Talk:Iraq War/Header image discussion

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

text: 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)

text: I like one of the images that Isaac Pankonin linked to: . 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)

text: Dead coalition or civilians can also be seen as propaganda.  I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the archive of previous header image discussion. --Timeshifter 05:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq streetfight header image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Study of war article header images 1945-present

message: Publicus suggested:
# An image symbolizing Coalition (probably US) casualties--could be wounded soldiers or the caskets image.
# An image representing Iraqi civilian casualties or damage to civilian society/life/structures/etc, don't necessarily need bodies here
# An image symbolizing the nature of the combat of the war, i.e. urban combat
# 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)
thread_title: Motifs for Collage

message: :::Specifically :Image:Saddamcapture.jpg would be good.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saddam Hussein (especially while on trial or immediately after capture)

message: :::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)
replies: text:  Consensus (so far)  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An IED

message: ::::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)
thread_title: Urban warfare

message: ::::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)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think it's very good.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pictures from initial invasion (storming a presidential palace, toppling Saddam statue)

message: :::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)
thread_title: Colin Powell's WMD presentation at the UN (per [[User:Publicus|'''Publicus''']])

message: :::Nothing says "Iraq War" better than U.S. presence in Iraq.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: U.S. soldiers or equipment in the same picture as an Iraqi monument

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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
* --Timeshifter 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam statue photos 

message: This header image is not good, three of four of the pictures only depict American forces. 
The picture of Saddam Hussein's statue falling is symbolic of the fall of his regime in 2003, so it should remain. The image of the car bombing behind the U.S. military vehicle shown in the current header is fine as it shows both the insurgency and a picture of the dominant U.S. forces of the coalition in Iraq.
New pictures which should be added are the following, with the reasons in the captions of the pictures. These images should be fitted into one header image. This collection of images would better represent the key themes and history of the Iraq war thus far, which are (1) the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, (2) the insurgency against coalition forces, (3) abuse by coalition forces during the war as infamously demonstrated by the Abu Ghraib scandal, and (4) the sectarian violence in Iraq which massively grew after the destruction of the Shi'ite Al-Askari Mosque in 2006.
--R-41 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo collection needed, three of the four current header photographs only show American military forces