Wikipedia

Talk:Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Article justified

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A month from now, will this topic be noteable enough to deserve its own article? Medico80 19:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article containing the orginal section has too much information for an article to contain; and therefore there was a need to move the info to this article. Also it may be notable to see how the ending of the conflict drawed out. Hello32020 22:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Many years from now, too. Sanguinalis 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

First Sentence

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was

Terms for a ceasefire have been drawn and revised several times, yet have not been successfully agreed upon by the two sides.

This is really misleading, as it implies that both sides have demanded preconditions for a ceasefire. In fact, Hezbollah has said it will agree to a ceasefire at least since July 17 (perhaps earlier). It is Israel that has wanted (and still does want) conditions. And Israel's conditions haven't changed that much: (1) immediate release of the prisoners, and (2) some sort of demobilization of Hezbollah in the border area. Israel's exact terms regarding (2) have changed somewhat, but not for (1). Sanguinalis 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Independant Cover Picture

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I think the independant cover picture should be removed. It has a clear anti-Israel bias, and as the first thing people see when they come to the article, I feel it is inappropriate. --Nemilar 22:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree. It very poignantly illustrates the situation at the end of July 2006, when the whole world called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, while Israel, United States and Britain alone insisted that it had to be a "sustainable" ceasefire, i.e. a ceasefire that satisfied Israel. Thomas Blomberg 23:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Thomas that is a reasonable concern. Because what in the past 50 years would make Israel think that this ceasefire would be any different from the countless others they have signed. Anyway, even if you think I am wrong, that is the most biased newspaper front page picture I have seen so far. It has to be removed. It reminds me of those T-Shirts republicans made after the 2000 Elections trying to show that the election wasn't as close as people thought. They did this by showing a county map of the entire US and coloring each county red or blue by the way they voted. That obviously was very misleading. However, this wasn't put out by a newspaper, but by a political party. This piece of trash and excuse for a newspaper is disgusting. Again, it has to be removed. Roman, 15 August, 2006 [14:01 PST] (Added by 158.184.70.186 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC))Reply
I've posted the issue to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16/Ceasefire_attempts_during_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict --Nemilar 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I argue that given Wikipedia's strong POV policy, specifically the differentiation between fact and opinion, that this picture should be removed until a better one can take its place. The argument over international debate of the cease-fire cannot be simplified into a single image like this; the image borders on flamebait while adding little value to the article.Nemilar 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The Independent is one of the four large serious national newspapers in the UK, alongside The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. It is renowned both for its very unbiased reporting and for its unusual front pages, often letting an important news item dominate in a striking graphical way. The newspaper does definitely not have an "anti-Israel bias". In fact, it's reporting is more neutral than both that of the more radical The Guardian and the very conservative The Daily Telegraph, and it is often perceived as "boring" because of its very neutral reporting style. It only allows POV writing by columnists and on its editorial page.The front page in question is a very graphic but actual description of the ceasefire debate at the end of July 2006, with Israel, United States and United Kingdom having one view, while most other countries having another. Because of this, it is an extremely good illustration for an article dealing with the ceasefire attempts that went on for a whole month. To ask for its removal because it is perceived as casting Israel in a bad light, is like asking for the removal of anything else in Wikipedia which may be seen as criticism, such as statements from the United Nations. Thomas Blomberg 10:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe having the image on this article suits fair use policy - copyrighted images of newspaper covers can be used...

  • to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question,
  • with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above,
  • on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

The image illusrates the opening paragraph of the article, the publication name is indeed listed, and of course this is Wikipedia. It simply illustrates the issue at hand, and thus having it does not seem to be pushing any point of view or bias since the exact same information is displayed in the opening paragraph. How does that sound? Cowman109Talk 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you think we are all morons? Do you really believe that that cover is not supposed to make a point. Do you really think that cover does not have a bias? I reaffirm my demand that that cover be taken off the page. - 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I never implied that anyone was acting in bad faith. As this is a simple include or not include issue where there can be little, if any compromise, I will leave a note on the village pump requesting uninvolved editors to give a third opinion on the matter to see what they think. Cowman109Talk 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think every single word or picture that may have a bad effect on Israel's faith should be removed. I think this picture's suitable for this page, and it should not be removed. Hossein.ir 08:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. The factual material in the graphic is not a good fit for the article. Most of the countries represented in the graphic were not parties to the ceasefire negotiations and, as such, are never referred to in the article in any way.
2. The opinion that the graphic presents, as explained by the caption "Britain and US are left exposed," is also not a good fit for the article. The graphic was obviously designed to express a provocative opinion. Specifically, it expresses the opinion that British policy is stubbornly risky in an effort to provoke British people to learn more about the policy (that is, by buying more newspapers). A provocative graphic is clearly inappropriate for the opening section of an article about a controversial topic.
3. Last but not least, I doubt the factual accuracy of the graphic. Let's look at one of the flags, the black and green triangles with the yellow X. Did the Independent have evidence of Jamaica's foreign policy? We can look for ourselves. I get no hits for "ceasefire site:gov.jm". Isn't it more likely that the Independent was simply illustrating its claim that "Britain and US are left exposed"?
It's just not smart to use this graphic.
We could possibly use this graphic to illustrate a point about how the media presented the issue. But note that we never address that point in this article. --Hoziron 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, so the graphic might not accurately represent the situation? Unless a section could be added to this article about what the media's response is, the image might very well have more use in an article that specifically discusses the image's use. How does that sound, then? :) Cowman109Talk 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree 100% with the call for the immediate removal of this graphic. It is a misleading at best and ultra-POV against Israel at worst. --GHcool 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Title change

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just changed the title of the article, as the old one didn't correspond with the actual content of the article. Thomas Blomberg 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article structure

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's no reason for a timeline of ceasefire discussion. This can all be summarised into a few relevant, and easy to read paragraphs. TewfikTalk 19:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with a timeline? It's extremely easy to read and it gives a very good account of the month long attempts to reach a ceasefire. There is no policy in Wikipedia to shorten articles just for the sake of shortening. Thomas Blomberg 11:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Indpendent ceasefire.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Indpendent ceasefire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ceasefire_attempts_during_the_2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=1200719190"