Talk:List of photographs considered the most important: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 48: Line 48:

::::::::::::::If you mean we as a species, we’ve been around a lot longer than that. If you mean we as in the people in this discussion, well I intended to [[Digital immortality|live forever]], so there! –[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::If you mean we as a species, we’ve been around a lot longer than that. If you mean we as in the people in this discussion, well I intended to [[Digital immortality|live forever]], so there! –[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::nah that’s fake. the people in this discussion will not exist within 90 years, at max. [[User:Bcom123|Bcom123]] ([[User talk:Bcom123|talk]]) 18:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::nah that’s fake. the people in this discussion will not exist within 90 years, at max. [[User:Bcom123|Bcom123]] ([[User talk:Bcom123|talk]]) 18:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Are we really pretending like the current sources are anything but the opinions of some writer(s)?

:::::::::An actual argument for the importance of a photograph would have criteria like surveys of photographers (for measuring influence of style) or estimates of distribution. Guess what not one of the sources even claim to do?

:::::::::As for the defence that the assassination photo is too political. Look at the only two photos for the 2020s that are currently in the article. The 2021 riot and the image of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Two very political and controversial topics.

:::::::::Of note, this article is the only place I’ve seen the NVG image, I seriously doubt that it is notable. The Afghanistan withdrawal is much more widely known for the images of people falling from the C-17. Infact if you search “afghanistan withdrawal images” in Bing,Google,and Yandex the overwhelming involve refugees including the C-17 image. Only Bing shows the NVG image, which suggests that it is infrequently linked and distributed. [[User:JSory|JSory]] ([[User talk:JSory|talk]]) 09:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

== Addressing problems with current criteria ==

== Addressing problems with current criteria ==

Can we now add back the Donald Trump raised-fist photographs, given, what, per history and WP:COMMONSENSE is obviously a historically important photograph? If not, and with the strange absence of photos like The Blue Marble and the major religious take of the photographic-negative of the Shroud of Turin (arguably history’s most important religious photograph, at least in causing a 126-year-old debate about a religious topic), this page remains broken, forlorn, and incomplete. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well add a third section asking for a photo you think should be added, but given there’s not a (re-established) consensus on the criteria yet, making comments like these don’t add anything besides pressure IMO. I don’t think it’s appropriate to add these entries into the article anyway as a result. Carlinal (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to pressure as much as point out the obvious. The Trump photos (along with at least The Blue Marble) belong on this page, and it’s hard to deny that except for saying “criteria” doesn’t yet allow it. Can’t envision the Trump and Blue Marble not eventually being listed here (which is what I mean by obvious), so why delay the inevitable, which is where WP commonsense possibly “trumps” criteria. As for the Canadian photo I mention in the section above, that’s not me thinking it should be added but honestly asking if it belongs or not. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not having it here just makes the article look biased. If a photograph is important enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it’s clearly important enough to be listed here. 2DLove (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, agreed. Unfortunately this website does is very biased and does not want that. Sorry. Bcom123 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bcom123, thanks for leaving your post as I didn’t realize that the photograph does not yet appear on the page! That’s funny. Anyone who doesn’t realize that it’s one of the most important photographs is missing something or other. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve been over this before. Just because a picture has its own article here on Wikipedia doesn’t make it eligible for this list. That is not the criteria. If you want to change the criteria to that, then start an RFC to effect that change. And please Randy, don’t start in again with the “common sense” arguments. It didn’t work in the past and it’s not going to work now. “Common sense” isn’t one of the criteria. If you want different criteria, start an RfC. —Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it’s obviously an iconic photograph and is very important. I agree, it is pretty much common sense for it to be there, but again, I wouldn’t argue. It’s a lost cause. Even if you try it will be removed within an hour. Bcom123 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, because “common sense” isn’t one of the criteria. So, start an WP:RFC to get “common sense” as a criteria. —Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try to edit the page and then the image was removed promptly? That is a shame. If not, maybe try to add it.. Bcom123 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on what aspect of Wikipedia is very biased? Especially given how directionless this article has become, partially since Randy won’t stop complaining.
Also Qono removed the listing of the photographs a while back as they don’t meet the criteria…whatever it’s become at this point. Carlinal (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just answering the editor, and I am honestly surprised that the raised fist photo isn’t here yet. In its case common sense makes the most sense for criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So start an WP:RFC to get the criteria updated to include “common sense” as a reason to include photographs on the list. Failing that, the criteria remain the same. —Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to a point. But since WP:COMMONSENSE is above any policy it can’t be written or !voted into something designed to be decided by policy as, arguably, as a fundamental principal it is automatically part of the existing criteria. A better RfC may be asking for an exception to our rules (IAR) for the raised fist photograph, but I’d think it would soon range widely into partisan politics, and since I try not to comment on politics on Wikipedia I wouldn’t want to start the RfC (but would comment in favor of an IAR exception). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can invoke WP:IAR and “common sense” for any image anyone wanted to include here. They are non-criteria because there’s absolutely no limit. There would be no grounds for anyone to ever remove anything from this list, and images would be iconic just because they existed. As has been said repeatedly, what is common sense to you isn’t common sense to everyone else. Just because you say it’s common sense doesn’t make it so. See WP:NOCOMMON. We here at Wikipedia don’t get to decide what are important photographs any more than we get to decide who is famous who or who a race or who won an election or what building is the tallest or what star is the largest. We depend upon reliable sources to assert all those things. Us thinking a particular image is the most important will NEVER fly because it has no basis in policy and never will. Trying to get around this with WP:IAR and common sense is an absolute waste of time. Your easiest, greatest path to success is to go find reliable sources like this one that assert an image is one of the most important ever, and see how it fits into the existing criteria, while keeping in mind that this article falls into the Wikipedia:Contentious topics area. Acting against community consensus with WP:IAR and “common sense” may lead to swift sanctions against you (and no I’m not saying from me; I consider myself WP:INVOLVED). —Hammersoft (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please dial it back a bit. I was replying to a comment about one particular photograph and giving my personal opinion and you were the one who suggested an RfC, which I had no intention of starting. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please dial it back? Seriously? You’ve been trying to get this image added to this article starting just two days after the event happened [1]. You argued it should be included based on common sense and WP:IAR then, have tried to argue that many times since, and are continuing to do it now. You’ve been refuted over and over and over and over and over and over again yet you won’t drop the stick, nor will you start an RfC to get the inclusion criteria modified. I’m not going to keep explaining this to you over and over again. You know the rules. You know the criteria. You know this article is subject to Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedures. You repeating “WP:IAR” and “common sense” a thousand times isn’t going to change that. But here, let me help you since you seem to think it helps; WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! <ten thousand years later> WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! —Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to your last comment above, which got very personal. Please reread it from that point-of-view, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, such sanctions wouldn’t come from me. There’s a reason this page is under CTOP restrictions. The Trump raised fist photo is most emphatically a post-1992 politically oriented topic. He was a candidate for president at the time, and he was giving a speech regarding his candidacy. As such, it clearly qualifies for the CTOP restrictions on this article. If you want to call that ‘personal’, take it up with the people who applied that restriction to this article. Reminding people of that restriction isn’t ‘personal’. —Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not that big of a deal, but too many accusations swirl around Wikipedia. I had no intention of adding the photo, just commenting about it. Someday when it’s added we can reminisce about this discussion over virtual beers or something. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is common sense that that image should be added, unless a person is biased.
Thanks, I hope we can solve this ! Bcom123 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself above, “WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! <ten thousand years later> WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense! WP:IAR! Common sense!” —Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lol (I only write that when I actually laugh out loud. I pity the poor fools who always roflol – only happened to me once, in a film theater). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🙂 Thanks for keeping things light 🙂 —Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you do think it is common sense? Great! Since you have permission when don’t you add it, thanks ! Bcom123 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won’t be adding it because doing so would run against consensus here and violate the aforementioned CTOP restrictions on this article and I’d rather not be blocked, if you don’t mind. I also don’t think it’s common sense, and common sense and IAR are not part of the consensus generated criteria here. My point is continuing to say “common sense”, even if done over the next ten thousand years, isn’t going to change anything. —Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We won’t exist by then ! Bcom123 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean we as a species, we’ve been around a lot longer than that. If you mean we as in the people in this discussion, well I intended to live forever, so there! —Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nah that’s fake. the people in this discussion will not exist within 90 years, at max. Bcom123 (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really pretending like the current sources are anything but the opinions of some writer(s)?
An actual argument for the importance of a photograph would have criteria like surveys of photographers (for measuring influence of style) or estimates of distribution. Guess what not one of the sources even claim to do?
As for the defence that the assassination photo is too political. Look at the only two photos for the 2020s that are currently in the article. The 2021 riot and the image of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Two very political and controversial topics.
Of note, this article is the only place I’ve seen the NVG image, I seriously doubt that it is notable. The Afghanistan withdrawal is much more widely known for the images of people falling from the C-17. Infact if you search “afghanistan withdrawal images” in Bing,Google,and Yandex the overwhelming involve refugees including the C-17 image. Only Bing shows the NVG image, which suggests that it is infrequently linked and distributed. JSory (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I contributed as much as possible for article improvements and discussions, but after the edits and comments since our last major search for consensus, I admit to losing some enthusiasm, yet at the same time found more reasoning to reestablish another argument for a better direction for the umpteenth time.

The main problem with this article’s current form is that there’s less stability and reference to something concrete than before. Listings of images get added and removed, and there’s no real criteria for what is a good source. For instance, there was an addition of the Donald Trump raised-fist photographs, with a citation to Life‘s 100 Photographs (issue in December 2021), but the link leads to a site called The Digital Journalist. Did nobody else notice this? It shouldn’t be this sloppy. Another problem is the increase of a western-European-centric bias, as noted by ExclusiveEditor. Of course there’s more note on American and European photos than the ones that aren’t. And for photos related to certain countries like India, there’s even less documentation on notable photos, if any at all. And for an English encyclopedia, it’s much easier to find something in our native language than to find foreign ones.

I thought about what benefits could be brought from not collecting every source possible. Some of the best constructed articles may not possibly contain every source or info related to a subject, but is a synthesis comprising the most essential information to take from a subject, and composing a well-rounded image of sorts. I never really disliked the “every source ever” direction but it’s too tolerant of looser edits by people who want images they feel should be included without bothering to understand this article’s mechanics and confront the lack of ethnic diversity.

So now, an arbitrary criteria looks more appealing than before given the above. Yes, it’s something crafted purely from our own judgement for better control. Yes, it’ll result in a bunch of great photos excluded, and that sucks. No one including me will be really satisfied with the current selection. But it isn’t personal. By enforcing an arbitrary criteria, it allows us to scrutinize sources, give a concrete idea of which sources are building blocks, and strengthen the article’s composition. It’ll also reduce the amount of American and European photos thanks to a low-as-possible minimum of two list sources, of those by professional critics, leading to a stronger ethnic balance. The image I get (which was published at some point too) is still a strong array of notable photography internationally and a very nice idea of what great imagery generally is.

So, what’s the consensus? Well it’s not strong and we all have grudges over the costs, but given past discussions, the two-list minimum is the best way to go. Again, better sources, tighter composition, stronger ethnic diversity. There have been several one-shot users complaining about exclusions, but Randy Kryn is the only opponent to also be a frequent contributor here, if I remember correctly. Randy, I appreciate your opinions but in this case an ultra-inclusion does not lead to article stability. And for subsequent complaints from more one-shot users should the minimum become standard, hopefully we can encourage them to provide some substance. Carlinal (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would oppose limiting the sources used but add important photos from all cultures. This page receives something like 1,800 views a day (you’re welcome) and what I think happens is someone comes here out of pure curiosity – what other reason to click on the page – and just starts scrolling. Many of the images are new to me, and I personally don’t see the importance in some and would remove them. But others would pick out different photographs that they didn’t recognize or would question their inclusion here. But since this is a “considered” list, if an image comes up on one of our accepted lists it fully meets the criteria of independent selection. Not to wall of text it, I think people just enjoy the list, learn about old and new topics, and spend a lot of time scrolling through the thing. Nothing wrong with that encyclopedically or expanding both the knowledge and range of what knowledgable critics consider “most important”. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think that this image should be added? Or is it not important enough? https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/the-latest-on-the-unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-suspect-12-19-24 I am referring to the image under “Mayor Eric Adams among those escorting Luigi Mangione” Bcom123 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to preface this by saying I don’t go around the back ends of Wikipedia like this usually, and this is coming from the perspective of an American. I know there’s been some issue with how many photographs are from an American or generally Western point of view, but I personally felt it kind of interesting that no photographs coming from the Columbine High School massacre. The massacre set a new precedent for students in the United States, and has shown to inspire or be connected to so many mass casualty events (including some outside of the United States, such as the Jokela school shooting, or the perpetrator of the recent Graz school shooting having Dylan Klebold as his profile picture on one of his accounts on Twitter.) that it has its own “effect.” I say this not to point and say “Look, the massacre has so many copycats or has inspired so many people, and it has its own effect named after it!” as a sole justification for why I think a photo from the massacre is prevalent. I just want to point out how much the massacre impacted the culture. Now, of course, there have been notable events that don’t get mentioned in this list because that’s not what it’s for. However, I personally do believe the still of the perpetrators on the cafeteria CCTV footage or the leaked 2002 suicide photos of the perpetrators. (Warning for the suicide photos, as they depict.. well, you know, suicide. With guns, one being a sawed off shotgun. Pretty bloody, Eric Harris quite literally blew off like 90-95% of what was inside his head. Just in case anyone’s a bit queasy. There’s two versions of the photos, but I’m linking to the more well known one. If you want to look up the other one, viewer discretion is advised, as Harris’ wounds are a LOT more apparent.) I personally lean more towards the cafeteria CCTV footage, but in general, I find at least one photograph from the massacre to be fitting for this article. The 2002 suicide photos revealed just a little bit more about the deaths of the perpetrators, which was generally surrounded with mystery, confusion, and speculation. I mean.. it still is to this day, but we have a frame of reference, something to actually look at and analyse. Moving on, the cafeteria CCTV footage. I find this to (in my opinion) be a stronger contender for this list. It became infamous from the “Columbine Tapes” edition of Time (magazine), which covered what everyone wanted to know- why did they do it? Of course people wanted to know what drove two pretty regular teenagers to attempt a bombing and kill their school mates, and hence, tons of people picked up the magazine and saw that CCTV still. In essence, it captures part of what made the massacre so shocking to people. It’s a normal environment for the majority of high school teenagers combined with the juxtaposition of abandoned backpacks and lunches. And of course, two kids are present- two kids with their guns ready and who, at this point, have effectively murdered 13 people. It set a precedent, it shows that this isn’t some fringe issue that only matters in select places. If it can happen in mostly Christian, middle to upper-middle class normal Colorado school, two to three weeks from graduation, who’s to say it won’t happen anywhere? The Columbine High School massacre created a divide between the period before and after it, and I believe that the cafeteria CCTV still is iconic enough to represent the moment that separated us from the times where school shootings weren’t considered the norm. Also, I don’t want this to come off as a comparison but I can’t really control that, but two photos from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting are also included in this list. (See: Shootings as Routine and Sandy Hook under the 2010’s section.) I’m not saying that those photos shouldn’t be included, as they’re very emblematic of everything that came about and resurfaced as a result of Sandy Hook, but I feel like it’s remiss to not also include a photo from Columbine as well if we can include photos from such events. Columbine and Sandy Hook are two of the most notable and well known examples of school shootings, and while for different reasons, I still believe documentation of them both should be considered important. Overall though, if this has something to do with not wanting the perpetrators to be plastered on a list people probably vaguely browse pretty regularly, I would understand to a degree. In this day and age, it’s pretty hard to even try to begin to contain how much Klebold and Harris’ ideals and reputation has spread, but I can get why people would still want to generally avoid participating in anything that could spread it and I have to respect that. If that’s not an issue though, I think that an image from the massacre is a strong contender for this list. Sorry if this all sounds like a coke rant. I’m probably biased, but I really do think that images from the event are important and were really a sign of the times. Special:Contributions/No-walkietalkies (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section on “Portrait of Nariakira Shimazu” states that it is the “[o]ldest daguerreotype by a Japanese author”. Should we change this to “[o]ldest-known daguerreotype by a Japanese author”? Eatmorepies (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add a FAQ here at the talk page about why the iconic Trump photo Evan Vucci took isn’t mentioned at the page. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its speculated to be the most viewed photograph in history. (go to the legacy part of the article and theres 5 sources there) Also it has this page linked in it’s See Also section, so somebody thought it was important. microTato(🗯️) (✍🏻) 17:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top