Talk:2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies

message: Shouldn't this be named "photograph controversies"? What do you think? TewfikTalk 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

message: 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)
thread_title: Why does this article exist?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That seems alright for now. Andrew Levine 13:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salam Daher 

message: Hezbollah sinks Australian warship 203.166.247.248 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah sinks Australian warship 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fine with me too, as long as no info is lost. Korny O'Near 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Adnan Hajj photographs controversy]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about "American right-wing commentator" instead? Andrew Levine 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'd prefer no adjectives, but the compromise is fine with me. Korny O'Near 14:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Controversial commentator Michelle Malkin"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Did Mr. Downer explicitly say that? Andrew Levine 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Cross Ambulance should have its own section 

message: :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. 
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)
replies: text: 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? TewfikTalk 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleadingly selective quotation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because it has nothing to do with Israel or Lebanon. Ken Arromdee 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  O.J. Simpson magazine covers 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conservative bloggers?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section: Ambulance controversy. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Green helmet 003.jpeg

message: So, where are the famous photos?
This article needs images  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002951326
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-06-14 05:05:59, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/11/green_helmet_helps_rescue_the_wounded/
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-06-14 05:06:46, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/j202/discussion_spring07/wk8_lat_photos.pdf
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-06-14 05:07:09, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060831_ds.html
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-06-14 05:08:00, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060830_abc.html
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-06-14 05:08:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20300357-2702,00.html
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies on 2011-06-14 05:09:12, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/07/our-very-strange-day-with-hezbollah.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902200518/http://www.icrc.org:80/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList577/1FE66CF8A9A9FEF2C12571B5005F59A0 to http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList577/1FE66CF8A9A9FEF2C12571B5005F59A0
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008140743/https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060831_ds.html to http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060831_ds.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008112947/http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060830_abc.html to http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060830_abc.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24867840-601,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288887,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lightstalkers.org/the__garbage_dump__story__complete_explanation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724160119/http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol9/summer/articles/fauxtography.html to http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol9/summer/articles/fauxtography.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218130501/http://digitalcustom.com:80/howto/mediaguidelines.asp to http://www.digitalcustom.com/howto/mediaguidelines.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009165923/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11804 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11804
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is a blight on Wikipedia. More than half of it consists of opinionated claims by bloggers, media commentators, and others with no actual knowledge of the subject or relevant expertise. Who the f*ck is "zombie" and why does "zombie" deserve a platform here? It is downright embarrassing. Deletion is the only way to fix it properly; massive pruning would be a step in the right direction but not enough. Zerotalk 04:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article