Talk:Iraq War/Archive of image header discussions

We have changed images so many times, and many people's arguments have shifted so many times, that this is extremely confusing and has a real sense of going nowhere fast. I have a few criteria which I will put out there for people to consider, as well as a few "non criteria," which we should not be using to disqualify images.

Criteria

• Good quality. The image should look good at 300px, which is the standard size for infobox pictures. Not only does this mean that the real picture should be 300px or more (to prevent pixelization,) but the original picture itself has to have been taken professionally. This criteria is fairly obvious, but should still be up here.
• Interesting/compelling. The image should also be interesting to look at. If its depicting a tank sitting by the roadside, this isn't that interesting unless the tank happens to be a new model of tank first introduced in that particular war, which played a pivotal part. In other words, a still life picture is not very interesting under most circumstances. It should have something going on, displaying action. War is defined by action and movement, and depicting this is key. Showing humans in the photo can also be compelling, and more interesting than one without humans.
• Uniquely relevant. The image should show something that is both relevant, and identifiable to the war. The Vietnam War example Timeshifter found above is a particularly good example, for all three of these qualities, but especially this criteria. It shows a napalm fire, in the jungle setting. Both of these things, when combined, almost instantly evoke the Vietnam war. Not every war has something so clear as that, but there are certainly things identifiable to the Iraq war.

Not Criteria

• All encompassing. A photo need not show all aspects of a war. The Vietnam War image is effective because it shows a few key elements of the war, in an interesting, good quality manner. It doesn't shove everything into the same photo, and doesn't try. It keeps the focus that it has.
• Depicts all sides. An image does not need to show all combatants. The days of both sides lining up in rows and shooting each other predated photography, and only rarely will both sides be in the same photograph. Such a photograph would obviously dangerous to take, and we should not wait for one to show up.

So with the criteria out of the way, here are a few ideas for what might be "uniquely relevant" to this particular war, and what we should avoid. Things that are uniquely relevant might be pictures of in the outside desert setting, pictures that show Iraqis (civilians, troops) convoys on roads, patrols, buildings of Iraqi architectural design. Things that are not uniquely relevant would be photos of death, photos of something inside with troops, simply photos of equipment not being used. There seems to be a trend lately to show destroyed buildings, but this is not unique to any single war and is in all. Troops in a room, or training at home, happen in every war. People die in every war. A photo need not show these things to be a good photo - and we should try and avoid them for that reason. Wikipedia is not censored, but there are things that make a good image, and things that make a bad image. So long as a photo meets to above criteria, I think it would be a solid choice.

Now finally, for a review of the last couple of images we have used.

• Good quality - Yes, I would say it meets that.
• Interesting/Compelling - Yes, it meets this as well. The wounded child is especially compelling, in addition to the Iraqi woman looking downwards in the background. This image is filled with emotions, and filled with humans interacting. It has a real feel of being a snapshot of something happening.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the Iraqi woman in the background in addition to architecture and desert setting lend themselves to this aspect. The fact that the child was wounded by a car bomb is yet another bit of relevance. Certainly these things aren't as identifiable as napalm in a jungle, but are probably some of the best ones we could get for this war at this point.

• Good quality - This is questionable. Its a nice map at full size, but certainly wasn't made for 300px. You cant read things at that size very well.
• Interesting/Compelling - Not really. At full size its interesting, but at 300px it is almost like a filler.
• Uniquely Relevant - Perhaps. At full size I would say it is, but again, at 300px, could you definitively say it was of this war and not any other war in Iraq? I suppose the red triangle is identifiable, but that's not enough to carry the whole image.

stupid, IMO. Some operations shown, some (more important) not. --TheFEARgod (?) 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack, but tell me, what "important" operations are left out? -- VegitaU 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, shows only the Kurdish area, not showing Sunni/Shia division, operations like "Black Eagle" not needed, add only "Diwaniya" with the kalashnikov. Who cares about the U.S.-POV names of ops? We need only the locations in the map --TheFEARgod (?) 12:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The map only shows the Sunni Triangle and Iraqi Kurdistan because those are two very unique areas within Iraq. The Sunni triangle has been around practically the whole war to signify the area roughly covering the Sunni insurgency. Iraqi Kurdistan is a politically autonomous region that has quite distinct borders, along with its own flag, government, and military. As far as as a Shia region, beyond Basra I'm not familiar with a specific regional description of a uniquely Shia area. However, if there is one then perhaps we should add it. Publicus 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - It has a nice human element to it, especially the third soldier back who is looking right at the camera. You can get a good sense of their emotions from it. I think the wounded child image is more compelling, but this still fits the requirement in my view.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, it shows Iraqi soldiers with their "un-uniform" uniforms, a rather motley crew. Note that only some have camouflaged helmets. Its in a desert of course, which helps establish the setting.

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - So-so. It lacks a human element, yet the photo carries a level of interest due to the nice setup. The smoke gives it an almost artistic quality, and the lack of negative space, and good placement of the Humvee and helicopter make it a good image in this sense. I don't know that this is enough to carry it though.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the convoy/oil fire combination is effective, in the desert, at establishing the setting as Iraq.

So, from this, I would have to say that the top image is the best we have so far. This is all just my analysis of course, but I hope that trying to put forward a concrete criteria of what makes a good image can help move things along. If others can find better images, we can compare using the criteria, and hopefully find an image that is the most agreeable. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing work, Rangeley! No matter what picture is chosen it is good that more photos are being found. I have been categorizing them here: Category:2003 Iraq conflict. I hope people categorize more images. Just put [[Category:2003 Iraq conflict]] at the bottom of the image page. I hope people upload more images, too. I believe all images from the military or individual soldiers anywhere in Iraq are considered public domain. --Timeshifter 07:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have solid criteria to follow. I applaud you.

I have an image sent home by a relative which I may submit for consideration. I haven't uploaded it yet, but it shows a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter parked beneath the distict "twin swords" monument under which Republican Guard troops used to parade. It is a high-quality photograph and, although it does not show any people, it cannot be mistakenly associated with any other war. From this description, do you think it would be worthy of consideration if I were to submit it? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it, it would certainly be worth a look. Even if it isnt used in the infobox, it sounds like something that would work in the article itself. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a realy compelling and intresting photo to me.--86.25.52.233 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here it is.

or

~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good quality - It looks as though it was taken either in overcast weather or in the evening (probably the first due to the fuzzy shadow), so the lighting is not optimal.
• Interesting/Compelling - Without humans, and without movement, it seems sort of set aside and out of the action.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the hands of victory are obviously identifiable as Iraqi, and the architecture, but I dont think these make up for the two other points.

I think it might work as an addition to the Hands of Victory article though. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• This picture is an awsum display of America's overwelming military and political omnipitance in the Gulf after the war 'officaly ended'.--86.29.241.114 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is visualy pleasing and a good sumarry of the events.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• The second picture is the better one.--Comander E.I. Davis2 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: I added the second photo I think is of more better quality --TheFEARgod (?) 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is unique to this conflict.--Kerry Perry 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Abraham's tank wreck is also apropriate and compelling, to. --Toddy Ball 2 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It horrific and just gloryfies death!--86.25.52.233 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Beat this!!! The U.S. Army] Private Lynndie England holding a leash attached to a prisoner collapsed on the floor in the Abu Ghraib prison!!!--86.29.246.193 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it.--86.29.240.115 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a low quality and of a immoral subject (torture).--Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More Abu Ghraib images are found here:

commons:Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse --Timeshifter 07:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a low quality picture. -- VegitaU 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, so far we have: Child-in-arms, War Map, Iraqi Soldiers, HMMWV and helicopter, Hands of Victory, Saddam at Trial, Burned Tank, and Iraqi on Leash. I also have to remark to stop making exclamatory remarks like BEAT THIS!!!!111!! This is not a competition and to the writers to make these, I would highly advise you read WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BATTLE. This adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to undermine the argument altogether. Such remarks will be disregarded in the future. Please make objective remarks on why the picture would serve best when placed up against the criteria at the top. Make an argument that will generate discussion. Thanks. -- VegitaU 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 1

• I have reviewed all the pictures on the commons and found this is the one I like most. For me, this illustrates the war in Iraq the best; just as soldiers in the jungle and a burning Vietnamese village illustrates the Vietnam War the best. This picture follows all the criteria set forth above. It is good quality, compelling and active, and relevant to the situation. -- VegitaU 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good image from User:VegitaU. --Freetown 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - Yes, it certainly has a human element. You can clearly see peoples expressions, and that they are looking in different directions, clearly being active. The front person is peering around a corner, which leads one to wonder what he sees.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, I have to agree with VegitaU that this is one the most identifiable scenes from the Iraq War. Its a several man patrol going around the streets of Iraq, searching for insurgents.

This is another image I like, along with the first picture (of the child.) The one of Saddam is not actually in the war, but seperate to the war, and the prisoner abuse is just a component as opposed to the war itself. They are both good pictures for their respective articles/sections though (trial and abuse). The destroyed tank is not compelling (active, human element) or uniquely relevent (destroyed tanks are fairly common.) ~Rangeley (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the Child-in-arms picture as it shows war from the victims perspective, which is usually unrepresented, but still a very important and sad aspect of war.--Raphael1 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• It would be intresting to have a headder picture of the 'oppersition' for once. This picture of the Iraqies on the eve of war dose this. User:VegitaU's picture of the troopers is a good shot to.--86.25.51.217 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Disregarded for bad-faith vandalism here. -- VegitaU 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

VegitaU. Please stop editing other people's comments. That is a serious breach of WP:TALK. You can be reported to WP:ANI for that. I removed the strikeout code. The diff you linked to was not vandalism. And current vandalism does not allow past non-vandalous comments to be struck out. WP:TALK lists very specific things that justify removing text. Such as completely offtopic comments, blatant over-the-top insults, etc.. Also, stop removing images. It makes the thread difficult to follow. The fact that the images may make the text wrap a little imperfectly is not a big deal on talk pages. --Timeshifter 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, I'd appreciate it if you came to my personal talk page to discuss this issue instead of here in this discussion page, but hey, whatever... From WP:VAND: common types of vandalism include the addition of…bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense.' And that's exactly what I deleted, in my opinion: "[[I'm glad to see old tango breath is on tryal today!]]" First of all, these unregistered users all mysteriously hailing from the same place with similar IP addresses have been fairly disruptive in this talk page.([1], [2]) Sorry, if I seemed to be going a little rogue deleting comments and all; I apologize; yes, it was out of line, but don't come here and threaten me with WP:ANI. If you want to go there, feel free…this issue has proven to be really frustrating and I'm trying to find out who these disruptive users are. User:Yancyfry jr and I have already started sock puppet reports to try and get a grasp on the situation. I've been trying to limit the nonsense that has kept appearing over the past week or so on here while trying to carry this discussion in an organized, sensible manner with the pictures presented clearly for everyone to discuss. I did not feel these unregistered editors were editing in good faith. Thanks for your concern. --VegitaU 14:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you get frustrated dealing with some of the unregistered users' comments. I do too at times. I commented here because I did not want others to also start editing others' comments. We also have to take into account WP:BITE. --Timeshifter 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm choseing the chopper under the Hands of victory. It has a unique historical role, captures a moment of global importance (the fall of Baghdad) and has a pleasent visual simitry to it.--Pine oak 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It is aperent to me, that the Hands of victory picture was staged as a P.R. Stunt and is not of any real value to the site. --Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe we can rotate the images. I really like many of the images people are finding. I keep categorizing more and more images to Category:2003 Iraq conflict. Some of the images need to be categorized to subcategories there. Feel free to do so. --Timeshifter 07:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All I'm sure of is that the image of the child and soldier is utterly unacceptable. Rangeley left out one very important criterion, the image needs at least to follow rudimentary neutrality guidelines, the impression conveyed by this image is atrociously pro-American. I also disagree that it is interesting or compelling, it strikes me as rather tame, particularly as the focus is on the soldier, the least interesting aspect of the photograph.Nwe 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I left the issue of NPOV out of the criteria was no accident. I wanted to get discussion past the "when I look at this, I interpret it as showing...," and towards aspects which we could constructively discuss. I think that if there is an image which fails NPOV, it probably fails the other aspects as well. For instance, a staged photo would likely not be interesting or compelling, except in the rarest of instances (Battle of Berlin). And as is the case here, you do not find this photo particularly compelling. In that case, I suppose we can just move on to another image. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A posible unique late commer- Baghdad burns after a Shock and awe campainge.

• Good quality - Definitely
• Interesting/Compelling - An explosion is always dramatic.
• Uniquely Relevant - The abbr. IED, I think, says a lot about the Iraq War --TheFEARgod (?) 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like this one too. A perfect example of the ever-present car bomb explosion... a regular event, it seems, in Iraq. -- VegitaU 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So do I, its very far from ideal, but seems to be the best we have.Nwe 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An IED is certainly a uniquely relevent aspect, but the lack of a human element is a big negative. How do people think this compares to the above image of a patrol? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the car bomb image and the soldiers on patrol image are fine photographs, but I don't think they should be selected. The car bomb picture lacks any human element to it, as stated above. The soldier patrol image indeed contains people, but I would say that the soldiers are very much obscured by their gear and sunglasses. The people end up looking like just generic American soldiers, and I would rather not present soldiers in that way.Josh60798 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sooo, any other comments about this? I would hate to see all the air escape from this effort. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So it seems to me that we've narrowed the candidate pool through discussion to the following:

• Child
• HMMWV and Helicopter
• Hands of Victory (one of them)
• Army Patol
• Car Bomb

From these, what can we further say about them to reach an end agreement? Personally, I like the patrol picture, followed closely by the car bomb picture. -- VegitaU 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Car bomb, Army patrol and either Hands of Victory are of perticular relivence to this artical--Comander E.I. Davis2 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the HMMWV and the Army patrol.--Freetown 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From discussion, it seems like the patrol image has the most positive, with one negative that the soldiers are slightly obscured by their gear. The car bomb image is also up there, but its lack of humans is an even bigger negative. I would support putting the patrol image up to end this issue, as it appears to be the best we have at the moment. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Patrole,Hands of Victory and HMMWV with hellicopter have the best picture clarity.--86.25.55.118 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Child portrays the conflict like a humaniterian rather than counter insrgency campaing, which gives it a false impression to the readers.--86.25.55.118 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the Hands of Victory (helicopter).--Pine oak 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 2

Pine oak, you obviously have a skewed view of this discussion. Please read WP:DEMOCRACY and understand that this is a discussion, not an election or popularity contest. We reach consensus here. Let me also say that I'm amused at how all the "new" unregistered users and others seem to creep out of nowhere with their misspellings, irrelevant links, and poor editing to sway this discussion. Sock puppets, anyone? Oh wait, I shouldn't bite. -- VegitaU 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As concerns votes and consensus most editors with user names tend to pay attention more to the opinions of other registered users. The Iraq War article has long gotten edits and comments from unregistered users. Some have been vandals. That is why the article itself is semi-protected. There may or may not be sock puppets in this discussion. But please don't make blanket accusations against unregistered users you disagree with. --Timeshifter 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who am I disagreeing with? I made a statement about my amusement on the appearance of "new" unregistered users, not their comments. -- VegitaU 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems that you are attacking Pine Oak for the links he left in his previous comment. Seemed a little heavy-handed to me. Lighten up. It gives the impression also that you disagree with their image choices, too. Like the time you struck out a comment from someone choosing a particular image, and said it was irrelevant because they had made a so-called vandalous comment previously. And attacking people for their misspellings has long been a no-no on most forums (not just wikipedia talk pages). Instead, I suggest recommending the Firefox browser to people. It has a spellchecker built in. It works great and in real time. I use 2 browsers. Internet Explorer and Firefox. The IP addresses of many people changes over time. So it is not surprising that unregistered users are often found using new IP addresses. Many internet providers assign dynamic IP addresses. --Timeshifter 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. I never said I disagreed with Pine oak. I said Wikipedia was not a democracy and that to reach a meaningful end, consensus through discussion was needed since he just said "I vote for [this]!" And yeah, as I already explained above, 'my bad' in crossing out a comment after vandalism. Oh, look we just had more vandalism from those pesky unregistered users…darn; don't want to seem too "heavy-handed" in my approach. -- VegitaU 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So what? Just because some unregistered users are vandals does not mean they all are. Let us stop discussing this offtopic stuff here. We can use our talk pages. --Timeshifter 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you we're the one who began posting here and not on my talk page. Hey, check it out, someone just deleted comments from unregistered users…oh, wait, you only get on my case about it. -- VegitaU 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I also remove obvious vandalism from registered or unregistered users. But I don't keep a running log on talk pages, or attack unregistered users in general. Nor do I use their mistakes to attack their opinions. I commented here because you attacked their opinions here, based on their mistakes (some of it was just mistakes or not understanding the rules here, and not vandalism). I don't want others to do these kinds of attacks either. And I want to encourage sincere newbies to help out at wikipedia. So I comment here. You started this by attacking some of the unregistered users too harshly. --Timeshifter 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems to me, then, you don't understand vandalism, personal attacks, and what happened. I disregarded an unregistered user's comments based on his vandalism. Then, I suggested that Pine oak read WP:DEMOCRACY to understand why simply "voting" was not a constructive way of furthering the discussion. Nowhere did I make any personal attacks against these users based on their opinions. I really don't care what picture we use, in the end, so long as the discussion is worthwhile and productive. That's why I set up this box apart from the rest of the talk page discussions. Please show me the "mistakes" you mention. Adding double-commas to other people's edits and other nonsense sure doesn't seem like a good-faith mistake to me. And where is your constant vigilance "reverting vandalism"? You revert edits to your comments, not to anyone else's. And you revert my edits to the article. Did I vandalize the article? No, I don't think so. But I'm sure what you do isn't "too harsh", right? -- VegitaU 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you are saying I don't revert some vandalism? Well, I do, and I don't waste talk page space reporting on it. You want a medal? --Timeshifter 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter who started it here, it belongs on either of your talk pages as it doesnt deal with images. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It deals with people's opinions of images. I am willing to take this to talk pages, though. --Timeshifter 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 3

So does anyone object if we put up the patrol image? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll get no opposition from me. -- VegitaU 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I object if it is intended to stay up a long time. I think we should rotate images. Some people do not want the reality of the war (death, gore, and casualties) to be shown. Especially of Iraqis. So they like these gungho, posed photos of U.S. soldiers on street corners, or helicopters under monuments, or a statue coming down. --Timeshifter 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think periodic rotation is a great idea. Just keep a copy of the diff here so when you are inevitably accused of edit warring by an overzealous but well-meaning administrator, you'll have a get-out-of-jail-free card. ←Ben^B4 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What's the point of rotating images? It just seems like we can't come to any clear decision, so we're going to try and satisfy everyone. Unfortunately, once someone's "favorite" picture is rotated out, someone's going to come in and declare NPOV and start the argument all over again. We should decide in this discussion what picture to use, post it, and defend it from changes. The pictures in the Vietnam War and World War II articles haven't changed in years. I see no point in rotating pictures like a slideshow. -- VegitaU 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Patrol and the Child have a more human element.--Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The 'Child' and 'Patrol' are the only ones with a human and topical nature. rotation is not a good idea, it's unessasery.--Atlanic wave2. 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose setting out to rotate images on a regular basis. This discussion tried to find the best we currently have, with the intention of using that image. I would not want to see images that we determined were sub-par be used, but thats what rotating would inevitably do as it uses not just the best we have but also the not so good. But its not like we will use this image forever, if that is your fear. I bet that eventually a better image will come along that can take its place. But when that one comes along, we would go through the same process we did here, judge it through criteria and compare. There would be no more edit wars or "I like this better" wars, it would have an orderly process. Im not completely happy with this image either, but I think it is good enough to accept as a way of ending the disorder we previously dealt with. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case I am opposed to this photo. Because it adds little to the article. It is just a typical guys-on-patrol photo that can be found for almost any conflict zone nowadays. And it is a photo of Americans. So it doesn't show anything of the Iraqi side of the war. Rotation would allow us to show the Iraqi side too. Changing the photo once a week, or thereabouts, would make a lot more people happy, and they might even come back to the article every few weeks just to see the latest header photo. If they are consistently compelling enough. --Timeshifter 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that this is Wikipedia. If we rotated images it would almost certainly cause problems and disagreements on a regular basis, and chances are it would create a situation even worse than that which we had before. For that reason, is there a picture we have found thus far which you prefer more than the patrol image? I still want to settle on one image to use until a better one comes around, rather than throw the page into the quagmire which would occur if we had to find a steady stream of agreeable images. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) We could archive the image talk with a special name such as "Header image discussion". I know how to do it. We can put a link to it at the top of the main talk page. We can continue all header image discussion there, and paste stuff there from the main talk page too. That way if newbies to the discussion complain we can point them to the link (in bold red letters) at the top of the talk page. See the red link at the top of Talk:Jerusalem just above the table of contents. Here is an iconic image below for this war. Long after this war is over this photo will be remembered. Women in the military, torture, and Abu Ghraib. Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.--Timeshifter 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib. Sabrina Harman posing over the body of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner tortured to death in United States custody in November 2003.

I think Abu Ghraib pictures have their place, but not as the header for this war. There are thousands of honorable soldiers fighting brutal battles across Iraq. The ones who participated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse should not represent the "Iraq War". Yes, it's a very good picture, but I don't think it belongs as the header for this article. -- VegitaU

The image would work for the specific section, or for the article dealing with that topic, but it is too limited to a specific event for it to be the image we choose for the entire war. A nice comparison to this image would be the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad. That too is an iconic image, for more reasons than one, but it is hardly suited as an image for the entire war. For the specific Battle of Baghdad (2003) article, on the other hand, it is suited due to it being specifically of that event. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)\

(unindent) I am sorry Rangeley, especially considering all the work you have done in this discussion, but I suggest just keeping the map at the top. I think almost all the other images would offend as many people as they would please. Many people absolutely do not want an image at the top that puts the USA in a bad light. So a map is better than some cheesy pro-USA image at the top. The war is in IRAQ. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Far more have been wounded. --Timeshifter 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have the image of the wounded Iraqi child, and the Iraqi soldiers. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Coalition Forces preparing for an evening raid. The British are co-located at Camp Viper, Iraq. The British forces are from 2/1 Battery, 16th Air Assault Brigade. They are working between Basra and Camp Viper, providing Force Protection.

May be we could have a British picture to make a safe compromise over. It is neither Iraqi or U.S. and dose show servicemen at work on the battlefield.--Comander E.I. Davis2 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to have an Iraqi in the image. Otherwise, let us use the map image. Maybe we can rotate images with Iraqis in them. Maybe we should make an informal rule at wikipedia to always have someone in war header photos who is someone who grew up in the area of the war. It seem like such a systemic bias to do otherwise. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Here I will probably settle for almost any image with an Iraqi in it. But there are so few at Category:2003 Iraq conflict. That is telling about the state of English wikipedia. --Timeshifter 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are few not because of a bias, but because of a lack of available free images. This image contains Iraqis, is it suitable enough? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• This would be a very good picture as well, being that it's an active one with an American helicopter and Iraqi troops. It used to be the header picture until October 2006, when it was replaced by the four-way split. -- VegitaU 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraqis on the eve of war-

The picture is of Iraq's new troops and thus bias, partizan and irrelivent. The image should only be either of Ba'athist forces or coalition forces.--Comander E.I. Davis2 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: The whole point of the war is to rebuild Iraq into a functional democracy with an able military. This is exactly what the picture implies. -- VegitaU 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

--Freetown 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the photo isnt even of the war, and not of an active combatant, I dont really think that one should be used. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the image was a cooked up by an Iraqi P.R. firm or sympathizer to make them look 'cool' before the war broke out. --Atlanic wave2. 11:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 4

May be this could be used instead of men?

Baghdad after a shock and awe attack.

^{Dopy image.}

No, it doesnt meet any of the criteria. Not suited for an infobox, not compelling, not uniquely relevent. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks phony to me, like a CIA mock-up zaped on to a Google image. Freetown and many others have fallen for a fake, I don't beleve it, but it's all so true!--Kerry Perry 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you click on a wikipedia image, you can read the image description page to find out the source of an image. That image came from NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=10149 --Timeshifter 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, then why is it of such a low resilution? Google has better maps of Baghdad and Basra!--Kerry Perry 13:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC) See-

[[3]]

Central Baghdad and Saddar city at 2,000ft and 500ft resilution!--Kerry Perry 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Google maps are copyrighted. -- VegitaU 15:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the wikipedia image is a copy of the highest resolution version available from that particular NASA page. Click the image until it stops enlarging. Both the wikipedia image and the NASA image need to be clicked to enlarge them.

NASA probably has even higher resolution versions, but may not post them online due to bandwidth constraints. --Timeshifter 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I'll click them and see them in full.--Kerry Perry 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think an effective way of choosing a picture, on top of the mentioned criteria, is to pick one where you immediately realize where it's from. That is, without a caption, the viewer knows it's from the Iraq War and doesn't have to think too deeply about what exactly the picture is conveying. Most of the ones we've seen (HMMWV and heli, patrol, Iraqis and heli) all convey the "Iraq War" without any captions, but ones such as the "Baghdad Burning" picture just raise the questions: "Where's this from?" "What is this about?" It isn't immediate and sure in the viewer's mind. -- VegitaU 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, how is the picture of Iraqi soldiers in your view? ~Rangeley (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's got the 'human factor'.--Freetown 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer either of the casualty photos below. But neither are remotely as compelling as some of the casualty photos of Iraqi kids in pain after being wounded that one can find elsewhere on the web. --Timeshifter 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

or 

This is the only photo-reality in the Iraq war.--Toddy Ball 2 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first picture doesn't exclusively denote the Iraq War straight out. It isn't even set in Iraq. It looks like it could have come from any number of American conflicts. The second, however, is certainly compelling, active, good quality, and identifiable as having come from the Iraq War. -- VegitaU 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the second one above is realistic in that it shows a casualty of the war. Here below is an Iraqi casualty:

Sergeant Michael Daugherty, a medic from the 1st Cavalry Division, lifts a wounded Iraqi police officer into an ambulance at Forward Operating Base Normandy March 2, 2007.

There are only a few casualty photos here: commons:Category:Iraq War--Timeshifter 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right-o. Like the one above. These casualty photos do make excellent candidates alongside the other "battle operation" photos. I don't think we're any closer to coming to a decision though. I think we should try first choosing the category we want as the header…battle operations, non-battle photos, or casualty photos? This discussion has become very long (which is a good thing!), but for new readers, it may become a little intimidating or complex, so I'm going to draft a summary at the bottom as a list of all the pictures submitted and the standings at this point. -- VegitaU 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than limit ourselves to a specific category, we should keep ourselves open to whatever might be the best image. The only exception is non battle photos, or photos before the war/separate, which are simply not relevent enough. Out of the casualty images, most fall short for the same reason that the "Army Patrol" image falls short - while containing humans, you cant see their faces. The photo of American coffins with flags over them could easilly be anywhere. Out of the casualty images, the only ones which show faces are "Child in Arms" and "Wheelchair Man." The wheelchair man photo is too big for the infobox, but could it be cut to fit? I dont remember if we are allowed to edit photos.

Out of the battle images, the "Hands of Victory" images are too dry and not very compelling, along with being, as Timeshifter said, kind of a gungho type image. As said above, the "Army Patrol" has humans, but you cant really see their faces, "Car Bomb" has no humans, "HMMWV and Helicopter" has no humans, "Iraq War Map" obviously has none (and lacks many other things.) That leaves us with "Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopter." They are Iraqis, you can see their faces, its good quality at 300px.

Those are the only three images that remain in my mind. All three have an Iraqi element, two also have a coalition element. What image of these three do people think best captures the war? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always been privy to the "Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopter" ever since it used to be up on the article. I feel it's illustrates the war perfectly, even without a caption. However, I'm not sure about "not being able to see their faces". Up in the criteria you mentioned how well the Vietnam War picture went with the article, but the soldier's face in the picture isn't visible…or, at least, it's less visible than the Army Patrol picture. Except for their sunglasses and chin-straps, I can see their faces fine. A picture can be just as powerful from behind or to the side as a close up from the front. Here are my three picks in order of preference:

The first contains a coaliton element, the second is starkly clear without a necessary explanation, and the third is what comes to my mind when I think of operations in Iraq. -- VegitaU 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can put that second one up for now until we find something better. I don't think it has been a header photo yet. Several of the other ones have been header photos already. --Timeshifter 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think an image which includes Iraqis would be far more preferable and representative of the war. I dont see wounded American soldier as being particularly unique - if we are going to go with a casualty photo, it should at least have an Iraqi element, though the Iraqis with the helicopter is better than the Iraqi wheelchair photo. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the photo of the Iraqis being left by the helicopter better? Those kind of photos are common to many wars. It seems kind of generic to me. --Timeshifter 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about us all compromising on the Iraqi being lifted into the ambulance. It seems to be one of the top choices for all of us. It does not seem generic. Especially when it is captioned. --Timeshifter 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely be able to compromise to that. I don't know if it will fit in the infobox, or have to be cropped a little, but it's a good picture nonetheless. What say the others? -- VegitaU 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would work for me. I have cropped the photo to appropriate size, and made the colors slightly warmer (it appears to have been taken in cloudy weather.) Heres how it looks:

Is it good enough to put up? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Timeshifter 08:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As the person who originally uploaded it, I would like to withdraw HMMWV and Helicopter from consideration. It seems to me that there are better images to choose from, and I would appreciate if the image could be listed for removal. Thank you for checking it out, but it doesn't look like the image will work out and I would like this debate to be concluded as swiftly and smoothly as possible. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Others may find the photo useful for different parts of this article or others. --Timeshifter 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a defining moment on the part of our history comparable to the fall of the Berlin wall. The pictures are active, relevant and pertinent. The Pulling down of the statue is also instantly recognizable as far as it's location is concerned. The land mine is also appropriate, since it's summarises the daily fear of booby-traps the troops have to live with.

Image:Saddamstatue.jpg

--Comander E.I. Davis2 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The first is too limited to the 2003 battle of Baghdad, the second is not actually a war image, and the third is simply not active enough. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Saddam's jail-house Obi Wan Kanobi impression!

--Kerry Perry 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Try the Australian S.A.S. or thes Polish pictures. The jeeps are active, the dock a thriller and the croud is both high qality, easly located and shows faces verry well

may be.

a good contender.

--Pine oak 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

None of these pictures meet the criteria we set forth on relevance and action. Please read over the criteria and stop uploading random images you come across. -- VegitaU 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheelchair Man

A medic lifts a wounded Iraqi police officer into an ambulance

What does everyone say about the "Wheelchair Man" picture as thus? I would prefer to settle this tedious discussion soon. -- VegitaU 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture is both compeling, well done, high-quality and well-cut. It's apropriate due to Iraq's and America's heavy sacrifice in the war so far.--Kerry Perry 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps the 2 could be rotated with it?--Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

--Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The dead Iraqi is inactive, faceless and of a very low picture quality--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Wheelchair Man' is very sad, emotive and activated.--Toddy Ball 2 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We already settled that a rotating image is not appropriate. We are trying to pick one image. -- VegitaU 04:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Child in arms' is POV and falsley portrays the war as a humaniterian mission.--Pine oak 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Wheelchair man' is also a high quality and topical image.--Kerry Perry 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like none of these, I don't think we should have casualties included. Look at other wars --TheFEARgod (?) 11:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's to brutal, Wheelchair man and Child in arms go to far- the pain!--Freetown 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC) It's nessasery to the article.--Kerry Perry 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheelchair man is a good compromise for the header photo. It seems to be one of the top choices of several people who have been commenting a long time in this discussion. --Timeshifter 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly. I'm going to put it in and see what happens. ←Ben^B4 21:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank God! I thought this discussion was going to take the whole month. Let me just go around the "room" one last time to avoid annoying someone. Everyone cool with us closing this discussion with the Wheelchair Man as our header image? -- VegitaU 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "wheelchair man" image really says a whole lot--not distinctive to the Iraq war for one thing, but let's try it in the info-box and see how long it lasts. Publicus 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

again POV. Photo implies (false) humanitarian activity of US forces there. Also, the photo would better fit in an earthquake/terrorist attack article. --TheFEARgod (?) 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The criteria listed in choosing the picture did not include POV into account, since views range so widely on this matter. Instead, we came to the decision based on quality, activity, and recognition. Putting aside all that, the picture shows an American aiding an Iraqi police officer into an ambulance. Having worked at the Balad AFB hospital, I can tell you for a fact that we tend to many Iraqi army and police personnel after they've been wounded. Whether or not it's for humanitarian purposes or for oil, is up to the beholder. -- VegitaU

? If this photo is gonna be joined with, for example the car bomb, I could agree on having it. (explosion + injury) --TheFEARgod (?) 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, please use the Show preview button before you submit your edit so it doesn't truncate my signature. Second, we started this discussion because no one liked the 4-way shot back in the day. I don't think we need another merged or rotational image. -- VegitaU 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, I agree with TheFEARgod about the POV of the photo. I know some people tire of this discussion, but here goes ... :)

Anyway we frequently waste (oops, spend) a lot of time in wikipedia arguing over a few words or sentences. I think images are important too.

I like the idea of stacking 2 300-pixel-wide photos on top of each other at the top of the infobox. There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. It looks a lot better than a collage of 4 tiny photos. Here is what TheFEARgod may have in mind:

Top image: April 14, 2005. As Coalition Forces respond to a car bombing in South Baghdad, a second car bomb is detonated, targeting those responding to the initial incident. The attack, aimed at the Iraqi police force, resulted in 18 casualties, two of which were police officers. Bottom image: March 2, 2007. A medic lifts a wounded Iraqi police officer into an ambulance.

Bottom-Bottom Picture:Sand...
There's a lot of it in Iraq.

I think this photo combination opens a real window into the Iraq War. --Timeshifter 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose the idea of two images, split images, and rotating. We are here to choose one. Far from being a picture of a humanitarian situation, the wheelchair man photo shows American soldiers lifting what is ostensibly a wounded Iraqi soldier - not a non combatant - into an ambulance. For this reason, I really dont understand the objection. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree: I also oppose the use of dual images. It's, again, an attempt to satisfy everyone, but it results, in my opinion, in weakening the article. I mean, why not put every Iraq War picture into the header? Will that suffice? If there's a problem with the picture, then let's continue the discussion, but this is for one picture. Not a gallery, not a mesh, and not on a rotation. -- VegitaU 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Snore. You guys make boring wikipedia pages. Why not just put back the map to reach full snore mode? Class dismissed. Wake me up when you guys find a pulse. Wikipedia can be as useful and encyclopedic as we want it to be. You never heard this: "An image is worth a thousand words." Well, then 2 images are worth thousands of words. When some more creative people get involved or comment on this talk page, then we will do this idea of TheFEARgod. --Timeshifter 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like someone from the Kindness Campaign. Hope you don't mind, I added another picture. If two are worth 2,000, three have got to be worth…uh, more than that, eh? Been great discussing with you. --VegitaU 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Go back to pounding sand. ;)

UrbanDictionary.com definition

"Pounding sand". That is truly an apt description of U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. Is there a reliable source that says that? That would be a great quote for a popular criticism section of the article. --Timeshifter 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! Good show! Go suck a railroad spike, old chap. -- VegitaU 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, all right. We let off some steam. Let's seriously get back to the discussion. -- VegitaU 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Go and eat sand and eat dirt, sirs!--Atlanic wave2. 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'Wheelchair Man' photo break 1

What exactly is the problem with the wheelchair image? ~Rangeley (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'sand' picture is best!--Kerry Perry 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Seas-fire Let's call a 6 month seas-fire and stick with the wheelchair guy for the time beeing.

--Freetown 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, due to the collapse of support for the wheelchair image, and newfound support for the Iraqi soldiers with helicopter, I propose we put that up and see how it sticks. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's OK for me. --TheFEARgod (?) 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a rotation of these 3 iconic images-

--Comander E.I. Davis2 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the POV tag. I'm boldly replacing Image:Iraq_streetfight.jpg. Publicola 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting either the soldiers+helicopter or the collage I added. It makes the same for me, but take out the POV or propaganda photos --TheFEARgod (?) 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I am boldly putting back the map. Publicus is right. In the middle of a war any header image is bound to offend some people for this reason or that. It is only years after a war that people can settle on a header image. I will put the various casualty photos in thumbnail form in the relevant sections of the article.

The discussion was useful. We found some great images, and I see more of them being used in the article. Also, the editing by Rangeley helped the wheelchair man image.

I moved the wheelchair man photo to: Iraq_War#Effects_of_the_surge_on_security since the photo was taken in March 2007 during the surge, and since the paragraph where the photo is now located mentions police officer casualties in March 2007.

I placed some of the other favorites in the article too. --Timeshifter 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

explain me something, why has the map noted some operations such as "arrowhead ripper" and not, fo example "phantom fury", which was more massive and deadly campaign. Also, why do we need operations (POV+propaganda) names in the map at all, I think the kalashnikov and location is enough. Also, IMO one map cannot document all the stages of war in Iraq. --TheFEARgod (?) 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all the image choices, the map had just about the least support - even Publicus agreed with the premise that we are not choosing the image, but simply the best of those which we have. We have determined the map is not that. What is wrong with the image of Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopters? Most of the people, including TheFEARgod, who did not support the wheelchair image support this one, and pretty much everyone who supported the wheelchair image also support this one. It has broad support, and also meets the criteria originally outlined. It is a fine option to go with - it shows Iraqis, and a rather motley crew at that with their un-uniform uniforms and gear, preparing to load onto a helicopter to carry out a mission. Noone can allege it "falsely conveys a humanitarian mission," its clearly a military one. Until a better image comes around, I am perfectly fine with going with this image. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop reposting images over and over. It clutters things, especially when the images have already been dismissed multiple times. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question about the map, since I made it, there's absolutely no room for all the operations ever conducted in Iraq. Phantom Fury falls under the battles of Fallujah and there is already a marker denoting the battles. Ultimately, I made the decision based on the Iraq War battles template you see here. If the specific operation isn't on there, I didn't deem it big enough to mark. Also, there is not much room around the Fallujah area on the map (or in many places on the map) to write in huge numbers of operations. -- VegitaU 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Soldiers with Helicopter

As a final go round, does anyone have any major objections to this image? Here was how it was judged by the criteria:

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - It has a nice human element to it, especially the third soldier back who is looking right at the camera. You can get a good sense of their emotions from it.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, it shows Iraqi soldiers with their "un-uniform" uniforms, a rather motley crew. Note that only some have camouflaged helmets. Its in a desert of course, which helps establish the setting.

Any other thoughts on it? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but use the commons photo (see link in photo details of this one). PD goes to commons. --TheFEARgod (?) 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why show only Iraqi troops working with the U.S.-led coalition? Why not the Iraqi insurgents, too? Unless there is balance in the header images, then it seems like wikipedia is supporting one side or another. Why is there such opposition to having even 2 images in the infobox? We can stack 2 images. This one, and another one picturing the insurgents. I could live with that. Or 2 stacked casualty photos. Or the collage of 4 casualty photos. WP:NPOV says that Wikipedia can not seem to be favoring any side in the narrative voice of wikipedia. Or in its selection of sources, images, etc.. --Timeshifter 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."--Timeshifter 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As was said in the criteria, "An image does not need to show all combatants. The days of both sides lining up in rows and shooting each other predated photography, and only rarely will both sides be in the same photograph. Such a photograph would obviously dangerous to take, and we should not wait for one to show up." Wikipedia cannot favor certain sources at the expense of others for photos, but the only person objecting to a photo due to its source is you. We have come to support this photo not because of where its from, but because, judged by criteria, it is the best photo for the infobox. We most certainly can have photos of insurgents in the article, however, as this has a lower bar of quality that it must pass. Remember, this discussion is about only one photo, not all photos (though its certainly brought in some good ones for the article itself.) ~Rangeley (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"the criteria" was just something written up by somebody on this talk page. It has no authority. I am not objecting to the source for the photo. I am objecting to it favoring one side in a header photo. Rangeley, this is a fairly similar discussion to the one about "Part of the War on Terror" being at the top of the infobox. The same person who moderated that discussion suggested putting a map at the top of the infobox in this discussion. In both cases part of the reasoning was that all points of view are more fairly represented in the main text of the article. They can't be fairly represented in the infobox. --Timeshifter 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When one cites another persons view, it is a good idea to get it right. I am surprised that you still hold that it is only a point of view that the Iraq War is part of the US-led campaign. Kirill Lokshin, the very person you mentioned, said quite the opposite - the Iraq War was begun as a part of that campaign. The issue, that he so aptly pointed out, was that that particular sort of campaign was not intended to go in the "part of" field.

What Kirill Lokshin said in this case was not that you could not have an image depicting one side - it was instead that collages are better suited for wars that are in the past, where several well-known, iconic images can be put together. These images would not be selected because they represent all sides of the war, or all aspects of the war, but because they are the most well known images people have come to associate with the particular war. For instance, the World War Two article has a collage image that does not equally represent all sides, or show all sides by any means, but instead shows some of the iconic imagery that everyone has come to associate with World War Two.

Kirill Lokshin did say it would not be a "bad idea" that we try and make a map of the war (not just of Iraq,) but I think we have shown that this war is not particularly suited for having a map in the infobox. Because this is not a conventional war, and lacks front lines (its an insurgency,) any 300px map will be exceedingly lacking.

What he did not say was that we could not have an image which depicted one combatant. As was realistically outined in the criteria, you likely will not find an image with more than one side depicted.

Let me ask this question, do you think that your picture of the smiling soldier at Abu Ghraib favors a particular side? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Few images of the war do not favor one side or the other. You wrote: "any 300px map will be exceedingly lacking." That is true for nearly all maps used as headers for wikipedia articles about wars. But Kirill Lokshin still suggested using a map. --Timeshifter 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My question was whether you feel the image favored a particular side. As an addendum - if so, why did you suggest we use it if you are dismissing others for favoring a side? ~Rangeley (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember suggesting we use the Iraqi soldiers and helicopter photo as a header photo. If I did, I don't think so now, because I see how it could be construed as favoring the Coalition over the insurgents. --Timeshifter 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked if you felt the "smiling soldier at Abu Ghraib favors a particular side?" and "if so, why did you suggest we use it if you are dismissing others for favoring a side?" Though its interesting that you think that the helicopter photo favors a particular side, I talk about that in the "The touch" section so we can take that up there. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it because it is already iconic, and remembered worldwide. But I see how it could be interpreted as favoring one side, and therefore not suitable for a header photo. --Timeshifter 02:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, what was your train of thought on the casualty collage? Was it that you were balancing two POV photos with two opposite-POV photos, or that it was merely two POV photos with two NPOV photos, in which case it would be, on the whole, a collage skewed to a POV? ~Rangeley (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See previous reply.--Timeshifter 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did, and I actually dont see this specific question answered. Is it the former, or the latter? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So I might as well photoshop an image of American Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force personnel standing around with Mahdi Army, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein? WP:NPOV explains that although all views should be presented, "articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". Meaning, we don't have to have everyone and their mother in this picture. Sorry, if that takes it into "full snore mode," or however you call it. -- VegitaU 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words let us use your map. ;)

See my reply higher up to Rangeley. --Timeshifter 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Wow, I really think you need a break from the discussion, you seem to be imagining things now. I disagree with the collage. So what? Pick a picture you feel best represents the war, not 4 that sort of represent one-of-millions of sides of the war. And take a breather, okay... you sound like you need it. Peace. -- VegitaU 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it was a joke. You were talking about "full snore mode", and that made me think of your map. In fact most maps are pretty boring and non-offensive. Which is why a coordinator of the wikiproject on military history suggested we use a map as a header image here for this article, Iraq War. By the way, thanks again for creating the map. I love maps, boring or not. I categorize lots of them on wikipedia and the commons. --Timeshifter 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are misrepresenting his view yet again. He said it wouldnt be a bad idea to consider using a map, but never gave that as a reason. The only thing he commented on was why collages work for things like WW2 and not here - those wars have several iconic images. The images in their collages are not chosen because they represent all sides evenly or even all sides, but because of their iconic nature. He never said we had to represent everything in the infobox photo, and never said we could not use one photo. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, the wikiproject coordinator, never insisted on anything. I don't think that is his style. He suggested using a map. I am not sure if he explicitly said it was because maps are non-offensive. But that is what I gathered from his comments. I am not trying to represent everything in a photo or a collage. Just trying to provide a little balance. Not perfect balance. --Timeshifter 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I discussed this with him, and he said that we can use a map, or single image, its just a matter of what has support - we dont have to go with a map just because this is recent. Its just harder to settle on an image for a war like this, then it is to settle on one for something like the Italian War of 1521-1526 - and this long discussion has definitely shown that. But I think we are (and have been) up for it, and we have gotten somewhere. We have good people here who are willing to constructively, and intelligently discuss this issue, albeit with some good humored jabs, which isnt always the case for things like this. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This picture is okay, although Timeshifter listed a valid problem in that it doesn't show or reflect the importance of "irregular forces"(insurgents) in the Iraq war, especially since much of this war is conducted against or by irregular forces. Publicus 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq streetfight image

That's why I like Image:Iraq streetfight.jpg. It has everything. ←Ben^B4 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's another good image. I would lean more toward this one since it has some of the elements that appear to be more common to the overall war; 1) urban warfare 2) irregular forces 3)majority of coalition forces are U.S. 4)confusing casualties (i.e. is the dead person in the picture an insurgent or a civilian, and who killed him? coalition? insurgents? criminals?). Publicus 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What do other people think of this image? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's 'active'!--Bosnia 2007 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When it is unlabeled it evokes all the questions listed by Publicus. So it is a good photo for the header image in my opinion. --Timeshifter 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So is everyone cool with leaving this image up? -- VegitaU 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is much better than the silly, non-descript "sand" pic. Although, there was some talk that the picture might be better without a caption. Ursasapien (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualties from many sides

[Later note. I had to put some of the casualty info in the infobox to the right in order to get it to widen up enough to allow 2 images side by side. --Timeshifter]

Iraq War
Image:Iraq streetfight.jpg Casualties (clockwise from top left): April 2003. November 2004. March 2007. March 2007.
Date March 20, 2003 – present Location Iraq Result
Casualties and losses
Iraqi combatant dead ...	Iraqi Security Forces (After Saddam. Allied with Coalition): 5,700+ killed (police)[1][2] ...

Images (clockwise starting from top left):

1. April 2003. A dead US marine is carried away after receiving his last rites.
2. Nov. 9, 2004. A U.S. marine next to the dead body of a suspected insurgent during the ground offensive in Fallujah, Iraq.
3. March 2, 2007. A medic lifts a wounded Iraqi police officer into an ambulance at Forward Operating Base Normandy.
4. March 20, 2007. A soldier carries a wounded Iraqi child into the Charlie Medical Centre at Camp Ramadi, Iraq.

These photos are human, compelling, and uniquely relevant. From many sides of the war. And it is a timeline of the war, too. A non-cheesy, casualty timeline of the reality of war. And it doesn't look like a gungho, Army recruiting ad like many of the other photos. The captions aren't even necessary. People can click the photos. Just leave the dates in the header caption:

• Casualties (clockwise from top left): April 2003. November 2004. March 2007. March 2007.

Each image is 150 pixels wide. The 4 thumbnail images add up to a total of only 29 kilobytes. Here is how it looks in the article.

• --Timeshifter 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, its already been made clear that a collage will not be sufficient for three basic reasons. The first is that it lowers the quality of the images. As Vegiatu said, if two is better than one, why not 20? 200? The answer is that quality is lost with each addition - more photos in the infobox lowers the quality of each. 2. It falsely conveys the idea that we are trying to capture all aspects of the war - something that is impossible. Your original example of the Vietnam War - soldier by napalmed jungle - was a particularly good pick becase it showed, as said in the criteria, "a few key elements of the war, in an interesting, good quality manner." It doesnt show everything, it just shows what it does effectively and in a good quality way (ties into the first reason) And finally, the third is that your collage has two images which you have already dismissed as POV. Why do you support them in a collage if they were dismissed as POV otherwise?

You also have yet to comment on the Iraqi Soldiers with Helicopter image. You said earlier you would accept just about any picture that involved Iraqis. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the collage, and tell me the quality is not adequate. It is more than adequate because of the moving subject matter. I did not say we are trying to capture all sides of the war. But casualties from only one side will not work in the header photo because then it looks like wikipedia is trying to drum up support for one side or another. There are even more sides to this war. But the number of images in this collage is adequate because it does not favor any side. This collage is far more compelling than the Vietnam War photo. Humans are more compelling than a burning village dwelling. The individual images may be dismissed as POV, but not the collage. Because of the multiple sides presented.--Timeshifter 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need ONLY casualties?? --TheFEARgod (?) 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need only photos of live combatants? This is an article about a WAR. --Timeshifter 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, there is a difference between NPOV, and a mesh of POV. This is not a give and take, where we let one side have a POV image, let another side have another POV image, etc. That isnt how things work here, and thats not the sort of compromise we are attempting to acheive. You have already said two of those images are too POV to use, so really this leaves me confused as to what you are thinking. Either you think you can balance out those two POV images with two equally POV images of another side, or you do not think the other two images are POV - in which case you simply have 2 NPOV and 2 POV images, skewing it towards a POV. In both cases its problematic, and not what we are going for.

Again, you did not state what you think of the Iraqi Soldiers and a Helicopter. You have in the past said that you would accept just about any picture that involved Iraqis. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, can you explain your edit summary "Back to the map for the header image. Why show only Iraqi troops working with the USA? Why not the Iraqi insurgents, too?" As was said in the "not criteria" section, "An image does not need to show all combatants. The days of both sides lining up in rows and shooting each other predated photography, and only rarely will both sides be in the same photograph. Such a photograph would obviously dangerous to take, and we should not wait for one to show up." You just said you were not trying to show all aspects, but this edit summary appears to contradict that. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied in the previous talk section higher up. --Timeshifter 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Collage

Iraq War
What you won't find in Iraq.
Date March 20, 2003 – present Location Iraq Result
Casualties and losses
Iraqi combatant dead ...	Iraqi Security Forces (After Saddam. Allied with Coalition): 5,700+ killed (police)[3][2] ...

What is wrong with having a collage of say 4 - 6 pictures? WW2, WW1, Korean War all do it. IMO is is silly to try to distill many different historical events and opinions into one 'perfect' picture. Nobody is going to agree on just one picture, thus by having a few, you are able to satisfy everybody, as well as making for a better narrative outcome. Suicup 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a mockup using another posters template from above. The captions haven't changed. IMO the info box picture should provide a visual summary, just as the info box provides a factual summary. It can only do this with a few images, not just one. Suicup 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The infobox picture is a picture of the conflict. There is no one-sided war, but there are plenty of one-picture infoboxes. With so many sides in this conflict, we'd need a good thirty or forty pictures at least. Thanks. -- VegitaU 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how a single picture can capture any event as complex as a war? We can debate examples however I brought up WW2 etc because I think that system works much much better than a single picture. Furthermore, having multiple pictures is not about representing sides, but rather showing key events, people(s) or places. Consider the info box itself: date, casus belli, actors, casualties. Basically a summary of key information. The pictures in the info box should attempt to do this too - a visual summary (ie 4-6 pics) of the conflict. As a thought example, what single image would you put in the WW2 info box? I doubt you'd be able to come up with one. The same logic applies to this article. Cheers. Suicup 09:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already make the case for one picture? Yeah, I'm sure we already went over this…a few dozen times at least. So WW1, WW2, and Korea all have a collage? So what? Gulf War, Soviet war in Afghanistan, and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) all use one picture. The point: articles can use either, it is based on the consensus of the editors. And many of us agree that one picture would be the preferred method. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles can use any number of images in the infobox. The editors decide. There is no consensus here on how many to use in the Iraq War infobox. I like the examples provided by Suicup, especially the World War I infobox. And the infobox to the right titled "What you won't find in Iraq" is hilarious. --Timeshifter 07:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The touch

May 2006. An Iraqi mother comforts her children as soldiers from 2nd Squadron, 9th Cav Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team search their home near Tikrit, Iraq.

What do people think of this photo, Image:The Touch by Russell l. Klika.jpg, that I just found at Timeline of the Iraq War?--Timeshifter 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Its definiately a beautiful image, but do you think it would be a suitable main photo for a war article? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Since so many people are deathly afraid of, or offended by, casualty photos at the top of the Iraq War article. And it certainly isn't a gungho army/insurgent recruiting photo. So it doesn't seem to be favoring any particular viewpoint. The caption in the infobox can be shorter: "May 2006. An Iraqi mother comforts her children as soldiers search their home near Tikrit, Iraq." --Timeshifter 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are being a bit too dismissive about the photos of soldiers. They dont all fit into either a "gungho" category or "insurgent recruiting" category. Photos like Bush on an aircraft carrier, or Iraqi soldiers posing on a MT-LB are clearly gungho photos, whereas a photo of a beheading could possibly be an example of "insurgent recruiting" photos. But photos like the napalm in the jungle from vietnam, or Iraqi soldiers with helicopter, are actual representations of what is going on. Neither are posed for the camera, they are things that occured when the camera just happened to be there. They werent taken to enforce a certain viewpoint, like a beheading might be photographed to incite fear, or a photo of a helicopter under the hands of victory might be taken to show power. They were simply events captured on film. This photo, "The Touch," is an example of that, Iraqi soldiers by helicopter (anyone else think this sounds like a Chinese title?) is another example. These events happened and were captured on film. The only problem I have with this picture is that it doesnt show a combatant, at all. Otherwise it is an excellent photo, and I would love to see it appear somewhere on this page. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In summary, it is not favoring a side by the simple act of showing them. It takes more than that. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add photos to articles. The "Iraqi soldiers by helicopter" photo strikes me, personally, as a typical drop-off photo used for recruiting. That is just me. Others may disagree. That is one thing that I have learned from this discussion. People are affected differently by photos. Publicus is probably right. The map may be best for the header image. --Timeshifter 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Its worth noting that he has since backed off this view. I think we should compare this Iraqi soldier photo with the one of American soldiers on patrol. I think that image could easilly be said to be a recruiting photo - it exudes uniformity, and almost perfection. Everyone has the same gear, everyone is in just the right position. The Iraqi photo, on the other hand, is far more striking for its imperfections. They arent all lined up perfectly, its not perfectly level, it seems a bit random and uncoordinated, they dont all have the same uniforms, they dont all even have camoflage on their helmets (or even same helmet shapes.) This isnt a photo that one would use for recruitment, its a photo that shows the state of the Iraqi army, and I think their expressions, a sort of worried look on one of them, is telling. These things set it apart from a recruiting picture, and make it, in my mind, a dynamic snapshot of a moment. Its not favoring any side, its just a snapshot. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, would be an example of an Iraqi recruitment type image. I hope you can see the difference. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of photos of helicopter assaults and drop-offs. For various wars, etc.. On many personal and other types of web pages. Also on U.S. government sites, and in recruiting ads in the media, press, TV, etc.. They sometimes show fear and a variety of uniforms, and a variety of services. Sometimes that is promoted as part of the draw to get people to sign up. As in "overcome your fears" with our team that uses a variety of skills, including your skills. --Timeshifter 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that this image is not one of those, any more than "The Touch" is a tourist agencies ad for a "vacation with a thrill." ~Rangeley (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I happen to think the helicopter drop-off photo is just more gungho military spam. It is all about perception. And I happen to think the casualties collage is, by far, the best image to put at the top of the infobox. You disagree. So we can agree to disagree. --Timeshifter 08:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

'The touch' would be a good adition to a civiln casualty section or the page on Tikrit city.--Pine oak 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I'e Just added it to Tikrit's page.--Pine oak 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The list below is a summary of every picture submitted for consideration and the current standing as far as the discussion generated. Please feel free to edit this list if new discussion is made, but please don't make major changes without a clear explanation why. Continue the consensus discussion above. Thank you.