Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 9

message: 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)
thread_title: Format of infobox (labeling of civilians, soldiers)

message: ===="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)
thread_title: Relevance?

message: 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)
thread_title: "not sure as to the relevance."

message: 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)
replies: text: All of them add to the article?  I doubt that all 23 do... -Preposterous 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Too many links - what stays?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: International reaction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nothing is mentioned about foreign nationals being evacuated 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Graphic Images Removal 

message: 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, TewfikTalk 16:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Picture removal

message: 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)
thread_title: Navy picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. --fs 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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".--Deenoe 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the guy inserting the picture of the dead child was blocked.  --Cyde↔Weys 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you were talking to me. People like you make Wiki better, thanks. --Deenoe 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Deenoe 13:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First picture 

message: 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. --Deenoe 04:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Obviously killing 300 and displacing 500,000 civilians is justified because zomg they started it!!!!!!" Very insightful. ugen64 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Deenoe 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That picture was a blatant copyright theft and has unfortunately to be removed. Thomas Blomberg 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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. --Deenoe 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Image Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: AAAAHH NOT THIS DEBATE AGAIN! The City of Haifa was clearly indicated on the map, there was NO reason to change it. --Deenoe 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture Again 

message: Support 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)
thread_title:  POLL 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Deenoe 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright matters, dammit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Splitscreen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree with the child.  The map is fine.--Paraphelion 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Deenoe 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why any picture at all

message: 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)
replies: text: Someone removed it, without a stated reason. I've restored the image that was there previously.--Iorek85 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Infobox Picture