Talk:Ya Libnan

Pro-Syrian and Pro-Iranian

the latest change is very POV....to assert that ya libnan's critics are pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian is your point of view.....the original passage does not employ POV language by calling people who support ya libnan's biased reportings as "Pro-Zionist and Pro-American". The older passage states that "ya libnan" is biased...and Ya libnan is most definitely biased. A child could figure that out. I have written to ya libnan about their allegations and they have not responded to me, a definite indication that their un-named sources are made up to prove their arguments. If you maintain that ya libnan does indeed cite their sources...Then please tell me who is the so-called "reliable" source behind the allegation that Wiam Wahab is on Iranian payroll...please provide us with the name of that source...

Response to Vandalism

The user who continues to vandalize this wiki needs to read the summary below every article published on Ya Libnan, which clearly states the source of the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: response to vandalism

the entry you keep vandalizing is 100% NPOV and backed up by evidence with the cited article. If you keep vandalizing this entry 192.35.35.34 (from Washington DC) , I will report it to the responsible party at wikipedia. Like I said this entry is backed up by evidence..You could challenge or debate this particular entry over here in the discussion page, but I will not give in to vandalism by an obviously partisan individual who wants to present his biases as fact. 192.35.35.34 you obviously don't use wikipedia enough, because if you look at the "criticism" sections on a lot of articles in wikipedia, you will notice that critics are not called names or other partisan labels by wikipedia contributors. I have presonally read more than 100 articles on ya libnan over a 6 month stretch...and I can tell you that EVERY article is critical of Syria.. Every article presents unsubstantiated allegations....Ya libnan is propoganda...simple as that.....till this day there is not one stitch of evidence that implicates Syria or Iran in any of the political killings.....Ya libnan can SPECULATE that syria or iran is behind the political murders, but they don't do that!!!they pass off their speculations as fact....don't be bitter, learn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.188.30 (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling and vandalism is illegal on Wikipedia

To the anonymous user from 70.80.188.30, your feeble attempts to propagate lies wastes everyone's time. Ya Libnan clearly prints its sources below each and every article. If people are interviewed anonymously, we obviously will not reveal who they are, as is the case with any media organization. You are clearly bitter because people who you are loyal to are being brought into question. Lebanon is a free country, with freedom of expression, something Syria could certainly benefit from as well. Perhaps this concept is new to you, but vandalism is not the solution. Hopefully one day you too will experience the wonders of free press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV vandalism with NO evidence

I have been able to prove that Ya Libnan does not cite its sources, you have not been able to do that. Wikipedia is a place WHERE political biases HAVE TO be put aside. Every article in Ya LIbnan presents unsubstantiated information as fact. Now, major news organizations DO NOT present unsubstantiated information as fact. Presenting black propaganda in such an amateur way, like ya libnan does, is not in any way a measure of "free press". It is more like the abuse and exploitation of free press to present unproven allegations in a manner that does not hold with credible journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.188.30 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You two need to calm down. Both of you have violated the three revert rule by reverting the edits of another editor multiple times. This is not clear and obvious vandalism; that would be something like "Hi, George Bush is gay" in an article. Both of you need to put your political bias aside. If there are reliable sources that give criticism of the subject of this article, then it is perfectly fine to include that material. Remember that we are striving to maintain a neutral point of view. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, until there is reputable evidence that justifies the daily politically motivated, nonconstructive edits, they should be immediately stopped. The users of this wiki are paying the price for the stubborn and childish changes made on a daily basis. 68.49.6.221 ^Talk 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]