you few examples that the LF didn't always fought for the defence of Christianity in Lebanon:

- The Ehden massacre, perpetrated against Marada, who are Christians.

- The operations against "Noumour el Ahrar" (also Christians) in 1980.

- The war with the Lebanese army of general Aoun (mainly Christians) in 1989/1990

- ...

So, you can't always say that the LF fought for the “cause of Lebanese Christians” or “Christianity in Lebanon”.

A neutral expression would rather be "fought on the Christian side".

Regards,

Captainm 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When I say that the LF fought for the defense of Christians in Lebanon, I refer to the cause of its birth. I think we all agree that the LF was formed to defend the Christian towns against the Palestinian and leftist attacks.

I suggest that we keep the current version "Christian side" in the introduction and we explain this idea in the core of the article.

Best Regards,

Fadib83 15:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ok Fadi, i agree with you.

Best Regards Captainm 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is "Fuck Party" added ? And what does it mean ?

Someone changed alot of stuff in this article including curse words like "Arse", please someone check this and revert the changes.

Wikiproject Syria

I removed the Syria Wikiproject banner because it was added with no explanation. I can't see why this page is within the scope of the Syria Wikiproject. Fadib83 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lfcross.jpg

Image:Lfcross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lfcross.jpg

Image:Lfcross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Official website

There seems to be a disagreement between editors of this article as to what is the official website of Lebanon forces. It seems that are two contenders:

• www.lebanese-forces.com
• www.lebanese-forces.org

Both seem to claim to be official websites. Is there a way to establish which should be being used? I have received an email claiming that the latter is not in fact authorised to describe itself as official. Please comment if you have an opinion on this matter or are able to help resolve this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the letter that was supposively signed by Samir Geagea? The .org Lebanese Forces site has been online since 1996. After Geagea was released from Yarze some supporters in Lebanon created a new site and apparently persuaded Geagea to sign a letter stating there is only one site for him.

Stop removing the official blog and forum links. Lebanese-Forces.org has been the official web site and forum of the Lebanese Forces since 1996. The Ouwet.com blog is an official Lebanese Forces members blog. These anonymous fellows have no right to remove it. There has been much slander written on this page by anonymous guests, and I hope that this page can be semi protected so that only established users may edit the page. If the vandalism persists I will request that the admins think of something to protect the integrity of this article. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's "contribution"

User Izzedine is obviously oblivious of the History of Lebanon, LF principles, political stances and ideology. Izzedine, you cannot add categories such as Fascism, Fascist parties, Terrorism in Lebanon, Christian terrorism, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Islam sentiment...when you know nothing about the party especially if your sources are fundamentalist sites and blogs, so spare us the effort of reverting your fanatical fabrications. Thank you Eli+ 22:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing here but ad hominem. These categories are qualified by the information and references in the article, so do not remove them. Izzedine (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Right Wing?

WHy is the group labeled "right wing", when none the PLO nor any of it's groups are labeled as "left wing"? Let's fix that.

"Golden Years" section : biased text

The section is written in an obviously biased manner. Events are related with only one side's version included, and without distancing terms such "stated", "allegedly", etc. Plus, loaded words or peacock terms are liberally employed. As an example, the beginning of that section's first paragraph is indicative enough : "Christian East Beirut was ringed by heavily fortified Palestinian camps from which kidnappings and sniping against Lebanese civilians became a daily routine. Christian East Beirut became besieged by the PLO camps, with severe shortages of food and fuel. This unbearable situation was remedied by the Kataeb Regulatory Forces...". It needs citations and re-writing.-The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lebanese Forces. 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/20140627052439/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t28UYcXZRCs to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t28UYcXZRCs

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).

• 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} 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lebanese Forces. 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/20120609062746/http://www.lebaneseforces.com/blastfromthepast002.asp to http://www.lebaneseforces.com/blastfromthepast002.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626032219/http://www.lebaneseforces.com/blastfromthepast009.asp to http://www.lebaneseforces.com/blastfromthepast009.asp

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).

• 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) 12:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebanese Forces. 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/20111206222359/http://www.lebanese-forces.org/ to http://www.lebanese-forces.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2018

Oberynmartell (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Cabinet of Lebanon: 2/30 to 0/20 Maudslayer (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

Remove this sentence: Lebanese Forces did not fight for seven years and that they did not sacrifice thousands of soldiers to free Lebanon from the Syrian Army and the PLO so that Israel can take their place. Reason: Not true, unreliable source. -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[✉] 16:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

"Many cite the massacre as revenge for the killing of Bachir Gemayel and the countless massacres committed by the PLO against the Christian civilian population since 1975." There is no citation to substantiate the claim that countless massacres were committed by the PLO against Christian civilians. The use of the word "countless" in this instance is also non-neutral. Zs634 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Removed on basis that sentence was not cited. —Sirdog (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bashir Gemayel.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remove duplicate paragraphs

There are several paragraphs that are identical in the section "Formation" and in the History section, like 1976-1982.

I think they should be removed from the "formation" section as what they describe happens quite some time after the formation. Freeedim (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

Adding links to many things like almassira and many more, and creating new articles and pages about politicians and people who dont have one yet on wikipedia Ralphassaker (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)