Talk:Lebanon–United States relations

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lebanon Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HannahAmes13.

Above undated message substituted from

At the time of writing the article reads to me like a US government press release and I agree this needs correction. Unfortunately attempts to address this by anon IPs seem to have got locked into a long term edit war. I have semi-protected the article for a week to encourage discussion. I suggest those using anonymous IP accounts to contribute consider Summary of benefits and in the meantime propose the changes they would like to see here, so that a discussion about how to create an article that fairly represents all points of view can be created. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk here agrees this article simply quotes the US official line. Even on a cursory reading the article is not neutral. Can anyone make a case for keeping it? If not it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony999 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just calling this article biased would be the understatement of the year. It should be deleted, not protected.--77.42.176.236 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double agreement. Please delete someone. 67.182.14.249 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection for this page. Neutral or not, this article is being vandalized. If the IPs want to express their point of view, they should be constructive, not destructive. I haven't really read the article enough to see if it's pro-US, but making it anti-US won't make it any better. BadaBoom (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning the

Well, that's just the tip when it comes to US/Lebanon relations. It's also a 30 years old event, so one questions your (even 2012) understanding of current events and the historical reasons for them. Even then Mar 8th/14th existed and even then the questions of Syria, militia armament, internal stability, Israel, etc were all prominent aspects of Lebanese politics, and prominent aspects of US relations with Lebanon. Why don't we just get this ridiculous article removed instead? 67.182.14.249 (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite-frankly junk. It's not only outdated and stolen from a US government site, but people have injected random context-less "facts" since. No one is going to ever keep it pertinent and it's heavily, and inappropriately, biased. How do I add a "please delete" flag? Someone please just delete it. 67.182.14.249 (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for this article as drafted to exist. Readers are given a completely one-sided and expurgated overview. In the absence of replies, I will simply erase this fatally-flawed article.

Spieling (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on