Talk:Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Including information on the Syrian refugee population in Lebanon[edit]

I think an important aspect of war's spillover is the Syrian refugee population in Lebanon, which doesn't have a page on Wikipedia (but Jordan and Egypt have a page!) I will be creating a new page, using information that already exists in many pages of the Syrian civil war. STohme (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 May incident[edit]

I'm really curious, how an incident in Beirut on May 23 with Islamic militant shootout, allegedly related to al-Qaeda is related to the Alawite-Sunni conflict? Is this just a fringe theory, put here for no special reason?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Muslims are revolting all over Lebanon, they see the state as pro-Assad, and therefore against them. They feel humiliated by Shia groups such as Hizbollah. The conflict with Alawites is just a sub-conflict. There have been several clashes between Sunni factions (pro and anti Syrian), and between Sunni Islamists and the army. In the not so distant future, the pro-Assad Twelver Shia Muslims of Lebanon might join the fun too (They've already been provoked by kidnappings), and we'll see complete havoc. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents[edit]

More violent clashes are happening throughout the country than ever before, but they do not seem to be completely interrelated. For example this[1], but I'm not sure if they should be included here. It is part of the general unrest in Lebanon, and they burned tires, which has become common among disaffected people in Lebanon in the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another political clash I have no idea where to put. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/44471-several-hurt-in-minieh-armed-clash-involving-mp-kheir-s-supporters FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More details: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Jun-25/178075-several-wounded-in-n-lebanon-clash-between-supporters-of-rival-mps.ashx#axzz1y8xjXkuw
Sigh, more political violence that is hard to categorise: http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/44592-unknown-gunmen-attack-al-jadeed-tv-with-gunfire-firebombs FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Army intervenes: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Jun-26/178219-gunmen-menace-beirut-streets.ashx#axzz1y8xjXkuw FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Jun-27/178394-international-football-sparks-armed-clash-in-beirut-suburb.ashx#axzz1y8xjXkuw FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freeing of Islamists[edit]

Seems like a kind of consolation for the killing of the Sheikh: http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/43916-nine-islamists-released-from-roumieh-prison

"Security month"[edit]

Lol: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Jun-27/178398-monthlong-lebanon-wide-security-plan-takes-effect.ashx#axzz1y8xjXkuw FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents[edit]

Salafists have been responsible for most of the violence on the anti-Assad side in Lebanon, removing them from the infobox because they are not "an organization" makes absolutely no sense. Then find another term for them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Assad militants, like we already have? It is like adding Alawite of Jabal Mohsen on the Pro-Assad militants since those Alawites are not militia of any party (and neither are those sunnis militias of FM). Will we now inspect ideology of every fighter? Than adding sufis, qutbists and whatnot? Than adding shias on the other side etc. For example al-Meqdad clan have its own militia, however they are not armed wing of any party, will we add them to the infobox? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "have" anti-Assad militants in the infobox, we have a title called anti-Assad militants, where such are supposed to be placed under. As for the Alawite example, if every source didn't state they belonged to the ADP, then yes, we would have to add "Alawite militants", rather than leave them out (obviously). But that's not the case. As for Meqdad, if things get worse, yes, they could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

This began in 2011, and it will likely continue beyond 2012. What could be a better title? FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I BOLdLY MOVED it to 2011-2012 sectarian conflict in Lebanon as more accurateLihaas (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold, but you need an en-dash not not a hyphen. Ericoides (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold and very incorrect, as stated several times. Maybe the article should be called "Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon" or something, since most sources refer to it as such. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article shape/quality[edit]

The article is poorly written with overlink and grammar, Ive tagged it as such. There was also pov in some section i read that i tried to reword. Pro/Anti Syrian is more accurate than saying "Assad", hes not the only force in Syria that determines what the government does. DFurther, it was the pre-uprising term used for March 8/14. It also merely lists information as in a weblog that seems to be POV-pushing, needs to be in prose. And the casualties section needs sourcingLihaas (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sectarian conflict"[edit]

There are some sectarian sub conflicts in this conflict, but cannot be described as sectarian overall, only political. Sunnis have fought Sunnis, and Christians are split between pro and anti Syrian camps. Only the Shias seem to be more or less consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Havent seen any sources indicating the likes of FPM/Marada are fighting with LF/Phalangists. Likewise no mention of Sunni infighting (unless you count Palestinians vs. security foces). The article doesnt mention anyof this, neither does the lead. It does however mention Sunni-Shia-Palestinian conflict, which is sectarain + see [2]Lihaas (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Christians are split politically, but not fighting directly, yet at least. And yes, the article does mention Sunni infighting, unless someone has removed it. The clashes in South Lebanon have been between Sunnis (Salafists against Nasserists), and there have been clashes in Tripoli between Sunnis as well (Salafists against Tawheed, who are also basically Salafists). FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FunkMonk. For now at least exclude the term sectarian from the title. EkoGraf (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, i ahve no prob. But can we then eget somethign with a RS to indicate such, otherwise its OR.
Please CITE before accusing me of misinformation, and this wasnt reverted again, you missed the change in the first move. The lead i changed because per LEAD it should reflect the article and nothing mention this. the kidnapping in LEBANON only indicate forein citizens. the ONUS is on you to provide a source tnot to accuse me of not reading. Im restoring it pending the addition of SOURCES as opposed to OR. When the source is present on the page then gladly change it backLihaas (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is still not a "sectarian conflict".The Popular Nasserist Organization, Tayyar al Arabi and Tawheed are all Sunni organisations, and are on the side of the Syrian government. Quit adding that this is a "sectarian conflict". FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for kidnappings, several Lebanese have been kidnapped as well. Just follow the news. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict does seem to have some sectarian elements: [3]"sectarian tensions escalated across Lebanon as Sunnis in border towns threatened Shiites, as kidnappings of Syrians rose" (New York Times). Sectarianism is not a big component of the conflict, but I think it should be mentioned in the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's already mentioned, the problem is that some editors have kept inserting "sectarian" into the first sentence in the intro, which would make it seem as if the entire conflict is purely sectarian. It simply isn't. There are sectarian sub conflicts,of course, mainly in Tripoli. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this conflict is not very sectarian. Its more likely a factional conflict where pro and anti-Syria groups were deeply divided, but so happen to be the same time that most Shias were pro-Syria and Sunnis were anti-Syria, but this does not mean in anyways it was sectarian. Myronbeg (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Therefore, those who keep reducing the intro to this being only about Alawite-Sunni and otherwise sectarian clashes should refrain from doing this. Fighting has taken place all over Lebanon, not only in Tripoli, which is the only place Alawites are fighting. Furthermore, Sunnis have been fighting internally on several occasions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing merge with 2011 Lebanese protests[edit]

The result of this discussion is no consensus to merge. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've proposed that this article should be merged with the 2011 Lebanese protests article. To me, it seems like this is a continuation of the same unrest. They both detail how the Lebanese people are acting as part of the Arab Spring. Also, both articles seem to have a few quality issues, which may be remedied in the newly merged article. -- Anxietycello (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -There's a difference between protests against the Lebanese government, and the spill-over conflict caused by the Syrian civil war. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those protests were about secularism of the state. The current conflict has nothing to do with that. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a major funeral rally and the later protest which calls for government to resign. Maybe somebody should update that obsolete article 2011 Lebanese protests. Myronbeg (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Completely unrelated protests. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what do you mean about "unrelated protests"? Myronbeg (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The protesters in 2011 wanted political reform. Those protests ended a while ago. The recent protests were a direct response to the bombing.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if its about the bombing, still they are calling for the resignation of the Mikati-led government. Hence that's what the goal of the Lebanese protest in that article's infobox says. I'm not asking for the two articles to be merged together. Maybe if add the bombing into this article while the later reaction of protests as in the protests section, no? Myronbeg (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a current event, I suggest we keep the bombing and the protests it caused together, so that new information can be added more easily. We can discuss moving content later. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is fallout from the Arab spring. Merge!Ericl (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, what exactly is proposed here? How many article are we talking about? FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 2011 anti-government protests in Lebanon were very different than the sectarian strife caused by the bombing.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, protests and the content of this article do not include the same articles as argued above. This article should be kept.--Egeymi (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, these protests and clashes are related in that they both constitute the Lebanese reaction to the Arab Spring, and they are both related to the county's long running sectarian issues, and it's symbiotic relationship with Syria. Charles Essie (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the demonstrations were about abolishing the sectarian system in Lebanon (which has been in place since the country was formed). That has nothing to do with Syria. Lebanon doesn't have a dictator, but many small dictators that rule each sect. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Difference between Alawis and Alevis[edit]

I know that may be here is not the right place for this question, but I want to know what is the difference between the Alawites (in Syria, Lebanon but also in Hatay province in Turkey) and the Alevis (all in Turkey)? Are these groups the same but in Turkey with Turkish pronunciation Alevi instead of Alawi? Thanks in advance for your answers. Sceinebaoidly (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're on Wikipedia. Look it up. FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file problems with File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg[edit]

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

It is a time to split the timeline into a separate article "Timeline of the Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon" or something like that. Instead of a long list of events we should put a short summary of events here.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's too complicated to do so, and no one is really following the issue in depth (no one cares), so there would be no one to maintain both pages. But perhaps the article could be divided into regions or soem such, because there are continuous incidents in places like Bekaa, Tripoli, and Sidon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle of Sidon"[edit]

Please move info about the "Battle of Sidon" to that article, and keep the info summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Capitalismojo (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that article should be merged with Ahmed al-Assir? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox belligerent changes[edit]

I had changed the number of belligerents from 3 to 2, but separating clearly the Lebanese gov. forces from the Pro-Syrian gov. forces. I have done this because the 3 belligerents infobox is used when there are three parts engaging in clashes between them, and until now there had not been clashes between the Lebanese gov. forces and the Pro-Syrian gov. forces, only with that two parties separately against the Anti-Syrian gov. forces. This should not be perceived as if Lebanese Army and Pro-Syrian gov. forces were allies.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the government has an official policy of dissociation, and both sides have shot at troops. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a source stating that there had been clashes between Hezbollah or any of the Pro-Syrian forces and the Lebanese gov. forces. Supporting a 2-combatant infobox and a 3-combatant infobox in the Syrian civil war article is simply contradictory. For example, there had been clashes between Al-Nusra Front and the Ghuraba al-Sham Front, but still they are listed on the same list.[1]--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should follow the local news more closely. The Lebanese army has been exchanging gunfire with pro-Syrian forces in Tripoli plenty of times the last two years. Here's just one recent example: http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/85631 No sources state the army is aligned with either side. Hezbollah is only a minor part of the actual fighting so far, so it is irrelevant if the army has not clashed with them, since almost all the fighting has been in Tripoli, where Hezbollah doesn't even exist, and where the army has shot at both sides. The Battle of Sidon article is different (a sub-conflict), but this article is not only about that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article you bring didnt say nothing about clashes between Lebanese Army and the Arab Democratic Party, simply stated that the Army started removing barricades on a Tripoli neighbourhood. Please bring reliable and concrete evidence of Arab Democratic Party, Hezbollah, Popular Nasserist Organization or Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Lebanon clashing with Lebanese Army or Internal Security Forces or I will have to restore the 2-combatant infobox. Also, no one here is stating that the Lebanese Army is supporting any side, you should read more carefully...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think so because you are unfamiliar with the conflict. "Gunmen/gunfire from Jabal Mohsen" means pro-Syrian gunmen. Jabal Mohsen is a strictly Alawite area (with only one militia, the ADP), Tabbaneh is a Sunni area. Anyhow, putting the Lebanese Army on the same side as pro-Syrian forces is extremely POV, and only supported by Salafist fringe figures. And that is not appropriate here. The Lebanese Army has only clashed with anti-Syrian Lebanese in this last Sidon battle (because they were themselves attacked by Assir's men), everywhere else they have acted against both sides. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources about conflict between the army and pro-Syrian Alawites: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/lebanonnews/gunmen-target-army-in-jabal-mohsen and http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2013/Jun-04/219414-army-enters-jabal-mohsen-searches-for-snipers.ashx#axzz2XXAJOAKL FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, you aint showed any proof of clashes between Pro-Syrian forces and Lebanese gov. forces. Alawites are a religious community, not a party, and they could be part of any type of party, pro-Syrian gov. or Anti-Syrian gov. For example, there are Alawites (very few) in the so-called "Syrian opposition". As I asked before bring reliable and concrete evidence of Arab Democratic Party, Hezbollah, Popular Nasserist Organization or Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Lebanon clashing with Lebanese Army or Internal Security Forces, not generalistic vague short articles about clashes between religious communities. Also, you should learn that in WP infoboxes, being on the same combatant row doesnt mean being allies, does what it means the ---- sign, to mark a clear separation between forces that combat the same enemy but are not allied.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, as I already told you, the only militia in Jabal Mohsen is the pro-Syrian ADP, look at the sources. There are no anti-Assad militias in Jabal Mohsen, and if you think there is, show it, instead of reverting. All sources characterise these clashes as being between anti-Syrian Bab-al Tabbaneh and pro-Syrian Jabal Mohsen (even going as far as using Jabal Mohsen as synonym for "pro-Syrian forces" when it comers to Tripoli). Either you demonstrate something else, or you quit adding incorrect stuff. It is not my fault that you do not know the background of the conflict, and it is your own responsibility to read up onit, instead of making preposterous claims that everyone with slight knowledge of the conflict would be baffled by. In any case, the point about pro-Syrians shooting the army is moot: This is not merely about who shoots at who, if no reliable sources say the Lebanese Army is allied with either, you cannot make the article show your own personal interpretation, as simple as that. So this is not comparable to the Syrian Civil War page, where we specifically found many reliable sources that stated the Kurds were their own separate faction. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen carefully, because Im not gonna repeat this. You say that in Jabal Mosen there is a Pro-Syrian militia from the ADP, OK. Did any of the sources you bring here say explicitly that Lebanese Army had clashed with ADP militias? NO!!! Even one of your sources says that ADP SPOKESMAN WELCOMED THE REMOVAL OF BARRICADES ON JABAL MOSEN BY THE LEBANESE ARMY!!! Can you understand what you read? Because it doesnt seem so. Then you say that the issue of Pro-Syrian militiamen shooting or not shooting Lebanese Army is irrelevant. Are you serious? So, for you it doesnt matter if a part of a conflict shoots another part, welcomed it or throw flowers at it. That's simply unbelieveable. I remember you that its you who had to show clear, relevant evidence that Pro-Syrian militias and the Lebanese gov. forces are not only in different camps, but also on RIVAL CAMPS (For that is for the 3-combatants infobox is used for, for situations when 3 or more parts are figthing each other). Also, and Im gonna put this in capitals for trying to make you understand it, BEING ON THE SAME COMBATANT ROW DOESNT MEAN BEING ALLIES!!! You can see several examples of war or battles articles, for example, only to list a few: Lebanese Civil War (according to your claim, this article would state that Syria and the UN troops, or Syria and the United States troops on the Multinational Force in Lebanon were allies, do you really think that?), 1991 uprisings in Iraq or Sinai insurgency (according to your view, this article would state that Egypt and Israel are allies, wich clearly are not.). Finally, I suggest you to abandon that arrogant, nearly insultating behaviour, acting like you possess universal knowledge and the rest of us are ignorant analphabets.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated plenty of times before, it is irrelevant who shot at who, so I will abandon that discussion now. If you don't find sources that state the Lebanese Army is allied with or has the same goal as pro-Syrian militias in this conflict, you cannot revert under any circumstance. The army is acting as a buffer between pro and anti Syrian militias, that's what the reliable sources state, and that's what the infobox should reflect, not your personal interpretation or pro-Ahmed Assir propaganda. And yes, it gets annoying reading nonsensical arguments again and again, which are not based on actual sources. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But just to hammer it in a little more: "Tripoli regularly suffers from deadly gunbattles linked to the fighting in Syria. The Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen backs Syrian President Bashar Assad while the mainly Sunni Bab al-Tabbaneh supports the revolution against him."[4] FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you dont want to discuss the issue, and above all you dont read or may have a comprehensive problem. I had tried to discuss the issue with you, but your prepotent attitude make it impossible. Unless you give reasonable explanations or reliable sources I'll revert it. Period.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you can't produce a single reliable source to support your claim, so I will revert you until you do. Its quite simple, and there's nothing to discuss beyond your refusal to find sources. I have already outlined why you are wrong, and why it is nothing but POV-pushing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uninvolved editors who wish to join the discussion should read here first (thread initiated by HCPUNXKID): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since that went nowhere, here are my points from there: This conflict is mainly between pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon. The Lebanese army is acting as a buffer between these, but has clashed with both on several occasions. For a similar situation, see Civil war in Iraq, where though the Sunni factions clashed more with the US and Iraqi armies than the Shia factions did , the latter are not aligned with the US or Iraqi army in the infobox. See also Lebanese civil war. No reliable sources claim the army is aligned with either faction, yet HCPUNXKID keeps removing the third row of the infobox, thereby aligning the army with the pro-Syrian forces. The army has recently been attacked by a specific anti-Syrian group, but this has no bearing on their alignment in relation to the overall conflict. It is, however in accordance with the fringe POV of anti-Syrian forces to say the army is aligned with the pro-Syrians, and this is the POV that HCPUNXKID keeps pushing. Since HCPUNXKID does not provide sources to support his claims, the third row should be kept for the army and security forces. These are officially unaligned, and the reliable sources support this. HCPUNXKID is ignoring the sources in favour of his personal interpretation, but he needs to find reliable sources that specifically state the army is aligned with pro-Syrian forces before his change can be implemented. As for "who shot at who", I've shown HCPUNXKID several sources that stated the pro-Syrian Alawite forces in Tripoli have repeatedly shot at the Lebanese army, and that the army has shot back and ransacked their positions. Even then, fighting one side in a conflict does not automatically put you on the same side as their main opponents. That is at least the reasoning that has kept Israel out of the Syrian civil war infobox so far, though they are officially antagonistic towards only one side in the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that assesment. I feel the infobox is clearer with HCPUNXKID's changes. I haven't seen the refs for the Lebanese Army attacking Hezbollah militia forces. Perhaps I have missed them. If there were refs I'd entirely argee that FunkMonk's three column approach would be best. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a mischaracterisation of the conflict. And it is also important to note that there are several sub-conflicts within it, with different causes and belligerents. The fighting in Lebanon has mainly been between Alawites and Sunnis in Tripoli. There, the army has been shot at by both sides, and shot back. The battle with Assir's group is unrelated to the Tripoli conflict (Bab-al Tabbaneh-Jabal Mohsen conflict), but in that one subconflict (Battle of Sidon), yes, the army is against anti-Syrians because they were attacked by them, but not in the wider, nation-wide conflict. You need to remember this has been going on for a long time now, and the army has only been suffering heavy casualties now. That has not changed the scope of the overall conflict, however. Hezbollah has played almost no role in the internal conflict in Lebanon. In Syria, Hebollah has fought Sunni forces, but the Lebanese army has not prevented either Sunnis or Shias from entering Syria from Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read your refs. I didn't see that view reflected in the articles. Do you have other sources that do say the Lebanese Army is acting as a "buffer"? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read through the article, all the way bac to when the conflicts began. Look at what the refs say. One battle between the army and Sunnis does not retroactively change what has happened for the past two years, which is army dissociation from either faction. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But for your information, sources about Lebanese army as "buffer"/peace keeper and disociation policy.[5][6][7] Both pro and anti Syrians condemn the dissociation policy: [8][9] I can find many more if required. And again, these are two separate subconflicts within a wider conflict, and one of them cannot determine how the overall conflict is portrayed. It is much more complex than that, and HCPUNXKID's simplistic edits won't help with resolution, it only muddles things up. There are several different conflicts within the scope of this article: The conflict in the Bekaa valley (between Sunni and Shia tribes), the conflict in Tripoli (between Sunnis and Alawites), the conflict in Sidon (between Salafist Sunnis and the Lebanese Army), and then the conflict in Syria (between Hezbollah and Salafists of many nationalities). On top of this, there are random clashes throughout Lebanon. The Lebanese Army has played different roles in each case. The infobox should not only reflect what happens in a single one of them. And Hezbollah can't be waved around, because they are hardly acting within Lebanon, but are mainly active in Syria. And again, so are Sunni fighters, and the Lebanese army cannot prevent either from going there. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and refs. Of the refs only the first talks about the Lebanese Army as a buffer. It seems on point and suggests that the triple column infobox could or should be used. All of the other article that I could access (FT is behind a paywall) seemed to talk about the "dissociation policy" not about the Lebanese Army. They were interesting articles. The policy should have its own section. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FT is random. Second time I entered the link, it showed up. Here's the relevant part: "The army has tried to keep peace in Tripoli, but Elias Hanna, a retired general who now teaches at the American University of Beirut, argues that political parties from both sides of the divide need to agree on a robust mandate for the military. “The army is in a dilemma, people want the army to do something but there is no real political coverage,” he says. “The deterrent power of the army is eroding. “" FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone. I just came across this article, and I thought the placement of the Lebanese state on the side of the pro-Syrian groups, even with a divider, seemed misleading. I tend to agree with FunkMonk. The view that the Lebanese army is on the side of the pro-Syrian camp strikes me as a partisan one. Mnation2 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, HCPUNXKID is the one proposing drastic changes, so either he gets some broad support, assemble some reliable sources, or simply quits reverting to his POV version. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-syria-rebels-islamists-specialreport-idUSBRE95I0BC20130619

Belligerent Infobox[edit]

So I have been looking for articles about the belligerents and the first article that popped up had the Lebanese Army on combat fighting alongside Hezbollah. This would tend to cut against the Lebanese Army being a neutral third party buffer. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the Article: Fighters from the militant Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah joined forces with commandos from the Lebanese army Monday to battle followers of an extremist Sunni Muslim cleric in a day of urban warfare that offered worrisome evidence that Syria’s civil war had spilled across Lebanon’s borders.

This speaks directly against the idea that the army is neutral. Some of the other google article results that appear talk about Lebanese Sunni complaints that the army has abandoned neutrality. However to FunkMonks point this particular ref is about Sidon. Perhaps army forces in Tripoli are acting against Hezbollah or other non-Sunni forces. I haven't found refs for that yet though. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yet again, that is about one specific battle, which has an article at battle of Sidon. It is one clash within a wider conflict that has lasted more than two years (which we have called "Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon" for lack of a better name), and where most of the action has taken place in Tripoli, not Sidon. Whatever happened in Sidon shouldn't affect the configuration of an infobox about the entire span, that would simply be misleading. And furthermore, Hezbollah involvement in that particular clash is only alleged. HCPUNXKID seems to be oblivious to the fact that this one clash does not retroactively change what has been going on for the last two years. During that time, the army has exchanged gunfire with both pro-Syrians (Jabal Mohen Alawites) and anti-Syrians (Bab al-Tabbaneh Sunnis) in Tripoli (the casualties resulting form this have rarely been specified, but several soldiers have died), and ransacked the positions of both. You two can do what you want with the battle of Sidon infobox, however, since it is specifically about the army vs. Assir. FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk seems to have a comprehensive lecture problem, as I had stated until extenuation that being on the same infobox row does not means being allies, simply means that the parts had not engaged in clashes between them (how many times do I have to state that?). He still claims that Pro-Syrian gov. forces and the Lebanese Army had clashed, but had failed to provide reliable, clear proof of that. He only bring vague, short articles about "Alawites" (a religious community with different views, instead of bringing groups or parties of the Pro-Syrian gov. side, wich are the ones included in the infobox, not "Alawites") fighting with "Sunnis".--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why it is so hard to understand that one single clash in a two year period should not affect how the entire infobox is structured. Furthermore, you have not even presented a strong case for your proposal, and do not seem to understand the history of the conflict and the country. You fail to grasp what POV implications your edits have, and why it is in no way neutral. It is much more complex than your simplistic proposal. Please quit reverting to the nonsense version, until you actually deliver some good arguments and strong sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an article that gives an indication of the discourse on this issue in Lebanon right now: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/march-14-loses-battle-continues-war-army I doubt HCPUNXKID grasps how biased and controversial his version is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • More explanation for why HCPUNXKID's version is highly POV and unacceptable: "It appears that radical Sunni groups and the FSA are specifically targeting Hezbollah interests and the Lebanese army in order to provoke counterattacks that would discredit the military and spark broader resentment of Hezbollah within the Sunni community. This strategy makes it increasingly difficult for the Lebanese army to intervene when it might be seen as benefiting Hezbollah without risking damage to its veneer of neutrality."[10] FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future Movement Militants[edit]

Since when did the FM become militant? There are no sources to back that up. Yes, they alongside all of March 14 are indeed part of the ant-Syria camp, but doesn't that implicate them directly in militancy activities in Lebanon? Unlikely. Please back that up with a credible source or it will have to be removed. A Gooner (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They built up a militia before the 2008 conflict, which fought then. Hardly disappeared in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Syrian war swirls around Lebanese border town(Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

>> Deadly gun battles erupt in Lebanon's Tripoli >> Death toll rises in north Lebanon clashes >> Lebanese Tripoli put under army control >> Al-Qaeda-linked groups expand into Lebanon>> The perils of 'friendly fire' in Lebanon>> Lebanon arrests top al-Qaeda linked fighter>> Iranian cultural office targeted in Lebanon >> Gun battles flare in Lebanon's Tripoli >> Clashes flare in Lebanese capitalp>> FM says Syria crisis poses threat to Lebanon >> Gunmen shoot policeman in Lebanon's Tripoli>> Lebanon Alawite leader charged for incitement(Lihaas (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

This article is missing a lot of recent information, since I stopped updating it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im sick of the flagrant POV edit wars...so I will not update it. If someone els e wants they can extrapolate from the links to add the content needed.(Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

PNO[edit]

This group has clashed with both Assir and Hezbollah affiliated groups. What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad summary[edit]

After the "timeline" was split off, this article has been left with a horribly inadequate summary, which hardly even covers the main events. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon conflict detailed map[edit]

I'm checking the grounds here, and it might be too early, but is there a need for the template:Lebanon conflict detailed map, in order to describe the positioning of forces in Lebanon? (such as Lebanese national army, Hezbollah, al-Nusra and their allies as well as other militias). Lebanon is not a cite of a major conflict yet, but long-going spillover of the most violent conflict in the world today (Syrian War) is making ripples in the country, and it might be useful to assign Lebanon to the existing regional conflict map already including Syrian and Iraqi conflicts combined map.GreyShark (dibra) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently already created - Template:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map.GreyShark (dibra) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Greyshark, i have noticed that acording to that map Hezbolah only controls a Eastern Part of Lebanon, however as i remember Hezbolah have a strong Presence in the South of the country, mainly Sidon and surroundings, I dont know if it could be considered controversial, there is a difference between "presence" and "control", this should be mentioned at least with a different color. Its misleading at least to think that Hezbolah only controls a part of Lebanon when it have a silent armed presence in other territories.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- The map is currently not accurate as ISIS doesn't have any presence in Lebanon anymore

It is irrelevant to this conflict that Hezbollah has a presence outside the areas where the spillover battles have happened. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--map of territories controlled by each faction: I think such a map would be helpful to clarify the extent to which Syrian armed forces controlled parts of Lebanon. In fact, I saw such a map earlier today - thought it was in this article, but since the article history doesn't indicate that, I guess it was a related one. Imo, the article falls a bit short in clarifying that there were never substantial territorial gains of the Syrian army in Lebanon (if any at all..). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.168.107 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict not over[edit]

With the expulsion of ISIL and al-Nusra front, the conflict shifted from territorial to insurgency. There are constant assassinations and terror attacks across Lebanon. How the conflict is over, if people continue dying? June 2019GreyShark (dibra) 08:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 5 is depreciated, is there a better source?[edit]

EI is depreciated per RFC: Electronic Intifada, does someone have a better source for this content? FortunateSons (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now Gunrel, but the same issue applies; I would not use them for facts, and definitely not here, based on a history of extreme bias and poor reporting (see this and former RfCs) FortunateSons (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war_spillover_in_Lebanon&oldid=1216984656"