Talk:Al-Manar/Archive 1

Source or remove

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)

Executive Order 13224

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

U.S. President Bush signed Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001. Executive Order 13224 gives the U.S. Government a legal tool to impede terrorist funding and is part of the U.S. commitment to lead the international effort to bring a halt to terrorist activity. The Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism.

U.S. President Bush issued Executive Order 13224 pursuant to the authorities of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c)(UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code.

Objct to language "kidnapped"

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)

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)

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)

usful source for info

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)

POV in 'Air Strike'?

"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)

I've edited the line and i think its much better now.Hypnosadist 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

International law

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)

Simple answer is this has not been to court so so it may be illegal or not to attack Al Manar. This is due to the ownership and funding of Al Manar by Hezbollah. Its illegal to bomb civilian journalist, it is legal to bomb terrorists so we have to say it may be illegal or ok to bomb them, and both sides have thier view on this.Hypnosadist 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Also Journalists have be charged with War Crimes for fanning the flames of hate. This happened at the Nuremberg Trials and recently in the Rwandan Genocide.Hypnosadist 11:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Source or should be removed

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hypnosadist, you're a star! JiHymas@himivest.com 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact Tag for Broadcast Ban in Canada

The citation given for the ban in Canada is an on-line interview. I haven't found anything on a Canadian government site that would indicate that the Canadian government has, in fact, banned the broadcasts. I suspect that the "ban" may simply be due to the US ban making it impossible (or, at least, difficult) for Canadian retailers to get the sattelite feed. I propose eliminating the reference to Canada entirely. Any objections? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of references that Al-Manar is banned in Canada to delete it . BTW, add Spain to the list --SirYoda 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The first link points to http://www.friendsofaljazeera.org/canada, which links to an actual CRTC decision banning Al-Jazeera and also links to a story about the bombing of al-Manar. If it was banned in Canada, it was the CRTC that did it ... search on http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/search/index.asp for "Jazeera" and you get lots of hits, including a link to the decision ... search for "Manar" and you get nothing. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This bothered me enough that I contacted the CRTC: my correspondent stated that "Here is a link to our latest lists:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/satlist.htm If al-Manar is not on the list, it is not approved for distribution in Canada. I am not aware of any such request" so I propose to note the following on the page :

• 'Al-Manar is not approved for distribution in Canada .ref.satlist.htm./ref.. There is no record on the regulator's site .ref.CRTC site./ref. of application for approval having been made as of August, 2006.'

How's that? Any objections?

Done JiHymas@himivest.com 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what i understand is going on with whether Al-Manar can broadcast in Canada. They can broadcast any time they want,if they can get some company to broadcast them in canada. The problem they have is that any company broadcasting Al-Manar would be covered by Canadian Anti-Hate Speach Laws. These have power to level Multi-Million dollar fines per each individual offence, and broadcast companies have lots of assets. No one will touch them or Al-Jeezerah with a ten foot barge pole with the chance of there entire buisiness being taken from them. This is a de-facto ban brought about by the strengh of Canada's anti-hate speach, so how on earth do we write this up in the article?Hypnosadist 11:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what's happened with Al-Jazeerah, certainly. They've got a license with conditions ... the conditions would make it both expensive and risky for a company to carry it. So Al-J is in a twilight zone, sort-of allowed. Al-M, however, has never even applied for a license and it wouldn't make sense for them to do so ... firstly, there are the problems with satellites (I don't know whether it would be technically possible for them to use the "Anik" satellites, which are Canadian, but they certainly can't use the American ones! Secondly, Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada ... I don't know, frankly, whether this would be considered to include Al-Manar. And finally, as you say, they would have huge problems with anti-hate laws, which would have the practical effect of making them an even less attractive business than Al-J. All that being said, however, I think the article is fine as it stands: This had the effect of making Al-Manar unavailable in Canada, which some have interpreted as a "ban".[15]. While Al-Manar is not approved for distribution in Canada[16], there is no record of application for approval having been made.[17] Dry & factual. JiHymas@himivest.com 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact Tag for Broadcast Ban in The Netherlands

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Hack

Has Al-Manar been hacked?

I've heard lots of commentary about this-and have been reading a lot of complaints from aspiring homocide bombers that their favorite anti-Semitic snuff network has been pwned by Israeli intelligence-but I haven't been able to find any credible articles on this issue.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep its down, must have taken all the Iranian Servers down at the same time, Tisk! making life such hard work for wikipedia editors we only had the new working link for about 24hours, Shin beth do you have no consideration?Hypnosadist 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL.

I suppose not.

By the way, Shin Bet (Shabak) is a domestic (internal) security agency akin to our Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The people who who were tasked with bringing down Al-Manar probably belonged to either military intelligence or the Mossad, although I could be mistaken.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Or it could have been simply overload. Whatever the reason, it's back up now. I'm going to add a link to the live stream of al-Manar as well (it's only a 38 kb/s WMV stream, but it should be linked). --Mrmiscellanious 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

new news story on hacking

This is a short news story about the hacking of both the TV channel and Websites [1]Hypnosadist 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) PS i was right it was an offencive hack to take down the website.Hypnosadist 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nation or Ummah?

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)

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)

Hypnosadist, 'ha-aretz' in Hebrew, can litterally mean, "the land", but it can have a second connotation of 'Israel'. In the same way in Arabic, 'Ummah' can mean a nation or The Islamic Nation, contingent on the context. In this context, he's clearly talking about the Islamic Nation that he's called out to in the beginning and end of the paragraph.

Deletion of broadcast links

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)

I think that these broadcasts are important but how they should be placed into this article needs to be talked about here.Hypnosadist 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Are any of these specific broadcasts called anti-semitic by someone notable? if that is the case then should be added in that section. If ANY of the broadcasts that are mentioned in sources or notable publications should be kept.Hypnosadist 18:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Object to the Phrase "Cross Border Attack"

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)

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)

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)

When did Shaba farms become Lebanese??? I'm still wondering today.Labaneh 02:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Historically the land there was part of Syria. According to Herodotus, a Greek name for a place called Cappadocia. The region in particular while being a domain of Syria was called Palestine, again by Herodotus and to the north of there Phoenicia. The territory now called Lebanon was conceeded to Richard the Lion Hearted by the Muslim Emperor Salah Ud-Din in 1192. Thus the question is not when did Shebaa Farms become Lebanon, 1192, but when did it become Israel, never, at least not as long as Lebanon continues to contest it which it does.

Sweden banning Al-Manar, no sources found?

Granted I have not spent hours looking, but I am a native Swede and have searched the Swedish Google for news clippings, goverment announcements or any information related to Sweden banning the Al-Manar station. I have only found demands for such from the right-wing parties of Sweden and petitions from them in parliment. But nothing that states that it was passed or completed? Where did this information come from to begin with? Perhaps I am missing something very obvious... Mceder 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where that info came from, is Al-Manar broadcasting in sweden now do you know? Oh and hi new editor its nice to write to you.Hypnosadist 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume (obviously not to go in the article :) ) they are since the right wing parties are posting and petitioning parliment to have them stop broadcasting. Mceder 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That fact tag's been there for a while. Any objections to my deleting "Sweden" from the ban list? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Anyone wanting to put it back in, add the reference. As several reverts has shown the Banned section is controversial to some and should be backed up. This brings up the Germany reference as well. I will try to dig around to find a reference, but believe if we can not find one we should remove it for now until we can find a good source. Mceder 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Did find this statement at [2]:

Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA.org, American Jewish Congress and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies allied with AIPAC against Al Manar worldwide. The neocon Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) took credit for persuading world leaders in Germany, Sweden, Australia and France to outlaw Al Manar. The Netherlands and the EU followed suit, and Spain was coerced into removing Al Manar from Latin American programming. MEMRI has recently announced a new front- France has just agreed to silence Iran's Al Sahar TV.

But a quick glance at MEMRI did not yield much in regards to this. Besides, if we find it there - it should be backed up by something else besides MEMRI. Mceder 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Global Research" clearly has an agenda. While there is certainly a neocon campaign against al-Manar, anything that gives credit to MEMRI (which may be neocon - but I don't think it is) for the French ban without even mentioning the court case is just a little suspect. The fact tag for Germany's been up for quite a while too - I'd feel no compunction about deleting it. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly a bit wierd not to mention the court case.... I went ahead and removed Germany as well. Mceder 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of 18:29, 9 August 2006 JiHymas@himivest.com

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)

The nature of the EU Wide Ban

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)

Al Manar is not banned

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)

I Think This Page is being used to spread disinformation

It is so obvious Al Manar is not Banned we can get is via subscription from Homechoice in the UK. My dutch friends can get it via their local cable company

Disinformation by Friends of Israel

You may be aware that there was a campaign by supporters of Israel mostly Jewish e mail lobby associations to distort the content of wikipedia to a Jewish point of view.

This campaign usually follows Israel and USA foreign policy. The Jewish Wikipedia lobby demonize Iran Syria and Hezbollah while justifying the actions of Israel foreign policy. Removal of any adverse editorial on the founders of Israel demonizing the leadership of Arab countries etc.

There is also subtle distortion of facts particularity in regards to the Palestinian conflict. In order to counter this organized and as such formidable onslaught on the neutrality of wikipedia Volunteers are keeping a record of hundreds of such pages and a report will be published later.

It is essential that wikipedia reflects a true world view

AL MINAR IS NOT BANNED PROVE IT

AL MINAR IS NOT BANNED PROVE IT

Press Release from http://europa.eu/Which of course is down now i need it to prove it damn.

This is getting confusing. Ok i don't doubt you can see al-manar down the edgeware rd curry houses, its a case of who is broadcasting it. If the anons could provide more information and sources to prove this i would be very happy. Also i just checked Homechoice UK TV and broadband and it says nothing about al manar, maybe it was the live broadband feed that you are thinking of?Hypnosadist 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anon - The link is now working, I am pasting in what I believe you were refering to below. I also took the liberty to put [ ] around your URL to prevent the wide frame to run off. Mceder 14:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which TV channels from outside the EU are broadcast in Europe?

Most of the third country programmes use satellite capacities provided either by Eutelsat or by Astra. Due to this fact the ranking under Article 2 (4) means that two countries, France and Luxembourg, have jurisdiction over a large number of third-country programmes received in Europe. The lists of third country programmes are available on the respective websites.

http://www.csa.fr/index.php

http://www.eutelsat.com/home/index.html

http://www.mediacom.public.lu/institutions/Institutions_nationales/cir/index.html

http://www.ses-global.com/

http://lyngsat.com

What was the Al-Manar case, and what has the Commission done to resolve it?

In 1991, shortly after Hezbollah actively entered the Lebanese political scene, Al Manar was launched as a small terrestrial station. Although legally registered as the Lebanese Media Group Company in 1997, Al Manar has belonged to Hezbollah culturally and politically from its inception. Today, the terrestrial station can reach Lebanon in its entirety and broadcasts programming eighteen hours daily.

Moreover, Al Manar's satellite station, launched in 2000, transmits twenty-four hours a day, reaching the entire Arab world and the rest of the globe through several major satellite providers. One of the satellite providers which have transmitted Al Manar has been the French satellite Hot Bird 4, owned by the Eutelsat Satellite organisation.

Al Manar has several times been accused of broadcasting programming that preaches hatred and violence. In December 2004, the US Department of State put Al-Manar on the Terrorist Exclusion List due to the channel's "incitement of terrorist activity".

On 13 December 2004, the French “Conseil d'Etat”, the highest administrative Court in France, ordered the French-based Eutelsat Company to shut down Al Manar broadcasts following accusations that its programmes were anti-Semitic and could incite hatred. The “Conseil d’Etat” order was based on a decision by the French regulatory authority the “Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel”. On 14 December Al-Manar obliged voluntarily, in order to avoid that other Arab programmes of the same multiplex would have been shut down.

The TVWF Directive assigns responsibility for ensuring that its rules are respected to the Member State that has jurisdiction. In this case the French authorities were responsible for prohibiting the broadcasts of Al Manar because Al Manar was transmitted via the French satellite system within the satellite organisation Eutelsat.

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.

The anon was me.Hypnosadist 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Banning of Broadcasts - what should stay and what should go?

Here are my thoughts and research on the references given for this section. I am hoping to start some discussion in place of accusing editors as being a part of the jewish conspiracy. Mceder 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Banning of Broadcasts

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

1. 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."
2. 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)."
3. 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.
4. 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."
5. From Washington Times. "Hezbollah's TV loses U.S. feed"
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. See above. This should be removed in my opinion.
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. These two references does cite opinions from individuals that this is considered a ban. Noteworthy?
12. 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)."
13. 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) Geez, how to go about responding to this?

• 1 : I consider the EU document (Spain) to be an official source and ABC News (Australia) to be an authoritative source. But sure, the references could be improved with better source documents.

• 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)

• 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)

• 2 : Canada: The idea that Canada has banned al-Manar is pervasive - see the "Fact Tag for Broadcast Ban in Canada" discussion above. I thought that providing definitive information was worthwhile. The link from IslamOnline has survived; it was the citation for 'ban in Canada' in earlier versions of this article.

• 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)

• 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)

• 3 : Netherlands: Similarly to above, the Radio Netherlands blog was the citation for 'ban in Netherlands'.
• 4 : I can't remember exactly, but I believe earlier versions of this article reported the views of Global Research's staff as fact. I kept it with the idea that controversy should be reported, even if it's poorly researched controversy.
• 5 : I'm very excited about being part of a Jewish Conspiracy. When do I get my decoder ring?
• 6 : With all respect, I think Mceder and hypnosadist are taking this kerfuffle way too seriously. These are probably 12-year old kids from the US mid-west kicking up a big fuss because it's funny to watch grown-ups jump around. The attack on the veracity of the article is so utterly incompetent that there is an equal chance in my mind of the perpetrators (if they are adults with an actual agenda) being "Serious but Stupid al-Manar supporters" or "Provacateurs from the other side".

• 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)

JiHymas@himivest.com 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

Sorry to bring up the over hashed "Banned" topic but...

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)

This is what i am tring to say, there are so many ways around these rules that you can't stop the hate speach. We need to come up with a form of words for the whole of europe.Hypnosadist 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Below is my suggestion for the rewrite on this section. Note that it is certified by JiHymas as jerkiness free.. That is pretty cool, considering he has a decoder ring! Mceder 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy & Ban

Al-Manar broadcasts have been banned by the goverment of United States, France and Spain for the contents of it's broadcasts.

Al-Manar has not been available in Canada since Intelsat stopped the broadcasts due to the US ban in 2004 - some have interpreted this as a "ban" but the goverment of Canada has not banned Al-Manar from broadcasting.

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." Radio Netherlands Worldwide Media Network consider this to be a ban, however no ban has been issued by the Dutch goverment.

"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 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)."

-30-

I like it and think it should replace the current section. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it would be good if a discription the TVWF Directive could added to this but its very good at the moment.Hypnosadist 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "Al-Amar" and who is "Trish Schuh"? And a trivial thing shouldn't we be consistant a say "Al-Manar" not "Al Manar"? And one more thing the first line sounds dedundant with wording basically saying "broadcaster banned because of their broadcasts". I would change it to an actual reason. Were they banned because it is a terrorist media outlet or because of hate speech? And one more thing for the words "effectively prevents its reception not only in the Iberian Peninsula" I would remove the word "effectively" since I am pretty sure that Spain would have line of sight to Arab satelites. --SirYoda 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Manar is banned in europe under hate speach laws, i think the USA banned it because of its link to hezbollah but it would be good to get this confermed. London has LOS on those satalites, not just spain not to mention the live internet feed.Hypnosadist 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Trish Schuh is one of the few American reporters to actually visit, live, study, work and interview IN PERSON various middle east figures in Muslim countries- knows Arabic and worked for years at ABC World News in NY, Fox News, NBC and Esquire among others. Also a member of UN Correspondent Association, published worldwide. As such denounced by Israel zionist fronts and sayanim. First one to peg Arafat's death as Israeli assassination. Her article used as the primary source of discussion of this topic; at one point in the history of this article, somebody changed (wording approximate) 'There have been claims...' to 'It has been claimed by Trish Schuh...' I don't have strong feelings about this statement either way. We do have references to the Lebanese ambassador and al-Manar itself screaming 'Politics!', so we wouldn't really be losing anything by its deletion. As far as the reason for the US ban is concerned, I think that is dealt with adequately in the Washington Times article ("The United States placed Al-Manar on its list of terrorist organizations Friday, dismissing freedom-of-speech objections and accusing Al-Manar of inciting violence in the Middle East. 'We don't see why here or anywhere else a terrorist organization should be allowed to spread its hatred and incitement through the television airwaves,' State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.) Again, I have no strong feelings either way about including this information explicitly in the article). But what about Australia? I think Australia should be mentioned somewhere, seeing that the regulator there has made broadcasting al-Manar sufficiently risky that nobody in their right mind would take on the task.

• The ABA reviewed a significant amount of Al Manar programming during its investigation. The ABA is concerned that some material was of a type that could breach the provisions of the codes of practice for subscription narrowcast television. The codes say that narowcasters will present accurate and fair news and current affairs programs and will not broadcast programs that are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or gratuitously vilify any person or group on the basis of their ethnicity, nationality, race or religion. ... The ABA's investigation into the TARBS service began on 23 October 2003. The ABA recently decided not to finalise the investigation, noting that TARBS has gone into receivership. TARBS ceased to provide the Al Manar service on 5 November 2003.

Note the dates on the press release vs. the action! It was considered a hot issue 11 months after everything was settled! I suggest we add a sentence like:

• Transmission of al-Manar in Australia was halted voluntarily by the transmitting company November 5, 2003, shortly after a regulatory investigation regarding possible hate-speech laws commenced.(ref = press release above).

This would be a useful addition to the article. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The State Department spokesman Richard Boucher comment should be mentioned.On Austrailia we could say:

• TARBS voluntarily stoped broadcasting al-manar on November 5, 2003, 15 days into an investigation by the ABA on accusations of "broadcast programs that are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or gratuitously vilify any person or group on the basis of their ethnicity, nationality, race or religion". The report for this investigation was never finalised as TARBS had gone into receivership by that time. Al-Manar is not licenced for broadcast in Australia at the moment.Hypnosadist 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PS we could aslo move the Claims of anti-Semitic programming section into the banning section without a change of words.Hypnosadist 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PPS we could also talk at the end of that about how the live internet feed gets round the ban everywhere.Hypnosadist 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all four suggestions. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PPPS Also i think we should order the section so it starts with the strongest bans ie USA and France and go to Austrailia and then canada at the bottom. Then mention the internet feed of the channel is not blocked anywhere as far as it is known. Finally you could deal with the views that these bans are political or anti-islamic in nature at the very end of the section.Hypnosadist 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, except for notes re Internet feed. I don't quite know how to phrase that at this point. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Their Internet feed is back up, but the domain name changed again. It's now manartv.com.lb. Streaming video is available, in Windows Media Player format. --John Nagle 05:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Three issues: Ties, bombing, and bans

• 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)

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)

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)

Order of topics

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)

Lead topics

should the stuff about banning and the terrorism designation really be in the lead? Elizmr 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Acutally, SirYoda, I've been thinking about this alot. The station is a self-proclaimed non-neutral news organization with a clear agenda. They are quite honest about this. consequently, they were labeled terrorist by the US. I'm not sure that that is not fair game for the lead. The station is not like CNN or Al-jazeera and doesn't warrant the same kind of article that those stations do. Elizmr 04:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Al-manar prosecution in the US

This story from the BBC [3] "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)

Explanation of Executive Order 13224

U.S. President Bush signed Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001. Executive Order 13224 gives the U.S. Government a legal tool to impede terrorist funding and is part of the U.S. commitment to lead the international effort to bring a halt to terrorist activity. The Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism.

U.S. President Bush issued Executive Order 13224 pursuant to the authorities of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c)(UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code. geraldshields11

Article order

I kind of liked "content" coming before "history". Could we move it back the way it was? Elizmr 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are several reasons why I changed the order. 1) All the other articles about television stations/networks, I checked (American Broadcasting Corporation, NBC, BBC, Das Erste, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Global Television Network were just the first I could think of) had the history of the station first and then information about programming, etc. 2) WP:TVS's list of what an article about a telivision station should include begins with a good introduction followed by the history of the station (I assume, but am not sure that this order was intentional). 3)Personal preference (Ok, that's not a very good reason, but I think the preceding two were.)--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense Elizmr 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

moving old unsourced political remark here

How weak is the former so-called "Free Western World" to close Manar tv? First: The westerners shut down freedom; Then they(The British Military Government) undertook an assassination attempt to the Iranian President at Ahwas. UK & US Press biased? Answer:24th January 2006 it was the proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.47.238 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

That's not shutting down freedom. That's shutting down the propaganda of an organization that not only opposes freedom but spreads lies against the west and Israel. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Arabic clips

Apparently these are Arabic clips:Al-Manar#Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) broadcasts. Is it usual to put their links in the English wikipedia. Please check them and delete them if they're in Arabic.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement

This is former structure of this article:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Satellite broadcasting
               + 1.1.1 Banning of broadcasts
         o 1.2 Designation as a 'terrorist entity'
         o 1.3 Anti-Semitic Programming
         o 1.4 Satellite transmission
         o 1.5 Israeli Air Force strike
               + 1.5.1 Criticism of bombing
   * 2 Content
         o 2.1 Programs
         o 2.2 Religion and politics
   * 3 Journalistic standards and neutrality
  

I found it illogic to put "Banning of broadcasts", "Designation as a 'terrorist entity'" and "Anti-Semitic Programming" under history and separated it. Also I gathered "Israeli Air Force strike" and "Criticism of bombing" in one section. I merged "Satellite broadcasting" and "Satellite transmission". This is my suggestion:

1 History
   * 1.1 Satellite broadcasting
   * 1.2 Al-Manar during 2006 Lebanon War
         o 1.2.1 Israeli Air Force strike
         o 1.2.2 Criticism of bombing
2 Content
   * 2.1 Programs
   * 2.2 Religion and politics
3 Journalistic standards and neutrality
4 Accusations and Restrictions
   * 4.1 Designation as a 'terrorist entity'
   * 4.2 Designation as an Anti-Semitic Programming
   * 4.3 Banning of broadcasts

What's your idea?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it, except I think 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 should be under "Journalistic standards and neutrality" and the "Accusations and Restrictions" heading can be done away with. --GHcool 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I think that "Designation as an Anti-Semitic Programming" should be changed. The English is a bit off, and the Anti-Semitic and Programming shouldn't be capitalized. Also, the Antisemitism article seems to favor the non-hyphenated spelling. Maybe something like "Allegations of antisemitic programming". Not 100% sure what title would be most accurate, but I think it's more accurate to say that Al-Manar has been accused of airing antisemitic programs than to say it has been classified/designated as an anti-semitic organization (that sounds more like the Ku Klux Klan to me). — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree with this--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1 History
   * 1.1 Satellite broadcasting
   * 1.2 Al-Manar during 2006 Lebanon War
         o 1.2.1 Israeli Air Force strike
         o 1.2.2 Criticism of bombing
2 Content
   * 2.1 Programs
   * 2.2 Religion and politics
3 Journalistic standards and neutrality
   * 3.1 Accusations and Restrictions
         o 3.1.1 Designation as a 'terrorist entity'
         o 3.1.2 Allegations of antisemitic programming
         o 3.1.3 Banning of broadcasts

How about this:

3 Journalistic standards and neutrality
   * 3.1 Designation as a 'terrorist entity'
   * 3.2 Allegations of antisemitic programming
   * 3.3 Banning of broadcasts

--GHcool 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions...

Hi guys, GHcool, George, and Sav. Some things that I would suggest... Propaganda, I've been watching this channel since I was born, from Baalbek to Beirut to Canada. Let's talk about their Hezbollah's Psychological warfare. I've been browsing Wikipedia, and I've seen that people post music, and video downloads. Why don't we do that... I can pick some clips from Wa3ad, wa3ad english doesn't have has like 4 clips, so I can go on the Arabic one and find a view Anasheeds (hezbollah music) and some al-Manar infomercials (ie Propaganda clips) they've got lots of stuff , and they're good stuff that can prove our point on al-Manar not being neutral and infact balancing things up in the media, like Hassan Fadlallah said. Also, can we please change the line in the religion and politics section "radical islamic form" to maybe somethiing less insulting?? How about "they follow the same brand of revolutionary islam introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini, and adopted by Hezbollah" something along those lines, Sav/George can u guys work on something ??? Anyways Most important of all is the videos/??? how about it? Ahmad Husseini 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the side box, its also available in North America... (revision please, my friend pays big bucks to get it) Ahmad Husseini 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with copyright rules on Wikipedia, but you should take a look at this. As for the "radical Islamist" statement, I've tagged the whole section to try to get references. This section makes a lot of broad statements which need sources cited. Anything that can't be backed up by a reliable source should be removed. Regarding the availability in North America, can you find some websites that state such? Maybe the website listing al-Manar for the cable company your friend uses, or any web site that states that it offs broadcast in a country in North America. We need some source to add this, and it may be more accurate to say "Canada" or "parts of North America," rather than "North America" in general. — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

George, I'm on it, but my friend pays a free to air provider like 10 bucks a month to get it so its not impossible. Ahmad Husseini 00:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanx George for tagging that section, I guess we can remove the attacks on America part, since Hezbollah has condemned the attacks on the trade centers, Guys? Sav, I need help with those copyright permits on the videos. I guess there is no copyright on them since they're offered to the public, and Wa3ad promotes downloading them? Ahmad Husseini 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

George, Intelsat doesn't carry anything on their website but here's something explaining how al-Manar is broadcast. Marketing of terrorism: Hezbollah’s use of the Al-Manar TV station to spread incitement and hatred across the globe, pretty much, it says al-manar gives broadcasting rights to Arabsat and Globecast, and they make up Arabic channel packages (including al-Manar) and they sell those rights to Satellite providers in other parts of the Globe. Ahmad Husseini 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There were some clips which I removed.[4] I think it's not appropriate to use Arabic clips in English wikipedia as I told before.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a neutral reworded intro, bare with me guys it will take 3 days, since I'm pretty busy now, the intro btw is rediculus, as George pointed out. Ahmad Husseini 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize enough how awful "Current Trends in Islamist Thought" is as an objective source. The journal is widely perceived as a journal endorsing fabrications and slander to bolster far right neo-conservative agendas. To that end, the idea that al-Manaar tries to actively convert Muslims from Shi'ism to Sunnism is patently false with little supporting documentation. Hopefully, this will be removed; I attempted earlier, but I guess denying a false journal article without something that says differently is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Next up, I will argue that Hizb'allah is responsible for theories of evolution being banned in Kansas (you have no evidence that this isn't true!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.17 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Good enough?

I think this page should be nominated for Good article status, what do other editors think?Hypnosadist 03:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead section should be expanded to mention all of the article's major points, which it currently does not do. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, having re-read the intro the section on the bans could be lengthend. Could you say what else specifically you think needs adding to the intro. Hypnosadist 08:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add something about the journalistic standards in the lead. Elizmr 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Partial Review:

1. Adding rationale templates on logo of Al-Manar

It has done.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Verification of the sources: Because some of the news sources doesn't exist anymore like [5] you should check the sources and substitute dead sources with new ones.(Please look at Talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the references)

Thanks Mceder, It has done.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Fixed the last one today, looks much better now. mceder (u t c) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Adding enough explanation wherever clarification tag is added.
2. Rearrangement: I suggest to separate some parts of History like Designation as a terrorist entity, Anti-Semitic Programming and Satellite transmission.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After a quick review, I don't think this article is anywhere near GA quality. The intro has repeated, incomplete quoted sentences, and the references at the bottom are all messed up. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its getting very close. The biggest problem I had was with the lead. Its missing punctuation and could be better in terms of spacing. The "Content" section is top notch. Fix the lead for punctuation and readability and I think you guys are on your way. --GHcool 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

My reason to fail this article:

• We haven't reach consensus about structure yet.
• Lack of references as George.Saliba has mentioned by adding a tag
• It hasn't coveraged all major aspects if we compare it with a similar GA like BBC.

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sav, It's not really neutral, it needs clean up of a bunch of "radical islams" and like George mentioned: this paragraph could get some clean up:

Like Hezbollah, al-Manar promotes a radical Islamist ideology. Its primary message is the promotion of "resistance" and "jihad". It regularly legitimizes violence against the United States, Israel, and other enemies, not only by Hezbollah, whom it generally glorifies, but also by Palestinian militants. It always glorifies martyrdom in the fight against its enemies. The station regularly broadcasts speeches by Hassan Nasrallah and conveys statements from the Hezbollah. Islamic tradition is often invoked to justify suicide bombings, which Nasrallah called "a modest weapon and does not warrant that a world war be waged against it." Fatwas justifying this type of violence are often broadcasted and Muslim clerics such as Sheikh Babil al-Halbawi, imam of the al-Sayida Rikiyya Mosque in Damascus, explain their morality with quotes from the Quran. Suicide missions themselves are often aired on al-Manar as well as the video tapes made by the bombers hours before the attack. The station often asserts that it is not impossible to destroy Israel.[32] Until the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, al-Manar's programming political focus was mainly against the Israeli presence in Lebanon. The withdrawal in May 2000 left a void in the station's programming, however Hezbollah and al-Manar consider the Sheeba Farms to be Lebanese territory occupied by Israel, and this became a focal point for political programming. In September of that year, the al-Aqsa Intifada broke out, and al-Manar began to cover the issue of the Israeli Palestinian conflict more extensively, overtly propagandizing to support the Palestinian militants.[33]

Tell me the author of this paragraph isn't biased "like Hezbollah(?)," "however Hezbollah and al-Manar consider the Sheeba Farms to be Lebanese territory occupied by Israel" you know what this sounds like to me... It sounds like Hezbollah and al-Manar were having lunch, or a coffee, and outta the blue al-Manar said: "Hey, Hezbollah, how about we just say the shebba farms are lebanese territories? that would work!" Dude u gotta be kiddin, hezbollah asked the Lebanese gov't and it confirmed that Shebba was lebanese and then they continued from there, they continued the march, they didn't stop freeing lebanon at the blue line and one day they dicided to start again, these borders were set before 2000. Ahmad Husseini 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hey, Hezbollah, how about we just say the shebba farms are lebanese territories? that would work!" Dude u gotta be kiddin, Nope thats just how it went but not in english (or using the word dude). Ahmed its called an EXCUSE, then you can use the excuse that the sheba farms is lebanesse(its syrian land, it was when the isrealis captured it and still is) to start a war that kills lots of people. Its called the BIG LIE, just keep repeating it (say on a TV station you control) and people will believe it. This is one of the prime examples of the job of Al-manar in facilitating genocide, just like the lie about jews not going to work on 9/11 or showing the protocols of the elders of zion 11 part TV show. Hypnosadist 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep the insults to yourself, and do spell my name right. Lebanon decided that the Shebaa farms are Lebannese, not you, not me, not al-Manar, nor Hezbollah, the people that live on that land and that own the land are Lebanese and have lived there before Israel was created. Ahmad Husseini 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why we do not believe that this page should be nominated, lots of claims no hard facts. When did al-Manar personnaly decide Shebaa is Lebanese? Do answer. That's why editors like George and Sav and GHcool are actually spending their time to clean this page up. Have you read the intro? It was pretty much repeating everything over and over, with sentance fragments here and there. Ahmad Husseini 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the UN who they think Shebaa belong to Ahmad, whats that oh syria, its one of the reasons that there is only a cease fire between syria and isreal as opposed to peace. Oh and there promoting of the lie about jews not going to work on 9/11 or showing the protocols of the elders of zion 11 part TV show are all sourced. Plenty of hard facts!Hypnosadist 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're so quick with info, why don't you re-write the article in a non-biased way? You can't that's the problem. You have to insert your POV, and you just hate Hezbollah with a passion. Ahmad Husseini 11:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever.Hypnosadist 13:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some parts of the article don't have any problem. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahmad Husseini

The Slogan I added was found in this PDF file: Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar’s Battle to Stay on Air in the file search for the word "slogan", and you'll find it, it's about half way through. Ahmad Husseini 01:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I just made an edit from the lead that referred to sources with no mention of what is asserted here. i suspect there is a whole lot more that is POV and miscited, suggest this page be reread.Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

edit needed

The following sentence is grammatically incorrect and needs correction.

It has an offering a "rich menu" of high production news, commentary, and entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yteitz (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Javed Iqbal and Ashcroft v. Iqbal

I have created redirects from Javaid Iqbal (cable television installer) and Javed Iqbal (satellite television installer). They may or may not be the same person. I started the discussion at Talk:Ashcroft v. Iqbal#2009 convection for selling access to Hezbollah's satellite television channel?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:11, 25 Septembe a

Javed Iqbal

Javed Iqbal that you had described in this page is untrue and is a lie. Here is the correct story which I will confirm anytime any where in he world, his name is Javed Iqbal a.k.a John. I know him since he was 14 years old in the US. When he was a young teenager. He has a very humble background and he had alot of talent, building cars and racing cars, and motorcycles, he is not very religious, because his father died very young when he was 3 years old. He also works for automobile, high proformace technology during the young day's. And he come the motor vehicle inspector for cars and m motor vehicle under 18000 pound. And after that he started to work at communication industries he did not install any communication devices or equipment or satellite dish this is a lie from the federal government, FBI and police and he informer/ CIA. Javed Iqbal is an illigit business man, he has a manufacture license, he is the one to introduced the world digital and analog combined satellite receiver displaying las Vegas SBCA satellite trade show 1995 to 1999. He is a proud manufacture that time. And he also, he did provide satellite technology to companies such as globe cast. Panamsat and Skyangel, he provided them encryption system hardware and software, manufactured by him and his company, he is the owner.He is a very straight forward man and believes on his religion very well, he never drinks or smoke any other drug or substance. And he had travel around he world to do business. And he has got a rodcdting license and his own earth station called HDTV broadcasting. He is the first one to provide in the early 2000 high definition satellite TV signal and transmission. Afounturnaly he had one customer from Libenan his is Al Manar, and their t TV station name is called Al-Manar TV. It is a Libanease TV station. And it has a contract with Mr.Iqbal business to broadcast this station with 2 different satellite for 5 years, which is illegal to business because he is a licence broadcaster is first amendment issue. So at that rime, the Al-Manar TV never listed to ban for broadcast or for to do business. It had happened at 2006. He did not convict NY crime all his life, he respected he US rule and law. And all this alligarioj and conviction was because he had a contract with Al-Manar TV to broadcast them which wasn't ancrimw. The problem had stared when was the day Israel had lost war to their party of God. Now he can't shut the station doen, he is doing a live footage of the world, Israel and Israelian around the world, and especially in the US, to find out if continued of how they bombed their TV station. And a couple of people who spyed for US government happen to be Jews. They work for freedom and democracy. Mr. Duvabich CEO and founder of this Jew group, is associated with a Jewish lobby with a good politition because he is good lier. And monopolized the government officials. He know how to do very professionally. He is the one who called the FBI and US attorney in NY and explained that they had found with their experience who broadcast Al-Manar TV in the us. You think that it is amazing of what they had found, Javed Iqbal and his company broadcast this television 1 year ago.And of is free to wear satellite tv, it doesn't require any special equipment, it is FTA, free to air any body can watch this, it is frree. Close to 35 million people watching it, in the Us, Canada, and South and Central America, and include Mexico.And would it be do secret when they had found something so amazing, it had started January 2005. Israel had lost war in 2006. And the TV station name came a tourist and that is how Israel won it, and the US followed it because the political pressure. And Javed Iqbal had broadcast 10 other Tv station, include arabic, Christian religous, and adult entertainment. But the Jewish called the US government and US attorney that they want this man in prison, supporting the tourist. Mr Javed Iqbal layer, Josh Draytal advices Mr. Iqbal that he can not help me because the government wants him, but Javed didn't convicted any crime in his lifetime. Javed Iqbal wanted to go to trial. And to let the world know that I am a legal broadcaster and how are you charging me, while I am doing business as everyone else, and I am giving everybidy rights to broadcast. This is the first members rights. And the lawyer is d ared of him and doenst know any law, he told him that he is guilty for providing satellite TV, material support under USC 2339B under this you are guilty. He told Javed Iqbal to go to prison for 110 years and shown on the indinent papers which one Mr.Iqbal didn't understand anythin, he had no clue of what he was looking for, and his lawyer told him that the government offered you 5 to 7 years in time if you sign guilty plea agreement. Javed Iqbal still doesn't have a clue of what it means. At the end of the day, December 2008 Judge Bermin accept Mr. Iqbal guilty plea agreement and sended him to federal prison for 6 years. He charged him for supporting and resources to Al Manar tv, supporting tourist. Mr Iqbal has 6 children and a lot of families, he grew up and raised in the city. I knew him ever since he canrti this country, and I am a Jewish and I am the one who pay and signed a quarter million dollars at that time of 2006. This is the warning to every civilized world, please don't destroy people correcter and reputation.the us government and the Israleian people took 10 years of his life and destroyed his ability to function. He is Javed Iqbal and he is back, I saw him two weeks ago and we welcomed hima nd a lot of people had approached him and the New York Times and Al jazzera englidh, they wanted to get an interview, because he didn't want to make any problems for him and his family, very sad. People destroy other people and their family and children just to put the in prison for no reason. This is my believe I think, if you are a Muslim, and if you definitely go to jail for a crime with tourist charges because the law was designed for you after 9/11. Israel and Israelian lo e this world called patriact. More memo will be written very soon, this man isn't a satellite installer, or gives TV access, he is a satellite broadcaster and is well none man, he is the only Muslim man in the US who does satellite broadcasting, even to today.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.191.82 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Manar. 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/20060824174046/http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=5gNjFx to http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=5gNjFx
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gbBkEx6J?url=http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_in_the_par.php to http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_in_the_par.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919231441/http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/media/Documents/IPI_mission_reports/Lebanon_Mission_Report.pdf to http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/media/Documents/IPI_mission_reports/Lebanon_Mission_Report.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886017691&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/504FEF70-AB80-4B8A-86E9-A689EC67A84E.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Al-Manar. 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/20120320094421/http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/11/germany_bans_he.php to http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/11/germany_bans_he.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/722/re9.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015610/http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/?p=4391 to http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/?p=4391
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230228/http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/?p=4377 to http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/?p=4377
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511113811/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291961355&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1153291961355
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://counterpunch.org/lamb01012010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217003233/http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0460.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0460.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217003337/http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/actual/index_ac_lc0418.shtml to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/actual/index_ac_lc0418.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060818062418/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A2751281-EEC6-4B8E-B36A-D9996FCA6B7D.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A2751281-EEC6-4B8E-B36A-D9996FCA6B7D.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014706/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/01/26/03 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/01/26/03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119220955/http://www.almanar.com.lb/main.php to http://www.almanar.com.lb/main.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Manar. 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/20100104222053/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/lamb01012010.html to http://counterpunch.org/lamb01012010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910021822/http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/terror/terror.pdf to http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/terror/terror.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al-Manar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060621044829/http://www.ustreas.gov:80/press/releases/js4134.htm to http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4134.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Manar. 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/20130803131948/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg:80/2004/722/re9.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/722/re9.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://search.crtc.gc.ca/engsimple/query.html?tx0=manar&button1=Search&col=crtc&col=archive&ty0=w&op0=%2B&fl0=&qp=url%3Aeng&charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qt=&qs=&qc=&pw=550px&la=eng&qm=1&st=1&oq=&rq=0&ql=a&si=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2024

Redundant (the same discussion is taking place elsewhere)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why do you keep inserting text that fails verification? I'm referring to this edit. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC) @Bobfrombrockley: I forgot to ping. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC) doesn't fail verification. see thread above BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC) It does. Let's keep the discussion in the above thread where I asked the same question. 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Al-Manar's 9/11 claim

I just want to make sure that we all agree this. the claim was started by the Jerusalem Post, and Al-Manar ran that claim later on, from which they concluded that 9/11 was an Israeli plot. So it really wouldn't be accurate to say that Al-Manar started the claim... in the article 9/11 Conspiracy, the Jerusalem Post is stated as the source who first claimed that 4,000 Jews did not go to their posts in the World Trade Center... Let's get this fact clarified please... Thanks guys... Ahmad Husseini

No we don't agree, the JP said that 4000 jews were missing after the attack. Al-Manar misrepresented this for anti-semitic reasons to 4000 jews missed work BEFORE the attack. Hope that helps you understand what happened. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Arabs are semitic, calling almanar antisemitic is wrong in the first place; it's like saying anti-my-self radiant guy (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, they still deliberatly took part of that Jerusalem Post story, and re-wrote it for propagandistic purposes to turn people against the Jews. ----DanTD (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Sources

Some of the sources are questionable:

Any publication by Avi Jorisch. He is a 'senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies' (see end of article as of 4/20/07 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/jorisch200412220812.asp). 'The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is dedicated to winning the war of ideas through communicating, influencing, empowering and educating.' (from http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about_FDD/about_FDD_show.htm?doc_id=321476&attrib_id=7615) In a list of the Foundations 'successes' (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/FDD_at_a_Glance.pdf) is this:

'FDD is the only organization that created a global campaign—comprising Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and secular organizations—to shut down Hezbollah’s al-Manar terrorist television station. Through numerous media appearances and briefings to more than 650 government officials and private sector executives in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, our Coalition Against Terrorist Media has been instrumental in removing al-Manar from eight satellite providers around the world. As a result, al-Manar can no longer spread hatred, recruit suicide bombers, and support terrorism in North America, Central and South America, Asia, Australia, and most of Africa. We are working to remove al-Manar from the two remaining satellite providers (Egyptian and Saudi) that broadcast the station into Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa'

It is amazingly obvious that this organization, or any of its 'fellows', are not only non-objective, but actively hostile to the topic of this Wikipedia entry. Any part of this entry using sources quoted from any affiliate of the FDD should be deleted. This includes Avi Jorisch's book 'Beacon of Hatred', and any of his writings. Sources include 3, 15-18, and 26-34. Another strike against this book as non-objective reference is the fact that it is published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which itself was founded by a former research director for AIPAC.

Source number 32 includes a reference to a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies. This center

...is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community...

(http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/content/T1.asp?Sid=18&pid=121) Any source taken from the Center should obviously be deleted.

Also, source number 4 is extemely dubious. Al-Manar maintains a current web site, which shows no signs of the inflamatory language quoted in #4. If this was a statement actually from Al-Manar, it should be properly attributed from a reputable source.

Jeffrey Goldberg, author of #5, is in fact Jewish, and served in the IDF. While it would be wrong to assume that no Jew could be objective, or a person who served in the IDF, he has a poor history of accurate reporting, particularly in regards to the Middle East.

I must say that this is really something. If the authors of this article must write propaganda, there are appropriate places to do so. Providing a biased, one-sided hack job as fact is churlish and of questionable taste. It shows a complete, naked lack of respect for the reader. I will wait to make changes, if anyone wants to respond.

ThurstonZ 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, there are editors like me and Sav who tilt the scale just enough to make it neutral. We are also working on this page, as you can read above, we wouldn't pass this article for GA, so, please if you want to edit this page, discuss it first, tell us what you are changing, because a lot of the stuff you might find biased, has probably already been talked about. Ahmad Husseini 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry friend, I do believe that Jefferey Goldberg is an ok source, if we do not use partisan sources half of the articles on Wikipedia would have to get deleted, and that line is in fact true, al-Manar does not aim to be neutral, I know that for a fact, being a life long viewer of al-Manar, they say they want to be biased, not in a completely negative way, but in a way that shows off more to the side of the West's "enemy" (ie, Hezbollah, Palestinian cause, and the Iraqi war). Being 'fair' gives both sides a chance to speak, al-Manar believes that the one side of the argument gets to hold the mic for a while longer, and gets to open up his accusations freely, that is why al-Manar aims to be biased, they only give the mic to the one who sat by recieving accusations from the other side, and not given a chance by the "free" media to say what he has to say. Also, please explain your point about al-Manar web site. Ahmad Husseini 21:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that states that POV sources can't be used. It's the article that has to be NPOV not the sources it cites. I mean, the Wikipedia articles on fascism all cite sources written by authors opposed to fascism, that does not necessarily make them POV. And Avi Jorisch's work just happens to be the only English-language sources on al-Manar known to me.--Carabinieri 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this aimed at me? I never said that, I just said it is partisan, but it outlines main points that we can use, it's not like al-manar denies to be biased, I'm too busy btw to fish through official arabic statements. Ahmad Husseini 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FDD

Did you read what the FDD said was a success? 'to shut down Hezbollah’s al-Manar terrorist television station'? Using any connection to the FDD as a source is obviously biased. If you would keep 'Beacon of Hatred' et.al. as sources of information about Al-Manar, why not use Mein Kampf as a source of factual information about Judaism? The first paragraph of the entry is fact mixed with anti-Al-Manar propaganda from spurious sources. And it gets worse from there.

Your assertion that al-Manar aims to be biased in its reporting is unsubstantiated. That link on archive.com, even under cursory scrutiny, is weak in comparison to Al-Manar's real webpage. Your opinions about Al-Manar have no relevance here. Perhaps you can voice your opinions on a personal web page, blog, forum, etc. Wikipedia was not invented so you could spread your personal views.

Carabinieri, fascism and a television station are two very different things. Again, Avi Jorisch is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies. The FDD blatently states in the .pdf linked to above, that they are actively attempting to shut down all access to Al-Manar. They state :

FDD is the only organization that created a global campaign...to shut down Hezbollah’s al-Manar terrorist television station.

It is clear that any literature released by anyone associated with the FDD will be biased(at the least) or not factual.

ThurstonZ 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WO ok buddy, why would I be trash talking al-Manar? If I have been a Lebanese-born-Shia born into a Hezb family, one of the most elite families in Lebanon when it comes to being a Hezb supporter? and oppose it? I said it is considered good for them to be slanted. They do see things as good vs. evil, which in the M.E. is considered good! THAT's what I said. Ahmad Husseini 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As you probably have not read before, This article was not considered GA material, and we are working on it, but we are not the nerdy-type, sitting in our parent's basement editing Wikipedia all day, WE HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO. Give us time and we will address everything. Ahmad Husseini 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How much time do you need? Simple googling revealed the bias I pointed out. I can clean up this entry. I don't really care about al-Manar, the obvious propaganda just sickens me. God forbid there should be a source of information that Israel resents.

ThurstonZ 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Go nuts man, we are slowly editinf this page, but if you feel you can contribute, be bold. Ahmad Husseini 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Newsrelease???

Could someone provide some supporting or opposing arguements for this tag. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An article that accuses Al-Manar of anti-Semitism, terrorism and illegal activities, and that quotes from critics, does not sound like a press release. The tag should be removed. Nbauman (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)