Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 19

message: *Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Pictures (Discussion about the infobox picture)
*Summary of previous discussion about the infobox picture:
**The aerial strike picture was rejected, because some thought it was a bad photo.
**The three-Israeli-binocular picture was rejected, as some thought it was not newsworthy, others considered it POV.
**The map picture was rejected as a solution by some, as it didn't add anything new.
**The Israeli artillery picture solved the previous two problems, but some hoped for a picture which would emphasize the "human aspect of warfare."
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Pictures; mostly:
**A picture of a propaganda leaflet dropped over Lebanon by Israel was suggested. Some considered it POV.
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Pictures
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Pictures
** discussion about a proper picture for Nasrallah and Image:Marwahin.jpg
*Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive9#Pictures
**Graphic Images Removal
**Picture removal
**"depicted on a billboard"
**Youtube videos?
**Navy picture
**First picture
**Main Picture
**Proposal for Image Article
**Main Picture Again
**POLL
**Copyright matters, dammit
**Splitscreen
**Why any picture at all
**Dirty picture removed
**Infobox Picture
**Overall image the pictures present
*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Deenoe 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture : Asking for a CLEAR consensus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --AceMyth 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composite image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Deenoe 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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↔Weys 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said Hezbollah attack which mean Israeli casualties. --Deenoe 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV photos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. OldSkoolGeek 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's definitely a better idea --AceMyth 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The cool war machine is another POV image, why cant remove?  FidelFair 07:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture (again) 

message: 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)
thread_title: More Main Picture

message: Has anyone any more information of the missles used against Israel? Thanks (Bjorn Tipling 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? ArmanJan 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Tipling 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)? ArmanJan 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I just want to see what they look like, can you please upload them? Thank you. (Bjorn Tipling 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture of the Hezbollah Missles? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Satire / 'Prejudicial' images 

message: 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)
replies: text: We had a map, but it was rejected cause it did not show Hezbollah hits. --Deenoe 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the map just show the conflict area?  That is higlighting Haifa, Southern Lebanon and Beruit? OldSkoolGeek 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Deenoe 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, how does anything ever get done on Wikipedia? OldSkoolGeek 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Deenoe 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps take it off picture, but note in accompanying text? OldSkoolGeek 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a picture (map) of the conflict area

message: look at this picture.
This picture is got from NYtimes  and the copyright of what is pulished in this site shows anybody can't distribute it.:
: 
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)
replies: text: 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 ."--212.6.32.3 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Ryanuk 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: THE PICTURE COPYRIGHT SITUATION

message: "
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)
thread_title:  No display image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, TewfikTalk 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of South Lebanon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AdamKesher 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new infobox picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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? --Iorek85 08:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall image these pictures present 

message: 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)
replies: text: If it's used to dry hezbollah clothing and drive hezbollah members - it's not civilian. -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those buildings are hezbollah? Do you have any evidence of this? --Iorek85 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any evidence of this pictures taken in Beirut? -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.  --Iorek85 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Iorek85 09:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IRIN do. --Jambalaya 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of pictures

message: 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)
thread_title: ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR

message: 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)
replies: text: They are copyrighted. --Jambalaya 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good selection of AP photos

message: 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... --Epsilonsa 06:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures POV