This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
This page is for discussion about the pictures used in the article.
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! -- Deenoe 17:18, 22 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. -- Deenoe 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the map has been refused, does someone have an image of Hezbollah agressions for the composite image. -- Deenoe 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Finally found two pictures. Composite picture done. -- Deenoe 19:52, 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. Xtra 01:00, 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? -- AceMyth 03:27, 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).-- Iorek85 06:20, 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.-- Iorek85 07:59, 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 Brockway 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Either get rid of the main picture or show damages to both sides (i.e. 2 pictures) -- 68.1.182.215 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The caption for the picture in the infobox seems a bit informal ('pretty cool war machine'???). Any suggestions for changing it? Tangerine 03 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a vandalism problem we're having. He's broken the Three revert rule already, and I've listed him.-- Iorek85 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
don't delete it. Hello32020 20:14, 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)
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. Hello32020 20:24, 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. -- Deenoe 20:37, 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. -- Deenoe 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It needs protecting and then a vote needs to take place here. Ryanuk 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have a vote cause we are very divided on this and it's hard to keep track. -- Deenoe 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so to recap:
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.
That or they could learn to COMPROMISE. -- AceMyth 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Deenoe 21:54, 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, Tewfik Talk 22:16, 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? ArmanJan 22:34, 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. -- Deenoe 23:03, 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. -- Iorek85 00:22, 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. -- 68.1.182.215 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K, lets look at the facts, shall we? According to the figures on the page there are;
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. -- Iorek85 03:25, 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. -- 68.1.182.215 03:45, 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...
-- Cerejota 08:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Iorek85 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone any more information of the missles used against Israel? Thanks ( Bjorn Tipling 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
As the main picture -- 68.1.182.215 17:28, 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. -- 68.1.182.215 02:38, 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. -- AceMyth 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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. Retropunk 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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. OldSkoolGeek 17:32, 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.) OldSkoolGeek 22:50, 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...-- Cerejota 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- 212.6.32.3 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please create a variation on this map? The current mao does not qualify for Fair Use. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a map of Lebanon [8], but it is removed. I think we can use it as fair use.-- Sa.vakilian 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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. Tewfik Talk
" File:Http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2871/232/1600/aaaba.0.jpg Rim Shahrur, 18 months. Injured by Israeli bombs in Rashidiyyah refugee camp (near Tyre)." This was posted by an ip and removed per not being displayed Hello32020 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- ChrisO 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Iorek85 02:37, 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? -- Iorek85 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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... 192.114.161.203 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Ely
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? -- Iorek85 09:55, 2 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?-- Comrade Wolf 10:06, 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. -- Epsilonsa 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no photos of Lebanon buildings, or cities such as Beruit on this article? Jamesedwardsmith 15:48, 10 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)
The Jerusalem Post has a good selection of photos from the war called Images of War. They are updated daily.
Guy Montag 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
This page is for discussion about the pictures used in the article.
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! -- Deenoe 17:18, 22 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. -- Deenoe 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the map has been refused, does someone have an image of Hezbollah agressions for the composite image. -- Deenoe 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Finally found two pictures. Composite picture done. -- Deenoe 19:52, 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. Xtra 01:00, 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? -- AceMyth 03:27, 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).-- Iorek85 06:20, 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.-- Iorek85 07:59, 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 Brockway 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Either get rid of the main picture or show damages to both sides (i.e. 2 pictures) -- 68.1.182.215 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The caption for the picture in the infobox seems a bit informal ('pretty cool war machine'???). Any suggestions for changing it? Tangerine 03 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a vandalism problem we're having. He's broken the Three revert rule already, and I've listed him.-- Iorek85 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
don't delete it. Hello32020 20:14, 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)
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. Hello32020 20:24, 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. -- Deenoe 20:37, 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. -- Deenoe 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It needs protecting and then a vote needs to take place here. Ryanuk 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have a vote cause we are very divided on this and it's hard to keep track. -- Deenoe 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so to recap:
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.
That or they could learn to COMPROMISE. -- AceMyth 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Deenoe 21:54, 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, Tewfik Talk 22:16, 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? ArmanJan 22:34, 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. -- Deenoe 23:03, 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. -- Iorek85 00:22, 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. -- 68.1.182.215 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K, lets look at the facts, shall we? According to the figures on the page there are;
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. -- Iorek85 03:25, 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. -- 68.1.182.215 03:45, 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...
-- Cerejota 08:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Iorek85 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone any more information of the missles used against Israel? Thanks ( Bjorn Tipling 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
As the main picture -- 68.1.182.215 17:28, 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. -- 68.1.182.215 02:38, 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. -- AceMyth 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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. Retropunk 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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. OldSkoolGeek 17:32, 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.) OldSkoolGeek 22:50, 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...-- Cerejota 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- 212.6.32.3 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please create a variation on this map? The current mao does not qualify for Fair Use. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a map of Lebanon [8], but it is removed. I think we can use it as fair use.-- Sa.vakilian 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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. Tewfik Talk
" File:Http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2871/232/1600/aaaba.0.jpg Rim Shahrur, 18 months. Injured by Israeli bombs in Rashidiyyah refugee camp (near Tyre)." This was posted by an ip and removed per not being displayed Hello32020 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- ChrisO 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Iorek85 02:37, 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? -- Iorek85 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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... 192.114.161.203 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Ely
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? -- Iorek85 09:55, 2 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?-- Comrade Wolf 10:06, 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. -- Epsilonsa 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no photos of Lebanon buildings, or cities such as Beruit on this article? Jamesedwardsmith 15:48, 10 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)
The Jerusalem Post has a good selection of photos from the war called Images of War. They are updated daily.
Guy Montag 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
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.