Talk:Iraq War/Header image discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Iraq streetfight header image 2 Header image discussion, part deux 2.1 Convenience break 2.2 Study of war article header images 1945-present 3 Collage proposal 4 Motifs for Collage 5 Collage following Publicus suggestions 6 Back to the beginning 6.1 Suggestions of iconic images 6.1.1 Saddam Hussein (especially while on trial or immediately after capture) 6.1.2 An IED 6.1.3 War protest (but you must be able to differentiate which war) 6.1.4 Urban warfare 6.1.5 Pictures from initial invasion (storming a presidential palace, toppling Saddam statue) 6.1.6 Purple thumb/Iraqis voting 6.1.7 Insurgents firing on coalition troops 6.1.8 Colin Powell's WMD presentation at the UN (per Publicus) 6.1.9 U.S. soldiers or equipment in the same picture as an Iraqi monument 6.2 Comments 7 Two Proposals 8 Saddam statue photos

[edit] Iraq streetfight header image

Does anyone know what happened to the header image? It's kind of annoying that we finally found an image that works and it has gone and run off. Publicus 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See commons:Image talk:Iraq streetfight.jpg. I agree with the deletion since it is copyrighted. Maybe someone can get permission from the author to use a 300-pixel-wide version under fair use or public domain. The author is Marco Di Lauro of Getty images.

That name can be seen under that image in a gallery of copyrighted images:

• http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/23/iraq_gallery/index1.html

Public domain casualty images can be found at

• Category:Iraq War casualties--Timeshifter 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bummer, now that whole can of worms is open again. Publicus 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the image at Getty images if anybody wants to try contacting the photographer. --Timeshifter 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a different one up temporarily. Isaac Pankonin 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied at all with this image. We need to find something else, even if it's just temporary. Isaac Pankonin 05:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get permission from Michael Yon for one of these:[1][2] Isaac Pankonin 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Although those are interesting images they really don't seem to meet the level of the "Iraq Streetfight" image we had earlier. Basically, the elements that seemed to work with that image were:

1. Some representation of ongoing combat (an action shot), preferably in an urban setting
2. Casualties represented, either coalition or insurgent
3. Chaotic nature of the casualties, the dead person in the Iraqi streetfight was dressed like a civilian but could have been an insurgent or just someone caught in the cross-fire

Images that didn't work were more like the second image you linked to--coalition forces helping a wounded civilian child for example. While certainly true, it is not an appropriate non-POV image of urban warfare. Too often those images can be seen more as propaganda. Publicus 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like one of the images that Isaac Pankonin linked to: [3]. I want a header image that has such an impact that it shows why combatants (from any side) often have post-traumatic stress disorder for many years. I think that image meets all 3 of your criteria, Publicus. And for newbies reading this, Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is the ultimate reality show. Wikipedia presents all significant viewpoints. Not the spin wash one sees in much of the media. See WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 15:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead coalition or civilians can also be seen as propaganda. I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the archive of previous header image discussion. --Timeshifter 05:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Header image discussion, part deux

[Later note. Please read the archive of previous header image discussion. --Timeshifter 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)]

Since we've lost the "Iraqi streetfight" image as a header, let's start again with a discussion on an appropriate header image. Also, when you submit an image for discussion please make sure it has the appropriate copyright so that Wikipedia can use it. With that there's a couple of items that will save time in discussing this:

1. Check the previous header image discussion (I say this for myself as well)
2. I would like to suggest keeping the Iraq war map as a temporary non-POV placeholder until we can find an appropriate image. Publicus 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Isn't this part trois, quatre, cinq, six... :)

Someone wanted this image (thumbnail to the right):

• Image:BUHRIZ 2004 22OCT 080.jpg

See this diff:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=160906401

The caption they had was "suspected Iraqi insurgent shot and killed by U.S soldiers in October 2004"

These pages with many Iraq War casualty images were linked from the image description page:

• http://cryptome.org/bkz/buhriz-kill01.htm
• http://cryptome.org/bkz/buhriz-kill02.htm
• http://eyeball-series.org/bkz/buhriz-kill02.htm

~ Later note: They all seem to be the same page. The only difference I see offhand is that the images are larger in

• http://cryptome.org/bkz/buhriz-kill02.htm

The images taken by U.S. military personnel are in the public domain and can be uploaded to the commons.

Go to commons:Commons:Upload and then click on "It is from a US federal government source".

Please add [[Category:Iraq War casualties]] to any relevant image description page so that people can find the images. This will put the image in this category:

• Category:Iraq War casualties --Timeshifter 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Is adding just an Iraqi casualty picture to the header such a good idea? I mean not many people here would approve of a picture of a dead American as the header, but trying to maintain NPOV would dictate having an equal distribution of casualty pictures, a similar discussion came up on the Korean war article about causality pictures Bleh999 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer a collage of casualty images for that reason. See the previous image header discussion please. It is at

Talk:Iraq War/Archive of image header discussions --Timeshifter 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos of dead U.S military personnel in Iraq exist but I wouldn't want to start uploading them here, but since we have photos of dead American soldiers from WWII, Korea (and even the American civil war) why not this war? Why show graphic pictures in the article at all, if NPOV cannot be maintained? Bleh999 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the image discussion archive you will see that we agreed for the most part that it would be against WP:NPOV not to show casualty images. --Timeshifter 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

but to maintain NPOV you would have to show an equal distribution of casualty pictures of a similar nature (American & Iraqi), do you think that can be done? Bleh999 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See the previous discussion for collage examples. But it would not be against NPOV to show only one header image. Since there are other images distributed throughout the article. --Timeshifter 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the map as a header is fine, yes it is boring but for an encyclopedia article it conveys more worthwhile information than a random picture of a dead body. Anyway if we wanted to show dead bodies, we should add pictures of dead Iraqi civilians, not insurgents or U.S or iraqi soldiers, because the civilian death toll is by far higher than and of the others. Also if you look at the WWII or Korean war pages they have pictures of civilian causalities. Bleh999 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The header image we agreed to before it was deleted for copyright violation can be seen here: the image at Getty images. It was not just a dead body. There are a couple images with wounded civilians in the article. Scroll down. There are no images with dead civilians yet at Category:Iraq War casualties. I agree that an image with a dead civilian in it would be most representative of the death toll in Iraq. --Timeshifter 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an affinity for corpses. Notice the image in WW2. No corpses. Notice they used the gate to Auswitz to represent the Holocaust, when hundreds of photos of dead people were available. Notice the image in Vietnam War. No corpses. Notice the image in Korean War and Gulf War. Not one corpse in any of those. Corpses are inappropriate for a header image, especially because this particular war is happening right now. You're trying to make a political statement, and I don't think that's what we should be doing. I. Pankonin (t/c) 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are corpses shown in many war-related articles. Please stop the spin. Please see the previous discussion at Talk:Iraq War/Archive of image header discussions. Also, please stop the political accusations. Images of corpses are not a political statement.--Timeshifter 15:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This photo is probably the most iconic of the entire war, and it's in the public domain. As for corpses as political statements, there's no question that they are. That's why the Pentagon was reluctant to show pictures of American caskets being shipped home. I'm not saying corpses shouldn't be in the entire article. They just shouldn't be in the header. I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You really ought to read the previous discussion. That image was already viewed and dismissed as not a good header image. It is obvious propaganda.

It is political to NOT show corpses. As the Pentagon example shows. --Timeshifter 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not that photo was staged. The idea is that the Iraqi monument and an American tank were able to be in the same picture. I remember when I first saw something like that. It was surreal, like a dream (or a nightmare, depending on your point of view). The Abu Ghraib photos were staged by soldiers. That doesn't mean they're propaganda. This photo is reminiscent of the Nazis marching through the Arc de Triumphe. What it means to you depends on your point of view. I think the fact that they were able to take that photo is noteworthy.

I think the idea of a collage was abandoned prematurely. It seems to be a standard practice of war articles, and if the collage that was used before is not acceptable, then maybe we should make another one. I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Image:DF-SD-06-00583.jpg is not a good header image because it really only has to do with the initial invasion. This article is about the Iraq War, not just the invasion. I like the idea of collages. Several examples are linked to from the archived header discussion. I like some of the collages for other wars. My collage of nothing but casualties was not accepted. Maybe a combination of casualties and other images from the Iraq War would work. --Timeshifter 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I would like to see the hands of victory above and the IED picture here included. I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to inject a little bit of reality into this discussion. Putting dead people up on the article's header image where there is no context whatsoever for them is ridiculous and unacceptable for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who is not trying to paint some kind of anti-war POV (and even then it should be obvious and you're simply denying reality). There are plenty of pictures freely available of American soldiers out on patrol and interacting with Iraqi civillians, which is what the usual military scene in Iraq looks like and what this article should be headed by if we're going to choose a single picture. The Battle of Fallujah is not representative of the greater Iraq War. Kensai Max 03:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break

The previous header image was not just a dead body without context. I wish people would bother to read the previous discussion. See the archived header discussion. The header image we agreed to before it was deleted for copyright violation can be seen here: the image at Getty images. Ipankonin suggested this header image of a corpse in a context: [4]. --Timeshifter 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has changed since I looked at articles from other modern wars. I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably have changed your opinion, and now support the Pentagon's censoring of flag-draped casket images for this war, too. I put it as the header image. And it is not even a picture of a corpse. Here is the article version with it as the header image: [5]. What do you think? It's patriotic even. --Timeshifter 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's patriotic, but it doesn't show any events in the war, only caskets. What if I put up a picture of Iraqis with purple thumbs after they voted? I'm sure you'd hate it, because it's completely positive. Caskets are completely negative, because they only focus on death. I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The purple-thumbs image would be fine in a collage header image. Along with some reality-based images such as the caskets and the corpses. The purple-thumbs image is no longer the positive image it used to be. American-style democracy seems kind of bogus nowadays to many Iraqis in the context of years of occupation. The vote they are not allowed is the referendum to kick us Americans out. --Timeshifter 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept the caskets in a collage. I'll make that concession to you. I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents. The first and formost things that any war is associated with are death and destruction. The Iraq war is no different. I like the idea of a collage, but the collage must depict the ground reality of the Iraq war - that it has turned out to be a major human catastrophe, not some Bush PR campaign of soldiers distributing candies to Iraqi children. SDas 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

World War 2 resulted in the deaths of 70 million people, yet there is not one single dead person in the WW2 header image. I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WW II was 60+ years ago. The perspective has changed, from human values to journalistic style, to our view of history as a social science, to the availability of pictures. Take a look at the Vietnam War which was more recent. SDas 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your argument supports my position. In 60 years, people won't care that much about casualties of the Iraq War, only the results. It is my opinion that we should put ourselves in the perspective of the future and look back at the present. It might be insensitive, but that's the way history works.

It looks like you're wrong about the Vietnam War header. I don't see any corpses. I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't talking about the header image. Don't play dumb. Please ease up with the Freeper-style discussion. It won't wash. And his argument supports the fact that more and more casualty images are being shown as the years go by, and Pentagon-style censoring of caskets and casualty images does not wash with intelligent people. See My Lai massacre. --Timeshifter 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment is bordering on WP:NPA, and you accuse me of "playing dumb", when all my comments and edits on this article have been in good faith. I am not entirely sure what a "freeper" is, but the entire tone of your response is belittling, and I won't tolerate it. Am I not allowed to have my opinion? I'm well aware of the My Lai massacre, and I only point to the fact that it wasn't used as a header image for the Vietnam War article to support my point. I am not saying we should censor Wikipedia, or even the article. The header image is sensative to POV, and it's important to me that we get it right. I. Pankonin ([[User t/c) 06:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting someone else's comment is a violation of common courtesy. For example your characterization of some of SDas comments. Those kinds of misrepresentation in your comments are the kind of things one sees in "shout-over" talk shows and message forums. Such as the Freeper forums. To the right is the current header image at My Lai Massacre. So it is allowed to show corpses in header images. --Timeshifter 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly know how I interpreted SDA's comments when I read them? I honestly thought he was talking about the header image, and I responded accordingly. I don't think it's reasonable to compare the My Lai massacre to the Iraq War. Massacres have a different morality from wars. As you can see from the Saint Valentine's Day massacre, it's pretty common for massacres to have bodies on their header images. It doesn't seem common for wars, unless it's a painting, but we're not talking about paintings. I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They did not have photography back then. So wikipedia uses paintings. It is hard to find public-domain casualty photos for wars. The My Lai Massacre was part of the Vietnam War. --Timeshifter 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Study of war article header images 1945-present

Out of curiosity, I looked at every article in List of wars 1945–1989, List of wars 1990–2002, List of wars 2003–current, and Ongoing conflicts. This is a general impression of common header images:

• Most articles with header images showed a map.
• The second most common image was military equipment: tanks, helicopters, guns.
• Third: a man on a street aiming a rifle
• Fourth: Refugee camps
• There were no corpses in any header image. The closest any article came was Dirty War, which shows pictures of people who died taken when they were alive.
• There were no caskets in any header image. I have offered the use of caskets in this article's header in a collage as a compromise. I will stick to that offer. I think I'm being very generous.

Under no circumstances should there be a corpse in the header. Do what you want with the rest of the article, but I absolutely insist on no bodies in the header. I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply in the previous section. You can insist on what you want. But you are outnumbered, and we already agreed to a battle image with a corpse in our last long header discussion. Also, there seems to be interest in a collage that would include a variety of images. That way we avoid Pentagon censorship and too much POV in any particular direction. --Timeshifter 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I'm outnumbered. I'm being completely rational. I took a scientific approach. I even made a concession. You're dismissing my arguments entirely. I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What "Pentagon censorship" are you speaking of? It seems as if all concerned are trying to come up with the best image for an encyclopedia. I think a collage for the header would be great. You can include your corpse pictures elsewhere in the article if you can find an appropriate free image. Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pentagon censorship of the flag-draped caskets. Which I. Pankonin seems to endorse since I. Pankonin removed that image recently from the header image. See this diff: [6]. Read the image description page for the image: Image:USCasualtiesC130DoverAFB.jpg. Yes, it seems the rough consensus is to include reality in the collage. Wikipedia often operates by rough consensus.--Timeshifter 07:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rough consensus certainly has changed. Rough consensus was against a collage previously. Now it seems to be heading toward a collage. What about the two following examples (both of which include corpses) which have been suggested previously? Ursasapien (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collage proposal

Iraq War
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] ...

Iraq War
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)[3][2] ...

Just catching up with the discussion here and it looks like there might be some interest in a collage-type compromise similar to the WWII header image. If I'm reading the discussion properly, I. Pankonin and Timeshifter would agree to a collage. What do others think? Personally, I think a properly representative collage might be one way to go--but as VegitaU has said we don't have to create a collage, it is simply just one alternative. As such here's a proposal for a collage:

1. An image symbolizing Coalition (probably US) casualties--could be wounded soldiers or the caskets image.
2. An image representing Iraqi civilian casualties or damage to civilian society/life/structures/etc, don't necessarily need bodies here
3. An image symbolizing the nature of the combat of the war, i.e. urban combat
4. An image symbolizing one of the rationales for the war (WMDs, human rights, democracy, etc)-could have Saddam statue being pulled down, Saddam image, people voting, Iraqi parliament

Publicus 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I suggest that one of the images be the equivalent of the battle image with the corpse. We agreed to that image in our last long header discussion. That image stayed up without problems until it had to be deleted due to copyright problems. Here is that image at Getty images. Here is the archive of image header discussions.--Timeshifter 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. It has obviously changed since the last discussion. I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The rough consensus has not changed. --Timeshifter 07:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The rough consensus has changed in favor of a collage. Now we just have to determine what type of collage. Ursasapien (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the first infobox here, and I'm very supportive of the second. The first one has 3 pictures of casualties with no context. It tells no story. It doesn't show any of the political events, such as the invasion, the elections, IEDs, etc. All it says to me is people are getting hurt. I don't want to seem insensitive, but my reaction is, "So what?" It's a war. People get hurt. It goes without saying. Nobody's saying that war is good. You would have to be insane to like war. But a collage of casualties is more political than encyclopedic.

The other one IMO is a lot better. It has major events: the invasion, IEDs, and the new Iraqi security forces in training. I like the top left picture as a symbol of the invasion, because it has an unmistakable Iraqi monument in the background. It's probably the best symbol of the soldiers' pride of accomplishment in the fastest military advance in history, and it also gives a sense of irony, because it was a false victory. I think it's essential that it's paired with the IED picture in the lower right to bring out the irony. It probably goes without saying that I'm not too thrilled with the picture in the top right. However, I would support this collage if everybody agreed with it. I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Publicus wrote: "An image representing Iraqi civilian casualties or damage to civilian society/life/structures/etc, don't necessarily need bodies here"

Here are a couple iconic images of Iraqi civilian casualties:

This image (with an Iraqi casualty) to the right is not iconic, and several people pointed out that it seems a little propagandist.--Timeshifter 10:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy of Ursasapien comment: "And, here, I was all prepared to argue the exact opposite. The two images you provided are most certainly propagandist and are not necessarily iconic. They have little to do with the Iraq War itsself. Why do you have a problem with portraying the American soldiers as compassionate, hardworking individuals (as the vast majority of them are)."

[The following comment of mine (Timeshifter) is in reply to the above copy of Ursasapien's comment that he inexplicably has since moved to another section where it makes no sense. Oh well...]. There is no reason we can't have a collage of 6 images. I have seen that many in headers on wikipedia war pages. So we can have the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of war. --Timeshifter 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Or eight, or ten . . . This is certainly true, but the fact remains that we need consensus on what themes we want to portray. I think this would be better than just constantly putting up new images. Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions by Publicus. Please ease up on the hyperbole. I am not constantly putting up new images. These images were discussed in the previous header image discussions. Please reread them. And even more images are added over time to the commons. There is no reason not to choose from those images too if they better meet the themes suggested by Publicus, or whatever we agree to. --Timeshifter 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not want to imply that you were doing anything untoward. My intention was to suggest a way to move forward in cooperation. I have no problem with you posting images. Heck, I've posted a number of suggested pics myself. I just think we would do best to, first, determine what themes or motifs we would like to portray and, then, determine what pics best match those concepts. Ursasapien (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I created the preceding collage for consideration. It contains images that are not currently being used in the article. I think it has images that are fairly iconic or specific to the current conflict in Iraq. Just a thought. Ursasapien (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motifs for Collage

Publicus suggested:

1. An image symbolizing Coalition (probably US) casualties--could be wounded soldiers or the caskets image.
2. An image representing Iraqi civilian casualties or damage to civilian society/life/structures/etc, don't necessarily need bodies here
3. An image symbolizing the nature of the combat of the war, i.e. urban combat
4. An image symbolizing one of the rationales for the war (WMDs, human rights, democracy, etc)-could have Saddam statue being pulled down, Saddam image, people voting, Iraqi parliament

We have a disagreement about the level of violence, gore, and even action needed in the pictures. I have listed some of the perspectives that I have noted. Please feel free to amend this list with your thoughts. Ursasapien (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The previous discussion demostrated support for the idea that it was impossible to capture every perspective on this war and we should not try to be that comprehensive.

• It has been suggested that pictures should be of good quality (the image should look good at 300px), interesting/compelling, and uniquely relevant (not simply a picture of sand or a helicopter/tank).

• If I understand Timeshifter correctly, he vehemently objects to static photos or any collage that does not include "realistic" portrayals of casualties.

• Like I observed before, some seem to consider any portrayal of U.S. troops in a positive (or even neutral) light as POV. IMO, we should strive for a neutral picture.

• Some have suggested that we need Iraqi civilian casualties or insurgents (either as casualties or in active combat). However, I still maintain that it is impossible to have an "all-encompassing" or "representative of all sides" image.

[edit] Collage following Publicus suggestions

Iraq War
(clockwise from top left): US war causalties in a C-17 Globemaster III at Dover AFB. A Soldier carries a wounded Iraqi child into the Charlie Medical Centre at Camp Ramadi, Iraq. Soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division conduct an area reconnaissance mission in Baghdad. Saddam Hussein shortly after his capture.
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)[4][2] ...

I thought I would try to go through the available images and create a collage that would follow Publicus' plan.

1. An image symbolizing Coalition (probably US) casualties.
2. An image representing Iraqi civilian casualties.
3. An image symbolizing the nature of the combat of the war, i.e. urban combat.
4. An image symbolizing one of the rationales for the war.

Perhaps we should have a discussion, like Publicus did, about what four themes we would like the images to portray. Then we can find the best images to fit these four themes. Ursasapien (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Publicus wrote: "An image symbolizing the nature of the combat of the war, i.e. urban combat."

These images don't look too staged to me:

Image:USMC Irak.Nov.2004.jpg

In comparison to this image:

It looks staged to me, and too clean. --Timeshifter 11:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The last image is more indicative of the tense waiting that the majority of combat involves. Ursasapien (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to meet the request of Publicus. So the 2 images of weapons being fired in combat better show actual combat - versus waiting for combat. And it is not easy to get those types of photos in actual combat. --Timeshifter 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy of Timeshifter comment: Publicus wrote: "An image representing Iraqi civilian casualties or damage to civilian society/life/structures/etc, don't necessarily need bodies here"

Here are a couple iconic images of Iraqi civilian casualties:

This image (with an Iraqi casualty) to the right is not iconic, and several people pointed out that it seems a little propagandist

And, here, I was all prepared to argue the exact opposite. The two images you provided are most certainly propagandist and are not necessarily iconic. They have little to do with the Iraq War itsself. Why do you have a problem with portraying the American soldiers as compassionate, hardworking individuals (as the vast majority of them are). Ursasapien (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment, Ursasapien, makes no sense after you moved it from its original thread to here. It is not considered good form to move one's comment after someone else has already replied to it. I copied it to its original location. I replied there. Where it makes sense. --Timeshifter 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment, Timeshifter, makes no sense under the heading that you originally posted it. Why don't you ratchet down the furor a bit. Not every thing I do is directly aimed at "getting your goat." I originally moved your comment to the heading, "Collage following Publicus suggestions" because that is what your comment was referencing. I then replied under the correct heading. You then moved my comment while simultaneously scolding me about moving your comment (to the correct heading). Ursasapien (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Earth to Ursasapien. Publicus made his comment originally in the previous section. I originally put my comment there. Then you went on a refactoring binge, moved my comment down to this section and replied to my comment. Refactoring is against WP:TALK in most cases. Please don't get apoplectic about your mistake, and in covering up your mistake. Just admit your mistake. Just like Bush should admit his mistake. "I, George Bush, messed the fuck up, and I apologize for being your President." By the way, Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, I can pull up all the diffs if you want to carry this on further. :) I am not in a furor. Actually, I am amused. --Timeshifter 13:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Who is trying to censor anyone? You certainly demonstrate your lack of furor by resorting to profanity and hyperbolic polemic diatribe. Basically, I am to the point of "whatever!" You have shown yourself to be a reactive partisan and I simply want to move forward. I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. I admit that I moved your original comment because I thought you put it in the wrong place. I am sorry that I made that assumption. However, I felt it was incredibly hypocritical for you to start wiki-lawyering me about refactoring when you did the exact same thing. Let's get on with finding an image for the header of this article. Ursasapien (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, since Wikipedia is not censored, perhaps we should include the following pictures. I think they demonstrate more iconic images of U.S. casualties. Ursasapien (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My lack of furor?! Look up the meaning of the word. As for the refactoring... I guess pride gets in the way of admitting you screwed up. But that is OK. It is your problem, not mine. By the way you uploaded copyrighted images taken by an AP reporter. From: http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_040405.html is this quote:

Khalid Mohammed, Baghdad, worked with AP for the past two years, spent significant time in Fallujah and at great personal risk, took the photos of the U.S. contractors killed, then dismembered, burned and their charred remains hung from a bridge. Mohammed said he was threatened immediately after taking the picture and had to escape quickly by car. "I told the driver to keep the engine running, just in case," he said.

I don't have a problem with posting those images on wikipedia. It is the reality of war. I believe they were posted for awhile on wikipedia pages. I vaguely remember them being on wikipedia. They must have been deleted once they were discovered to be copyrighted. --Timeshifter 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Those fallujah images are copyrighted (AP), and probably not a good case for fair use Atomsgive 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the beginning

I think we all need to take a time out, breathe deeply, and find out what we want to accomplish. We just tried to talk about individual photographs, and I don't think we're getting anywhere. So, first things first: Let's stop, put on our consensus hats, and try to hammer out what our requirements are. I don't think we'll get anywhere if we don't. Please post proposals and responses below.

Proposals

• A collage of major events. I would like to model the image for this article on the header image for the World War 2 article with a collage of major events. Obviously, it won't capture every event. That's not the objective. All that is required is a general idea of what happened. All of the pictures in the WW2 collage can be described in a single word, and anybody with knowledge of WW2 would know what it means in context of that war: D-day, Berlin, Anschluss, Holocaust, Nagasaki, and Stalingrad. Similarly, we can make an image that incorporates commonly-known aspects of the Iraq War. Examples: Invasion, Insurgency, Fallujah, Elections, IEDs, Anbar, etc. Other examples of this kind of collage: WWI, Korea. I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• A collage of iconic motifs I see those collages more as "iconic" or "war-specific" images. "Trench-warfare" for WWI and the "atomic bomb" for WWII. I concur with those who have suggested that "pictures should be of good quality (the image should look good at 300px), interesting/compelling, and uniquely relevant (not simply a picture of sand or a helicopter/tank)." Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think IED is the Iraq War equivalent of trench warfare. I don't disagree with any of this. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So, maybe an IED picture, a Saddam picture, perhaps some image that portrays the battle with the insurgency - I like the crossed-swords monument picture because it is so iconic. Ursasapien (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the crossed swords image for a depiction of battle with the insurgents. If I'm remembering correctly, that image has several tanks under the swords in a parade-type formation, which to me doesn't symbolize urban combat with irregulars. Perhaps that image could be used to symbolize the fall of Saddam, although we would have to see how many know of the crossed swords at Saddam's palace and also that the tanks shown were coalition tanks and not Iraqi ones on review. Publicus 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about Abu Risha to symbolize the Anbar Awakening? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the picture is very "iconic" or interesting/compelling. Ursasapien (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe even a picture of an anti-war protest and the initial invasion. Ursasapien (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions of iconic images

[edit] Saddam Hussein (especially while on trial or immediately after capture)

Specifically Image:Saddamcapture.jpg would be good. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An IED

I like the idea of an IED image. Such an image could be used to show several different items related to the war. First, the asymmetric nature of the combat between the coalition and the insurgents (along with all the US arguments about proper armor, lack of preparation for this kind of war, etc). Second, it would show the importance of urban combat since many of these IEDs are placed in cities. Third, destruction of civilian life and civilian casualties. Fourth, coalition casualties. Fifth, IEDs are appearing in various other places as the new method of attacking superior forces, which could make an IED image similar to the atom bomb image on the WWII header image. Therefore, I would heartily endorse an IED image, the one previously listed in this discussion would work fine for me. Publicus 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Consensus (so far) -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War protest (but you must be able to differentiate which war)

I wouldn't really support a war protest image unless it was clear that the protesters were Iraqi. While protesting the war is certainly important, I think the space could be better used by actual depiction of the war. Publicus 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My thought was some image that demonstrated the decrease in public support, but I hear what you are saying. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Publicus. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

N No consensus

[edit] Urban warfare

This could easily be added and we have a number of good pics that are not being used elsewhere in the article. The pictures are not extremely "iconic" but are engaging. I think this would be a fine addition to a collage, as the other pictures would give context. Ursasapien (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures from initial invasion (storming a presidential palace, toppling Saddam statue)

I think this picture is public domain. It was published on a government website, and I didn't see it anywhere else. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's very good. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the best picture of this event, but it does portray the toppling of Saddam effetively. If we couldn't find a slightly clear image of the same event, this one would be fine for me. Publicus 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think this picture, in a collage, would be better than alone. The collage would give the picture context and it is iconic. Ursasapien (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple thumb/Iraqis voting

I'm less supportive of a purple thumb or Iraqis voting image simply because those images don't seem to be as representative of overall "democracy" in Iraq as say, a toppling of Saddam statue image. Everyone would tend to understand Saddam being toppled, whereas voting might be a problem simply because it wouldn't be clear which election or what vote was being tallied in the image. Also, another good rationale for war image might be a Colin Powell WMD presentation at the UN image--especially since much of the controversy of the war is based on the WMD argument, which was the original rationale by Bush for the war.Publicus 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree. Elections are not very moving to watch. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

N No consensus

[edit] Insurgents firing on coalition troops

[edit] Colin Powell's WMD presentation at the UN (per Publicus)

It's used by itself in the Rationale for the Iraq War article. I think it would be appropriate. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. soldiers or equipment in the same picture as an Iraqi monument

Nothing says "Iraq War" better than U.S. presence in Iraq. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

However, there is a problem in that US military equipment might not be easily distinguished from Iraqi equipment. I think I made this point elsewhere, that the crossed swords image probably wouldn't work because someone unfamiliar with an Abrams tank might think the tanks in the picture are Iraqi, etc. Publicus 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I think these types of images would be the most easily-recognizable icons of this war. Ursasapien (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to think long-term. Not only what images are unique to this war and compelling, but what images will stand the test of time. It would be best if the collage had images that in 50, 75, 100 years people would still immediately identify with this conflict. So far, I have some support for an IED picture. I think there is some support for the "Saddam statue being toppled" image (if we can find a fair-use image). Still, that is all I have so far. I agree that flag-draped coffins, generic pictures of weapons systems, or generic pictures of combatants (wounded or not) are not very iconic. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Proposals

These are basically a 6-picture version and a 4-picture version of the same collage.

Let me know what you think. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I like option two (4-picture collage). I honestly believe it is better than the map, and should be put up as soon as we get a micro-consensus. We may eventually find even better images, (and I think that discussion should continue on this page) but I do not think we should wait to find the "perfect" collage before we replace the map. Ursasapien (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:BRD is the best procedure to follow, since now we know pretty much what people are looking for. I'm working on a caption for the 4-picture one, and I'll put it up as soon as that's done. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's try the 4-image collage and see what editors/visitors of the page think. My only concern is that the bottom right image should probably be replaced with something symbolizing Iraqi civilian casualties-instead of what I feel is a more generic "guy-with-gun" image. The IED image does portray civilian casualties of the war somewhat, but there is probably an image that expands on the point a little more. Publicus 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What I like about the top-left image is that it incorporates civilians into an urban warfare kind of scene. I like it because it says that civilians are in a dangerous situation without being too overbearing. We need to find a consensus above on another kind of image for the bottom right. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a collage, but tearing down Saddam's statue has precious little to do with the war, and a lot to do with propaganda. The other scenes depict events that repeat every day in Iraq. All of them should. 1of3 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to represent the invasion somehow. What do you suggest putting in its place? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the invasion map be inappropriate in the collage? It seems to be about the right dimensions. Alternatively, Image:101st Airborne Division helos during Operation Iraqi Freedom.jpg and Image:Baghdad etm 2003092 lrg.jpg both evoke invasion and are from early April, 2003. The former could be cropped on the sides to highlight the helicopters. 1of3 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the Saddam statue quite a bit in the collage. Not only does it symbolize the invasion phase of the war, it also symbolizes one of the rationales for the war in the first place. Another rationale was WMDs in Iraq, so if we found an image representing that rationale that might be appropriate. I don't think the map should be mixed in with the collage, it looks like we're finding good images for a collage it's just a question of what works. The map is more powerful by itself as a header or at the beginning of the "2003 invasion" section.Publicus 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Saddam statue adds anything to the collage, in hindsight it is widely believed to have not been a significant event since the insurgency rages on even today, after he was captured and even though Saddam is dead, also it was reported that it was in fact staged for the cameras. How about a picture of the opposition, a living insurgent, although it may be difficult to find a freely licensed image Atomsgive 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture we're using doesn't show a whole bunch of people or the American flag on the statue's face. I think if we're going to show it, this is probably the most neutral photograph of the event. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Saddam statue picture is one of the most iconic pictures in the collage (next to the IED picture). I think the collage should include pictures that are unmistakeably related to this particular conflict. Ursasapien (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

excellent! My support for the current collage! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam statue photos

The current statue photo, Image:SaddamStatue.jpg , may be copyrighted, and I believe a version of it was deleted at least once already from wikipedia and/or the commons.

Versions of it are in use in many places (legally and illegally):

• http://images.google.com/images?q=saddam+statue+pulled+down

Click the above Google image search to see some locations. Here is one:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6210000/newsid_6217500/6217577.stm

I found a version of the photo with the photographer's name with it:

• http://www.katu.com/news/national/5040131.html

The caption under the photo reads:

"A U.S. Marine watches a statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled in Firdaus Square, in downtown Bagdhad in this April 9, 2003 file photo. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay, File)"

Normally, photos on U.S. military sites are in the public domain. A version of this photo is at:

• http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15524
• Photo at www.defenselink.mil

But that is no guarantee that an image is in the public domain. I have seen this with a few photos found on military sites. They make mistakes, too.

Here is the current deletion request page:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:SaddamStatue.jpg

It is also listed here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/10/19

I see now that the statue pedestal and the base of the mosque dome have no sky visible between them in the copyrighted photo. There is a clear section of sky between them in the photo from the military site.

So maybe the photo copied to the commons is in the public domain after all. It would be good to clear this up. Please see the discussion at

• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SaddamStatue.jpg --Timeshifter 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)