Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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. Misplaced Pages IS NOT a slide show! --Deenoe17:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Using A Map (State reasons below and please sign)
Support map as per above Perhaps after the war/conflict/whatever is over we can use a photo. Even a split photo as the one up currently is not so great. It shows an Israeli tank/artillery thing firing and on the other side a scene of beruit destruction. It sort of looks like a comic strip, a progression from left to right. So in a way it's worse than before.--Paraphelion18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The map seems like the only free-license image we're liable to agree on at this point ... besides, no single photograph can show the whole scope of a conflict quite like a map can. --Cyde↔Weys19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support A Map is instructive and NPOV, and i think the map was my idea a few days ago to stop days of POV arguments!Hypnosadist19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Support What is a war or armed conflict without a map with arrows showing troop movements and lines to show defensive positions. Makes it more like a football game. Another good one would be dots to show bombing targets and rocket impacts. Many interested readers do not have the geography of the region memorized.Edison00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Support For lack of another good image, a map is the best choice (or at least the least NPOV). I don't love the idea, but this type of warfare will make it hard to capture two images which are not POV-skewed. If we put an image of southern beirut, do we put 1000 images of katyusha explosions as well? (That question is rhetorical, obviously the answer is no.) Maybe a map dressed up with markings where there are areas struck during the warfare.Idangazit05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Using A Map (State reasons below and please sign)
Oppose A map is a sterile, facile image that does not capture the essence of the conflict. I suggest using two side-by-side images illustrating the devastation caused by Hezbollah rockets in Israel and the devastation caused by Israel bombing in south Beirut. —AdamKesher19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It could be done. If the concensus is opposed to the use of a map, I just want someone to send me free of use pictures :p --Deenoe19:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment : I clearly said : The pictures used right now (on the composite image) are NOT the best to use. IF someone has uploaded on Misplaced Pages two pictures that are legally usable, one of Hezbollah agressions and one of the Israeli agressions, I will with PLEASURE redo the image. Especially that apparently there is a copyright violation right now. If someone has pictures, please tell me on my User talk page. --Deenoe18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It couldn't be done -- implicitly, there is no one image in israel which displays damage like southern beirut, however in aggregate the (now 1000's of) katyusha missiles are shutting life down for all of northern israel -- and that is impossible to take one picture of, since the damage and effects are so spread out. It's not that I don't acknowledge the devastation in southern beirut, nor do I oppose displaying such an image in the appropriate section in the article (say, "damages in lebanon"), but making it the top image without something to balance it out is simply NPOV. Idangazit05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. A war or a violent conflict is simply horror: people die, people get mutulated, children lose their parents, etc. A map makes the conflict more distant and abstract. I don't care whether Israeli and/or Lebanese casualties are shown, but I do think this article should show the casualties in the main picture. The real conflict is not shown a map, but in depictions of human suffering. Sijo Ripa20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. This has been discussed before, the map adds little. Maps are used when there are no other options. Maps are only useful when there are vast movements of troops outlined, such as Operation Barbarossa. In the case of this, all the map shows is roughly where fighting is taking place. This can be done just as easilly in the infobox section for where the fighting is occuring. An image of the war is a better option. ~Rangeley (talk)20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose WP practice has been to show a photograph associated with the war/conflict/battle. Why should it matter whether it is Lebanon or Israel? Perhaps a montage, a la World War II might be in order if people have difficulty depicting suffering/agression on one side as opposed to the other. Fishhead6421:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And also, the question "what is happening?" comes before "Where is it happening?", and should be illustrated first. --Battra01:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I find maps boring, though useful in the body of the article. They don't give a sense of the conflict. --Iorek8510:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose (changed my vote again, sorry :p), The current picture is good. It is also possible to have two pictures. ArmanJan
Composite image
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 Misplaced Pages and free to use, to complete the composite picture. Since the picture that was on before was deleted for Copyright problems. --Deenoe19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the map has been refused, does someone have an image of Hezbollah agressions for the composite image. --Deenoe21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe somebody uploaded a public domain image of a half-destroyed house in Haifa yesterday, but it was removed... Maybe I can go hunting for it in the history. --AceMyth14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a photo of destruction in Lebonon, there is a photo of graves in Lebanon, there is a photo of a Lebanese protest. The same things are happening on the other side yet no photo. this is not NPOV. Xtra01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's why I posted I dont know how many times that : if someone has a picture of a Hezbollah attack picture, I would make a composite picture has a main picture, which would bring somewhat a NPOV. --Deenoe01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, you mean an Israeli picture? The article now only has pictures of Lebanese casualties, Lebanese protests, etc. There's nothing showing the Israeli side; there's been Israeli casualties too. --Cyde↔Weys01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody replaced the "Southern Beirut in ruins" picture with a public domain "Destroyed building in Haifa" picture, which unfortunately isn't that much NPoV either. Maybe somebody could take these two pictures and make some new split-in-half image out of them? --AceMyth03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest using the NPOV map from earlier and incorporating the Haifa and Southern Beriut images into the appropriate sections. More NPOV that way since the first image doesn't convey a POV, but the images of the human cost remain intact. OldSkoolGeek03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The photos of the damage are the best, IMO, but they have no proper copyright status. Thats the main issue before we make splitscreens, which I think would be the best solution. (Still, to be really fair, you'd have to make it 10% Israel, and 90% Beirut, since thats the ratio of casualties).--Iorek8506:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say "cool war machine"? It doesn't. You ascribe that particular value to it; others might see it as a horrible tool of destruction. The picture is in no way POV. It's a tank, being used in the conflict. Theres no halo around it, nor caption with positive connotations. As I've said, there could be better pictures. But until someone can find free use pics of the destruction, lets leave this one in.--Iorek8507:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Three options actually. I suggested above using the NPOV map of the conflict area from earlier and incorporating the Haifa and Southern Beriut images into the appropriate sections.
Like I said millions of times : I will be make a composite image showing BOTH SIDES if someone gives me the link of 2 pictures, uploaded on Misplaced Pages and free of use. --Deenoe13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
More Main Picture
The caption for the picture in the infobox seems a bit informal ('pretty cool war machine'???). Any suggestions for changing it? Tangerine 0309:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See pages and . These pictures will be removed soon, so whats the point? To be happy while it lasts? ArmanJan20:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the picture that represents both sides of the conflict and suffering of civilians in the region. the_reader1 1:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You are in blatant violation, you just added "PD-self" tag to two copyrighted (one which is in violation) images. ArmanJan20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See my edit summaries on the matter (if you can find them in the blizzard of updates, that is); even if the Haifa picture passes copyright tests, it still shouldn't be included there. This false NPOV by means of contrived equivalence. There is simply no equivalence between the destruction wrought on those two cities (Haifa and Beirut), and it shouldn't be so implied by the side-by-side pictures.
You're right, there is no equivalence; Haifa is being randomly targeted and buildings in Beirut are being specifically targetted. --Cyde↔Weys20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
From where did you get that? Even the UN envoy agrees that the destruction in Beirut is not tagreted bombing. Read the sources in the article.--Cerejota08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright, sorry. Hope someone finds a fair use/public domain image of Haifa destruction soon, or we will continue to get people who use copyrighted images and/or vandalism. Hello3202020:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Either you didn't get what I said, or you didn't express yourself clearly; if you do find a copyright-usable Haifa picture, it still shouldn't go at the top side-by-side with a picture of Beirut. The clear implication of such a juxtaposition is that the destruction of the two sides is equivalent, an appearance that isn't changed by whatever comments you write here. +ILike2BeAnonymous20:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if destruction is not equivalent, casulties and destructions happended on both sides. All throught the articles, the pictures on the conflict are on Lebanon casulties or destruction. I think we should show clearly both sides clearly from the beginning of the article. Plus in the infobox it clearly says the number of casulties, which demonstratres Beirut has been more affected than Israel. --Deenoe20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone agreed for a split picture. The main picture was really good, since it was NPOV. For ILike2BeAnonymous, Beirut was more destructed than Haifa in the pictures. Don't tell me we're going to have a consensus again. If someone has a Haifa destruction picture, free of use, contact thru User Page. --Deenoe20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The anti-Israeli bias is obvious. It is indeed true that there is no equivalence between Israeli bombardment of Hezbollah positions in civilian neighbourhoods and Hezbollah's deliberate targeting of civilians in Israel.
The main picture should represent NPOV and should not be on-sided propaganda, please remove picture of collateral damage in Beirut and replace it with SPLIT picture that depicts suffering of both sides in this conflict. Anything less will be discrimination.the_reader1 1:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Question : Should we ask for a consensus? Or can we get to a commune decision like grown up adults? Even if the types of destruction are different (target vs. random). I think that not showing both sides in the main picture is serious violation of NPOV. --Deenoe20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it just needs people to think about what they're doing. All the arguments given here in favor of the "split-screen" pictures are sophomoric: correct in a narrowly technical way, but utterly wrong in the appearance they give. Putting those two pictures side by side is as good as a statement in the text saying that the destruction of these two cities is equivalent, something that practically nobody (except for a few very obvious pro-Israeli POV pushers here) accepts.
By the way, just to make it clear, I'm not against using that picture (or other pictures) showing the destruction in Haifa, just not at the top of the article.
I think we should have a vote cause we are very divided on this and it's hard to keep track. --Deenoe20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so to recap:
We can't use a map, because that doesn't convey the horrors of the conflict.
We can't use a picture of the deaths and ruined buildings in Haifa because that implies the non-importance of similar going-ons in Beirut.
We can't use a picture of the deaths and ruined buildings in Beirut because that implies the non-importance of similar going-ons in Haifa.
We can't use a split picture, because that would apparently imply that the going-ons in Beirut and Haifa are not merely similar but absolutely identical in nature and magnitude.
We can't use no picture at all, because that would mean a less shiny article.
Therefore I suggest a picture of a very big explosion, captioned "an explosion". Our dedicated readers/editors would be free to decide the exact details of this explosion (such as cause, location, civilians killed, disgusting agendas involved, etc.) for themselves as they see fit.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. That was very funny and a good leason. The only thing I think is that the Split picture is the best compromise. Like I said, maybe we absolutly need a consensus, who knows. --Deenoe21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, (1) (map) and (5) (no picture) are acceptable alternatives; this is (supposedly) an encyclopedia article, not a commercial eyeball-catching site. And I appreciate your cynicism; but (4) is unacceptable, for reasons I've already given. If a picture of Haifa is used, it should placed anywhere (well, not just anywhere, hopefully in an appropriate place) except right at the top.
Just to head it off, another sophomoric response to this I've heard is the argument that "it's only a picture", that there's countervailing text to explain the situation. First of all, if this is true, that's an argument for (5)—no picture. And it's an absurd argument in any case; pictures are signifiers of meaning, which is why people use them, from informative articles to propaganda pieces. It's disingenuous to place pictures of Haifa & Beirut side by side, then to let the text below them explain that no, the destruction of these two places really isn't equivalent. The reader's response to that will either be one of perplexity—if they're saying the destruction isn't equivalent, why do those two pictures imply that it is?—or just an information disconnect altogether.
Thank you for warping what I said. :\ I did not said it was just a picture, I said the text under the picture says clearly the number of casualties, which demonstratres clearly that Beirut is more affected. The map has been rejected by two consensus, so that's not possible. (2) and (3) is against NPOV. (4) is not unacceptable. It shows clearly the two sides of the conflict right there in the main picture. --Deenoe22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me guess; like the majority of Misplaced Pages editors, you're either a high school senior or a college sophomore, right? +ILike2BeAnonymous22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I know a veiled instance of argumentum ad hominem when I see one, and also I think we should be concentrating on the subject at hand instead of establishing the intellectual and general inferiority of each other.
I'm going to give your paper an "A" for correctly identifying the logical construct (or fallacy) at play here. But you flunk the test on whether 20-somethings are fit to render opinions on world conflicts in an "encyclopedia". But that's another rant for another day. Back to our regularly scheduled sniping. Have a nice day. +ILike2BeAnonymous22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that down there you support having no main picture at all and I think that's a good solution, so for the time being I opt out of our "regularly scheduled sniping", as you put it. I still think, though, that even if an editor happens to truly, objectively be better qualified to make judgment on an issue than another they should at least have the minimal courtesy to formulate their well-informed arguments explicitly instead of resorting to Ad Hominem. --AceMyth23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at what Cyde said above. There are numerous ways of looking at side by side pictures, including "Oh my, a knick on Haifa and Beirut is flattened." As long as the caption makes clear what is going on, then the pic is not pushing a specific agenda. Alternatively, an Israeli artillery battery of Hezbollah rocket launcher or F-16s or even the burned-out Humvees that started this are all equally NPOV. They can all be looked at in multiple contexts depending on the reader's POV. None of these are actually pushing a POV, especially when all the other possibilities pepper the body of the article. Cheers, Tewfik22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, my vote (I heard there was gonna be a vote on this, right?) is for no picture. Take away the ball so it can't be squabbled over. +ILike2BeAnonymous22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea about the exploion, AceMyth! I would also like to suggest my proposal - a composite image with 16 different images, so that all aspects of the situation can be shown!
File:54454.jpgBut seriously, this seems to be the absolutely most important thing to people - one gazillion of edits to the image, and one umptillion of sections in this talk page! Maybe we could go back to the old howitzer, which I don't think was that controversial (you can choose if you want to think that it is cool or that it is mean.)--Battra22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
On one side you may add the israeli tank firing, and on the other side Beirut. Can we agree on that? ArmanJan22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Althought this seems like a good idea, it was done and rejected because it was two Israeli agressions. --Deenoe23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, you're just not getting it.
The discussion seems to consider the pictures to be some kind of decoration to the article; that alone is a good argument for their removal. Consider this: pictures are signifiers of meaning. Nothing that deep there, no need to get out your textbook on deconstruction: it just means that pictures, well, evoke reactions in viewers. So if this article is going to have pictures, especially ones at the very top of the article, it would behoove those who put them there to think about what the picture are saying. If they're not saying anything, as some believe, then why have them there? And if they say something, and what they say is in contradiction to what is said elsewhere, even directly underneath them, well, then, we have a problem, folks. +ILike2BeAnonymous22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well then why is the split picture not acceptable!!!..
I'll let you answer that. Tell us, what do you think those two pictures say? What do you think they mean to someone viewing them? +ILike2BeAnonymous23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm done with it, I am not going to edit on this article anymore, because everytime we edit, it's being reverted because someone is not happy. Its just too busy. Please, Protect it. --Deenoe23:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I know! Lets have a silouhette of a human head for every person killed in the war. Of course, the vast majority of them would be Lebanese civilians, and it would double the size of the article, but at least it would be fair! (Oh damn, but that doesn't show the suffering of the animals involved, and promotes the POV that humans are more important than animals.) Or, we can just (for now) leave the NPOV, allowed picture of the tank until someone can find some images of the destruction that we can use. Some people are taking NPOV far too seriously. --Iorek8500:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You can't just use Beirut as the main picture. What about the thousands of missiles fired into northern Israel. What about all the damages in Haifa and other towns? All the innocent civilians killed and injured? Are you telling me these people aren't important too? And keep in mind Hezbollah initiated this conflict! If they hadn't started it, there would be no Israeli operation. Please keep the facts straight. --68.1.182.21502:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K, lets look at the facts, shall we? According to the figures on the page there are;
Israeli; 17 Civilians, 20 soldiers killed.
Lebanese; 375 Civilians, 22 soldiers.
Hezbollah; 8-100 killed (lets say 50).
77.48% of the deaths in this conflict have been Lebanese civilians. 10.33% have been Hezbollah. 4.55% have been Lebanese soldiers, 4.13% Israeli soldiers, and 3.51% have been Israeli civilians. 92.35% of the casualties have been Lebanese (if you count Hezbollah). Just out of interest, Israel has killed 7 times as many civilians as it has Hezbollah fighters (83.89%) - even by their figures, its still 3 times. Hezbollah, the terrorist organisation, has actually killed more soldiers than civilians. (54.05%)
So there are the facts. The image itself is not POV. The damage caused is mostly in Lebanon, and the people dying are overwhelmingly Lebanese. A 50/50 split image would actually be less accurate.
I'm getting off the point, though. The reason we have this image and not one of Haifa is because we don't have any fair use or uncopyrighted images for us to use in the article. If you find some, please, by all means, add it to the article. If you find a good one, we can do a split screen of the damage in both countries. But until then, there is no need to remove the image. I don't see why it can't stay until we find a better one. An image is better than no image at all. --Iorek8503:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the image is misleading and it is completely biased. This is an encylcopedia - it has to be FAIR. So let's change the setting a little bit. If we had no photos of the twin towers collapsing on 9/11, should we put a picture up of the US in Afghanistan. To someone who was not fully aware about the conflict, they would assume that the conflict is about the Americans attacking Afghanistan. The pictures need to be as neutral and FAIR as possible. Because the average Joe does not read everything. And don't hold a double standard against Israel. --68.1.182.21503:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it misleading? Are you saying the Israelis aren't bombing Beirut? As I've explained above, and countless times, it isn't misleading. It shows actual damage in the area where the vast majority of the action is taking place. I think you are confusing 'fair' with '50:50 either side'. To take your example, you would have to devote half the article on 9/11 to the deaths of the terrorists, rather than the 3000 or so innocent people who died. I'm not saying Hezbollah aren't bombing Haifa - they are, and they are killing innocent Israelis, too. But what I am saying is that;
The image is not misleading. At worst, it negates to show 23.5% of the deaths in the conflict, and shows 3.5% too much Lebanon.
The image is the best we have until someone can upload a fair use picture of the damage in Israel.
Because the image is not misleading, there is no reason to remove it while we wait for said picture.
I'll also warn you you are getting rather close to violating the WP:3RR guideline. I'm over this conflict - I'm not going to restore the image - what we're arguing over hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. Still, I'd rather the image was there. --Iorek8503:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Now we have an image of the IDF Howitzer. Can someone explain to me, why is the image more relevant than the destruction of Beirut?
I think the image there, as I have said before, should be dynamic, newsworthy, and relevant.
I care little about NPOV concerns in that particular image because its an infobox. You can see in the archives this has always been my position, and why I defended the inclusion of the Howitzer over the boring 3 sailors picture. Now, we have a new picture (beirut destruction) that is more dynamic, newsworthy, and relvant than the Howitzer, yet it was replaced with it. I cannot phantom why this was done.
I think that due to the extreme controversy this has generated, we should put up a map of the conflict area. I know a map is boring, but I dont think we can find a picture that will keep everyone happy.
Those who continue to object the map solution need to realize its the only way for now... unless we want to see this edit war continue as it will...
I'm completely for the Beirut photo, but it's included later in the article, so I don't think it matters much. I'm over the whole debate, but you have my support. The tank is almost as good. --Iorek8513:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
People need to stop pretending the map is a solve all. If it werent rejected multiple times and were a popular idea, it would be a solve all, but it isnt. If you are so concerned about making everyone happy you would not keep bringing it up. We cannot hope to please everyone, but we can hope to put the best available image up there. Destruction, artillery being fired, katyushs being fired - these are the things that are needed. ~Rangeley (talk)15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have pictures of all the types of missiles Hezbollah has, and has used against them. I can upload them, but where do you want them posted? ArmanJan17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say just upload them and point to them here in the discussion for now. Then editors can put them in, or you can. (Bjorn Tipling17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I wouldn't use them as main picture because the pictures were not taken during the current war. They're from parades and such, either in Lebanon or in Iran. What's wrong with the current picture used (Beirut)? ArmanJan19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so put the pictures somewhere in the article. Beirut cannot be the main picture because it is biased and misportrays events. It makes it appear that Israel planned this attack in the first place. The main picture should show Hezbollah firing missiles because after all Hezbollah started this conflict. If Hezbollah hadn't started it, Israel would NOT have to launch this operation. --68.1.182.21502:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If we can have an "artistic representation" of Nasrallah instead of an actual picture, can we have something like that for Defense Minister Peretz as well? I suggest a modified MSN messenger smilie with a moustache pasted on. --AceMyth14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, but this has been discussed before.
The reason is that a portrait type picture of Nasrallah, at least one that can be used under fair-use or is in the public domain, is not forthcoming. I think in the interest of balance we can continue to use it. Nevertheless, a realist artistic presentation is considered a valid form, if rarely used in the Western media, in news reporting. Three examples of well-known and respected journals in the USA that use realist art renderings as part of news are the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.
Lastly, photographs are also a form of artistic expression, more so publicity portraits, and by using an officially produced and officially distrubuted picture of Israeli commanders or leaders, we balance any license that artists might take.
I honestly think this is a non-issue, as long as both sides get represented, and besides some discussion (and in some cases, vandalism) and the occasional switching of who represents the Israelis, this has been probably the most stable part of the page.
