Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 9

Format of infobox (labeling of civilians, soldiers)
As you may have noticed, the format of the infobox has been changing, namely under casualities. Specifically, Israel and Lebanon. For Israel, it is formatted as "Civilians" > "Soldiers" and for Lebanon, it is constantly presented as "Lebanese military" > "Other". I feel that there should be universal labeling, "other" makes no sense, even other falls into a particular category. According to virtually all media outlets throughout the world, the majority of casualities in Lebanon are civilians and should be presented as such. For both parties involved, Civlians and Soldiers should be listed on EACH SIDE. Please discuss. -- Sohailstyle 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"not sure as to the relevance."
approx 17,000 "missing" dead Lebanese are not relevant in a encyclopaedia entry about a Lebanese occupation/war? I hope everyone is reading this.

the relevance is the "missing" or dead people. of which there is 17,000 if you want to hide this generally accepted fact then keep deleting the number.

--Theblackbay 01:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC}
 * Excuse me, but this statement:
 * Human Rights Watch on April 13, 2000 urged the Lebanese govenment to effectively investigate the cases of an estimated 17,000 Lebanese civilians who were kidnapped or "disappeared" during the occupation
 * is completely unsupported by the link provided! the link talks about disappearance of Lebanese during the civil war (1975-1990) and blaims much of it on Syria, while the statement makes it look like we're talking about 1982-2000 and blaming Israel - There is absolutely no relevance! M. Butterfly 07:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many links - what stays?
The VAST MAJORITY of these news media are Israeli or Jewish owned and operated. Should it be mentioned as it relates to the POV? In fact, should more effort be made to find Lebanese and Arab newspapers? And, al jazeera, owned by the US puppet state of Qatar shouldn't count as an 'Arab' source.

Do we really need 41 links at the bottom, apart from the citations? Instead of getting into an edit war about deleting links, we should make a list here of what links should stay, and why.

I'll start by saying, in News sources category, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Daily Star, JPost, Fox, CNN should stay to represent UK, Arab World, Lebanon, Israel, rt wing USA, lft wing USA. I don't see purpose of frontline blogs at all (can someone cite example of other wikipedia articles with frontline blogs?). In the last category, I'll nominate keeping the first two maps (New York TImes and BBC) because they add something that the article doesn't have, and needs. Please contribute your nominations, and maybe we can delete the rest. -Preposterous 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

update:sry i got to it a few minutes after you. moved mine to be next to earlier discussion. -Preposterous 00:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I removed the news sources because anyone can find them, and its just a collection of links that have no relevance to this article. The blogs are tricky; "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.". It's a judgement call on whether the blog is of a high standard. If they aren't, we don't need them. The Additional commentary, fact files, and miscellaneous seems fine to me, as they add to the aritcle. --Iorek85 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All of them add to the article? I doubt that all 23 do... -Preposterous 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hence seems fine. I've not read them all, but the general idea is fine. If you want, remove the links that don't add to the article; replicated maps, etc. --Iorek85 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Various sections about evacuation
We now have three different sections about the evacuation of foreigners, which have been moved out to seperate articles: I suggest some kind of merging.--Battra 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * List_of_countries_with_foreign_nationals_in_Lebanon
 * International_reactions_to_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
 * List of countries evacuating citizens from Lebanon

International reaction
There's far too much information in there. There is an article for that stuff: International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Some of it's POV, too, such as The US: Even though 65% of Americans say "the U.S. [should] stay out of the situation" between Israel and Hezbollah The US government continues to back Israel’s actions. --Iorek85 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the International Reaction section is getting a bit long again. The country-by-country breakdown that has reappeared is better suited for the dedicated International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article in my opinion. --Age234 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox gives me a headache
Like you have read in the Title... the infobox looks a little bit horrible. The format itself is bad, Hezbolla ,Israel and Lebanon Casualties and straght are spitted in 3. That make look like the conflict is being fought between 3 faction each one against other( for someone that dont know the ongoing conflict). I recomend to moke the Hezbola column to the right next to Lebanon and to draw a thick line in the edge of the Lebanon & Hezbola and Israel. I dont try to say that Hezbola and Lebanon are in the same stuff but this is just to separate them from Israel.

The casualties have 1 or 2 diferent sources thats makes the box heavy to read for newcommers. Try to use official casualties in each combatant box for example: Official Israeli casualties in IDF section and Official Lebanon Casualties in Lebanon section. Dont forget to use the comma in 1000. Try to aling horintotaly the casualties in the battlebox. First dead then wounden then captured if so.

Nothing is mentioned about foreign nationals being evacuated
hello

no one has said anything about foreign nationals being evacuated. i think that is a point that needs to be covered


 * This is shown in a parallel article which is linked in the main article. --Deenoe 00:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Images Removal
Whilst I accept people are suffering terribly as a result of the conflict, can we please remove the Graphic images from the article, or at least have a MAJOR warning at the top of the page as to what lies below.Ryanuk 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a standing Wikipedia precedent not to display images like this. What ends up happening is that people search for the most gruesome pictures of both sides (remember, civilians from both nations have been killed), and the article becomes a battleground over the images rather than the issues. Although Wikipedia isn't censored, that isn't a blanket license to always add the most gruesome photographs you can find to articles. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They have been removed, looks like I just loaded the page after someone had added them. Ryanuk 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Censorship is sugar-coating the conflict. Let the facts stand and speak for themselves.--Patchouli 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can all understand how much people (on both sides) are suffering without having to see images of that kind. If you want to find images such as that, there are places you can go.Ryanuk 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We need at least 1-3 images to see the suffering. There is nothing heinous about posting reality to give a glimpse thereof.  I didn't suggest sprinkling the article with dozens of disfigured bodies.--Patchouli 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there should be images of suffering (but not extreme images).Flanker 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AdamKesher and others, if we are going to put graphic images in the article can we please discuss here and come to an agreement. Ryanuk 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the (alleged) targeting of civilians is a major component of this conflict. An image of the consequences gives context to the claims by some of the disproportionality of the response, as well as photographic evidence for the claims of civilian targeting. I agree with the suggestion that a warning at the top be issued, but an encyclopedic treatment of this subject demands a treatment of one of its most important aspects. The pictures, should stay. AdamKesher 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patchouli, Flanker and AdamKesher. There are two images of Nasrallah, two maps of the area in conflict, two pictures of military equipment, and a picture of the israeli defense minister. At the very least a picture of the casualties or some kind of human suffering cause by the conflict should be in the article. Cattus 17:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course you realize, folks, that often these images are the property of news organizations. As such, they're copyrighted; and thus, not always available to Wikipedia anyway. -- SwissCelt 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such images belong in Wikipedia in general. We're not a blood-and-gore tabloid; there's a reason we don't have images of Nick Berg's head being severed right in the article, and it's not because we want to cover up its gruesomeness---it's simply not useful or courteous to our readers to include in the article. --Delirium 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, have some respect for the dead child, and his family. Putting that picture would be sensationalism. That's it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news network. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to show the horrid truth but rather to show the facts. And also, we got some young people visiting the site! Can we just keep the map image? --Deenoe 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture removal
Why was this picture removed? There is certainly a large bloc of text that could use some color. If no one objects, I will reinsert it soon. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is a good picture, there is no reason why it shouldn't be there, and some more color would definitely make the article better. Tamuz (Talk) 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why won't anyone think of the children? (oh wait theres micheal jackson, nm) --mitrebox 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because it is a picture from 19th July, and should go into Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. As explained in the history when removed. Please read explanations for edits, they are there for a reason. --Cerejota 04:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit-summary, and I apologise for not making note of that. My point was and is that that reason shouldn't stop it from being inserted as long as there aren't better candidates.  Tewfik Talk 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With a massive amount of edits on the page, a number of which are by you, finding the correct revision is far from easy. Anyway, to my untrained eyes the image looks very appropriate for illustrating both articles. --Kizor 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the image is newsworthy, but the only place I would want it in the main page is in the caption instead of the howitzer which lacks a human angle. There is no other relevant place in the main page I think it could go, as it shows operations on the 19th, so it doesnt serve the purpose of illustrating the initial section, nor the background, nor etc. I think we are good with maps, pictures of leaders (As long as there is balance), and the picture of the helicopters evacuating people (its getting boring tho, can we get something else similar?) etc.--Cerejota 06:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree.. this conflict is not primarily about troop warfare yet, simply artillery/airstrikes and navel blockades. Rob.derosa 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll get back to this should a spot open later on, the article won't stabilize for a good while yet. --Kizor 13:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"depicted on a billboard"
The picture of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah notes "Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, depicted on a billboard.". I've removed "depicted on a billboard" because this seems a bit irrelevant. There's a photo of the Israeli defence minister but this is not noted as "depicted in a photograph". Perhaps the caption editor was seeking to point out that the Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah image isn't perhaps purely photographic, but it could be argued that no image is "true", they are all constructed in some manner by the author/ photographer/ makeup artist etc. Or maybe that masters degree at art college has made me think too deeply about such things! :-) --mgaved 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed. There is no need to say a photo is a photo. But a propaganda image such as this which is easily mistaken as a photo at first glance is not appropriate for a neutral source of information.


 * Information itself doesnt have to be neutral, but its presentation must be as per WP:NPOV. By including the equally propaganda photo of the commander in chief of the IDF, we achieve balance. BTW, a principle of wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Dont like it? Open a blog. Set up your own wiki. All kinds of alternatives are open. But that policy is not negotiable. And dont get mad at me, am just a messenger boy...--Cerejota 08:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- The reference to the billboard is pertinent info - it is a propaganda image and completely innapropriate to be used with a simple caption of Nasrallah's name under it.--131.107.0.81 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just call it a billboard, without the propaganda part. Otherwise the picture of the Israeli commander should perhaps be called a propaganda photo as well.


 * Or better yet, replace the billboard picture with an actual picture of Nasrallah.--AceMyth 03:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Youtube videos?
If someone could post the links to the Youtube videos of the conflict from inside Israel and Lebanon, that would be much appreciated.

(Most of the videos appear to be from the Israeli side of things, and might not be particularly neutral.)

Navy picture
Where'd the Israeli navy picture go? I thought it was pretty good. Also good for illustrating the blockade part of the conflict. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First picture
I personally don't think it's appropriate to put the picture of a dead child in the beginning of the article. It's just TOO much. --Deenoe 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I think if possible, it should be something including the active Israeli military and effect on civilians at the same time. If not possible, possibly a splitscreen? (not sure how that would work) Hello32020 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar to WWII front page picture Hello32020 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I opened the article this morning, it kind of struck me as a little over the top. Yes, wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean we have to have a picture of the charred corpse of a small child as the first picture people see. --Iorek85 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is one of the most notable things of this conflict? The suffering Lebanese civilians IMHO. Conflicts and wars in general are not pretty and this is the essence of a conflict. I even dare to speak of a bias against showing casualties in main pictures. Most often pictures of "cool" military equipment or "distant" military actions (video game like areal strike picture) et al. are shown. I think it is time th casualties are shown. Sijo Ripa 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe in balance. It is a thought provoking and highly educational irony after gun firing to see images of dead people, however, I suggest after the current morbid image is shown for a while to be replaced by the map of the areas of conflict (like other wikipedias do) or be simply left blank. -- f s  01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The piture is totally appropriate, those who don't like it - put your energies into stopping ways of the bombing instead of ways of attempting to be politically correct and shield viewers from the horrific reality. Reaper7 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture is showing a dead CHILD. I think we get the importance of the conflict with the picture of the tank/artillery we had before. If it would be an adult, I don't think I'd bother so much, but it would still shock me. We should maybe have a little respect for the death of this child. Besides, you said to put my energy into stopping ways of the bombing. That's impossible. It's a conflict between two armies where we cannot interfer and that, unfortunatly, we can't do anything about. I am not trying to shield viewers from the horrific reality but picturing a dead child is sensationalism and some viewers might not be able to support the picture, IMHO. --Deenoe 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a picture of destructed building or a ghost town would be PLENTY enough to see the horror. Even the news I listen to don't show the dead bodies by RESPECT. --Deenoe 01:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether these dead or their families would have wanted it not to be shown. What I notice is that Al-Jazeera shows much more casualty pictures than for instance BBC or CNN. The sensitivity argument is in my opinion mostly a Western phenomenon as Western viewers (though I'm one myself) are not used to such pictures and in general only see "clean" pictures. A ghost town does not show the real horror of a war. It is another example of a clean picture. Sijo Ripa 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we'll never know, but we should be safe. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news network, therefore, it should not in my opinion practice such sensationalism. And beside, why don't we put the picture of, citizens in tears, or the Blue Dawn. --Deenoe 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I understand and respect your argument of "sensationalism", can't the same be said about video game like air strikes or about sensational military equipment that fires its projectiles with an enormous blast? I don't consider the child casualty picture as sensational, but as necessary to point out the reality of a conflict/war. I also didn't mention the news networks to argue that we should copy their behaviour but to point out the differences in sensitivity. (Another example: the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page nevertheless shows the cartoons, while many Muslims find that extremely offensive/shocking. Their sensitivity wasn't enough to prevent it as the main picture of the page.) As a consequence, the sensitivity and sensationalism arguments aren't enough imho. Sijo Ripa 01:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the point of showing the horror, and I think we could probably find a picture of the coffins aligned against the wall in Haifa.. I think that that should show the horror, without necessairly showing the bodies themselfes, especially the childs.--Deenoe 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to say that the Muslim issue is different. The picture on Wikipedia is not portrayed as an attack but really to demonstratre the facts. In this case we can demonstratre the facts without using the picture of a dead child. Also, I think as soon as someone find it offensive, we should remove it cause that means a LOT of people could find it offensive. --Deenoe 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If another person wants to continue the picture revert warring I can have him blocked too. Enough of this, people. -- Cyde↔Weys 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do a revert war on this folks. I only want to have some RESPECT to the victim that was pictured considering that it was a child and that is just unacceptable. There is a limit to showing "the horrid truth".--<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the guy inserting the picture of the dead child was blocked. -- Cyde↔Weys  02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you were talking to me. People like you make Wiki better, thanks. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Very lucky there is no democracy on this issue, if there was the piture of the dead child would stay, I for one support the image as it shows the truth and does not shield the reality as some would want. As for the family of the child if they are still alive i doubt due to obvious reasons, I am sure they would want the world to see the horrors and not some American false image of the war ala iraq. Reaper7 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's even debatable. Putting the picture of a dead child is sensationalism. It's a child for god's sake, have a little respect for his person. I think that a picture of a picture of Israel's coffins lined against the wall would be plenty enough to demonstratre the horror of the conflict. We've been thru the debate. Admins have decided to take off the picture for sensivity reasons. Let's remember that some people are VERY, VERY sensitive. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 13:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deenoe, what the media also fails to show is what the Palestinians and Lebanese are taught in the schools (which are controlled by fundamentalists that preach hate). Remember after 9/11, there were pictures of Palestinians cheering. Eventually that picture was removed because Palestinian terrorists threatened to kill the man who took footage of the Palestinian cheering. Clearly, the media is controlled in the Arab world. In Israel, there is freedom of the press. On another note, CNN showed footage of a young girl preaching death to Israel, America, and Jews. What kind of education are the Lebanese truly receiving? They don't seek peace! --68.1.182.215 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture
The main picture has been deleted as it is EXTREMELY biased and does not portray the conflict accurately. The picture implies that Israel launched an attack first...that is wrong! and aren't Israeli victims equally important too??????????? Therefore the main picture should show Hezbollah launching rockets at Israel since HEZBOLLAH STARTED the conflict.


 * Trying to establish clearly who started the conflict is nearly impossible. Unfortunalty, we can only put one picture, and it happends that Lebanon is the country with the most civil losses. PS : Please sign your post on talk pages. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 04:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Obviously killing 300 and displacing 500,000 civilians is justified because zomg they started it!!!!!!" Very insightful. ugen64 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The deaths and displacement of civilians is tragic and regretable. But let's not forget that there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis that have been displaced in northern Israel because of this conflict. It is important to note that if Hezbollah did NOT start the conflict, there would have been no conflict as Israel has no desire to start a conflict. If Hezbollah hadn't attacked in the first place no one would have been displaced. Not to get off topic, but the same thing happened when the Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan. Had they accepted it, there would have been no Palestinian refugees. Keep in mind also that Israel has given civilians warnings to leave before they attacked. This is definitely humanitarian and no other country in the world has done such a thing. And if you disagree, please cite it.
 * Folks, let's not have a debate on who started it. The main picture was perfect and it has been restored by i-dunno-who. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deenoe, if Hezbollah hadn't started it there would be NO fighting and NO suffering on both sides. Please keep an open mind and be honest. The main picture should show Hezbollah launching rockets. Again, if Hezbollah did not attack, there would be NO Israeli operation. Rather than avoiding the issue, please discuss it if you disagree. Let's be honest. --68.1.182.215 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not avoiding the issue. The issue is complicated. Arab-Israel conflict is up since some 50 years. Hezbollah has kidnapped two soldiers because Israel has Lebanese prisonners, and the soldiers were kidnapped in the hope of a trade. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deenoe, if Hezbollah ceased its attacks on Israel and decided to recognize and make peace with Israel...then there could be negotiatians and trades. And Deenoe, could you cite exactly how many Lebanese prisoners there are and exactly why they were imprisoned. If you can't cite it, then I think it is hard to substantiate your claim that Israel holds innocent Lebanese prisoners. Keep in mind, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has freedom of speech and the right to vote. Just about every prisoner in Israel has been given a trial...you don't see that in the Arab world. Israel even had a trial for Eichmann...the man who contributed to the Holocaust...no other country would have done that. Clearly, Israel does not hold innocent prisoners and gives everyone a chance to trial. --68.1.182.215 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest changing the main picture of the article yet again. The current picture shows destruction in Beirut, and since it is the main picture of the article, I think this is outrageously one-sided, and implies that Lebanon are the only victims in the conflict. A more neutral image should be installed in order to replace the current image of destruction in Beirut. --Monotreme, 17:04, July 23 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Monotreme.

The picture is not extremely biased. It's a picture which accurately details the destruction resulting from the conflict. It would be biased if it showed dead Lebanese children in the street or mass graves for the dead Lebanese. You should offer another picture that's less "biased" but either way the article is going to have some picture coming before another and it's going to show destruction whether in Israel or in Lebanon. Perhaps you can create a side by side picture - one that displays Beirut and Haifa at the same time? --Strothra 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Image Article
Ever since the inception of this article, I have seen score of images posted and swiftly removed. I suggest that we create 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in pictures. That article should include different section for each side, political leaders, and other images relevant.--Patchouli 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, that idea has been brought up on other articles and turned down. We're an encyclopedia, not a picture gallery.  -- Cyde↔Weys  14:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current picture seems best fitting for the article. ArmanJan 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That picture was a blatant copyright theft and has unfortunately to be removed. Thomas Blomberg 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The best picture was the Map, IMHO. It fixed a lot of issues regarding we we're showing the Lebanese side therefore.. blablablabla. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 15:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, can't we just put up the map again? -- Cyde↔Weys 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a representative of Red Plastic Riding Horse Unlimited we would like to say that we do not appreciate images of our product being used in this manner.--Paraphelion 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a representative of You are really not funny, we would like to say that we do not appreciate you making jokes like representing a toy company, or Iran and Syria. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this picture is still ridiculous, a pure appeal to sentiment. Maybe you can photoshop in a girl crying.--Paraphelion 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way I was just watching CNN International and they are referring to this as the "Israel-Lebanon conflict" just as we are. I haven't seen any news organization referring to it as the Israel-Hezbollah anything. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick photoshop (so it's not really centered or anything) with the Beirut image and the tank image, to try to please everyone :) --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought that someone might say that we only show harm to Lebanon on those pictures ( knowing the tank is shooting in Lebanon, and the Beirut neighbourhood). Therefore, if someone has a picture of destruction in Israel, which is free of copyrights, might he or she upload it and tell me on my talk page the link? I will make a composite picture out of it. Thanks. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture Again
The main picture was deleted again. Although the picture was better, it was biased in subtle manners. If the map shows where Israeli operations were located in Lebanon (i.e. Israeli blockade and Israel airport strike) then the map should also show where Hezbollah has struck towns and cities in Israel. Therefore, for the map to stay up, either mention both sides' places of operations or don't mention any of them and just show a map. --68.1.182.215 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AAAAHH NOT THIS DEBATE AGAIN! The City of Haifa was clearly indicated on the map, there was NO reason to change it. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

POLL
Support for the reinstatement of the uncensored Wiki picture of the realities of this war which was recently removed: Oppose for the reinstatement of the uncensored Wiki picture of the realities of this war which was recently removed:
 * Support Reaper7 13:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Deenoe 13:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose ObsidianOrder 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright matters, dammit
Guys, please pay more attention to the copyright status of your image sources. I'm tired of having to remove and delete images that were uploaded in violation of very basic copyright law. If you try to take an image from a source that says "(c) All rights reserved", guess what, we can't use it. The exception is for fair use images, but you can't really make legitimate claims for fair use on some random photographer's image in a Flickr photostream. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture that was on the page right now at NO copyright at ALL. I finally got the source and I saw that there is no copyright. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The image description page was tagged as "source unknown". "No copyright" isn't really a valid term ... pictures are by default copyrighted unless they have been released into the public domain by the person who owns the copyright to them, at which point you'd say it's in the public domain, not "no copyright". I didn't see any evidence that the image had been released under a free license, just evidence that no one had tried to look for the copyright status ... which isn't good enough. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I send an email to the owner of the website where the picture was (without any clear indication if the copyright) to know if it was possible to use it on Wikipedia. So now we wait. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In the future you may want to use one of these: Example requests for permission. My basic viewpoint on this is that this conflict is so big and so many people are in the affected regions that we shouldn't have to resort to using an image with an unclear source (and thus risk legal trouble). There has to be someone out there who's willing to release an image under the GFDL or Creative Commons, if only to spread the images of the horrors of warfare. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the copyrights on the current image is plain bullsh*t simply because I saw it on CBC News yesterday. Might be wrong thought. If we can get an image like this that is FOR SURE GFDL then this would be perfect. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, picture has been reverted. But, I still think a map would end all the debates about whether to show Israelian side or Lebanese side. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldnt end any debate. We already discussed whether or not to use a map, it was outright rejected (please scroll up to the top of this section.) A map adds nothing to the article, unless it is showing major troop movement, such as in Operation Barbarossa. In the case of this, all it shows is the general area of the conflict. A map isnt appropriate here, its information is redundant as we have a section in the infobox that can tell you where its taking place. What we need is an image of artillery being fired, or katyushas being fired. Or, troops moving into Lebanon. Thats where the war is, these are pertinent images. They would not violate NPOV, an image does not need to show both sides... its not like we have huge field battles anymore where two sides charge at each other. Look at the Six Day War article, Israeli troops are at the Western Wall. Look at the Yom Kippur War, Egyptian troops cross the Suez. These show important events or stages, and that is the precedent we will keep here. Using no image to appease vandalizers and revert warring indiviudals is lunacy, if someone continuosly vandalized a paragraph you wouldnt just delete it entirely. The image of artillery fire was the best image we have. An image must be free/qualify for fair use. Until we get one that is better than that, there is no reason to not use it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitscreen
I believe if possible, it should be something including the active Israeli military and effect on civilians at the same time, in a splitscreen. Similar to WWII front page picture. User:Hello32020 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I support a split picture, on condition that casualties, whether they are Israelian or Lebanese, are shown in one of the component pictures (which is not the case for the World War 2`split picture). Sijo Ripa 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why any picture at all
I think to stop all the edit warring.There would be better if there will be no picture at all.--Shrike 10:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no edit warring - only people trying to reach a consensus. A picture is needed - it makes the article look better, and illustrates the conflict for people. There's no reason to remove it. I fail to understand why you think a picture showing the damage in Lebanon is POV. It's a picture that shows real damage in a conflict that has primarily taken place in both civilian areas and in Lebanon, and it passes no judgement. If you think it looks bad, thats because bombing civilians is a bad thing. If you want, find a free use picture of the damage in Israel, and ADD that to the current pic, splitscreen like some have suggested. But until someone does that, please leave the best image we have in.--Iorek85 12:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The conflict may be mostly taking place in Lebanon, and certainly the death is, but not so much that one picture of damage in Lebanon is a balanced view. Correct me if I am wrong, but some sources say Hezbollah has fired up to 1500 rockets into Israel.--Paraphelion 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We might be able to find a photo where where the area is sufficiently destroyed that we don't know where it is. Any single photo of either a Lebanese damage area or Isreali military unit is going to seem biased to someone. Maybe we can superimpose two photos of destruction in Lebanon and Israel, have no caption and just let the reader decide for him/herself what it is a picture of, or just say "Destruction from the conflict". I sort of liked the 3 guys on the boat with binoculars, but mostly for humor reasons. It's good to have a picture, but if we can't find something most people agree on, it's better to have nothing probably.--Paraphelion 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just get rid of the picture. Point. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 14:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the child. The map is fine.--Paraphelion 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there is less "large-scale" damage in Israel than in Beirut, since Hezbollah is peppering northern Israel with small-grade munitions while Israel is dropping powerful bombs on the pictured areas of Beirut. However, for the purpose of balance and NPOV, it would be absurd to post one picture of a Katyusha strike versus a flattened neighborhood of Beirut, yet it is not possible to capture in one image the effects of Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. This leads to non-NPOV because readers immediately see massive damage to beirut without reading a word of the article, whereas they are presented with no immediately visual information about damage in Israel. If there is going to be one image which is used in the heading to capture this war, then it should be an image representative of all of this war, not just an image representing one side. To claim that it is simply "showing real damage in a real conflict" is naive. I don't think that splitscreening damage from Israel and Beirut will be NPOV either for reasons cited above. Perhaps photos of the leaders? Nasrallah/Olmert? Agree that it's very difficult to pick this picture. Idangazit 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pictures of the leaders doesn't show anything about the conflict. I think that we have three options : Map, Composite picture or Keep the current picture. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dirty picture removed
Someone with the possible username of Kaveh uploaded an irrelevant dirty picture to the article, and I promptly removed it.

User name of vandal is likely MooCowz69, and the user keeps on reposting it. Somebody on the admin side should get busy banning this user immediately. Captain canada

Infobox Picture
Usually, in war infoboxes there is picture that 'represents' it (e.g for Yom Kippur there's a picture of Egyptian Soldiers after crossing the Suez Canal). Is there a particular reason for it in this case? I was thinking of adding a picture showing the current state of Beirut, but I don't know anything about adding pictures in Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Mysticflame 04:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone removed it, without a stated reason. I've restored the image that was there previously.--Iorek85 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone also put a pornographic picture in it...I deleted it, but someone else was editing...we might want to make this where someone has to peer review it. 70.146.233.251 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)MitchellTF