Talk:Al-Manar/Archive 1

message: Al-Manar - like Hezbollah - is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States State Department. - 24 hours to source, or I remove Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source or remove

message: Who made this executive order that is refrenced in the opening paragraph? Pyramide 17:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive Order 13224 

message: As enemy combatants, Israeli soldiers are "captured" not kidnapped.
:No, since the people performing the act are technically not 'soldiers' but civilians, they cannot perform military acts such as "caputing enemny combatants" according to internaltion law.  What they did was a civilian act, which is in fact, kidnapping.  
:Changed this as per Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis and will try and enforce it.Hypnosadist 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary to include the information at all? It seems to me that the sentence should properly read something like "The Israeli Air Force struck Al Manar on Thursday, July 13, 2006 during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis" JiHymas@himivest.com 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know about this at the moment but a year from now a bit of context would probably help. I'm starting to update this article so it is something to consider.Hypnosadist 21:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objct to language "kidnapped" 

message: But it is biased so should probably used sparingly. http://www.meforum.org/article/583
LA Times article http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=453 about PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Western Union subsiduaries advertising on local(not sat) broadcasts.
Slate.com link about 4000 jews story http://www.slate.com/?id=116813
This is on wiki, better link IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Some_Jewish_employees_did_not_attend_work_at_the_WTC_on_9.2F11
Adding source on EU directive al-Manar is banned http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/98&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en%20EU%20Rules%20and%20Principles%20on%20Hate%20Broadcasts:%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions Hypnosadist 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: usful source for info

message: "The Israeli Air Force struck Al Manar on Thursday, July 13, 2006 after initializing its massive attack on Lebanon which apparently had been planned well in advance and was presented to the public[3] as retaliation to the actions initiated by Hezbollah operatives when they captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border attack on Israel's northern border with Lebanon." in the 15:34, 18 July 2006 revision strikes me as being POV, repetitive (in that most of the sentence refers to 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis and badly substantiated (the citation is either a newspaper column or a blog entry ... I can't tell). Does anyone agree with me? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the line and i think its much better now.Hypnosadist 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in 'Air Strike'? 

message: How can this article say bombing a news site is in contravention of international law and then in the next paragraph reveal that the organization Al Manar is designated as terrorist. Is it illegal to bomb terrorist communications centers under international law?
: Are you claiming that they designated themselves as terrorists, or that somebody else did so prior to bombing them? JiHymas@himivest.com 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International law 

message: The claim that Al-Manar started the 4,000 Jews in WTC story is rather hard for me to believe, because when 11th September 2001 occurred, I heard this story from many different outlets, and I do not think that speculation, or even this highly-controversial fact, should appear on wikipedia without being sourced.
: Hmmmm. The statement links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Some_Jewish_employees_did_not_attend_work_at_the_WTC_on_9.2F11 which links to http://www.adl.org/911/israel.asp (Anti-Defamation League) which states:
:: - excerpts from an article entitled "Zionists Could Be Behind Attack on WTC and Pentagon," posted October 14, 2001 on the IslamWeb site which is registered to the State of Qatar Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs. The "facts" in this posting are attributed to the Lahore-based Jihad Times.
: There are a number of other possible sources or primary spreaders mentioned in the Wikipedia article. This talk page references http://www.slate.com/?id=116813, but the evidence pointing at Al-Manar seems to me to be a little thin for a flat statement that Al-Manar started the rumour. I'd say strike it. JiHymas@himivest.com 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I origanally had the Slate source as the main source for the 4000 jews story but it got changed. The Slate piece is very well researched and up to wikipedia standards as a source. Note that the slate article was writen on oct5 2001 before the Islamweb site. I hate to wikilawyer but wikipedia can't trump an outside reputable source, but i'm adding Snopes.com the urban legend site, its nowhere near as good an article though http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm i'll also have a look to see if Memri has anything on this, but i think the claim is justified.Hypnosadist 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The snopes piece has a link to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html : the best guess of the US Department of State is "Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the '4,000 Jews' claim." I cannot consider the Slate piece well researched: their basis for pointing the finger at al-Manar was a google search to see who mentioned the newspaper first ... in other words, either al-Manar simply made up their citation or they were not the first. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to take the US state department's word for it and have remove the 4000 jews story.Hypnosadist 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hypnosadist, you're a star! JiHymas@himivest.com 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source or should be removed 

message: The citation previously given for the Netherlands ban was http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/?m=200601&paged=2, which points to an unrelated article about BBC Arabic Radio. Accordingly, I have deleted the reference and replaced the fact tag. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll down in the article to the section called Iranian commentator reacts to Dutch ban on two satellite TV stations. An Iranian TV presenter says The Netherlands has banned the transmission of programmes by Sahar and Al-Manar international TV stations. --SirYoda 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repost of my post from JiHymas's talk page.
Ok every nation in the EU has signed a piece of "federal" law called the "Television without Frontiers" (TVWF) Directive (89/552/EEC), thats now all 25 Members but fewer originally signed this document. This said member governments have to protect the whole of the EU and the rest of the World from televised hate speach created, broadcast from or by an organisation under the jurisdiction of that member government. In the case of Al-Manar it was France that had to impliment the (TVWF) Directive under its laws with its legal institutions, and it did and banned Al-Manar.
This means Al-Manar has Definately been banned in France, by its highest court the “Conseil d'Etat”, conferming a ruleing by the Quango on censorship the “Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel”.
Given that the EU say "During this French procedure the European Commission worked very closely together with the French authorities and supported the strict and effective application of European law. The Commission welcomed the fact that measures have been taken to ensure respect of the material rules of the Directive, in line with the division of responsibilities between the Commission and the national authorities on such matters." They think that Al-Manar should be de-facto banned all over the EU but it would have to be tried on a country by country basis if they tried to broadcast from/with a TV company from another EU country. It's all about the the division of responsibilities between the Commission and the national authorities that is the thin line between an EU and a USE (United States of Europe). Hope that helps it took F'n ages to do, thanks for your ages again.Hypnosadist 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This should help form opinion here.Hypnosadist 20:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: With a little bit more digging, I did find the case where the Dutch Media Authority had jurisdiction over Al-Manar broadcasts and stopped them. I've added the information to the section with two references. How's that? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's an authoritative (elsevier) reference to the Minister responsible that I suspect is relevant, but it's in Dutch. Can someone here read it? http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/nederland/nieuwsbericht.asp?artnr=84025&rss=true JiHymas@himivest.com 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Tag for Broadcast Ban in The Netherlands 

message: This is a short news story about the hacking of both the TV channel and Websites Hypnosadist 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting stuff - I think we should start a new section in the article dealing with hacks. Any disagreement? PS: You don't need to point out you were right, Hypnosadist ... you're always right! JiHymas@himivest.com 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we should have a section on the hacks, also in the light of the [2006 transatlantic aircraft plot] the british home secretary met many interior ministers to talk about security, this included web security. They talked about the prevention of recieving "certain non-europian websites" in europe that are involved in the radicalisation of muslim youth.Hypnosadist 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new news story on hacking

message: Here is the full quote of the last paragraph in the Speech - Which nation is Nasrallah most likely referring to?  The nation of Lebanon or the Islamic Peoples?
Where are you, oh Arab and Islamic peoples? What are you doing? How will you act? That is up to you. As far as we are concerned, when we began the resistance in 1982, we did not look beyond our borders at all. We looked only to Allah. We relied only upon our people and our mujahideen. Today, we are the same. But what I wanted to tell you at this sensitive moment, and following many military successes in recent days, and following many surprises - and more surprises are yet to come, Allah willing - is that Hizbullah is not waging the battle of Hizbullah or of Lebanon. We are waging the battle of the nation, whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not. Lebanon and the resistance of Lebanon are waging the battle of the nation. Where does the nation stand with regard to this battle? This question is directed at you, for the sake of your life in this world and in the world to come.
Labaneh 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the context the nation mentioned is the UMMAH but if it just says nation in the translation thats what we should write.Hypnosadist 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nation or Ummah? 

message: I have deleted the broadcast links in 'Claims of anti-semitism'. A broadcast is not a claim. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be put into the "broadcasts" section. This will make the broadcasts section rather long and some culling will need to be done. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with that, but I would prefer that the broadcasts were referenced, rather than inserted into the body of the article. The particular clip that got al-Manar banned in France would be a worthwhile addition to the body of that section. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of broadcast links 

message: I object to the phrase "Cross border attack" the Israeli soldiers were captured in the Shibaa Farms are which is territory occupied by Israel and was the last remaining peice of occupied land until the current conflict.--Almasakin 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on who draws the border, doesn't it? Anyway, the detail was clearly extraneous and unnecessarily controversial. I've removed it. JiHymas@himivest.com 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of factual accuracy Shibaa Farms used to be Syrian land, Hezbollah did cross the BLUE LINE (border recognised by the UN) between Lebanon and Isreal in order to start the war in lebanon.Hypnosadist 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It never did, thats my point! It was Syrian land that was occupied by Isreal. They are not claiming that land but hezbollah and now lately the Lebonise government have as a justification for restarting a war that was over nearly six years. It helps Syria to stay quiet and let it be used that way as its a few square kilometres of arid rocky dirt that they could not care less about.Hypnosadist 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object to the Phrase "Cross Border Attack" 

message: Reverted. The entire "Banning of Broadcasts" section was deleted by 81.170.59.211, with the edit note If there are factual errors list them in the discussion page - Prove El Minar is banned in countries except Israel & USA show me some documentry evidence of this - Are you an Israeli propogandist ?). There are many references to bans in official and other authoritative sources. These have been properly cited in the "notes" section. JiHymas@himivest.com 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of 18:29, 9 August 2006 JiHymas@himivest.com 

message: Hi Mceder, we will have to come to a more detailed introduction due to the "Television without Frontiers" (TVWF) Directive (89/552/EEC) as this is a law that sanctions governments for failure to protect all people from hate-speach broadcasts within the power of those governments. We need to say which countries have banned it actively, and any who have said that its ok to broadcast in their country. And clarify the Spanish ruling that covers South America as well. Linking all these into the TVWF directive.Hypnosadist 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The nature of the EU Wide Ban

message: There is no ban on Al Manar, I contacted the EEC in Brussels who told me that they have not heard of such a ban. Resturants in Edgeware Road London regularary show Al Manar TV and it is the same in Paris. 
I am a new reader of this page I think it is a part of a network by supporters of Israel to discredit this TV station.
: Al-Manar is available in Europe via satellite from Nilesat and Arabsat, but not via any satellite run by a company subject to EU jurisdiction - or, at least, such is my understanding. As you are aware, one of the documents cited in the article is an official EU document. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Manar is not banned

message: Al-Manar's broadcasts have been banned by the U.S., France(1), Spain(2) and Australia.(3)
After the US Department of State placed Al-Manar on the Terrorist Exclusion List on December 17, 2004, transmissions to North America via Intelsat's satellites were blocked.(4)(5) This had the effect of making Al-Manar unavailable in Canada, which some have interpreted as a "ban".(6) While Al-Manar is not approved for distribution in Canada(7), there is no record of application for approval having been made.(8)
The Dutch Media Authority "discovered that a satellite owned by New Skies Satellites was carrying Al-Manar and has ordered the company to stop doing so, because the channel did not have the required Dutch licence."(9) (10) Many, including Radio Netherlands Worldwide Media Network(11) consider this to be a ban.
"The Spanish authorities banned the retransmission of Al Manar by Hispasat on Wednesday, 30 June 2005 (which effectively prevents its reception not only in the Iberian Peninsula but also in South America)".(12)
It has been claimed by Trish Schuh that these actions were due to the influence of groups like the "Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA.org, American Jewish Congress and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies allied with AIPAC... The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)."(13)
====My (Mceder) comments to the references in this section====
:#From BBC News - Seems clear to me. "The Council of State ordered France-based satellite company Eutelsat to stop transmitting Lebanese station al-Manar within 48 hours."
:#From a European Union Staff Working Document, Council of the European Union. Seems to at least support the claim, but perhaps a reference from the Spanish authority who banned them would be better. "The Spanish authorities banned the retransmission of Al Manar by Hispasat on Wednesday, 30 June 2005 (which effectively prevents its reception not only in the Iberian Peninsula but also in South America)."
:#From The World Today/Australia ABC News. This one is vague, very vague, and should be replaced with a better source. One part of the article states that TARB (a rebroadcaster / ethnic cable company based in Sydney) "doesn't understand why it's been banned in Australia" - in relation to showing Al Manar. It also mentions that Australia banned Hezbollah. But I can not say it clearly states, from the authority in question, that Al Manar is banned.
:#From Reuters. First line says it all: "The United States on Friday designated al-Manar television -- the mouthpiece of Lebanon's Hizbollah anti-Israel guerrillas -- a terrorist organization, prompting an end to its U.S. satellite transmissions."
:#From Washington Times. "Hezbollah's TV loses U.S. feed"
:#From IslamOnline. The fact that a former US based freelance journalist have interpreted this as a ban, is in my opinon, not noteworthy at all. It does not conclude that Canada, as a country, had any desire to ban Al Manar. This should be removed.
:# Again, the reference support this statement, but it is a moot statement. There are other channels that are not approved for distribution in Canada because they have not applied for such an approval.
:# See above. This should be removed in my opinion.
:# From AlJazeera. It does back this statement up: "We saw that Al-Manar was being transmitted by New Sky Satellite (NSS). We assessed that Al-Manar does not have a Dutch licence ... and NSS will now take Al-Manar from its satellite," Jan van Cuilenburg, head of the Dutch Media Authority, told Reuters."
:#From Haaretz. The article headline is "EU blocks Hezbollah TV broadcasts in Europe" which is misleading. It restates that the French court blocked Al Manar, and that the Dutch stopped the broadcasts due to licensing issues. I can not find supporting information that the Dutch did this because Al Manar is Al Manar, even though it is "suggested" so in many articles.
:# These two references does cite opinions from individuals that this is considered a ban. Noteworthy?
:#Same as above.. From a European Union Staff Working Document, Council of the European Union. Seems to at least support the claim, but perhaps a reference from the Spanish authority who banned them would be better. "The Spanish authorities banned the retransmission of Al Manar by Hispasat on Wednesday, 30 June 2005 (which effectively prevents its reception not only in the Iberian Peninsula but also in South America)."
:# It sure seems that Centre For Research on Globalization (Glovalresearch.ca) agrees... For whatever that is worth.
Response from JiHymas@himivest.com 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In regards to ABC News in AU - I am not worried about the source as I am concerned that the statements in the article are not very authoritative. It is supposed to back up the claim that Australia has banned Al Manar, I do not believe the article backs that up. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yup, I think you're right. I believe the definitive press release is at: http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.131180:STANDARD::pc=PC_91529 What shall we do now? Same question as with Canada, I guess ... do we mention "ban" or what? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *The idea of it being pervasive is no ground to include it in this section, as I do not see it backed up by a reference. If we want to list channels that can be expensive and risky for a satellite TV org to broadcast, let's make such a list(and that is a very valid point, a self censorship in part due to risk factors by business men, not involving beliefs on them being terroristic in nature or not) but including it in the Banning of Al-Manar broadcast is going way beyond what it is. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This talk page shows how pervasive the idea is, but your point is well taken. How about we drop the direct reference to Canada, but tack on a little to the US line so that it reads "...Intelsat's satellites were blocked,[13][14] which had the effect of making it unavailable in Canada.", citing http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about_FDD/about_FDD_show.htm?doc_id=290342 (which is one of those neocon groups)? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, I did it in part because of the Albanian Sheep joins the Jews to control the world comments in this talk page, but the more I read the references some really bothered me, as my comments above states. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *As you know, I respect your dedication to these articles, so I disagree on some points with the outmost respect. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning of Broadcasts

message: :#From BBC News - Seems clear to me. "The Council of State ordered France-based satellite company Eutelsat to stop transmitting Lebanese station al-Manar within 48 hours."
:#From a European Union Staff Working Document, Council of the European Union. Seems to at least support the claim, but perhaps a reference from the Spanish authority who banned them would be better. "The Spanish authorities banned the retransmission of Al Manar by Hispasat on Wednesday, 30 June 2005 (which effectively prevents its reception not only in the Iberian Peninsula but also in South America)."
:#From The World Today/Australia ABC News. This one is vague, very vague, and should be replaced with a better source. One part of the article states that TARB (a rebroadcaster / ethnic cable company based in Sydney) "doesn't understand why it's been banned in Australia" - in relation to showing Al Manar. It also mentions that Australia banned Hezbollah. But I can not say it clearly states, from the authority in question, that Al Manar is banned.
:#From Reuters. First line says it all: "The United States on Friday designated al-Manar television -- the mouthpiece of Lebanon's Hizbollah anti-Israel guerrillas -- a terrorist organization, prompting an end to its U.S. satellite transmissions."
:#From Washington Times. "Hezbollah's TV loses U.S. feed"
:#From IslamOnline. The fact that a former US based freelance journalist have interpreted this as a ban, is in my opinon, not noteworthy at all. It does not conclude that Canada, as a country, had any desire to ban Al Manar. This should be removed.
:# Again, the reference support this statement, but it is a moot statement. There are other channels that are not approved for distribution in Canada because they have not applied for such an approval.
:# See above. This should be removed in my opinion.
:# From AlJazeera. It does back this statement up: "We saw that Al-Manar was being transmitted by New Sky Satellite (NSS). We assessed that Al-Manar does not have a Dutch licence ... and NSS will now take Al-Manar from its satellite," Jan van Cuilenburg, head of the Dutch Media Authority, told Reuters."
:#From Haaretz. The article headline is "EU blocks Hezbollah TV broadcasts in Europe" which is misleading. It restates that the French court blocked Al Manar, and that the Dutch stopped the broadcasts due to licensing issues. I can not find supporting information that the Dutch did this because Al Manar is Al Manar, even though it is "suggested" so in many articles.
:# These two references does cite opinions from individuals that this is considered a ban. Noteworthy?
:#Same as above.. From a European Union Staff Working Document, Council of the European Union. Seems to at least support the claim, but perhaps a reference from the Spanish authority who banned them would be better. "The Spanish authorities banned the retransmission of Al Manar by Hispasat on Wednesday, 30 June 2005 (which effectively prevents its reception not only in the Iberian Peninsula but also in South America)."
:# It sure seems that Centre For Research on Globalization (Glovalresearch.ca) agrees... For whatever that is worth.
Response from JiHymas@himivest.com 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In regards to ABC News in AU - I am not worried about the source as I am concerned that the statements in the article are not very authoritative. It is supposed to back up the claim that Australia has banned Al Manar, I do not believe the article backs that up. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yup, I think you're right. I believe the definitive press release is at: http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.131180:STANDARD::pc=PC_91529 What shall we do now? Same question as with Canada, I guess ... do we mention "ban" or what? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *The idea of it being pervasive is no ground to include it in this section, as I do not see it backed up by a reference. If we want to list channels that can be expensive and risky for a satellite TV org to broadcast, let's make such a list(and that is a very valid point, a self censorship in part due to risk factors by business men, not involving beliefs on them being terroristic in nature or not) but including it in the Banning of Al-Manar broadcast is going way beyond what it is. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This talk page shows how pervasive the idea is, but your point is well taken. How about we drop the direct reference to Canada, but tack on a little to the US line so that it reads "...Intelsat's satellites were blocked,[13][14] which had the effect of making it unavailable in Canada.", citing http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about_FDD/about_FDD_show.htm?doc_id=290342 (which is one of those neocon groups)? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, I did it in part because of the Albanian Sheep joins the Jews to control the world comments in this talk page, but the more I read the references some really bothered me, as my comments above states. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *As you know, I respect your dedication to these articles, so I disagree on some points with the outmost respect. Mceder 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My ([[User:Mceder|Mceder]]) comments to the references in this section

message: Maybe the term "Banned" needs to be elaborated upon in the article. Al-Manar is banned in the United States but C-Span ran 40-minutes of Al-Manar the other day. So it is not completely prohibited. 
Also, in this satellite/internet age its not really possible to ban a station. Can't you just point your dish to an Arab owned satellite or open a internet video stream? So, words like "effectively prevents its reception" or the impression that you get that you cannot watch Al-Manar in Europe seems incorrect. 
--SirYoda 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can point your dish at Arabsat or Nilesat and get al-Manar, provided you have a line of sight, of course. That's why the "Network" box still includes "Europe" on "availability". See, for example, http://www.stopterroristmedia.org/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=11089 I would think that "banned" does not include "reporting on", which is presumably how C-Span justified its broadcast (this is a good thing, as otherwise I, personally, might get an unwelcome visit from the Mounties for my efforts here & with Hezbollah!). You can certainly "get around" these rules. But how many people do? I would think that major effect is on advertising ... funding! funding! funding! That's the key! JiHymas@himivest.com 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to bring up the over hashed "Banned" topic but... 

message: *In the lead, "ties to Hezbollah" seems weak somehow.  Doesn't Hezbollah own and operate the station?  "ties to", to my ear, suggests a looser association.  The Web site for Al-Manar is down, but it would be great if someone who has expertise on this could state what the connection is exactly in a very explicit way.  
*The bombing of the station, IMO, should come later in the article, after other controversies such as whether or not the station promotes hate speech, which are more central.  
*The "ban" section might be stronger if there were some summary of what the issue is that has led to the bans up front rather than just stating that there are bans.  Also, there is a sep section on the French ban, below, and the Hezbollah reaction to this ban which should probably be incorporated into this one.  
Elizmr 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elizmr, i'll take your points one at a time.
1) "ties to Hezbollah"is weak but thats as much info as we have, the problem is it is not owned or operated by Hezbollah Offically. Its just all the directors of the company are senior hezbollah members, as are the share holders as i understand the facts. But finding sources on this has been difficult, any help by you to make the connection very explicit would be great.
2)Yes you are probably right, but it was concrete info early on in the life of this article and has stayed up top since then.
3)Al-Manar is banned for diffent reasons in different places, in the above discusion we are rewriting this section. But to give the short version europe banned it for reasons of the Hate Speach, the USA which has "freedom of speach" has banned them because of there connection to Hezbollah and hence being terrorists themselves, just like Israels ban.
Hope that helps you.Hypnosadist 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re, #1, Ah, I see.  #2--any comments from others about moving bombing down below "bans?" and #3--I see the complications.  Maybe the first sentence should be more fleshed out in terms of France and the USA.  Can't see in the refs why Spain banned, just that it did.  Elizmr 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three issues: Ties, bombing, and bans

message: The bombing is a current event and I don't feel it is placed well in the article.  Hypnosadist has said he/she doesn't mind if I move it.  Does anyone else mind if I move it?  Elizmr 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of topics

message: should the stuff about banning and the terrorism designation really be in the lead?  Elizmr 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this station is notable for the involvement of Hezbollah, and its banning by various countries on the grounds of hate speach. Other wise its just another minor TV station, its crimes make it notable.Hypnosadist 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think it should lead the article. The article is about a TV station and currently there is not enough information to even decide whether its a minor station or not. By leading it with the terrorism angle the rest of the article focuses on terrorism which is valid topic but the title of the article should almost be the "Al-Manar controversy".  We should lead with a paragraph of the basics for a TV station as if its CNN. (Viwership, tv programs, number of employees, budget, etc.) We need to understand whether this station is significant to care whether bombing it off the air matters, banning it matters, etc. --SirYoda 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your points, we have been trying find more information on Al-Manar. But the major notable facts about this TV station are that is its Hezbollah's propaganda station and that because of that and/or the hate speach it producees to achieve this end its banned in most of the world, with only 2 satalites broadcasting it. This (the most notable facts) should be in the intro.Hypnosadist 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reorged the lead and shortened the piece about the terrorist desig and bans to reflect the above disc.  Wikipedia does say that the lead of articles should reflect the content of the article, so in that sense I guess this information is fair game.  I didn't do any more on this at this point to allow others more time to comment.  Elizmr 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, there is not much generic TV material yet to do what I was thinking. Just curious but is anybody working on this article Shi'ite or ever watched this tv station? Just googling around, perhaps people just watch it for Arabic language Shia programs. It always good to keep an open mind. Oh well, I don't disagree with the points above. --SirYoda 01:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a shiite, no, but yes I've seen some of the material from this station. I haven't found that it runs programming that is not politically motivated in some way.  I am a spanish speaker for example, but wouldn't want to watch bullfights if they were the only thing I could find on the air in spanish for example because I find them violent and disgusting.  Elizmr 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead topics

message: This story from the BBC  "Javed Iqbal, originally from Pakistan, is accused by prosecutors of doing business with a terrorist entity. Mr Iqbal appeared in court on Thursday and was bailed for $250,000 (£132,300). "Hypnosadist 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-manar prosecution in the US