Jump to content

Talk:Greater Lebanon

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

The title of this article is a misnomer

[edit]
The League of Nations did not establish a separate French Mandate of Lebanon after World War I. It established the French Mandate of Syria. In 1920, the Etat du Grand Liban, "State of Greater Lebanon" was established within that Mandate, the territory of which later become the Lebanese Republic. The title of this article should be, therefore, "Greater Lebanon", not "French Mandate of Lebanon".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there seem to be hits for the term "French Mandate of Lebanon" at Google Books, as well as at Google Scholar and Google News..? ← George [talk] 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The League of Nations did not establish a separate Mandate of Lebanon when the mandates were created. The mandate system establishing 3 class A mandates in the Middle East (Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine) were established by the Treaty of Sevres and San Remo conference.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Ottoman_Empire_by_Treaty_of_Sevres.png
The 'Etat du Grand Liban' was established in 1920, but technically it was in the area of the Mandate of Syria. Likewise, Transjordan was located within the area of the British Mandate of Palestine.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the Wikipedia's policy is based on what reliable sources say, not necessarily what is right (I don't know if you're correct or not; I'm only able to check what sources say). And quite a few sources mention a French Mandate of Lebanon, that they seem to use synonymously with Greater Lebanon. ← George [talk] 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources may use different terminologies after the fact, which may or may not correspond to the orginal terminology used, as found for instance, in the text of the Treaty of Sevres, San Remo Conference, and other documents of that era, which only mention Mandates of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. Every reference I came across that deals with the matter in detail identifies the original name of the political entity of Lebanon as the 'State of Greater Lebanon', proclaimed in 1920 by French General Gouraud. The name was changed to Lebanese Republic and the Lebanese Constitution was adopted in 1926.
A detailed historical account is given in the book, "A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered", by Kamal Salibi.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree. I've requested that the page be moved. ← George [talk] 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2009

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


French Mandate of Lebanon → Greater Lebanon — The title Greater Lebanon is more commonly used than French Mandate of Lebanon, and more historically accurate. ← George [talk] 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Why do you prefer the existing term when you say that the term "State of Greater Lebanon" is "more accurate"? I totally agree that both terms are fine to use in the body of the article, but I think that the name of the article should match the "more accurate", more common term. ← George [talk] 00:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think that the "more accurate" term is not the "more common" and the more intelligible for a wider readership. -- FrancescoMazzucotelli (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greater Lebanon

[edit]

The name of the mandate was "Greater Lebanon", so that is what the name of this article should be. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article is absurd. There was never anything called French mandate of Lebanon, there was the French mandate for Syria and the Lebanon[1], which encompassed the State of Greater Lebanon' (and we have an article for it). In 1922 there was no difference de jure between the the State of Alawites and the State of Greater Lebanon, they were under the same mandate. Yazan (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1920, Lebanon was part of the Mandate of Syria (as per San Remo). In July 1922, the League of Nations approved the Mandate, but the name was apparently made the "Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon." So we are obviously talking about one mandate for both Syria and Lebanon. This article should definitely be renamed to "Greater Lebanon." The current name does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.255.12 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2010

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Mandate of Lebanon → Greater Lebanon — Relisted discussion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC) There is already an article called the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. 77.44.255.12 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This proposed move was last discussed as recently as July 2009, it is bad practice to re-open discussion in this way. I think article titles have to incorporate a degree of common sense and consider how they might seem now to most English speakers. Countries and territories sometimes have common names which differ from their formal names. "Greater Lebanon" now suggests something significantly greater than the current territory of Lebanon (I know its actual origin was different). It is hairsplitting to object to "French Mandate of Lebanon" on the grounds that France was initially given the mandate for what is now Lebanon and Syria as a whole, this could create problems for articles on several mandated territories. PatGallacher (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the reason for the move? There is another article called the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. This makes it seem as if the same subject is covered repeatedly in two articles. Please concentrate on what I say and answer it. I am not talking just to you but to everybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.174 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying there to move it beck to "French Mandate of Syria," but they didn't allow it and presented me with a nonsensical "legal" crap. That is the real hairsplitting. I think the real problem is in the way this encyclopedia works.
  • Support on the merits presented in the nom and the ambiguity of the current title. There a number of articles resting at informal, unofficial names per WP:UCN (use common names) and this is fine. However, in this case, there is an article at a faux official name with an argument that the name "Greater Lebanon" is more common. If "French Mandate of Lebanon" was neither official, nor is the most common name, and also implies facts not in evidence, move the article. — AjaxSmack 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, it's not "bad practice" at all to reopen this nom almost a year after the previous one. Did you read the previous one? There was only one objection to the move and it was a pretty weak one with no supporting evidence. The user even acknowledging that the proposed target title is more accurate. I would go as far as to besmirch an esteemed admin and argue it was closed wrong then. — AjaxSmack 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I was the one who moved it here in the first place, which I now regret. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lebanon Republic(1926) , Constitution and Presidents until 1943

[edit]

Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.52.84 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost useless article. What was the status (de facto, de jure) between 1926-1946?

[edit]

The main two decades are not even touched by the article. Arminden (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Lebanon&oldid=1207415186"