Talk:2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lebanon Mid‑importance

	Lebanon portal 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.

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

It is requested that an image or photograph of 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Lebanon may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Shouldn't this be named "photograph controversies"? What do you think? Tewfik^Talk 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate "media controversies". VoiceOfReason 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good for now. If there is any reason to move, we can do so in the future. Tewfik^Talk 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist?

Why is there a whole article to do with one or two fucking images being tampered with? who gives a shit if a little bit of smoke was added. its ridiculous, this is just pro-israeli propaganda again. perhaps i should make an article up for every controversy about the israeli operations. suddenly we'll be seeing the number of article jump to 10 million.

we all know that wikipedia has an inherent pro-israeli bias but this is just ridiculous

It's sickening isn't it. I'm not sure how Hasbara shills think claiming the giant pillar of smoke from a destroyed section of city makes Israel seem less psychotic because they manage to "disprove" a very dodgy source blatantly photoshopping the top section in what is as good as MS Paint could do. It's just as bad as when they attempted to claim kitchen knives and deck chairs are deadly weapons from the Flotilla disaster they caused.

My advise is to you, and everyone else, keep requesting a deletion of this article or at the very least edit it to expand the ridiculous Pro-Israeli pushing of this article. Reduce the hilariously pathetic attempts by Hasbara shills and sockpuppets to imply, and even state, in this article that somehow Israel's actions were ok because two photos were poorly photoshopped when re-printed and caught out by the very people who were publishing the photos anyway. 124.148.95.181 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Major overhaul

This entire article need a humoungous effort to clean it up. It is not neutrally presented, it joins together unrelated incidents, it has original research, it sources blogs, which are not reliable (even if such soucing is done via reliable sources, this is just obfuscation).

This is a relevant footnote of the the events but as it stands it simply is an insult to our reader's intelligence and good taste.--Cerejota 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photos that were edited were jumped on by people of wikipedia and a Qana airstrike article was immediatly made blaming Israel on wikipedia and were not "neutrally presented". I didn't see you questioning that. --Firebird 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem is the direct linking to blogs (I think I removed them all though). If a claim is mentioned in the mainstream press (as several are), then they should be included, perhaps with the qualification of origin. If by joining together unrelated incedents you refer to a gap in organisation, do whatever you feel is necessary, but this is the address for all the controversy revolving around this conflict. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The faked photographs are a news story originally reported by blogs. This makes blogs into a legitimate source even when they would normally not be had the allegations come from somewhere else and the blogs merely been reporting or commenting on them third hand. Ken Arromdee 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota - removing newspaper articles that cite blogs strikes me as silly. Newspapers have their own fact-checking mechanisms which are in place even when blogs are the source. By your logic, articles like Killian documents or Jeff Gannon would have to be completely gutted. Also, could you clarify what it is specifically about the article, other than the sourcing of blogs, that you think needs fixing? Korny O'Near 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, gulp, Tewfik did the worse offending parts off, the article need beautifying and tidying a bit more. Yet, verifiability and reliable sources does expresily say that information from blogs even from otherwise rs sources is to be treated with grains of salt, and the spirit of the policies is clear that what it seeks is to minimize the partisan discouse even when it comes from RS sources and can be verified. So yes, now every blog and their granma is goinfg to be claiming doctoring, while the fact is that only a few photogrpahs and most from a single individual, have been proved at most.

And there is still OR etc.--Cerejota 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sections that you removed Cerejota, were not original research, and I didn't see a hint of nonneutral phrasing, etc. There was no analysis, but a statement of fact. That fact was unsourced, but it is also undisputed (I have yet to hear a claim that the controversy was not started that way). At best, it requires citation, and the {{cn}} tag is sufficient, if at all necessary. Tewfik^Talk 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The controversy, like the Killian documents controversy" thats OR. As a matter of fact, it is classical OR, almost verbatim the example given in the policy page. Staements of facts, unless they are about non-disputed facts, are OR if not sourced. That a alrge number of pages in wikipedia don't confom to this idoesnt make any less true. The rest of the line is unsourced, but I have the choice of deleting unsourced material or putting the tags, and I chose to delete because it present bias (ie the people calling it are partisans, not neutral observors). You have done the same thing when it is convinient to you, so please don't even try to get away with it. The NPOV was minor, removing western and rewording soem small things. Am removing the OR and leaving the tagged things for a day, if not WP:RS come up then its remove. Don't be diffcult, please.--Cerejota 06:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis is OR. If both are facts, that is not OR, but a statement of fact. "Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nuclear weapons" does not need a published analysis assuming that both claims are sourced. And in terms of sourcing, these are hardly controversial or disputed statements. While any editor may challenge them, do you? I hope you are not letting any personal differences get in the way here. That these are partisan claims is duly noted in the passage. Tewfik^Talk 07:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Tewfik, and I hope you are not. Your analogy is mistaken: Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki where bombed with nuclear weapons" has to be sourced, both the letter and spirit of WP:NOR says so. But this is not even the case with the "killian documents" those are classic OR, just because two things might be alike, we are not supposed to link them until a reliable source verfiably states so, and preferably not until a number of such sources ado so. Blogs are not RS. Get it? The example in WP:NOR. This article is not about the role of blogs in the controversy, but about the controversy.--Cerejota 07:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs don't claim that it, "like the Killian documents controversy, began as an investigation of documents by individual bloggers." The Killian controversy is cited in RS as beginning as an investigation by bloggers. This event is cited as such. That is not original research. If one was not known to be begun by bloggers' investigating, and we drew the parallel, that would be OR. And you are right, it is not about the role of blogs in the controversy, but that doesn't mean we don't mention that they had a role - that is basic background. Tewfik^Talk 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that claiming that any of this has anything to do with Hizballah is hearsay. For all we know it could be angry, greiving Lebanese. We really don't know whose choice it was, if anyones.

Well, Anderson Cooper, at least, stated with certainty that the people parading around ambulances were Hezbollah agents. Korny O'Near 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About blogs being a legitimate source: the faked and posed photographs WERE faked and posed, and that's legitimate enough for me. But jibes like "Hizbollywood" should be deleted. The facts alone are quite damning enough.

Salam Daher

Why is Salam Daher listed under "Allegations of photo staging by Hezbollah"? As far as I can tell, there is no extant evidence that he is involved with Hezbollah. He denies it in an AP report. The only thing that links him to the group is speculation by a blogger. I would like suggestions for how to resolve this. Andrew Levine 11:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that, though many people have called him suspicious, the only people who seem to be alleging that he's directly a Hezbollah agent are North and a few other bloggers. How about if we moved the section after the "press photographers" one, and renamed it "Allegations of photo staging by others"? Korny O'Near 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems alright for now. Andrew Levine 13:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Blogs cannot be used as primary sources here. Every report must be verified from reliable sources. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about when a blog is the first to break the story, as in the case of Little Green Footballs? --NeuronExMachina 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used as a primary source about itself (i.e. proof that the story appears on the blog), but not as evidence of the story. I requested a citation for that line - a little research will probably yield a reliable source. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As that passage presents an analysis of the photos presented on the blog, I don't think that a citation of the blog is sufficient. If the claim is of any note, then a verifiable RS will probably record it, otherwise teh passage doesn't belong. Tewfik^Talk 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories

This whole group of sub-articles is really not justified by such a minor conflict. In any event, most of the verifiable and sourced information at 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories can be/is included here. Lets move the appropriate information from there. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging fact, or allegation that can be argued for with some kind of evidence, with conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence is a bad idea. It misleads the reader and taints the facts. Precedent is the 911 conspiracy theories article. You'll notice that the theories are sidelined from the factual details of the event in the 'Miscellaneous' section. They have been detailed significantly. The Qana conspiracy theories article looks at the theories, where and how they emerged, and their debunking. Its similar in structure to the 911 conspiracy theory article.

The accusations of photo manipulation against Hajj are fact. The allegations of photo staging in the case of the guerny on the ambulance are allegations. NDR claims that is what is happening and offers the video as 'proof'. It is disputed. Thats how allegations work. The conspiracy theories contained in the Qana conspiracy article cannot be considered "allegations". They are not based on facts, there is no way to prove them, and no tangible proof has been offered for them. If conspiracy theories about the day in general (distinct from the specific allegation made by NDR) are appearing in the photos article then they dont belong. As it is now I only see the NDR allegation appearing, and none of the other theories about the general conduct of the rescue workers etc. RandomGalen 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. The parts of the conspiracy page which are unsourced and unverified need not appear in Wikipedia, while the parts that are (AFAICT) concern things appearing here. Tewfik^Talk 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Delete the speculation off the face of the Wiki, while verifiable claims (not blogs), should be put on this page.--Planetary 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge, this article has some backing while the conspiracy one may have some, its hidden in a mess of verbiage and claims & counter-claims. August 31, 2006

Hezbollah sinks Australian warship

Hezbollah sinks Australian warship 203.166.247.248 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella

This information should probably be included here, and the title altered to reflect the broader content. Tewfik^Talk 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN's [Charlie Moore (journalist)|Charlie Moore]] described a Hezbollah press tour of a bombed-out area in southern Beirut on 23 July 2006. The tour included an encounter with two men bearing Ak-47 in a side street who ensured that the CNN reporters had not filmed them, a street where bombs had "smashed nearly a quarter mile" of area with "virtually nothing left", a photo-opportunity involving a row of ambulances that was obviously a described as a "well coordinated and not-so-subtle piece of propaganda", and an interview in a bomb shelter. Moore described the tour as a "dog-and-pony show". On a street, "a Hezbollah resistance song is now blaring from an apartment", allegedly "on cue". Moore mocks Hezbollah's "crude propaganda machine" and alleges that "the Hezbollah guy" makes sure that "all the props are in place" on his cell phone, while at the same time regretting not to speak Arabic.^[1]

On 18 July 2006 Hezbollah Press Officer Hussein Nabulsi took CNN's Nic Robertson on an exclusive tour, also in Beirut. In an interview aired on 23 July 2006 Robertson stated that "Hezbollah has a very, very sophisticated and slick media operations" and that it "has very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut". Robertson reported that Nabulsi had "felt a great deal of anxiety about the situation" and that he was "very, very anxious" about the Hezbollah security officials telling him to leave the area. He confirmed that Hezbollah designated the places that they went to, and that they "certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath." According to his reports, there was no doubt that the bombs were hitting Hezbollah facilities, but from what he saw, there appeared to be "a lot of civilian damage, a lot of civilian properties."

In the same interview aired on 23 July 2006 CNN's John Roberts, who was reporting from an Israeli artillery battery on the Lebanese border, stated that he had to take everything he was told—either by the Israeli Defense Force or Hezbollah—"with a grain of salt". The Israelis would accuse Hezbollah of "firing indiscriminately at civilian positions", claiming that "all they're firing at is civilian positions" and that "they're not trying to hit military positions", while Hezbollah and the Lebanese government were accusing Israeli of bombing a lot of civilian targets, as well. ^[2]

Honest reporting presents Zombietime's analysis of the Israeli attack on ambulances as a hoax. Tewfik^Talk 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These comments - To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one. - might be relevant here. Tewfik^Talk 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Part of this talks about Hussein Nabulsi and his handling of Anderson Cooper (dealt with in part above), as well as the interviewee's first-hand experience with him. I suggested several months ago that we find a way to incorporate the manipulation of media documented above which isn't limited to photographs, perhaps by rescoping the focus of this entry. Tewfik^Talk 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Our very strange day with Hezbollah". CNN. 2006-07-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "CNN RELIABLE SOURCES, Coverage of Mideast Conflict". CNN. 2006-07-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy

I propose to merge Adnan Hajj photographs controversy into this article, to avoid excessive fragmentation. The information in the Adnan Hajj article can be easily included here. Kosmopolis 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge: Adnan Hajj is probably the quintessential example of the photograph controversy and belongs centrally to an overall article about the photo controvercies, not an article of his own. Valley2city 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Better to have this in one article. CWC(talk) 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine with me too, as long as no info is lost. Korny O'Near 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It may be suitable in the future, but as of now, there seems to be to much detail there that would inevitably be lost, and in any event, the Adnan Hajj controversy is definitely notable enough on its own. This discussion seems to be duplicated at Talk:Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy#Merge_with_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_photographs_controversies where there is at least one other oppose. Tewfik^Talk 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This was the most high profile case of media controversy coverage, and has enough information to warrant its own page. Joshua Friel 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There are two photographs that relate to the same controversy and conflict that the articles surround. That this article touches on the other is just a further reason to merge. This article will hardly be changed by the inclusion of the very small article it already somewhat covers, so merge. I support the merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.95.181 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial commentator Michelle Malkin"

This strikes me as ridiculous phrasing. Why include the adjective? Plenty of things and people are controversial. It appears that there's some agenda behind the usage. Korny O'Near 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "American right-wing commentator" instead? Andrew Levine 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my edit comment: Michelle Malkin is controversial and polarising, and she almost exclusively handles controversial and highly disputed topics or subjects of heated debate. There are countless "anti-Malkin" sites out there. Controversial as an adjective is neither related to an agenda nor is it an insult. Please review what other voices have to say about Malkin's output, especially her (again, controversial) books, and especially when it comes to dealing with the Middle East and the War on Terror. She is listed in the Yahoo directory as "often controversial". [2] Controversial only says that her output is a subject of heated debate itself. This is the case and it is noteworthy. Cheers. Kosmopolis 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, she's controversial, but so what? The article also mentions Israel, Hezbollah, Reuters, Salam Daher and Adnan Hajj, all of which have attracted a large amount of controversy. By your logic, they should all get the "controversial" epithet as well. Korny O'Near 22:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Korny, I don't get your analogy. Malkin is neither a published scholar nor an authority in the field. I also suspect that she does not qualify for WP:RS due to her very strong bias, but since she was quoted elsewhere, we are presenting her POV here. She is a commentator with a very controversial stance and polarising opinions, and this has to be pointed out and taken into account. Kosmopolis 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of poisoning the well. Everything about the entire Arab-Israeli conflict is very controversial and polarizing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything about the Arab-Israeli conflict is controversial, but there are reputable and mainstream sources and then there are those who are neither reliable nor mainstream nor authoritative nor un-biased, and these should be clearly marked, since the completely unreliable Malkin piece is only referenced because it is in turn quoted by ynetnews. Do you think "controversial" means she is lying? I don't. It only means that she does not have mainstream opinions, and therefore her output is a subject of a heated debate itself. Kosmopolis 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the argument over whether or not it is appropriate to call her "controversial" is leading nowhere, I have changed it to my above suggestion, which I hope satisfies both parties. Andrew Levine 01:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer no adjectives, but the compromise is fine with me. Korny O'Near 14:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cross Ambulance should have its own section

The Red Cross Ambulance story should have its own section as the allegation is NOT that the photos were staged, but were outright false photos of vehicles not damaged by Israeli airstrikes. There are actually questions as to whether any attack at all took place.--162.136.192.1 11:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that where it is now is just fine, since the the Red Cross punching a hole in their own ambulance's roof, having a picture taken, and then lying about it in order to make Israel look bad would fall under "photo staging" if it were true. Andrew Levine 01:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I hope people are aware that the allegations are that Hezbollah supporters employed by the Red Cross carried out the hoax, not the Red Cross itself. CWC(talk) 08:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Mr. Downer explicitly say that? Andrew Levine 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misleadingly selective quotation

On August 21, news reporter Kevin Sites wrote that Lebanese refugees, who suspected him of being "a sp[y] for America and Israel", refused to be photographed unless he presented a letter from Hezbollah giving him permission. [3]

this was placed under the heading "Allegations of staging by press photographers", implies that it is just that: an allegation that hezbollah has been involved in staging photographs. however, when we look at it in context it is clear that kevin sites is not making such an allegation:

But I don't get far. While the men are initially accommodating, willing to show me around, angry women swarm us. Ali tells me later that they say that we're spies for America and Israel and that as soon as we leave the bombs will begin raining down on their heads here, just as they had in their villages. I tell them through Ali that I'm only here to document their lives as people displaced by war. Some of the men nod and give me a quick sweep of the ground level of classrooms, but the angry women pursue us for the entire three-minute tour. As I raise my camera, the shouting becomes louder. Finally, even the men acquiesce to the women's protests. No pictures, I'm told — unless we get a letter from Hezbollah giving us permission. [. . .] My goal here is a bust, but the trip is not a complete waste. Just before leaving I'm left with a moment that allows me gauge, anecdotally at least, the depth of anger here and the cohesiveness of south Lebanon's Shiite Muslims behind Hezbollah.

perhaps someone besides the editor who added this text to the article has interpreted these remarks to mean that sites thinks hezbollah has been staging photographs. perhaps that someone can be named and cited. until then, this text should stay out of the article. 67.68.213.214 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concern, this is an example of Hezbollah "controlling" what kind of media is published. Whether it belongs or not I'm not sure. Perhaps others have thoughts? Tewfik^Talk 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.J. Simpson magazine covers

One of the most publicized and notorious instances is conspicuously absent here, namely the digital darkening of O.J. Simpson's complexion on a major U.S. newsweekly cover (I forget which, but I think it was either Newsweek or US News and World Report, but possibly Time) to make him seem more "menacing" to prejudicial readers; this was later parodied on the cover of Wired mag., where they digitally turned him into a White guy, and made Nicole Simpson, in the background, look like a Black woman. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has nothing to do with Israel or Lebanon. Ken Arromdee 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you got to this page through "fauxtography". There was at some point a separate article at that page that had this kind of general stuff, but the majority view was that "fauxtography" is a new phrase that currently refers only to this one set of controversies. That anecdote might belong in the journalism scandals article, though. Korny O'Near 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The 'Hoax' That Wasn’t: The July 23 Qana Ambulance Attack"

"The 'Hoax' That Wasn’t: The July 23 Qana Ambulance Attack" HRW

Human Rights Watch has investigated claims that by popular blogs and websites claiming a staged hoax on the part of Hezbollah/Lebanon/etc..

They conclude:

"On the basis of this investigation, we conclude that the attack on the ambulances was not a hoax: Israeli forces attacked two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances that night in Qana, almost certainly with missiles fired from an Israeli drone flying overhead. The physical and testimonial evidence collected by Human Rights Watch disproves the allegations of a “hoax,” made by persons who never visited Lebanon and had no opportunity to assess the evidence first-hand. Those claiming a hoax relied on faulty conjectures based on a limited number of photographs of one of the ambulances."

Needless to say, this calls for major changes in the entry.

--Kitrus 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)-Kitrus[reply]

I wouldn't say that; they're just another source with their own opinion, by no means definitive. At most it calls for another few sentences in the paragraph. Korny O'Near 00:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it wouldn't be the first time the HRW blamed Israel for something that was the responsibility of its enemies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.124.15 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Conservative bloggers?

The wording "most of them american political conservatives" seems to violate NPOV and NOR. It assigns an arbitrary label that might make the source seem unreliable for no legitimate reason. Also claiming that most people who reported to be american conservative can be deemed original research. Do you ever see a sentence like "was widely reported European liberal media"?

I'm removing it. Whoever is against that, please provide reference links to blogs, rather than labeling bloggers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.134.94 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Section: Ambulance controversy.

This section needs to be overhauled or removed. Citing comments from a completely anonymous photo blogger with obvious political shading against on-site investigation and conclusions made by Human Rights Watch and International Red Cross is grossly inappropriate, and appears to be a wedge used solely to reiterate a biased narrative. The touting of zombie's comments vis a vis the capability of military ordnance is particularly galling. Mbuki (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see… the section is called "Ambulance controversy", it's in an article called "2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies" and covers the controversy that developed when a blogger questioned the accuracy of a 2006 Lebanon War ambulance photograph. So how is it grossly – or even slightly – inappropriate for it to be covered here? (Also, it's notable because the Australian Foreign Minister was taken in by the blogger's claims – yes, it's embarrassing that Alexander Downer was ever Foreign Minister, but he was.) And as for reiterating a biased narrative, if I hadn't read that reiteration, and the report of the subsequent HRW investigation, I'd still believe zombie. How do you rebut what you don't mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.145.232 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REDIR of 'Fauxtography'

The REDIRECT of Fauxtography points at this specific 2006 instance of photographic controversies. Whatever the merits of that redirect at the time it was assigned, it would appear it may no longer be justifiable. Two years on it appears 'fauxtography' has now entered the lexicon as a more general word for digitally-doctored photographs. Google searches reveal tens of thousands of hits for "fauxtography" just in the past year, and "fauxtography iran" in only the "past month" has over 20,000 hits. What to others think? N2e (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't even be there - the page was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fauxtography. We don't do definitions of neologisms; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It may be appropriate for Wiktionary, but not for Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that ends the discussion. In the past tweenty minutes since my earlier comment, the Wikipedia page Fauxtography and the REDIR that came to this article, have been deleted. As has the old talk page and debate that went along with the former Fauxtography talk page. Here is the history as seen in recent changes:N2e (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Deletion log); 13:00:06 . . ChrisO (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Fauxtography" (G8: Orphaned talk page with no possible use)
(Deletion log); 12:59:33 . . ChrisO (Talk | contribs) deleted "Fauxtography" (G4: Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fauxtography)

To be more exact, they were deleted before, but someone seems to have recreated them despite the earlier deletion discussion. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fauxtography to see why the original deletion decision was made. Google hits aren't sufficient by themselves to indicate notability; looking back at the discussion, it seems that the term is a bloggers' neologism, but Wikipedia's sourcing policy does not generally consider blogs to be "reliable sources". You would have to find evidence of usage from reliable sources such as books and newspapers but even then I suspect you'd still run into the problem of dictionary definitions being outside the scope of Wikipedia's coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think the article sounds terrible with right-wing this and left-wing that and pro-Israel this -- do we have a pro-Hezbollah that? Why don't we leave the judgment calls out and let the reader decide? If we put the internal brackets around such terms as CAMERA and Counterpunch I would think the reader can make his own determinations as to bias, if any. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is totally weaselly and POV : "The pro-Israel media watchdog group CAMERA argues that the distortions reflect a bias in favor of Hezbollah and against Israel and the Israel Defense Forces.^[2]"

After all, I don't believe there is one instance of an accusation of fauxtography that was biased against Hezbollah, was there? Or one that was biased in favor of Israel? Every instance of this 2006 event is understood to be biased against Israel and to write such a thing implies maybe there might be some evidence the other way. Either put up evidence that there was bias demonstrated against Hezbollah or write that line out entirely. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you be more specific about what you take issue with in the wording, and use fewer questions in doing so? I'm not sure if some of your questions are supposed to be rhetorical, and the wording in your question regarding "biased against Hezbollah" or "biased in favor of Israel" or "biased against Israel" is very confusing. Thanks! ← George^[talk] 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will shoot first and ask questions later. I will make the changes that I believe will clarify. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think that this was a good edit. I did have a few issues with it, that I've addressed in my recent change:

CAMERA is not a reliable source of the caliber that what it says can just be reported as fact. It's a biased sourced, and an openly biased one at that - that is, they are self described as a "group devoted to monitoring and challenging perceived anti-Israeli news coverage." So, because they're not reliable, they must be explicitly cited as the source, and because they're biased, that should be mentioned too, in the same way the article on CAMERA itself does. The wording was a bit harsh, however, as the word watchdog may sound slightly demeaning.
I don't see the bit about the photos being "bias in favor of Hezbollah" or "bias... against... the [IDF]" in the source. It's stating that the mainstream media is using the images to sway public opinion, and show Israel as the aggressor, so to go beyond that would be diving into the realm of original research.

Other than those, the edit looks good in general. I fixed a couple minor spelling/grammar issue too. ← George^[talk] 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing. I did not put up the CAMERA source, I just rewrote it a little. I don't dispute your point about going beyond the concept that the images were meant to sway public opinion and show Israel as the aggressor is unnecessary. Perhaps we can dump that bit altogether. Well no we can't, but I will look for a different source that does not have to be described as "pro-Israel watchdog." It was clear that the photos were meant to sway public opinion and paint Israel in a bad light. Not for nothing it was called Hezbollywood. We mustn't leave the impression that only "certain people" felt that way. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. If you're able to find some less biased, more reliable sources to support the statement, I'm sure we can reword it with fewer qualifiers, though we need to find those sources first. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Green helmet 003.jpeg

The image Image:Green helmet 003.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]