Talk:Michel Aoun/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Possible copyright violation

http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_ld1.htm

There are texts that were taken from that site, was there any permissions asked to the author? If I have no answer, I will have to add a copyright violation tag. Fadix (My Talk) 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's okay now. I've reverted the text (which was not only copyvio but also blatantly POV - with which I mostly agreed, by the way, but POV it was). No doubt I'll get some hostile messages on my talk page now, but the last three edits were just too POV to be salvaged. I'll bookmark the source, however; there might be some facts that can be gleaned from them and I'll see what I can do about that. David Cannon 10:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government period

In the document it says that During his time as Prime Minister General aoun had an alliance going with the lebanese forces while this is somehow true for this period some say that in 13 october Lebanese forces tanks actually where bombing the presidental palace with blessing from israel and america ofcourse. could someone please clarify these points? it's a major part in lebanese history.

[edit] Massive pro-Aoun bias

Anon user 128.103.34.45 continues to insert blatantly flattering language to describe and justify Aoun's actions and policies, in the most unabashedly biased manner. This person goes so far as to remove all reference to the disputed nature of the Aoun governments. Please examine these series of edits [1] [2] [3] for details. --AladdinSE 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Accurate has also been participating in these highly biased pro-Aoun edits [4]. Please desist, and read: Wikipedia:NPOV. --AladdinSE 09:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Although, I like this man, but you're right, there is a massive pro-Aoun bias in this article. They were recently been added by User:Fares S. CG 10:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's really quite ridiculous, the edits these people are trying to insert. And none of them are willing to participate in discussion. I mean, this kind of excessive hero-worship makes the man seem less credible then he would have if they kept the article ina neutral format. They make the page look like the Michel Aoun official website or fan club. Also, PLEASE DO NOT USE PHOTOS THAT DO NOT HAVE VALID SOURCE AND COPYRIGHT LICENSES.--AladdinSE 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please start responding to the discussion instead of trying to fit everything in edit summaries. Now, we cannot pretend that Aoun was a legitimate PM. His was one of 2 rival administrations. We are obfuscating this with the white-wash in the intro. Please respond to other points made above. Here are some examples of bias:

  • In the Spring of 1989, he asked the Lebanese Army to wrest control of ports held by the militias, because they were used for smuggling, and were preventing the government to raise customs revenues. This gives the Aoun rationale as fact. It should be stated that this is the reason Aoun cliamed.
  • In order to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory and to be able to hold free presidential elections, Aoun declared a Liberation War on Syria. This is one of the most biased statements pushed by Fares S and Accurate, and some others. It presents Aoun as a national hero fighting for the people and to restore freedom. It must be presented as a partisan POV, not as fact.
  • Aoun boycotted all the parliamentary elections that took place from 1992 until 2000, because they were organized under the Syrian occupation and lacked the minimum standards of freedom, transparency and democracy. While I actually agree with the premise of undue Syrian influence and elections under duress, the statement is an exercise in POV. It has to be neutral. At the very least you have to say Aoun cliamed those reasons. There were many other claims that Aoun was avoiding elections and Lebanon itself because of fears of prosecution for war crimes. No one side can be presented as the truth.

--AladdinSE 09:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE is trying to use the Wikipedia platform to promote his Syrian perspective on the history of Lebanon.
Here are answers to distorted facts raised by AladdinSE:
  • ANSWER: The Syrian perspective does not recognize Aoun as a Prime Minister. That's true. But all the Lebanese leaders recognize him as Prime Minister, such as Saad Hariri the head of the Parliamentary majority, or Fouad Siniora, the actual Prime Minister, who consulted Aoun in his status of FORMER PRIME MINISTER, before forming the Government
QUESTION: Should Wikipedia promote the Syrian narrative on Lebanese history???
  • ANSWER: Under the Syrian occupation, the Bekaa valley was used to produce all sorts of drugs that were exported to different countries through Lebanese ports controlled by the militias.
  • ANSWER: Aoun was appointed as transition Prime Minister, with a main mission: Organizing free presidential elections. This mission CANNOT be completed under the Syrian occupation. In fact, the Lebanese people experienced the negative impact of Syrian interferences in the electoral process from 1988 to 2005. These interferences include, for example, the reconduction of President Emile Lahoud in 2004, that remains a pending issue until now.
QUESTION: Should Wikipedia promote the Syrian narrative on Lebanese history???
  • ANSWER: This is not a "claim". Every Lebanese acknowledges that the elections undertaken during the Syrian occupation period lacked the minimum standards of freedom, transparency and democracy (Electoral districts, dead people voting, Ghazi Kanaan electoral law, etc. etc. etc.)
QUESTION: Should Wikipedia promote the Syrian narrative on Lebanese history???

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebanese Historian (talk • contribs) 07:21, March 16, 2006 UTC


Your version of Lebanese history is heavily biased in favor of Aoun and bitterly biased against Syria. You make little effort to hide this bitterness, and it is clearly evident in your edits. You seem unwilling or unable to read and understand Wikipedia's Neutrality policy. As to your responses:

  • All Lebanese leaders recognize him? Fine, please cite a reliable source as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  • This may well be true, and can be utilized in the article, if only you'd be so good as to cite a reliable source for this claim. After it is cited, you must incorporate it in a neutral manner.
  • It is not the Syrian influence or unfair elections that are being disputed, I've said this before. It is Aoun's claim that he was acting purely against those factors and with no personal ambition whatsoever that is biased and POV.

--AladdinSE 21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What AlladinSE was trying to say is that Wikipedia doesn't promote any view: neither the Lebanese nor the Syrian. You should put all the views in the article in a way that when a Lebanese or a Syrian, an Aounist or a Jumblattist, wil read it, he will never be offended. Wikipedia doesn't define the truth, but it presents all the different ones. I recommend you to go to Help:Contents/Policies, conventions and guidelines, and to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and for a summary of all policies: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. CG 08:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


This article is highly biased in defence of Michel Aoun, ridiculously glorifying him. HARDVIBE


[edit] Reverts of SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin, in addition to not engaging in the above threads which dealt with matters of NPOV, might I also point out some material you are adding and deleting in your sudden interest in this article:

  1. You deleted information about a six-member interim military government, composed of three Christians and three Muslims, though the Muslims refused to serve. regarding the period of rival administrations.
  2. You deleted This move was of questionable validity, as it violated the National Pact of 1943, which reserved the position of prime minister for a Sunni Muslim. Gemayel argued, however, that as the National Pact also reserved the presidency for a Maronite Christian, and as the Prime Minister assumes the powers and duties of the President in the event of a vacancy, it would be proper to fill that office temporarily with a Maronite. The Constitution itself was silent on this matter; it was not clarified until the Taif Agreement of 1989 codified the reservation of executive positions for members of designated confessions. These details are extremely important. What is your justification?
  3. In declaring that the version you were reverting to was more neutral, you added In order to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory and to be able to hold free presidential elections, Aoun declared a Liberation War on Syria . How on EARTH do you consider that a neutral statement? It's bold faced hero-worship. Did you even read the changes you are championing?
  4. You added As a result of the Taif Accord, the National Assembly met to elect René Moawad as President in November. His presidency just lasted 17 days before he was assassinated by the Syrians, Assassinated by the Syrians??? Utter POV rot. Cone on.
  5. You added In order to limit casualties, Aoun surrendered and fled to the French Ambassador's residence. Ten months later, he went into exile in France, where he pursued his political struggle to end Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. Again, unadulterated hero-worship.
  6. You added Aoun opposed attempts of the coalition to overthrow the President of the Republic, Emile Lahoud, through a popular uprising, and to elect another President who would be controlled by this coalition. He argued that any change in regime should be undertaken according to the Lebanese constitution. It's so biased, it could have come right out of his election manifesto.
  7. You added Aoun promotes national dialogue as the only way to overcome differences and achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts between the Lebanese parties. This from one of the principal antagonists of the civil war. Its stated as fact not even a claim.

In order to carry out a productive discussion regarding NPOV, please respond to these and earlier threads instead of reverting without comment, except on minor issues of copy edit and wikification.--AladdinSE 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some remarks on Aladdin's points:
  1. This badly needs to be in the article.
  2. Ditto.
  3. Aladdin is right here.
  4. And here.
  5. First sentence here is nonsense - Aoun was forced out of Baabda after a bloody fight. Second sentence I don't see a problem with.
  6. Pure pro-Aoun propaganda, though amusingly, since it belong to the period of Aoun's new realignment towards the pro-Syrian bloc, it is also pro-Syrian POV.
  7. Does any Lebanese politician not promote this, in their propaganda at least, whatever they do in practice? This is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff, as the Americans say. Palmiro | Talk 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I did a light copy edit, dewikified (Syrian and Lebanese were wikified on practically every mention), and fixed the dates in accordance with the MoS. Both versions of the page could probably use some better sourcing. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was repetitive wikification, and when I reverted I removed as many as I could find. However, copyediting and wikification is much less important that the above discussions regarding NPOV. Please give us your thoughts there if you insist on reverting to that version.--AladdinSE 13:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
SV, you have deleted accurate information about the controversial nature of Aoun's wartime government, including all references to the National Pact (Lebanon), which is an absolutely crucial point as to why his government was rejected by most Lebanese political forces as well as by the international community. Please fix this. Also, please read Aladdin's points above as to the POV problems with the version you insist on reverting to. There are accuracy and possibly some POV issues with the other version as well (e.g. Haret Hreik only became a Shhite quarter with the flight of the Christian population during the civil war), but nowhere near as bad. Don't just revert without engaging with the talk page discussion.
Incidentally, you may be interested to know that the operation by the Syrian military to remove Aoun, which you would no doubt have it was an act of military occupation, was described as follows by the US State Department: "At the request of Lebanese President Hrawi, the Syrian military took joint action with the Lebanese Armed Forces on 13 October 1990, to oust rebel Gen. Michel Aoun who had defied efforts at reconciliation with the legitimate Government of Lebanon." (US State department website document copied onto Foreign relations of Syria)Palmiro | Talk 11:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: on a careful reading of the page history, it seems that CG was in fact making those comments about a much worse version. Palmiro | Talk 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is Aladdin who has been reverting since the beginning of March. Neither version was perfect, but the non-Aladdin one was better. Both lack sources. I've started the process of finding sources, and I'll be looking at the other version to move some material over, but it can't happen overnight. Thank you for letting me know which parts you feel are the most important. Feel free to add them if you want, but please don't delete material. That Haret Hreik was a Shi-ite suburb is in the source, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Did it say Haret Hreik was a Shii quarter when Aoun was growing up there? If so, it was just plain wrong, and indicates a source written by somebody who doesn't know Beirut at all and therefore probably shouldn't be relied on too much for other material either. Aoun is like God to a lot of his followers, and this is reflected in a fair bit of media coverage, since especially in France there are lots of journalists who are willing to bite any line fed to them by Maronite elements in Lebanon. Of course, other Maronites can't stand him; the Lebanese Forces fought against him during the civil war, and his new understanding - it doesn't seem to be quite an alliance yet, as far as I can see - with Hizbullah has annoyed a lot of the anti-Syrian side. Of course there are good reasons why people, and not just Maronites, like Aoun - he did build up the multiconfessional 8th Brigade during the war, which was one of the things being deleted from this article by the anti-Aoun editors, and he has been consistently non-sectarian in his politics, at least far more so than most Lebanese politicians. (The other side is what I seem to recall seeing described as his Napoleon complex.) But that doesn't mean that we should have a hagiography of him on Wikipedia, instead of a balanced article. If you really want to take this on, you are going to have to read a lot and be very careful distinguising good information from propaganda, and probably every two days some Aounophile or Aounophobe will come along and revert back to their preferred version again anyway. Palmiro | Talk 12:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We have to write biographies of living persons particularly carefully, in accordance with WP:BLP. That doesn't mean they should be hagiographies, of course, but they also shouldn't be unjustifiably critical. The key is to source every edit to a reliable, mainstream publication. Sources are what this article lacks, and the writing style must be as dry as possible with no POV language, and no expression of tiny-minority POVs. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That is perfectly true, but I don't quite see the relevance of it to our dialogue. Incidentally, regarding which version was better, did you see the comment above by CG, who remarked that although he liked Aoun himself, he thought the article (pro-Aoun version) was hero-worship? The version you reverted to contained considerable POV language, indeed, was pure propaganda in many places. I have had a quick look at the Derhally article, and it is very poor quality. It is full of quotes alternately praising Aoun and slagging him off, talks him up too much, makes factual errors, and contains relatively little useful factual information. I would recommend that you search the websites of reputable Lebanese news sources such as the Daily Star and, if you read French, L'Orient-Le Jour. You may be able to find useful information on those sites. Palmiro | Talk 12:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, given that there are unaddressed issues of bias (as indicated above, and I quite understand that it will take time for you to find sources to address all the issues involved), I have taken the liberty of adding a POV tag to the article - not intended as an act of hostility, merely so that readers are alerted to the fact that some of the interpretations in the article may not be entirely balanced. I have also added an explicit reference to the National Pact, although that article itself needs to be revisited. Palmiro | Talk 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been "reverting since the beginning of March" while tirelessly trying to get POV partisans and their sockpuppets to discuss and explain in Talk. Except for a brief and polemical post, they refused. Consequently the page was protected. When the protection was removed it was reverted right back to the Aoun hero-worshiping POV version. SlimVirgin, in your sudden interest in this article you have reverted time and again to POV versions while refusing to discuss them in Talk despite the clear questions and requests. I, on the other hand, was careful to maintain all your legitimate copyedits and references, and only reverted that material that you refused to answer in Talk. Let anyone who is interested judge for themselves who has acted in good faith.--AladdinSE 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reverting since March, you could have tried fixing some of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you call repeatedly asking the editors (who kept reverting to the Aoun hero-worship language) to explain and discuss in Talk? Why do you think I have laid out my points of concern succinctly and asked for productive debate? Why do you think they refused and reverted without discussion? Why did you, who ought to know better, repeatedly revert to that version without responding to my POV concerns above? Why did I maintain all your copyedits and referenced additions, while you reverted immediately afterwards, still refusing to engage me on topics of POV?--AladdinSE 21:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've stopped responding because all I see you do on Wikipedia is revert and post repetitively to talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Although in fairness I should add that I haven't studied your contribs, and there may be more substantial edits that I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Aladdin has made many excellent contributions relating to Syrian and Lebanese history, and they are characterised by considerable fairness and neutrality as far as I have seen. Probably most of the articles in Wikipedia on historic political fiures in the two countries are his work - at least, that's the impression I get. He deserves to, at least, have his good faith accepted. What happened here AFAIR was that an anonymous or new editor made massive POV changes. Aladdin reverted them, with the agreement as can be seen of the only other regular editor involved in this page. The anon. and his friends persisted in their work. Now, the version Aladdin reverted to was not great either, but it was not as bad, and while it would have been better to rewrite the whole article, sometimes we don't have time to do that. So Aladdin shouldn't be blamed for this particular attempt, sub-optimal though it was, to keep POV-pushers from having their way with Wikipedia. We should not let the best be the enemy of the good.
I would be quite happy to leave it to SlimVirgin to work on this page, on the basis of sources as she has says she means to do, and I am sure the result would be a far better article than either of the current versions. However, the various points Aladdin and myself have made on this talk page should be taken into consideration in the process. Palmiro | Talk 10:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How can one respond to an attitude like this. You are taking the disagreement in Israeli settlement personally and stalking me here in this article and admittedly reverting without discussion, without even studying my changes or reading my Talk posts. When will you understand that we are both reverting in the settlements, and that however much you may be frustrated by our protracted disagreement, it is not intransigence but conviction that drives me. I have always extended that same supposition to you. Yes there has been considerable repetition in that discussion, but we have all contributed to that, and new threads continue to emerge. You resulting attitude towards me is unconscionable. What you are doing here is text-book stalking and disruption. I am utterly bewildered by you, and have been for some weeks. Please stop and reconsider your hostility towards me.--AladdinSE 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not stalking you; I don't even know which other articles you edit. Second, I've seen you do nothing but revert to restore the same edit, often for weeks on end, at people's talk pages and at several articles, not just Israeli settlement. Third, you were reverting there against quite a large number of editors, yet you announced you were going to persist, which is disruptive, and the arbcom has banned a user from editing a certain page for exactly that behavior. Fourth, it was you who was causing the repetition on that talk page; no-one else, and even now you're trying to continue it by restoring that absurd section from the archives, and all this while other editors are actually improving the article. Fifth, I did study your reverts here (though they were not your changes so far as I can tell), and of the two versions, the other one was better, in my view, though it also needs to be improved and needs sources. Sixth, you seem to think there's a difference between intransigence and conviction, and therein, perhaps, lies the source of your errors. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You're not? If it ever comes to it, the edits histories and timelines will be very telling. 2. False. I have been discussing in talk. Pro-Aoun pov pushers have been reverting without responding, which is why admins protected the article. When legitimate improvements have been made, I did not revert them, as proper copyediting, referenced material, and dewikifying was maintained faithfully. You reverted while admittedly ignoring very detailed, and polite invitations to discuss disagreements on a point by point basis. You are still doing it! 3. False, the Talk record will show repeated support form many editors. Ganging up one someone in a cabal is not what consensus means. 4. Outrageous double standards. All of us repeated ourselves, none of us "caused" this because we were engaged in a content dispute. You continue to fail to realize that failure to submit to you and your allies is not a conspiratorial, treasonable, or disruptive. You repeatedly archived that section despite the fact that you knew full well the issue was not resolved and that current posts were being made. Were you doing this to reinforce your position that the matter was settled? Still, instead of another tirade of reversions, I humored this childish tactic, and posted my final comments in the archive. As for others trying to improve the article, more power to you. There was not ONE REVERT WHICH REMOVED ANY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. I was careful to maintain undisputed material. You and your allies on the other hand, repeatedly blindly reverted, causing disruption to unrelated material. 5. You claim to have reviewed the 2 versions here, and that the one you prefer is better. I am more than happy to let the record show what kind of blatant POV hero-worship rot you have championed. I and others have laid out our concerns about POV in succinct point by point fashion, and still you revert without discussion. That is simply indefensible.--AladdinSE 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers to AladdinSE's points

I. AladdinSE claims:

"1. You deleted information about a six-member interim military government, composed of three Christians and three Muslims, though the Muslims refused to serve. regarding the period of rival administrations."

My answer:

This is considered as a minor issue that could be tackled only if the article about Aoun was 500 pages long, and incorporated all the tiny and daily details about his life and role. Your statement "the Muslims refuse to serve" is wrong. If they had really refused to serve, then the President Gemayel would have NOT appointed them. In fact, when they were asked to join Aoun's government, they agreed this nomination. However, as soon as they were appointed, the Syrians exerted pressures, and issued statements on their behalf though the Lebanese radios in West Beirut, claiming that they have declined their nomination.

As you can see, the issue is quite complex, and cannot be summarized by your simple statement. Therefore, SlimVirgin was extremely wise to delete your statement that is controversial and does not add significant value to the article.


II. AladdinSE claims:

"2. You deleted This move was of questionable validity, as it violated the National Pact of 1943, which reserved the position of prime minister for a Sunni Muslim. Gemayel argued, however, that as the National Pact also reserved the presidency for a Maronite Christian, and as the Prime Minister assumes the powers and duties of the President in the event of a vacancy, it would be proper to fill that office temporarily with a Maronite. The Constitution itself was silent on this matter; it was not clarified until the Taif Agreement of 1989 codified the reservation of executive positions for members of designated confessions. These details are extremely important. What is your justification?"

My answer:

In Lebanon, whenever the Constitution does not provide a clear answer to a specific issue, Legislators rely on the "3erf" or the historical precedent.

Hello I am sorry but you are wrong on this point. Amin El Gemayel himself in a TV interview in later years, while explaining his appointment of Michel Aoun as prime minister, said that he relied on the constitution and took into consideration the "3erf" or the historical precedent. The "3erf" itself is not a law, neither is it consulted outside the scope of the constitution. Gemayel in this interview clearly confirmed that he based his decision on the lebanese constitution. Whether his decision clearly violated the constitution or not is still an issue that I am not sure has been fully clarified to date. Politicians like Albert Mansour claim that he violated the constitution, because the constitution allows him no such change of government within 2 months of the approach of the end of his mandate. Thats why they continue to claim that the government headed by Hoss had more legitimacy then the transitional government appointed by Gemayel and headed by Aoun.Zerolando 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, in 1943, the "3erf" which was set by Beshara Khoury and Riad Solh reserved the positions of President and Prime Minister to a Maronite and a Sunni respectively. This "3erf" was applied afterwards to all the Presidents and Prime Ministers that were elected/nominated in normal times.

Similarly, another "3erf" was applied in times of political crisis and to avoid constitutional void: During the crisis of 1952 which lead to the resignation of President Beshara Khoury, a transition government was formed and headed by Prime Minister Fouad Chehab, a Maronite who later became President of the Republic. This "3erf" was applied in 1988, and a transition government was formed with a Maronite Prime Minister, Michel Aoun.


III. AladdinSE claims:

"3. In declaring that the version you were reverting to was more neutral, you added In order to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory and to be able to hold free presidential elections, Aoun declared a Liberation War on Syria . How on EARTH do you consider that a neutral statement? It's bold faced hero-worship. Did you even read the changes you are championing?"

My answer:

I don't see where the bias resides in this statement. Why do you consider it as hero-worship?

Let's discuss this statement:

- "In order to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory": Historical facts assert that the Lebanese legal authorities were NOT sovereign over the country in 1989. Militias and foreign forces were controlling the majority of the Lebanese regions (Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Lebanese militias). The Lebanese State was completely marginalised.

- "and to be able to hold free presidential elections,": The Lebanese State was incapable of holding free presidential elections due to the foreign forces presence in the country. You should probably remember how Damascus tried to impose the nomination of Michael Daher to the Presidency in 1988. After the famous US-Syrian meeting, the memorable statement was issued: "The Lebanese people should either ACCEPT Daher as President, or they will have to face chaos".

- "Aoun declared a Liberation War on Syria": You can get the video online and hear Aoun declaring the Liberation War against Syria on March 14th, 1989.

So could you please explain where is the bias and the hero-worship???


IV. AladdinSE claims:

"4. You added As a result of the Taif Accord, the National Assembly met to elect René Moawad as President in November. His presidency just lasted 17 days before he was assassinated by the Syrians, Assassinated by the Syrians??? Utter POV rot. Cone on."

My answer:

Only here, I can find some value to your claim...

Keep in mind that President Mouawad was assassined in a region that was 100% controlled by Syria in 1989. Members of March 14th coalition assert that Mouawad was killed by the Syrians because he refused to use military means against Aoun. Members of the March 8th coalition, Syria's ally in Lebanon, do NOT say that the Syrian have not killed Mouawad.

Nevertheless, in order to have a sentence that is 100% accurate, I would recommend to change it to: "His presidency just lasted 17 days before he was assassinated in West Beirut, a region totally controlled by the Syrians"


V. AladdinSE claims:

"5. You added In order to limit casualties, Aoun surrendered and fled to the French Ambassador's residence. Ten months later, he went into exile in France, where he pursued his political struggle to end Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. Again, unadulterated hero-worship."

My answer:

Again, there is no evidence of hero-worship. In fact during his exile, Aoun followed up his political struggle to free Lebanon from Syria's hegemony. - He mobilized the Lebanese diaspora - He held several conferences and wrote numerous articles to criticize the Syrian occupation of Lebanon - He founded the Free Patriotic Movement that undertook resistance actions that culminated in August 7, 2001 and at the Liberation in 2005 This is a very ill informed opinion. There were lebanese parties and forces working much harder and much more effectively on the international scene then the FPM. Sorry but those are the factsZerolando 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

- He lobbied the US Congress to issue the "Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act" No I am sorry but the Syrian Accountability and lebanese Sovereignty Act was not the sole result of the lobbying of Michel Aoun. There were people from other lebanese political parties who supported President Bush financially in his political campaign and even got to meet him personally and raise concerns about the syrian occupation in lebanon. They did a very effective job and Bush listened to them Personally. on the other hand Bush never met Aoun. etc..etc. Zerolando 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

- He undertook coalitions with the Lebanese Forces, the Future Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party to oust the Syrians after the extension of Lahoud's term in 2004


VI. AladdinSE claims:

"6. You added Aoun opposed attempts of the coalition to overthrow the President of the Republic, Emile Lahoud, through a popular uprising, and to elect another President who would be controlled by this coalition. He argued that any change in regime should be undertaken according to the Lebanese constitution. It's so biased, it could have come right out of his election manifesto."


My answer:

The statement just explains to the Wikipedia's reader what is Aoun's position regarding the issue of overthrowing President Lahoud. The statement aims at presenting Aoun's ideas, without any judgement. There is no intention to undertake an in-depth analysis of Aoun's ideas, or say whether Aoun is right or wrong in his position. The statement just presents Aoun's ideas to the reader, who can assess them on his own.


VII. AladdinSE claims:

"7. You added Aoun promotes national dialogue as the only way to overcome differences and achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts between the Lebanese parties. This from one of the principal antagonists of the civil war. Its stated as fact not even a claim."

My answer:

I don't know to what extent you've been following Aoun's position. If you've been listening to his rhetoric, you should have heard him saying, on multiple occasions, that: "Dialogue is the only way to resolve Lebanon's problems".

Therefore, there is no bias in the statement. It just exposes Aoun's position on the importance of National Dialogue.

The reader can believe Aoun or not, accept his statements or criticize them. That's his free choice. But this does not change the FACT that Aoun has been promoting National Dialogue "as the only way to overcome differences and achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts between the Lebanese parties."


Thanks, Seli


First, hallelujah for finally getting a proper discussion on POV concerns. Here is my rebuttal:
  1. A minor issue?? Are you serious? Its the very crux of the explanation of rival administrations. And we are not quoting huge verbiage here about this point, it is a couple of lines. And of course you cab be appointed and refuse to serve. In fact, the language is from the BBC, not mine. You cannot delete material reliably referenced, in order to present a more favorable description of Aoun's "appointment". As for your claims that However, as soon as they were appointed, the Syrians exerted pressures, and issued statements on their behalf though the Lebanese radios in West Beirut, claiming that they have declined their nomination. PLEASE PROVIDE A RELIABLE SOURCE and I will be happy to work with you so that this counter POV is incorporated.
  2. You claim: "In Lebanon, whenever the Constitution does not provide a clear answer to a specific issue, Legislators rely on the "3erf" or the historical precedent". First, please explain your abbreviation "3erf". Secondly, I have already incorporated the inclusion of Beshara Khoury/Fouad Chehab incident. However, without a reliable source, your assertion that this "precedent" was legal justification for the Aoun appointment, is Original Research, and not allowed. Please provide a reliable source that formulates this position, and we can incorporate it. As you see, the BBC timeline I cited does not consider this incident to be a noteworthy precedent that is mentioned either by itself or in relation to the Aoun appointment. Lastly, your version removes all mention of the National Pact of 1943, a crucial point in the crisis.
  3. I'm aghast that you cannot discern hero-worship in this language. First, let me for the [discussion] record state my full conviction of the many, many subversions of sovereignty perpetrated by the Syrian government against Lebanon (in addition to many other egregious violations). Still we cannot allow broad polemical swipes of this sort. Simple, non-incendiary language can be used to provide the information in a neutral manner instead of it reading like it came out of Aoun's personal diary. For example, see how the BBC describes the information: 1989 14 March - Awn declares a "war of liberation " against the Syrian presence in Lebanon. It uses quotation marks specifically not to appear to endorse his viewpoint. Therefore, for this point, an acceptable neutral phrasing would be: Aoun declared a "liberation war" on Syria claiming a desire to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory and to be able to hold free presidential elections. Do you see the difference in terms of NEUTRALITY?
  4. A region totally controlled by Syrians does not mean anything. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in an American city, Dallas, totally controlled by America. Assassins operate independent of whom is in political and military control of the area in which they undertake their assassinations. Even so, if there is a reliable source speculating about the possible implication of Syria in the assassination, we can certainly incorporate that.
  5. The hero-worship here is in two parts, the main one you missed entirely. You want: In order to limit casualties, Aoun surrendered and fled to the French Ambassador's residence. Ten months later, he went into exile in France, where he pursued his political struggle to end Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. "In order to limit casualties" is blatant hero-worship. If he wanted to "limit casualties" he would have surrendered long before that. He surrendered because he was utterly defeated and his military position was untenable, and you know it. Now, "pursued his political struggle to end Syrian hegemony in Lebanon" is less of a problem, but can bear to be reworded to sound less like a Aoun campaign speech. I would agree to it if some caveat as to "avowed" struggle were inserted, or the phrase was a quote in which case quotation marks added and the source cited. Also, we can certainly add details like: he held several conferences and wrote numerous articles to criticize the Syrian presence in Lebanon; He lobbied the US Congress to issue the "Syrian Accoutability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act". Such things are perfectly valid. As for "He founded the Free Patriotic Movement that undertook resistance actions that culminated in August 7, 2001 and at the Liberation in 2005" well of course that is hewro-worship again and gives him the credit for the Cedar Revolution!
  6. Fine, a neutral presentation of his views can be worked out here. "Aoun opposed attempts of the coalition to overthrow the President of the Republic, Emile Lahoud, through a popular uprising, and to elect another President who, he claimed, would be controlled by this coalition. He argued that any change in regime should be undertaken according to the Lebanese constitution." BUT ONLY WITH CITATION that prove he made statements like these.
  7. Fine, if it is a FACT that "Aoun has been promoting National Dialogue 'as the only way to overcome differences and achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts between the Lebanese parties.'" then put it in quotation marks since you said he said it many times, and PROVIDE A RELIABLE CITATION. Do not present it as fact, as I'm sure you agree that many people would dispute his avowed policies and motives. Therefore present it as a quotation of policy. Fair?
Finally, I want to point out how much more expeditious and productive it would have been if original editors and their sockpuppets would have engaged in this POV discussion when it was proposed and cited time and again since the edit war began. We would have been discussing concrete compromises long before now. --AladdinSE 01:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the National Pact has to stay. Referring to it as an anonymous "unwritten agreement" is ludicrous, and typifies the utter lack of concern for the historical record being shown by the anonymous editors, one-or-two-article POV pushers and sockpuppets at work on this article. Palmiro | Talk 09:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm guessing 3erf is عرف. Palmiro | Talk 11:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"In order to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory and to be able to hold free presidential elections, Aoun declared what he called a "Liberation War" on Syria on March 14, 1989 (sixteen years before the March 14 Cedar Revolution that caused the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon)."

FPmers, or Aounists try to approach the March 14th Cedar Revolution as a continuity of what Aoun has started. However, we should note that Aoun was 'illegal' back then according to Lebanese laws and his war against Syrians was an illegal one.

Why was he illegal ? He was appointed in 1988 as temporary head of a military government that MUST organize elections from 3 to 6 months. That was the ultimate goal of this government. Aoun instead started his own campaign for presidency and wanted to clean the Lebanese territory from all militias but ended up having his own militia inside the divided army and became illegal after failing to do any elections within 6 months.

A president was elected in 1990 while Aoun was still in power and the whole world recognized him. Elias Hrawi.

"Aoun entered into a conflict with the Lebanese Forces Christian militia that decided to support the Taif Accord, recognize the presidency of Elias Hrawi, and challenge prime minister Aoun's legitimacy."

Again, Aoun was no more legitimate and had no right or whatsoever in launching wars. As for his clash with the Lebanese Forces, whomever wrote the article forgot to mention Aoun had already started a war against them on the 14th of February 1989, knowing that this militia was defending a great part of the Christian regions against the Syrians and that it helped Aoun during his liberation war even though he attacked them a month before.


Articles by Michael Young on Aoun ( Daily Star newspaper writer) http://lebop.blogspot.com/2006/03/young-on-aoun.html


Added to that, Aoun refusing Taef is unexplainable since he agreed earlier on the Tunis agreement who is very similar to Taef but have one single difference. Tunis was ok with Aoun as president while Taef put him aside.

One last thing, it is know he evaded the palace after Syrian President Assad accepted the French demand of keeping Aoun alive, and there he fled the palace leaving his men behind to be killed coldly by Syrians since they were not informed Aoun had surrendered.

If one sees the achievements of Aoun during his rule:

Launched a liberation war against the 25000 Syrian soldiers. Outcome was 20 000 extra Syrian soldiers in Lebanon.

Launched a war against the LF party : Outcome was a needless Christian fight and weakening of both parties and loss of Aoun on all fronts.

Divided the army and took the presidential palace for hostage.

Exploited the youth by dragging them from schools to demonstrate in Baabda palace.

He swore that he ll be the last person leaving but surrendered few minutes later. This is the live video: http://www.lebaneseforces.com/videos.asp (Under Funny Video)

Not one single military or political victory was achieved.


[edit] Reason for surrender

I have put back the comment that Aoun surrenderd because he didn't see much chance of victory in addition to his concern for saving human lives. IMHO, this is now more balanced than before when the only reason given was that Aoun surrended because he wanted to save human lives. It's easily argued that Aoun did not have a strong reputation back then of being overly concerned with saving lives, hence, the addition to make it less biased.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.3 (talk • contribs) 10:32, June 23, 2006

[edit] Aoun fled to the embassy or the ambassador's residence?

Just curious: the article states that Aoun fled to the ambassador's residence? Can someone verify this? Usually the embassy provides immunity wheras the house of the ambassador does not, right? If so, i am curious to find out why Aoun was not arrested after he fled. Was there a warrant for his arrest back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.3 (talk • contribs) 10:35, June 23, 2006

[edit] Comments by Gilthemaster

I just reverted the change made by Gilthemaster to the old text because his comments talk about the situation after the elections, while the topic is on the mistrust before the elections. It was Aoun's claim that he alone was responsible for driving out the Syrians that also caused his distance with many christian, sunni and druze Lebanese. The reason cited by Gilthemaster, namely that the coalition between Amal/Hezbollah and March 14 was the reason for the mistrust is not the cause, but perhaps the effect of the separation between Aoun and March 14. Even further, it was Aoun that made a coalition with Hezbollah, so how can the March 14-Hezbollah cooperation be a problem?

Also reverted the change that Aoun opposed overthrowing Lahoud because of the reasons cited by him, which are so generic that they're true for all Lebanese politicians, unless he wants to argue that there are politicians who don't claim (stress on claim) that they want fair elections.

In addition, also changed Gilthemaster's change regarding cooperation with Hezbollah. Already during the elections, Aoun teamed up with Hezbollah. The agreement he signed on Feb 6, 2006, flows from his earlier contacts, so important to mention this.

Finally, reverted the comment that all Lebanese politicians promote national dialogue. By not including this comment, it seems that *only* Aoun wants this, while instead all politicans want national dialogue. You can also remove this comment altogether since it's too generic to have any value.

      • General comment: before we start editing back and forth in the main article, let's discuss these topics first on this page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.3 (talk • contribs) 05:31, June 26, 2006

[edit] Comments by Captainm

Just a few comments on the edits of Gilthemaster and the unknown user 194.126.24.3, which has IDM as ISP.

First, the signed document between the fpm and hezbollah is not an alliance or a coalition, it is a Memorandum of Understanding.

Second, it's really funny to hear that all Lebanese politicians promote national dialogue, just take a look on the way that the so-called majority is governing the country and taking decisions, you will see that they promote dialogue in whatever they do.

Captainm

[edit] Persistent and massive pro-Aoun bias

I see that in my absence pro-Aoun editors have returned most of the blatantly hero-worshipping propaganda for which this article was once edit-protected against, ignoring the vast discussion (see sections 3, 4 and 5 above) which yielded some very important collaborative work. I have just completed the revision, and am quite willing to resume a constructive debate. --AladdinSE 07:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact it's not me who made changes on this page "in your absence", but it's not fair that you come and revert edits that other wiki editors made during months because you think that it's pro-aoun or pro-something. The discussion above between you and some wikipedians were on points that were on 2 old versions of this article. You can't (practically you can) come and revert edits simply like that, only coz the actual version of this article is the one that was months ago. Captainm 22:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted (as well as edited independently of reversion) specifically based on the past discussions above. In your unexplained reverting, you are deleting extremely important details (for example the makeup of the presidential council appointed by Gemayel) and returning blatant pro-Aoun bias, such as removing mention from the intro that his administration was DISPUTED and one of TWO RIVAL GOVERNMENTS. You want it to appear as if his administration was authentic and uncontested. The world disagrees. See also this example of paragraphs you prefer: "Aoun criticized the government's attempt to paralyze the Constitutional Council that was expected to investigate irregularities committed by the March 14th coalition during the 2005 parliamentary elections. He opposed attempts of this coalition to overthrow the President Lahoud through a popular uprising, and to elect another president who would be controlled by this coalition. He argued that any change in regime should be undertaken according to the Lebanese Constitution." Again, you are presenting his claims as fact, and endorsing his view of what the government did or tried to do. This is not NPOV. Furthermore the version you reverted to is rife with hero-worship language such as: "In order to extend the Lebanese sovereignty on all the national territory and to be able to hold free presidential elections, Aoun declared what he called a "Liberation War" on Syria", stating his claims as fact. Also, "While most Lebanese politicians tend to rely on international and regional interferences to advance their internal agenda, Aoun promotes internal national dialogue as the only way to overcome differences and achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts between the Lebanese parties." I mean come on. --AladdinSE 00:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The amount of Aoun hero-worship that keeps getting returned to this article is reaching ridiculous levels. Stop reverting without responding to these Talk points, or the article will be resubmitted for protection.--AladdinSE 08:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


General comment: I believe this document is the first I find on Wikipedia that is biased beyond recognition. I see quite a discussion has been taking place. Just like the page of George W Bush or Hitler, this page needs to state all the sides, and then be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SayKay (talk • contribs) on 16:56, November 25, 2006

As you can see above, I have given specifics as to my points and objections. Fares S and others have failed to engage in discussion, and just revert to the Aoun hero-worshiping versions. If it continues, I will submit it again for locking.--AladdinSE 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This page is an outrage. There should at least be a controversy section. It simply ignores the fact that (though whatever might be the truth) Aoun is considered by many historians to be the responsible for the worst phase of the Lebanese Civil War (source example: "At first Aoun received a lot of support both from Maronites and Muslims, but his ruthlessness quickly turned most of Lebanon against him and by early 1990 Aoun’s forces were fighting not only Syrians and Lebanese Muslims but also gunmen from the major Maronite militia", Cleveland, W. (2004) A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4048-9). No matter what the 'truth' is, this needs to be taken into account. And it should be mentioned that what is described here as 'The War of Liberation' is also more neutrally known as: 'The Rebellion of General Michel Aoun'.

[edit] Picture

I'm not sure about the copyright status of this new picture added on November 25. However, since it has not been challenged or listed for deletion, I kept it. I wish we could get a better resolution, recent picture that is clearly unencumbered by copyright. This article needs it. --AladdinSE 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the picture has been deleted. I had a feeling it would bes :-( Does anyone know where we can get a decent public domain picture?--AladdinSE 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Books suggested : http://www.lebaneseforces.com/booksaoun.asp by famous Annahar newspaper, the leading Lebanese newspapers, writer Sarkis Naoum