This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Lebanon War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There's like, 20 discussions about the main picture... and we cannot achieve a resolution. Therefore, I propose we have a consensus about whether or not we should use THE MAP as the main picture, knowing it represents well and it's not shocking. It's look very lame to see the image change every 10 minutes. Wikipedia IS NOT a slide show! --Deenoe17:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Using A Map (State reasons below and please sign)
Support map as per above Perhaps after the war/conflict/whatever is over we can use a photo. Even a split photo as the one up currently is not so great. It shows an Israeli tank/artillery thing firing and on the other side a scene of beruit destruction. It sort of looks like a comic strip, a progression from left to right. So in a way it's worse than before.--Paraphelion18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The map seems like the only free-license image we're liable to agree on at this point ... besides, no single photograph can show the whole scope of a conflict quite like a map can. --Cyde↔Weys19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support A Map is instructive and NPOV, and i think the map was my idea a few days ago to stop days of POV arguments!Hypnosadist19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support What is a war or armed conflict without a map with arrows showing troop movements and lines to show defensive positions. Makes it more like a football game. Another good one would be dots to show bombing targets and rocket impacts. Many interested readers do not have the geography of the region memorized.Edison00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Support For lack of another good image, a map is the best choice (or at least the least NPOV). I don't love the idea, but this type of warfare will make it hard to capture two images which are not POV-skewed. If we put an image of southern beirut, do we put 1000 images of katyusha explosions as well? (That question is rhetorical, obviously the answer is no.) Maybe a map dressed up with markings where there are areas struck during the warfare.Idangazit05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. Israeli-Palestinian conflict uses a map, as does Arab-Israeli conflict. This is the best way to settle the bloodied-bombing-victim POV image revert war, at least until the conflict is resolved. Not that that looks like being any time soon as regards any aspect of the ongoing Arab-Israeli hostility. Until consensus hits on this issue my policy will be to revert to the M109 image, since visually that can be interpreted as either "bastards, how dare they use their vastly superior military technology to attack innocent Lebanese" or "yay for heavily armed Jews." Khaighle22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Using A Map (State reasons below and please sign)
Oppose A map is a sterile, facile image that does not capture the essence of the conflict. I suggest using two side-by-side images illustrating the devastation caused by Hezbollah rockets in Israel and the devastation caused by Israel bombing in south Beirut. —AdamKesher19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It could be done. If the concensus is opposed to the use of a map, I just want someone to send me free of use pictures :p --Deenoe19:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment : I clearly said : The pictures used right now (on the composite image) are NOT the best to use. IF someone has uploaded on Wikipedia two pictures that are legally usable, one of Hezbollah agressions and one of the Israeli agressions, I will with PLEASURE redo the image. Especially that apparently there is a copyright violation right now. If someone has pictures, please tell me on my User talk page. --Deenoe18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It couldn't be done -- implicitly, there is no one image in israel which displays damage like southern beirut, however in aggregate the (now 1000's of) katyusha missiles are shutting life down for all of northern israel -- and that is impossible to take one picture of, since the damage and effects are so spread out. It's not that I don't acknowledge the devastation in southern beirut, nor do I oppose displaying such an image in the appropriate section in the article (say, "damages in lebanon"), but making it the top image without something to balance it out is simply NPOV. Idangazit05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone says :"The split picture implicates that the damage is the same" and now someone says it's different... Can we all be on the same opinion for ONCE? --Deenoe19:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. A war or a violent conflict is simply horror: people die, people get mutulated, children lose their parents, etc. A map makes the conflict more distant and abstract. I don't care whether Israeli and/or Lebanese casualties are shown, but I do think this article should show the casualties in the main picture. The real conflict is not shown a map, but in depictions of human suffering. Sijo Ripa20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. This has been discussed before, the map adds little. Maps are used when there are no other options. Maps are only useful when there are vast movements of troops outlined, such as Operation Barbarossa. In the case of this, all the map shows is roughly where fighting is taking place. This can be done just as easilly in the infobox section for where the fighting is occuring. An image of the war is a better option. ~Rangeley (talk)20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose WP practice has been to show a photograph associated with the war/conflict/battle. Why should it matter whether it is Lebanon or Israel? Perhaps a montage, a la World War II might be in order if people have difficulty depicting suffering/agression on one side as opposed to the other. Fishhead6421:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And also, the question "what is happening?" comes before "Where is it happening?", and should be illustrated first. --Battra01:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I find maps boring, though useful in the body of the article. They don't give a sense of the conflict. --Iorek8510:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose (changed my vote again, sorry :p), The current picture is good. It is also possible to have two pictures. ArmanJan
Oppose The main picture should be made up of two real-life picture. Each picture should be the damage each side experienced.--Patchouli04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It has already been done (by me) but some people think that because Beirut has been more attacked than Haifa, the composite picture is misleading. --Deenoe19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If someone stills wants a Composite Image as the main picture, can I have an image of Hezbollah attacking picture or an Israeli destruction, already uploaded Wikipedia and free to use, to complete the composite picture. Since the picture that was on before was deleted for Copyright problems. --Deenoe19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the map has been refused, does someone have an image of Hezbollah agressions for the composite image. --Deenoe21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe somebody uploaded a public domain image of a half-destroyed house in Haifa yesterday, but it was removed... Maybe I can go hunting for it in the history. --AceMyth14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a photo of destruction in Lebonon, there is a photo of graves in Lebanon, there is a photo of a Lebanese protest. The same things are happening on the other side yet no photo. this is not NPOV. Xtra01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's why I posted I dont know how many times that : if someone has a picture of a Hezbollah attack picture, I would make a composite picture has a main picture, which would bring somewhat a NPOV. --Deenoe01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, you mean an Israeli picture? The article now only has pictures of Lebanese casualties, Lebanese protests, etc. There's nothing showing the Israeli side; there's been Israeli casualties too. --Cyde↔Weys01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody replaced the "Southern Beirut in ruins" picture with a public domain "Destroyed building in Haifa" picture, which unfortunately isn't that much NPoV either. Maybe somebody could take these two pictures and make some new split-in-half image out of them? --AceMyth03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest using the NPOV map from earlier and incorporating the Haifa and Southern Beriut images into the appropriate sections. More NPOV that way since the first image doesn't convey a POV, but the images of the human cost remain intact. OldSkoolGeek03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The photos of the damage are the best, IMO, but they have no proper copyright status. Thats the main issue before we make splitscreens, which I think would be the best solution. (Still, to be really fair, you'd have to make it 10% Israel, and 90% Beirut, since thats the ratio of casualties).--Iorek8506:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say "cool war machine"? It doesn't. You ascribe that particular value to it; others might see it as a horrible tool of destruction. The picture is in no way POV. It's a tank, being used in the conflict. Theres no halo around it, nor caption with positive connotations. As I've said, there could be better pictures. But until someone can find free use pics of the destruction, lets leave this one in.--Iorek8507:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
An anon user pulled the main image which I consider bad form while a concensus is being sought. I restored the main image Robert Brockway16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Three options actually. I suggested above using the NPOV map of the conflict area from earlier and incorporating the Haifa and Southern Beriut images into the appropriate sections.
Like I said millions of times : I will be make a composite image showing BOTH SIDES if someone gives me the link of 2 pictures, uploaded on Wikipedia and free of use. --Deenoe13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
More Main Picture
The caption for the picture in the infobox seems a bit informal ('pretty cool war machine'???). Any suggestions for changing it? Tangerine 0309:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the picture that represents both sides of the conflict and suffering of civilians in the region. the_reader1 1:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You are in blatant violation, you just added "PD-self" tag to two copyrighted (one which is in violation) images. ArmanJan20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See my edit summaries on the matter (if you can find them in the blizzard of updates, that is); even if the Haifa picture passes copyright tests, it still shouldn't be included there. This false NPOV by means of contrived equivalence. There is simply no equivalence between the destruction wrought on those two cities (Haifa and Beirut), and it shouldn't be so implied by the side-by-side pictures.
You're right, there is no equivalence; Haifa is being randomly targeted and buildings in Beirut are being specifically targetted. --Cyde↔Weys20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
From where did you get that? Even the UN envoy agrees that the destruction in Beirut is not tagreted bombing. Read the sources in the article.--Cerejota08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright, sorry. Hope someone finds a fair use/public domain image of Haifa destruction soon, or we will continue to get people who use copyrighted images and/or vandalism. Hello3202020:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Either you didn't get what I said, or you didn't express yourself clearly; if you do find a copyright-usable Haifa picture, it still shouldn't go at the top side-by-side with a picture of Beirut. The clear implication of such a juxtaposition is that the destruction of the two sides is equivalent, an appearance that isn't changed by whatever comments you write here. +ILike2BeAnonymous20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if destruction is not equivalent, casulties and destructions happended on both sides. All throught the articles, the pictures on the conflict are on Lebanon casulties or destruction. I think we should show clearly both sides clearly from the beginning of the article. Plus in the infobox it clearly says the number of casulties, which demonstratres Beirut has been more affected than Israel. --Deenoe20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone agreed for a split picture. The main picture was really good, since it was NPOV. For ILike2BeAnonymous, Beirut was more destructed than Haifa in the pictures. Don't tell me we're going to have a consensus again. If someone has a Haifa destruction picture, free of use, contact thru User Page. --Deenoe20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The anti-Israeli bias is obvious. It is indeed true that there is no equivalence between Israeli bombardment of Hezbollah positions in civilian neighbourhoods and Hezbollah's deliberate targeting of civilians in Israel.
The main picture should represent NPOV and should not be on-sided propaganda, please remove picture of collateral damage in Beirut and replace it with SPLIT picture that depicts suffering of both sides in this conflict. Anything less will be discrimination.the_reader1 1:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Question : Should we ask for a consensus? Or can we get to a commune decision like grown up adults? Even if the types of destruction are different (target vs. random). I think that not showing both sides in the main picture is serious violation of NPOV. --Deenoe20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it just needs people to think about what they're doing. All the arguments given here in favor of the "split-screen" pictures are sophomoric: correct in a narrowly technical way, but utterly wrong in the appearance they give. Putting those two pictures side by side is as good as a statement in the text saying that the destruction of these two cities is equivalent, something that practically nobody (except for a few very obvious pro-Israeli POV pushers here) accepts.
By the way, just to make it clear, I'm not against using that picture (or other pictures) showing the destruction in Haifa, just not at the top of the article.
I think we should have a vote cause we are very divided on this and it's hard to keep track. --Deenoe20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so to recap:
We can't use a map, because that doesn't convey the horrors of the conflict.
We can't use a picture of the deaths and ruined buildings in Haifa because that implies the non-importance of similar going-ons in Beirut.
We can't use a picture of the deaths and ruined buildings in Beirut because that implies the non-importance of similar going-ons in Haifa.
We can't use a split picture, because that would apparently imply that the going-ons in Beirut and Haifa are not merely similar but absolutely identical in nature and magnitude.
We can't use no picture at all, because that would mean a less shiny article.
Therefore I suggest a picture of a very big explosion, captioned "an explosion". Our dedicated readers/editors would be free to decide the exact details of this explosion (such as cause, location, civilians killed, disgusting agendas involved, etc.) for themselves as they see fit.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. That was very funny and a good leason. The only thing I think is that the Split picture is the best compromise. Like I said, maybe we absolutly need a consensus, who knows. --Deenoe21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, (1) (map) and (5) (no picture) are acceptable alternatives; this is (supposedly) an encyclopedia article, not a commercial eyeball-catching site. And I appreciate your cynicism; but (4) is unacceptable, for reasons I've already given. If a picture of Haifa is used, it should placed anywhere (well, not just anywhere, hopefully in an appropriate place) except right at the top.
Just to head it off, another sophomoric response to this I've heard is the argument that "it's only a picture", that there's countervailing text to explain the situation. First of all, if this is true, that's an argument for (5)—no picture. And it's an absurd argument in any case; pictures are signifiers of meaning, which is why people use them, from informative articles to propaganda pieces. It's disingenuous to place pictures of Haifa & Beirut side by side, then to let the text below them explain that no, the destruction of these two places really isn't equivalent. The reader's response to that will either be one of perplexity—if they're saying the destruction isn't equivalent, why do those two pictures imply that it is?—or just an information disconnect altogether.
Thank you for warping what I said. :\ I did not said it was just a picture, I said the text under the picture says clearly the number of casualties, which demonstratres clearly that Beirut is more affected. The map has been rejected by two consensus, so that's not possible. (2) and (3) is against NPOV. (4) is not unacceptable. It shows clearly the two sides of the conflict right there in the main picture. --Deenoe22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I know a veiled instance of argumentum ad hominem when I see one, and also I think we should be concentrating on the subject at hand instead of establishing the intellectual and general inferiority of each other.
I'm going to give your paper an "A" for correctly identifying the logical construct (or fallacy) at play here. But you flunk the test on whether 20-somethings are fit to render opinions on world conflicts in an "encyclopedia". But that's another rant for another day. Back to our regularly scheduled sniping. Have a nice day. +ILike2BeAnonymous22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that down there you support having no main picture at all and I think that's a good solution, so for the time being I opt out of our "regularly scheduled sniping", as you put it. I still think, though, that even if an editor happens to truly, objectively be better qualified to make judgment on an issue than another they should at least have the minimal courtesy to formulate their well-informed arguments explicitly instead of resorting to Ad Hominem. --AceMyth23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at what Cyde said above. There are numerous ways of looking at side by side pictures, including "Oh my, a knick on Haifa and Beirut is flattened." As long as the caption makes clear what is going on, then the pic is not pushing a specific agenda. Alternatively, an Israeli artillery battery of Hezbollah rocket launcher or F-16s or even the burned-out Humvees that started this are all equally NPOV. They can all be looked at in multiple contexts depending on the reader's POV. None of these are actually pushing a POV, especially when all the other possibilities pepper the body of the article. Cheers, TewfikTalk22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, my vote (I heard there was gonna be a vote on this, right?) is for no picture. Take away the ball so it can't be squabbled over. +ILike2BeAnonymous22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea about the exploion, AceMyth! I would also like to suggest my proposal - a composite image with 16 different images, so that all aspects of the situation can be shown!
File:54454.jpgBut seriously, this seems to be the absolutely most important thing to people - one gazillion of edits to the image, and one umptillion of sections in this talk page! Maybe we could go back to the old howitzer, which I don't think was that controversial (you can choose if you want to think that it is cool or that it is mean.)--Battra22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
On one side you may add the israeli tank firing, and on the other side Beirut. Can we agree on that? ArmanJan22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Althought this seems like a good idea, it was done and rejected because it was two Israeli agressions. --Deenoe23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, you're just not getting it.
The discussion seems to consider the pictures to be some kind of decoration to the article; that alone is a good argument for their removal. Consider this: pictures are signifiers of meaning. Nothing that deep there, no need to get out your textbook on deconstruction: it just means that pictures, well, evoke reactions in viewers. So if this article is going to have pictures, especially ones at the very top of the article, it would behoove those who put them there to think about what the picture are saying. If they're not saying anything, as some believe, then why have them there? And if they say something, and what they say is in contradiction to what is said elsewhere, even directly underneath them, well, then, we have a problem, folks. +ILike2BeAnonymous22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well then why is the split picture not acceptable!!!..
I'll let you answer that. Tell us, what do you think those two pictures say? What do you think they mean to someone viewing them? +ILike2BeAnonymous23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm done with it, I am not going to edit on this article anymore, because everytime we edit, it's being reverted because someone is not happy. Its just too busy. Please, Protect it. --Deenoe23:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I know! Lets have a silouhette of a human head for every person killed in the war. Of course, the vast majority of them would be Lebanese civilians, and it would double the size of the article, but at least it would be fair! (Oh damn, but that doesn't show the suffering of the animals involved, and promotes the POV that humans are more important than animals.) Or, we can just (for now) leave the NPOV, allowed picture of the tank until someone can find some images of the destruction that we can use. Some people are taking NPOV far too seriously. --Iorek8500:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You can't just use Beirut as the main picture. What about the thousands of missiles fired into northern Israel. What about all the damages in Haifa and other towns? All the innocent civilians killed and injured? Are you telling me these people aren't important too? And keep in mind Hezbollah initiated this conflict! If they hadn't started it, there would be no Israeli operation. Please keep the facts straight. --68.1.182.21502:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K, lets look at the facts, shall we? According to the figures on the page there are;
Israeli; 17 Civilians, 20 soldiers killed.
Lebanese; 375 Civilians, 22 soldiers.
Hezbollah; 8-100 killed (lets say 50).
77.48% of the deaths in this conflict have been Lebanese civilians. 10.33% have been Hezbollah. 4.55% have been Lebanese soldiers, 4.13% Israeli soldiers, and 3.51% have been Israeli civilians. 92.35% of the casualties have been Lebanese (if you count Hezbollah). Just out of interest, Israel has killed 7 times as many civilians as it has Hezbollah fighters (83.89%) - even by their figures, its still 3 times. Hezbollah, the terrorist organisation, has actually killed more soldiers than civilians. (54.05%)
So there are the facts. The image itself is not POV. The damage caused is mostly in Lebanon, and the people dying are overwhelmingly Lebanese. A 50/50 split image would actually be less accurate.
I'm getting off the point, though. The reason we have this image and not one of Haifa is because we don't have any fair use or uncopyrighted images for us to use in the article. If you find some, please, by all means, add it to the article. If you find a good one, we can do a split screen of the damage in both countries. But until then, there is no need to remove the image. I don't see why it can't stay until we find a better one. An image is better than no image at all. --Iorek8503:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the image is misleading and it is completely biased. This is an encylcopedia - it has to be FAIR. So let's change the setting a little bit. If we had no photos of the twin towers collapsing on 9/11, should we put a picture up of the US in Afghanistan. To someone who was not fully aware about the conflict, they would assume that the conflict is about the Americans attacking Afghanistan. The pictures need to be as neutral and FAIR as possible. Because the average Joe does not read everything. And don't hold a double standard against Israel. --68.1.182.21503:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it misleading? Are you saying the Israelis aren't bombing Beirut? As I've explained above, and countless times, it isn't misleading. It shows actual damage in the area where the vast majority of the action is taking place. I think you are confusing 'fair' with '50:50 either side'. To take your example, you would have to devote half the article on 9/11 to the deaths of the terrorists, rather than the 3000 or so innocent people who died. I'm not saying Hezbollah aren't bombing Haifa - they are, and they are killing innocent Israelis, too. But what I am saying is that;
The image is not misleading. At worst, it negates to show 23.5% of the deaths in the conflict, and shows 3.5% too much Lebanon.
The image is the best we have until someone can upload a fair use picture of the damage in Israel.
Because the image is not misleading, there is no reason to remove it while we wait for said picture.
I'll also warn you you are getting rather close to violating the WP:3RR guideline. I'm over this conflict - I'm not going to restore the image - what we're arguing over hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. Still, I'd rather the image was there. --Iorek8503:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Now we have an image of the IDF Howitzer. Can someone explain to me, why is the image more relevant than the destruction of Beirut?
I think the image there, as I have said before, should be dynamic, newsworthy, and relevant.
I care little about NPOV concerns in that particular image because its an infobox. You can see in the archives this has always been my position, and why I defended the inclusion of the Howitzer over the boring 3 sailors picture. Now, we have a new picture (beirut destruction) that is more dynamic, newsworthy, and relvant than the Howitzer, yet it was replaced with it. I cannot phantom why this was done.
I think that due to the extreme controversy this has generated, we should put up a map of the conflict area. I know a map is boring, but I dont think we can find a picture that will keep everyone happy.
Those who continue to object the map solution need to realize its the only way for now... unless we want to see this edit war continue as it will...
I'm completely for the Beirut photo, but it's included later in the article, so I don't think it matters much. I'm over the whole debate, but you have my support. The tank is almost as good. --Iorek8513:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
People need to stop pretending the map is a solve all. If it werent rejected multiple times and were a popular idea, it would be a solve all, but it isnt. If you are so concerned about making everyone happy you would not keep bringing it up. We cannot hope to please everyone, but we can hope to put the best available image up there. Destruction, artillery being fired, katyushs being fired - these are the things that are needed. ~Rangeley (talk)15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So the alternative is no picture? I mean, I cannot in any concience support that the image be an israeli propganda picture, when there is real destruction going on. I mean, freaking Haifa got bombed, why not a picture of the destruction there? I am sorry, but we either do an ugly ass split, put a map or no picture. There is no freakign way the box will be be considered NPOV enought not to be a slideshow. Come on people, stop trying to shoot alternatives down and come up with something. Unless, of course, you enjoy the slideshow.--Cerejota22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The alternative is a good picture. Battle of France has a good picture. Iraq War has a good picture. Vietnam War has a good picture. Battle of Berlin has a good picture. In some cases the pictures are indeed propaganda, such as the Battle of France, or Battle of Berlin. In some cases it shows actual fighting, such as the Vietnam War. In some cases it shows soldiers waiting for a mission, like the Iraq War. I do not understand what you are objecting to, I have consistently asked for the best photo available to be used. You seem to be, and I could be wrong, in opposition to anything except something that shows the destruction this conflict is causing. I can understand this view, but I would say that all wars are destructive, and there have indeed been some worse than this, but the photo used in the infobox does not necessarilly show this destruction, and does not have to be. It can be, sure, but I think that to get into the mindset that any image that does not do so would keep some very good images from being used. Such as some of those I have listed. Images of artillery firing show the most fired weapon in this conflict, and as time passes we get more and more variety, such as this [3]. Katyusha rockets being fired would be great if someone could find one. These would be my top choices, but I am open to images of destruction if one is of high quality and free/fair use qualifying. Once we have an image of high quality, we will make sure it stays up there by replacing it when it is removed or replaced with an image that is not as good. Just the same as a paragraph that someone keeps changing the wording to - you dont delete it entirely when its messed up, you fix it. When we find a good image, we put it up, and keep it up. Be bold. ~Rangeley (talk)02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have pictures of all the types of missiles Hezbollah has, and has used against them. I can upload them, but where do you want them posted? ArmanJan17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say just upload them and point to them here in the discussion for now. Then editors can put them in, or you can. (Bjorn Tipling17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I wouldn't use them as main picture because the pictures were not taken during the current war. They're from parades and such, either in Lebanon or in Iran. What's wrong with the current picture used (Beirut)? ArmanJan19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so put the pictures somewhere in the article. Beirut cannot be the main picture because it is biased and misportrays events. It makes it appear that Israel planned this attack in the first place. The main picture should show Hezbollah firing missiles because after all Hezbollah started this conflict. If Hezbollah hadn't started it, Israel would NOT have to launch this operation. --68.1.182.21502:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If we can have an "artistic representation" of Nasrallah instead of an actual picture, can we have something like that for Defense Minister Peretz as well? I suggest a modified MSN messenger smilie with a moustache pasted on. --AceMyth14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, but this has been discussed before.
The reason is that a portrait type picture of Nasrallah, at least one that can be used under fair-use or is in the public domain, is not forthcoming. I think in the interest of balance we can continue to use it. Nevertheless, a realist artistic presentation is considered a valid form, if rarely used in the Western media, in news reporting. Three examples of well-known and respected journals in the USA that use realist art renderings as part of news are the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Lastly, photographs are also a form of artistic expression, more so publicity portraits, and by using an officially produced and officially distrubuted picture of Israeli commanders or leaders, we balance any license that artists might take.
I honestly think this is a non-issue, as long as both sides get represented, and besides some discussion (and in some cases, vandalism) and the occasional switching of who represents the Israelis, this has been probably the most stable part of the page.
Do we really need to show these images? I can see images that are aired on Israeli TV or other TV advertisements may show some relevance to this, but a blog is far from the consensus of a country. Retropunk03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We need a picture (map) of the conflict area
Regardless of whether or not the map should be the main image, it needs to be incorporated somewhere into the article for informational purposes. If Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia, it would be remiss if it didn't show readers where precisely the conflict area is. OldSkoolGeek17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know that, and I even used that as an argument, but they said that because of Israeli Blockade and Highway Struck its not fair. --Deenoe20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Is Lebmap02.jpg public domain? I'm willing to Photoshop "Israeli Blockade" and "Highway Struck" off of it. (A random mention of a "Highway Struck" isn't useful and "Israeli Blockade" isn't necessary because, unless there has been continuing ship-to-ship combat, the coast isn't an active combat zone.) OldSkoolGeek22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's not take off Israeli Blockade cause it has been a very important factor in evacuation of foreign citizens. (Israel was imposing strict schedules and restrictions to countries trying to evacuate their citizens.) But yes Lebmap02.jpg is PD. --Deenoe22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Come on Deenoe: I think we can compromise on that one by extending the "Areas of Operation" label all the way to the sea, as I have previously suggested when someone objected that the map showed israeli attacks but not hezbollah attacks. Since we all can at least agree on the "Area of Operations" (ie coast of lebanon, major coastal cities in Lebanon, Israel north of Haifa and Nazareth, Lebanon south of Litani, Sheeb'a Farms etc), I think one big label curving in from the coast inland might cover it...--Cerejota22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
THE PICTURE COPYRIGHT SITUATION
look at this picture.[4]
This picture is got from NYtimes [5] and the copyright of what is pulished in this site shows anybody can't distribute it.[6]:
Copyright Notice:
All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only. --212.6.32.313:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And it can't be "fair use" because the content of the article is against the meanin that this picture shows."Israel Finding a Difficult Foe in Hezbollah ."[7]--212.6.32.313:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not a neutral photo. Can we please agree on a neutral Photo? Why not just have the old map back with the lines on confruntation on it? Ryanuk13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The image is owned by Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters, NYT licensed it for their article. The fair use justification is inadequate as the commercial value of this image is diminished by its prominent placement in Wikipedia. It is a neutral photo, however, what 212.6.32.3 refers to is NYT's reporting. ˉˉanetode╦╩14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please create a variation on this map? The current mao does not qualify for Fair Use. Cheers, TewfikTalk06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to be able to use it because it's not NPOV. There's just enough Lebanon pictures right now. --Deenoe14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is because the bulk of the combat is happening in Lebanon?
NPOV is clear in proportionality: one must not hide facts simple because the other side of the POV wouldn't be equally represented. The clear disproportionate nature of the conflict (in deaths and destruction) means that necesarily, for NPOV reasons, we must show more of Lebanon. Which of course doesn't mean we must not show the damage in Israel caused by Hezbollah, which is an unquestionable fact. This does not preclude balance, but enchances it: balance can never get in the middle of the facts (not the same as truth, or rather, truth as defined by wikipedia is facts) being represented.--Cerejota02:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Originally the picture had "Occupied Palestine" where Israel should be. But a new picture was uploaded in its place earlier today which makes it more NPOV due to an edit of the country name (Israel instead of "Occupied Palestine") (PatDonovan13021:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC))
It's not NPOV because it showed only Israel hits, and people complaiend about that on a previous map. And almost all pictures in the article are taken in Lebanon, so the map showing only Israel hits would contribute to the POV. --Deenoe22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As to the point by Pat, yes that would be a violation of NPOV. As to the second point, no. Just because it shows only where Israel has attacked does not make it a violation of NPOV. ~Rangeley (talk)23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
By this logic we should then remove the map showing where Hezbollah has hit. You see, NPOV doesn't only mean a single map must show both sides, it can also mean it means we could have accurate, similary prominent maps showing were either side hit the other.
I think that if we continue this selective tagretting of NPOV we will end up with a useless article. NPOV does require that uncontested facts be made known: it is an un contested fact that Hezbollah has atatcked Israel and that Israel has attacked lebanon, having both maps illustrates this, and helps article quality while conserving NPOV.--Cerejota02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The neutrality has to be questioned due to the source of the map... Samidoun is a Lebanese NGO. I added a citation to the map to list them as the source, as I think this is only reasonable. I removed my original comments on neutrality, instead only pointing the reader to the Samidoun website. FYI: They express solidarity with both the Palestinian cause and with Hezbollah. User:St judas 11:41AM, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It is believed that the use of this copyrighted image the Sanayeh Relief Center in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict constitutes Fair use because:
It illustrates the object in question (areas targeted in Lebanon by Israel in the Israel-Lebanon conflict)
No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
It only is used on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation
A free equivalent could be created, this it is by definition not free use - the tagging was in error. We made excellent maps before, I'm sure we can do it again. TewfikTalk
I've produced this map of South Lebanon, adapted from UN sources. Please feel free to adapt it for this and related articles. I suggest that it would be best used to illustrate Israeli ground actions, particularly if the apparently forthcoming offensive happens. Note that the caption box is blank - this is deliberate, as it will allow some flexibility for other (non-English) wikis to use the same image for their own purposes. It'll need to be filled in with whatever the subject of the map will be. -- ChrisO00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If we do use this, then someone should add Naqoura (village on western edge of border) and the Israeli-Syrian disengagement zones, as well as reference to Israel's control of the Golan Heights. Cheers, TewfikTalk00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The new infobox picture
Can we just leave it as it was? The new picture (Child male victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg) will just cause the same controversy we had last time. No one wants to see such graphic images at the top of the article, and the picture before was, I think, the least argued/removed and most stable picture we've had in the entire article. I'll remove it only once since I'm not going to get into another picture war. --Iorek8502:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The image of the tank firing shells is terrible because: (1) it does not represent what is really going on in the conflict; (2) it is semi-anonymous; (3) it is boring. We need a more representative image/s of the conflict. No one wants an edit war, but this consensus appears to be formed not by agreement but by fatigue. I hope editors be bold and propose images for the main infobox. AdamKesher02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but so far, its the best comprimise we have. I liked the damage in Beirut, personally. But then people bitched about it being POV, and then someone complained about the copyright, and we ended up back at the tank. Anyone feel like heading into a warzone to take some GDFL photos for us? --Iorek8504:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Overall image these pictures present
This is the first time I have entered these discussions - as a Jewish person I am biased (shock...) but it seems that the overall image given by looking at all the pictures together presents a very one sided image of the conflict i.e.
Pic 1 - IDF unit firing into Lebanon;
Pic 2 - "Israeli assault on Lebanon – Map of locations bombed";
Pic 3 - A nice picture of the Israeli minister of defence smiling;
Pic 4 - A dead Lebanese girl being carried, with the caption "…killed in the Israeli airstrike…";
Pic 5 - A picture of Nasrallah;
Pic 6 - "A map showing some of the Israeli localities attacked by rockets fired from Lebanese soil" (I didn't know that Lebanese soil was one of the combatants…);
Pic 7 - A mass grave of Lebanese;
Pic 8 - Bombed Lebanese buildings; and
Pic 9 - Lebanese protest in Sydney.
Does anyone actually think that the pictures show that there are two sides suffering in this conflict/war/whatever? Not to mention that the word "Hezbollah" appears nowhere... 192.114.161.20310:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Ely
I think it's better now; we have a picture of the greiving soldiers. You have to realise the majority of this war is occuring in/killing people in Lebanon. There's also a map of the towns struck by Hezbollah. Why do you think a picture of the Israeli defence minister is baised anti Israel, but the picture of the Hezbollah leader is also anti Israel? Wouldn't they balance each other out? --Iorek8508:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Removal of pictures
I'd appreciate it, tsac, if you'd stop removing every image that makes Israel look bad. Just because the picture is of a child, doesn't make it propaganda. (Many) Children have died in this conflict, I'm sure some even in Israel. As for the picture of Beirut, I find it hard to understand your complaint. Its a suburb, of a city, and it shows apartment blocks. Theres a car in the bottom right, what looks like a rug at the top left, and a washing line in the top right. How on earth is that not civilian? --Iorek8509:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but I have no reason to doubt it isn't. Do you? Stop disrupting the article in your quest to remove anything that makes Israel look bad. You have no legitimate reason for deleting the image, and removing it is bordering on vandalism. --Iorek8512:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
YES THAT'S VERY ANNOYING, AT THE MOMENT, EVERY IMAGE THAT SHOWS DAMAGE IN LEBANON IS REMOVED!! THAT SHOULDNT BE HAPPENING Eshcorp08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We should take in account that Israeli have much wider access to the Internet that Lebanese and have greater ability to affect the article. So stop removing pictures that show damage in Lebanon!!! As of now, there are only two images showing the damage, and both of them of Haifa! This is clearly pro-Israeli bias! Where are the pictures of ruined center of Beirut i saw yesterday?--ComradeWolf10:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that somebody has done a great job of removing lots of relevant images showing damage in Lebanon. And why was the picture of the howitzer removed from the intro. Unless someone has a good reason why these were removed, I am going to begin replacing them for this is a clear show of vandalism. Lastly, I'm going to put back the neutrality flag on this article because now, more than ever, people are gallivanting throughout this article to make it as POV as possible. --Epsilonsa13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That was for copyright reasons, and fair enough. We have to be very careful as to what images we use. If you have some free/fair use images of the damage in Lebanon, they would be very gratefully used. --Iorek8509:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's about time to call it a war!who are we kidding!
THE ARTICLE IS ONE SIDED I tried many times to balance this article, but it was always reverted (vandalism my ass)! For my comments on the anti-air gun! it was due the fact that it stated that it was "a rcoket launcher used from civilians buildings!" isn't that vandalism! I appreciate that you corrected that! And about the 400 dead from hezbollah! this is pure propaganda! I know for a fact that till now its only 43! and I think we should use the terms war crimes toward the acts of israel! israel due to its military incompetence has killed over 900 civilians!!! Israel is unable to do anything to hezbollah (i'm only stating waht i'm seeing till now) all the news that israeli are getting is full of propaganda! hezbollah has minor minor casualties (till now)!
The LEAFLETS that were dropped on southern Lebanon: I don't think we should keep these unless we state alongside that the leaflets were dropped after all exit roads were cutoff by israeli airraids! I know that because I have nmany friends from there and plus the ones that find a way out on foot get targeted (children!!!that were getting out as these leaflets stated were targeted! this was the case for a village that still had exit roads)! So tell me what's the purpose of these leaflets! they are only an excuse to show to the international community! this is pure hypocratie!
Look Mr Anonymous... Your comments seem to be as illogical as their placement. Firstly, this is the section regarding discussion on "pictures". Secondly, it would be very interesting to know how you know "for a fact" that there are only 43 Hezbollah fighters dead. It seems very clear that all of your comments are based on what you read in the pro-hezbollah side of the media, and that you consider anything from the Israeli side of the media to be "full of propaganda" - do you not consider that to be strange in the slightest? Is it possible that you have a bias? If you have proof or at least a citation of anything you are saying - at least go put it in the right section, if you don't then why are you writing nonsense? Ely 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Good selection of AP photos
The Jerusalem Post has a good selection of photos from the war called Images of War. They are updated daily.
As there is no single picture with an injured/dead body or any big agony expression by people either from Israel or Libanon it kind of gives the impression (if you're not reading the article but just look at the pictures) that this is a small and "clean" war. This is POV, in my opinion.
If we cannot show the grief and agony that goes along in the bombed areas we're not showing war as it is but instead as we wish it to be: humane.
It is much more biased to deny the inclusion of offensic pictures, than the will to make this conflict/war a nicer one by just showing a wrecked house, some coffins a tank etc., where are the people suffering?
And please don't come up with the argument that death and agony is documented as text, pictures should underline the text and not be split off.
I agree. Unfortunately, all of the pictures that really depicted the gruesomeness of war have conveniently been found to be in violation of a copyright or deleted for some other reason... --Epsilonsa06:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Attack_on_Haifa1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beirut%26Haifa.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/5/54995.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Israeli_Soldiers_with_LB_Hezbollah_Flags.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lebanese_Areas_Targeted_7-15_to_7-21.gif){kind=link}
