Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War/Archive of image header discussions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


POV photo

I think the current leading pic is US-POV and could imply that americans are there to help Iraqi civilians. It could better fit into a humanitarian mission, not in a conflict infobox. --TheFEARgod (?) 10:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion? Please read the subject above. I don't think we're ever going to agree on one picture. -- VegitaU 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with TheFEARgod, and I picked the photo. I was looking for a wikipedia photo that showed some of the casualties of the war, but could not find any graphic ones on wikipedia. This is the best I could find. I hope somebody uploads some more realistic photos of Iraqi casualties. See the previous discussion mentioned by VegitaU. We may never agree on a photo, but we can keep trying to put better ones on the page. --Timeshifter 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
How would a graphic photo of a disemboweled civilian be more neutral than the current one? The current photo is as good as it can be, IMO. It shows that civilians are being injured due to the instability caused by the invasion (+1 for the left), while showing the humanity of the invading soldiers (+1 for the right). Plus 1 for both sides equals a net gain of zero for both sides. That is neutral by definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.203.209 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than try and find the perfect picture that says in a thousand words that "This is the Iraq War" why don't we use the Iraq Operations Map in the Infobox and use the other pictures as appropriate throughout the article. Since this article is about the Iraq war and not about the casualties or humanitarian mission this should aleviate the picture discussion.--Kumioko 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is about all aspects of the Iraq War: casualties, mission, maps, etc... No photo would be perfect. --Timeshifter 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The only leading pic I can think of that encompasses all aspects of the conflict would be the operations map, as it depicts the entire area in which all aspects of the conflict take place. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My point was that no image can encompass all aspects of the conflict. So we have to choose what aspects to cover. I agree with previous comments that we should use a compelling image in order to interest more readers into delving into the article. Several other comments have been made that we shouldn't use obviously biased photos that seem to be glorifying one side or the other. Or their weapons. So I prefer photos of the reality on the ground. Such as the current header photo for the Vietnam War:

File:Burning Viet Cong base camp.jpg

I think the above photo is better than the typical tanks or helicopters photos. As at 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its current header photo of helicopters:

--Timeshifter 21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, no picture will perfectly capture all aspects of the war (leave it to the article to do that), and we should instead opt for a picture that is compelling and, if possible, creates interest. I agree with you that generic photos of helicopters are not the best (or photos of destroyed buildings, as is a trend lately), simply because they could be in any war or battle. Whatever image is gone with should ideally have some identifying qualities. My original choice was one which showed Iraqi soldiers - the most numerous combatant, and my second showed an oil fire and convoy - two of the most attacked areas in the war. The current image is of good quality though, and does catch attention. It depicts the aftermath of what appears to be a car bomb attack on civilians, displaying the nature of the victims, the attackers, and the inability to restore order on the part of the coalition. These are identifying aspects of this war that do not necessarilly define others. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
how about this one?

I don't like the map because it represents just a few days of a five year event in such a sterile way. How about Baghdad burning at right? ←BenB4 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's graphic and intrseting.--86.29.247.13 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If we could get a more ground-level photo of Baghdad burning, and a few bodies lying around, then that would show more of the reality of the war. Either during the invasion, or around the time of the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and the looting anarchy. --Timeshifter 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we being either- Functionalistic, NPOV, pro-Coalition of the willing, POV, pro-Iraq, pro-Al Qaeda, 'Ramboistic' or anti-war? I vote for either the dead Iraqi and the American coffins, either would do!--86.25.54.26 11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Vote? Wikipedia is not a democracy. We come to consensus here by logical arguments, not by votes. -- VegitaU 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...and dose power lie with a ruling clique, not the prolateriate and membership?--86.25.54.26 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To find out, read this. -- VegitaU 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss the lead picture here.


Stop posting below this line. -- VegitaU 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The 4 pictures in the template for Iraq war

Does anything think it is a bit of "systematic bias" to have only photos of US soldiers? Can we have multinational forces and Iraqi civilians and terrorist (all of which who are playing important roles in this war) too? What do other people think?--Flamgirlant 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason I have always opposed having a split image - it falsely conveys the idea that we are trying to capture the entire war,, or all aspects of the war, in one image. This would be impossible, even if we had a million image split. Instead of putting 4 pictures there, which is unattractive anyways, the best thing to do is simply pick one decent quality picture and use it. It wont represent everything, any more than this 4 way split does, but it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and wont give false impressions. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the 4-way image, but I see your point that it could appear to be a "systematic bias" when at the top. So let us move the 4-way image down farther in the article. --Timeshifter 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the 4-way photo down in the article. The article has some insurgent photos to balance it. The 4-way photo has one photo with Iraqi soldiers in it. Need some photos in the article of soldiers from other nations in the multinational force. --Timeshifter 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, we dont have to capture everything in an image, and we shouldnt pretend we have to by using a split image. We can use one image, we dont need to use a map, and further, we shouldnt use a map. Maps are used when there are no other images available. I have restored the image used before the split image was introduced. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rangley. There's no way a map of Iraq illustrates the Iraq War better than the split image. I think it's pretty good in my opinion, though. Maybe get a shot of an insurgent in there. We should come to a reasonable consensus before just throwing away good photos. -- VegitaU 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). OK. I was trying to put a neutral map image at the top to avoid systematic bias. I moved that map back down in the article. I also moved Rangeley's image down in the article since it has the same problem of systematic bias as the 4-way image. I moved the car bombing image to the top. It has both Coalition and insurgent elements to it. So it is a balance without systematic bias. And it certainly represents a key factor in this war. I don't want to lose any good images, and all of these are good. I myself especially appreciate having a map on the page. --Timeshifter 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point is, we do not have to capture everything in an image. It is not a "systemic bias" to have an image that has just American soldiers, just Iraqi soldiers, just Insurgents, just Saddam Hussein. If someone rejected images not because they were otherwise bad, but because they portrayed a side they did not want portraying, that would be violating NPOV, and that is the systemic bias that sometimes exists. If we purposely only choose images for this article showing Americans, thats one thing. But we arent, I beleive we have a variety of images within the article itself. But thats whats needed - variety in the article.
Thats why we should drop the guise of trying to find an all encompassing image - none exists. We should just opt for a good one, typically one that is a good lead in for the article. The one from 2005 which you moved up doesnt strike me as a better image than the previous one which you have moved down. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. So that is 2 out of 3 wanting a more balanced image on the top. Your preferred image may be more dynamic and exciting, but this is a war we are talking about, and avoiding systemic bias in the first photo people see is far more important than trying to grab people's attention with a less-balanced photo at the top. --Timeshifter 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
For the third time, my point is that you have misdefined systemic bias, and we do not have to have only all encompassing images. It is a systemic bias to purposely reject images representing a side when images are available, but noone is suggesting this. The article should have a variety of images - but each image doesnt have to have everything in it. No image has everything in it, and no image can possibly represent all there is in a war. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We disagree. Sorry. 2 out of 3 people in this conversation thought your image at the top showed a systemic bias. A 4th person would have been happy with the split image if it had an insurgent in one of the 4 images in the collage. The variety of images that follow farther down in the article have a better balance, but even there they show mostly Americans. Others have discussed similar problems concerning the gallery of images. Wars consist of multiple sides, and the photos should not favor any side. --Timeshifter 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait - where did I say that? ~Rangeley (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here, so, without further ado:
Using a collage of images to "represent" a war is somewhat problematic for one this recent. For WWII, for example, the approach works fairly well because there are a decent number of iconic photographs of the war; here, on the other hand, most of the images are unlikely to be instantly recognizable. (The systemic bias issue is a valid one, but caused more by a lack of freely licensed photographs than anything else. If the insurgency were releasing a pile of PD images, as the US government does, it'd be a lot easier to create a "balanced" grouping of images.)
The idea of using a map is not a bad one, but a simple geographic map of Iraq is not really helpful to the reader. What would be the better approach, I think, would be a map of the war; see, for example, Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618). Essentially, you'd need to start off with a (fairly large) map of Iraq and then mark it up with the locations of battles and military movements, important zones of control, etc.
Obviously, this will require more work than just uploading a simple map; but I think the end result would be both more useful and more visually appealing. Kirill 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that war map example is a good idea. --Timeshifter 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the 4-way collage image. Image:IraqWarHeader.jpg - I replaced the 4-way collage image with one of the images making it up. Image:Iraqi soldiers and Blackhawk.jpg - Another image from that collage is already in the article. Image:Car bomb in Iraq.jpg - Removing the collage image saves over 83 kilobytes (at the 300-pixel-wide size at which the image was in the article). This frees up kilobytes for use in downloading the many 3 to 5 kilobyte images in the gallery at the end of the article. --Timeshifter 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created and posted the war map with the major operations and attacks. There's no way I could include everything, but I'm fairly satisfied with what I made. What do you all think of it? -- VegitaU 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For the image at the top of the article it is a definite improvement. I put below a 300-pixel-wide version of your Iraq War map, Image:Iraq-War-Map.png. It is the same size as at the top of the article infobox. Keep clicking the image to enlarge it more and more. I suggest making the text a little larger in the title box on the image so that it is readable even in the 300-pixel-wide version of the image. So people know what the map is about before clicking it. --Timeshifter 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks very nice. Good work. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks very useful. And will be even nicer IMHO when the labels on the map denoting military operations etc are correlated with mentions of them in the text of the article. Colin4C 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The operations and attacks image is very dry, and also practically illegible unless clicked on. I strongly believe one excellent photo showing people directly involved in the war should be used as the headline photograph. There are many possible iconic photographs that could immediately give the average user a sense of the war, whether they recognize it or not. It need not be all encompassing.67.163.209.247 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you think the picture is "dry", but it illustrates exactly what it is supposed to: the major operations in Iraq since 2003. Whether or not it should be up at the top is what the debate is all about. Secondly, I haven't seen any operations and battle maps encompassing an entire campaign that are particularly legible. In fact, let me give you some examples of images that are on featured or high-quality articles:

None of the above pictures are legible at 300 px. Furthermore, having created this image, enlarging everything on the map to make it absolutely legible on the front page, would crowd out the map with icons and text. The suggestion of having a campaign map like this was brought up and the idea was lauded by several users. This was the reason I created it. If you feel there is a better picture available, by all means, post it or suggest it. -- VegitaU 21:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think then that your map image should be moved to an appropriate location in the article, and either a past image reinstated or a new one selected. As someone said above, map images are usually used when no good photos are available, and I see that the images you posted are all from battles that took place during WWII or even earlier, putting most of the events in a time period during which photography was more difficult and thus less common. Although your map image is indeed un-biased, the first image visible on the page should be as compelling as possible, while also remaining appropriate and not overly-biased. The rest of the article is excellent, and I would like people to be compelled to read through it when they stumble upon it and see the top of the page. There just isn't anything at all compeling about a cartoon map of Iraq that shows a few major battles that have taken place. I didn't find the old 4-pictures image to be biased, and I didn't get the impression that it was meant to be all-encompassing. I would probably suggest simply reinstating it, but maybe there is something else in the PD that would work also, if there are still objections to the quad image. Also, perhapse it could be considered biased to have a top image that is not attention-grabbing and may result in fewer people reading through this article, although I don't think that that is your intention. It could be said that there is a risk of going too far and sensationalizing the events of the war if there is too much emphasis placed on making the article interesting and exciting to the reader. However, I really don't think placing one or a few interesting and emotional real photos from the war at the top of the page is going too far. This war is a very important issue that everyone should be informed about, so lets make sure that we do as much as we can to get people to read about it.Josh60798 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You make some good points. I think people wanted a neutral image that did not favor any side in the conflict. If an image is wanted that would draw the reader more into the article, I would prefer an image showing some of the harrowing Iraqi casualties of the war. I can't find any good ones on wikipedia. I mean photos such as the ones I found recently here:
http://www.lowculture.com/archives/2005/12/
I found that page while browsing around looking for some more images for
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
Here are some categories with photos:
Category:2003 Iraq conflict
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Iraq_War
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_US_Army
Here is a non-bloody photo, that is harrowing nevertheless:
Staff Sgt. Kevin Jessen checks the underside of two anti-tank mines found in a village outside Ad Dujayl, Iraq.
Image:VS-1.6 anti-tank mine.jpg
Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. So we can put any image we want at the top. I vote for showing the reality of war with some bloody photos of casualties from all sides. --Timeshifter 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats good, I agree with what you said. I would like the top photo to show Iraqi people in some manner, since the war effects them the most out of any group. The first photo doesn't need to be extremely harrowing or bloody, but it should tap into people's feelings about the war and compel them to read further. I would hope that nobody would consider a photo of that nature biased, as it would merely show a record of an event that took place as a result of the war. A photograph of an operation or a battle or attack is simply a document of something that happened, analagous to the Iraq map showing major combat events. But a photograph shows much more vividly the human aspect of such events in this war.Josh60798 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this one: Image:Army.mil-2007-03-27-114351.jpg. I have been showing the images in this section at the 300-pixel-wide size of the infobox in the article.
A soldier carries a wounded Iraqi child into the Charlie Medical Centre at Camp Ramadi, Iraq, on March 20, 2007.

--Timeshifter 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a very appropriate image. It features female soldiers in Iraq, which in my understanding is not a very common site in published war photographs. It also features Iraqi civilians. I think it is a well-balanced photo, in regards to viewpoints or emotions regarding the war. Its a sad photograph, but it also has a certain glimmer of hopefulness to it. The people in it appear worn out, but also determined. I think it would be hard to argue against that photograph.Josh60798 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I've redone the war map to consolidate information per Publicus' request. -- VegitaU 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on the picture?Josh60798 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the photo to the one of the female soldier and Iraqi child. The battle map it replaced still needs to be repositioned. If there is any opposition to this change or choice of photo, please state your concerns. Thanks.Josh60798 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo looks good at the top of the infobox. I am going to let others place the map. They seem to be having discussions on other talk pages about the various maps, combining them, etc.. --Timeshifter 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-I hate the be the asshole here but I just dont like the picture. The photo compilations that are usually used for War articles are widely used for a reason, most wars are very complex. I dont doubt the authenticity or the intentions of the soldiers in this photograph but it should not be used as the centerpiece picture for the entire article... this is the kind of picture that the Department of Defense would release and therefore isnt neutral. Someone should make a photo compilations and include this picture in it. - Blake

If you can find a better photo, more power to you. I looked, and there are very few good photos of the Iraq War on wikipedia or the commons. I mean photos that show some of the reality of the casualties of the war. Not just the typical gungho photos of tanks, attack helicopters, and guys on patrol. Please encourage people to upload more casualty photos.
Here is the reality. There is a disturbing May 2007 New York Times slideshow of American casualties after an IED bombing. It is linked from the story here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/07/1719/ - story
Slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/05/22/world/20070523_SEARCH_FEATURE.html
There is another casualty photo here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0412-07.htm
Due to the lack of detail visible on a 300-pixel-wide compilation photo at the top of an infobox such compilation photos are not compelling enough to be a lead photo for a wikipedia article about an ongoing war.
I agree with you about photos found on U.S.-military-associated websites. Most are cheesy. See
http://www.army.mil/mediaplayer/armyimages/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter --Timeshifter 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss the lead picture here.


One of several old Iraq War header photos

--86.29.246.148 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the compilation photo at 300 pixels wide that was used for awhile at the top of the infobox:
Image:IraqWarHeader.jpg

Another problem with it is that it uses 84 kilobytes even at this width. Various images have been used at the top of the infobox over time. We keep looking for better, less-cheesy ones to use there. --Timeshifter 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Use a dramticly smaller version or reduce the resalution to save on memory Kilobites.--Freetown 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to draw people into the article. It is not a very compelling photo collage even at the current 300-pixel-wide setting used for the Iraq War header photo. A smaller version will make it even less interesting. --Timeshifter 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The best hedder image could be this, it's so apropriate---86.25.50.222 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the headder picture is boring, but it's not naff. I think this reprisents the true meaning of the war for me.

File:Saddamstatue.jpg
Happy Irqaie rebels pull down the immage of there opressor, in the famous 9 April 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Firdos Square in Baghdad.

--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:30, 25 July 2007 (U

The picture is too pro-triumphalism, is staged as a P.R. Stunt and peace of anti-Iraqi propaganda.TC)--Atlanic wave2. 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, nurds!--86.29.248.245 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You warn us about etiquette and then call us "nurds". -- VegitaU 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking if you think a picture of an American soldier carrieing and Iraqi child is appropriate! This doesn not show how the war is at all. You are giving people the impression the Americans are doing good and that's not neutral (and not true). The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely misleading to have that picture of the Soldier carrying the child at the top of this article. I can't believe anyone thinks that is NPOV. It makes it look like the Americans are engaged in some kind of humanitarian rescue mission. Whatever anyone's feelings on the war, a wikipedia article should not show such bias. —The preceding comment is by Gerrynobody (talkcontribs) 14:59, 31 July 2007: Please sign your posts!

I think this picture is so true to life in Iraq-

File:IraqiKilledApr2003ByMarinesDefendingBridge.jpg
A dead Iraqie soldier.

--86.29.255.39 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the dead Iraqie mentioned by User:86.29.255.39!--Toddy Ball 2 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'boreing' battel-map is best.--86.29.247.13 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.----Atlanic wave2. 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Try this one, it's very topical--86.29.241.253 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the lead picture here.


Stop posting below this line. -- VegitaU 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Consensus Discussion

Proposal to Hold off on Info box image

I was reading the discussion above and while several of the images did appear to be compelling I would like to suggest that editors hold off on adding any particular image for the time being. My primary concern is that there really doesn't exist "the" image symbolizing the Iraq war. In my opinion, since the war is currently going on it is difficult to agree on one particular image(or even several images) that sums up the experience--simply due to the fact that every day events are occurring which could create another significant image. One of the reasons the Vietnam war and World War II pages have relatively stable info-box images is simply due to time and perspective. Right now we have neither. So, I would suggest that we continue the job of collecting images from the war and adding relevant ones to the article, but that we hold off on placing any one image in the info-box. After all, there's no rush to place an image there--and having the generic map as the image for now will hopefully allow editors(especially those new to the article) to focus on the more important job of actually editing the content of the article, instead of arguing over POV in a particular image. Let's let society as a whole do the job of determining what "the" Iraq war image will be--instead of Wikipedia editors. Publicus 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The main longterm participants in the discussion seem to agree on a photo. So I don't think there will be a problem. If another image comes along that is better we can worry about that then. But there aren't that many good all-around images, and I doubt there will be better ones frequently showing up. So frequent turnover in the header photo is unlikely. I can archive the photo talk to a separate talk archive so that further discussion can be added to it. It won't be a problem. --Timeshifter 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, we arent trying to find "the image" that epitomizes the war, we are just trying to find the best of what we currently have. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, since we've added the "wheelchair man" image to the info-box let's see how it does there. It will be an interesting experiment to see if one of the Wikipedia images we use as the info-box becomes one of "the images" associated with the Iraq war, simply due to Wikipedia's prominent placement of that image. Publicus 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be kind of funny. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules! :) --Timeshifter 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It looks like you were right Publicus. More dissension has occurred. I put back the map, and moved some of the images into the article. Some great images showed up because of the discussion. See the image talk sections higher up. --Timeshifter 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a good idea for the time being. Wikipediatoperfection 00:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, we really did get some good ones. Maybe we should put a really lame image up top for a few days just to see what comes out of the woodwork. ←BenB4 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues, and the map has certainly not acheived any amount of support to warrant its use as the main image. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the map hasn't gotten any major support for the info-box. All it's really doing right now is serving as a non-POV placeholder for a good image. Also, I just edited the Operation Restore Hope article and that showed a perfect example of an image that should fit into the info-box. The "food drop" image replaced a "war map" someone had as a placeholder in the info-box. Hopefully, we can find an image as good as this for the Iraq war. Publicus 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ "edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.main/".
  2. ^ a b "iCasualties: OIF Iraqi Deaths".
  3. ^ "edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.main/".