Talk:Iraq War/Archive of image header discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: It's graphic and intrseting.--86.29.247.13 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Vote? Wikipedia is not a democracy. We come to consensus here by logical arguments, not by votes. -- VegitaU 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To find out, read this. -- VegitaU 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV photo 

message: :::::Pine oak, you obviously have a skewed view of this discussion. Please read WP:DEMOCRACY and understand that this is a discussion, not an election or popularity contest. We reach consensus here. Let me also say that I'm amused at how all the "new" unregistered users and others seem to creep out of nowhere with their misspellings, irrelevant links, and poor editing to sway this discussion. Sock puppets, anyone? Oh wait, I shouldn't bite. -- VegitaU 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As concerns votes and consensus most editors with user names tend to pay attention more to the opinions of other registered users. The Iraq War article has long gotten edits and comments from unregistered users. Some have been vandals. That is why the article itself is semi-protected. There may or may not be sock puppets in this discussion. But please don't make blanket accusations against unregistered users you disagree with. --Timeshifter 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who am I disagreeing with? I made a statement about my amusement on the appearance of "new" unregistered users, not their comments. -- VegitaU 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, no. I never said I disagreed with Pine oak. I said Wikipedia was not a democracy and that to reach a meaningful end, consensus through discussion was needed since he just said "I vote for [this]!" And yeah, as I already explained above, 'my bad' in crossing out a comment after vandalism. Oh, look we just had more vandalism from those pesky unregistered users…darn; don't want to seem too "heavy-handed" in my approach. -- VegitaU 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Just because some unregistered users are vandals does not mean they all are. Let us stop discussing this offtopic stuff here. We can use our talk pages. --Timeshifter 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, you we're the one who began posting here and not on my talk page. Hey, check it out, someone just deleted comments from unregistered users…oh, wait, you only get on my case about it. -- VegitaU 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also remove obvious vandalism from registered or unregistered users. But I don't keep a running log on talk pages, or attack unregistered users in general. Nor do I use their mistakes to attack their opinions. I commented here because you attacked their opinions here, based on their mistakes (some of it was just mistakes or not understanding the rules here, and not vandalism). I don't want others to do these kinds of attacks either. And I want to encourage sincere newbies to help out at wikipedia. So I comment here. You started this by attacking some of the unregistered users too harshly. --Timeshifter 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you are saying I don't revert some vandalism? Well, I do, and I don't waste talk page space reporting on it. You want a medal? --Timeshifter 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt really matter who started it here, it belongs on either of your talk pages as it doesnt deal with images. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It deals with people's opinions of images. I am willing to take this to talk pages, though. --Timeshifter 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images section break 2 

message: ::What exactly is the problem with the wheelchair image? ~Rangeley (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seas-fire Let's call a 6 month seas-fire and stick with the wheelchair guy for the time beeing. 
--Freetown 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, due to the collapse of support for the wheelchair image, and newfound support for the Iraqi soldiers with helicopter, I propose we put that up and see how it sticks. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: explain me something, why has the map noted some operations such as "arrowhead ripper" and not, fo example "phantom fury", which was more massive and deadly campaign. Also, why do we need operations (POV+propaganda) names in the map at all, I think the kalashnikov and location is enough. Also, IMO one map cannot document all the stages of war in Iraq. --TheFEARgod (?) 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of all the image choices, the map had just about the least support - even Publicus agreed with the premise that we are not choosing the image, but simply the best of those which we have. We have determined the map is not that. What is wrong with the image of Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopters? Most of the people, including TheFEARgod, who did not support the wheelchair image support this one, and pretty much everyone who supported the wheelchair image also support this one. It has broad support, and also meets the criteria originally outlined. It is a fine option to go with - it shows Iraqis, and a rather motley crew at that with their un-uniform uniforms and gear, preparing to load onto a helicopter to carry out a mission. Noone can allege it "falsely conveys a humanitarian mission," its clearly a military one. Until a better image comes around, I am perfectly fine with going with this image. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please stop reposting images over and over. It clutters things, especially when the images have already been dismissed multiple times. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer your question about the map, since I made it, there's absolutely no room for all the operations ever conducted in Iraq. Phantom Fury falls under the battles of Fallujah and there is already a marker denoting the battles. Ultimately, I made the decision based on the Iraq War battles template you see here. If the specific operation isn't on there, I didn't deem it big enough to mark. Also, there is not much room around the Fallujah area on the map (or in many places on the map) to write in huge numbers of operations. -- VegitaU 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Wheelchair Man' photo break 1

message: That's why I like :Image:Iraq streetfight.jpg. It has everything. ←BenB4 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another good image. I would lean more toward this one since it has some of the elements that appear to be more common to the overall war; 1) urban warfare 2) irregular forces 3)majority of coalition forces are U.S. 4)confusing casualties (i.e. is the dead person in the picture an insurgent or a civilian, and who killed him? coalition? insurgents? criminals?). Publicus 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do other people think of this image? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So is everyone cool with leaving this image up? -- VegitaU 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is much better than the silly, non-descript "sand" pic.  Although, there was some talk that the picture might be better without a caption.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq streetfight image

message: What is wrong with having a collage of say 4 - 6 pictures? WW2, WW1, Korean War all do it. IMO is is silly to try to distill many different historical events and opinions into one 'perfect' picture. Nobody is going to agree on just one picture, thus by having a few, you are able to satisfy everybody, as well as making for a better narrative outcome. Suicup 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a mockup using another posters template from above. The captions haven't changed. IMO the info box picture should provide a visual summary, just as the info box provides a factual summary. It can only do this with a few images, not just one. Suicup 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. The infobox picture is a picture of the conflict. There is no one-sided war, but there are plenty of one-picture infoboxes. With so many sides in this conflict, we'd need a good thirty or forty pictures at least. Thanks. -- VegitaU 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain to me how a single picture can capture any event as complex as a war? We can debate examples however I brought up WW2 etc because I think that system works much much better than a single picture. Furthermore, having multiple pictures is not about representing sides, but rather showing key events, people(s) or places. Consider the info box itself: date, casus belli, actors, casualties. Basically a summary of key information. The pictures in the info box should attempt to do this too - a visual summary (ie 4-6 pics) of the conflict. As a thought example, what single image would you put in the WW2 info box? I doubt you'd be able to come up with one. The same logic applies to this article. Cheers. Suicup 09:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't we already make the case for one picture? Yeah, I'm sure we already went over this…a few dozen times at least. So WW1, WW2, and Korea all have a collage? So what? Gulf War, Soviet war in Afghanistan, and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) all use one picture. The point: articles can use either, it is based on the consensus of the editors. And many of us agree that one picture would be the preferred method. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can use any number of images in the infobox. The editors decide. There is no consensus here on how many to use in the Iraq War infobox. I like the examples provided by Suicup, especially the World War I infobox. And the infobox to the right titled "What you won't find in Iraq" is hilarious. --Timeshifter 07:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collage

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

text: 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)
replies: text: That would be kind of funny. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia rules! :) --Timeshifter 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a good idea for the time being. Wikipediatoperfection 00:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to Hold off on Info box image