Talk:Walid Eido

message: Please reference the 4th footnote. You have misconstrued the meaning of the phrase in the original article and gave it a sectarian dimension that did not exist. Further, you fail to note under what circumstances he was forced to resign and the political considerations and personal duress that motivated his resignation. Search deeper into the bribery charges before posting such a claim.
:Do you have more information on this subject? If you do, change the text about the bribes and add your sources. Lizrael 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation

message: get out of lebanon. we need another civil war.
Nice comment, coming from a Jew. Next time you want someone to think you're Lebanese, try creating an account and remember you made other contributions from that IP. KlakSonnTalk 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you doing?! This is not the place to spread your hate. Open a blog and write about your anti-Shia or antisemitic views. And no, the Sanhendrin didn't teach Jews to pretend the're Lebanese. Lizrael 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia terrorists 

message: I see an editing war started over the claim Eido accepted bribes in 2000, can anyone give a source to that information? Lizrael 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian's obituary said he was accused of accepting bribes. I worded it like that and added a cite.--Cam 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bribes?

message: As'ad Abu Khalil is a reliable source, that is if you need any. No person with the right mind would disagree with the fact that Eido as well as most of Hariri's lieutenants, and Hariri himself, served Syrian intelligence with the utmost loyalty. Eido isn't exactly a respected politician, and I hope you agree, George.
:You're violationg Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and original research by injecting your own views into this article. Get valid, verifiable, reliable sources, or these statements will be removed. A university professor's blog is questionable, and clearly not acceptable in this case. If "no person with the right mind would disagree", then I'm sure you will have no problem finding valid sources that state such. I know almost nothing about Walid Eido, but I do know that the source you're citing for these questionable claims is not sufficient. — George [talk] 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've filed a request for a third opinion. Hopefully someone is along shortly to take a look. — George [talk] 10:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, to whoever drops by to provide a third opinion, the page's edit history is the best place to look for the specifics of this dispute. It revolves around whether or not this blog constitutes a reliable, verifiable source. — George [talk] 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ally of Syrian intellgence

message: Response to request at 3O: This is a relatively straightforward question and in answering it, I must agree with George. Even if you do not participate in the development of the applicable guidelines/policies, you should be aware that blogs, whether functioning as first or third party, are not considered to be reliable sources. They normally have no editorial oversight and their very raison dêtre is to publish one individual's opinion, comments, statements, and so forth. Even if the content is known to you to be true, that is not enough ("verifiability before truth") and you must use a reliable independent source for any statement that has been questioned, per WP:V. Adrian M. H. 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion