![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
(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)
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? ← Ben B4 06:53, 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)
![]() |
Please discuss the lead picture here. |
Stop posting below this line. --
VegitaU
12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
-- Timeshifter 02:37, 16 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)
-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
![]() |
Please discuss the lead picture here. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
-- 86.29.246.148 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Use a dramticly smaller version or reduce the resalution to save on memory Kilobites.-- Freetown 01:32, 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.
-- 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 July 2007: Please sign your posts!
I think this picture is so true to life in Iraq-
-- 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)
We have changed images so many times, and many people's arguments have shifted so many times, that this is extremely confusing and has a real sense of going nowhere fast. I have a few criteria which I will put out there for people to consider, as well as a few "non criteria," which we should not be using to disqualify images.
Criteria
Not Criteria
So with the criteria out of the way, here are a few ideas for what might be "uniquely relevant" to this particular war, and what we should avoid. Things that are uniquely relevant might be pictures of in the outside desert setting, pictures that show Iraqis (civilians, troops) convoys on roads, patrols, buildings of Iraqi architectural design. Things that are not uniquely relevant would be photos of death, photos of something inside with troops, simply photos of equipment not being used. There seems to be a trend lately to show destroyed buildings, but this is not unique to any single war and is in all. Troops in a room, or training at home, happen in every war. People die in every war. A photo need not show these things to be a good photo - and we should try and avoid them for that reason. Wikipedia is not censored, but there are things that make a good image, and things that make a bad image. So long as a photo meets to above criteria, I think it would be a solid choice.
Now finally, for a review of the last couple of images we have used.
So, from this, I would have to say that the top image is the best we have so far. This is all just my analysis of course, but I hope that trying to put forward a concrete criteria of what makes a good image can help move things along. If others can find better images, we can compare using the criteria, and hopefully find an image that is the most agreeable. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
File:Blackhawk-CrossedSabers.jpg or
I think it might work as an addition to the Hands of Victory article though. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with it.-- 86.29.240.115 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, so far we have: Child-in-arms, War Map, Iraqi Soldiers, HMMWV and helicopter, Hands of Victory, Saddam at Trial, Burned Tank, and Iraqi on Leash. I also have to remark to stop making exclamatory remarks like BEAT THIS!!!!111!! This is not a competition and to the writers to make these, I would highly advise you read WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BATTLE. This adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to undermine the argument altogether. Such remarks will be disregarded in the future. Please make objective remarks on why the picture would serve best when placed up against the criteria at the top. Make an argument that will generate discussion. Thanks. -- VegitaU 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a good image from User:VegitaU. -- Freetown 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This is another image I like, along with the first picture (of the child.) The one of Saddam is not actually in the war, but seperate to the war, and the prisoner abuse is just a component as opposed to the war itself. They are both good pictures for their respective articles/sections though (trial and abuse). The destroyed tank is not compelling (active, human element) or uniquely relevent (destroyed tanks are fairly common.) ~ Rangeley ( talk) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm choseing the chopper under the Hands of victory. It has a unique historical role, captures a moment of global importance (the fall of Baghdad) and has a pleasent visual simitry to it.-- Pine oak 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It is aperent to me, that the Hands of victory picture was staged as a P.R. Stunt and is not of any real value to the site. -- Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe we can rotate the images. I really like many of the images people are finding. I keep categorizing more and more images to Category:2003 Iraq conflict. Some of the images need to be categorized to subcategories there. Feel free to do so. -- Timeshifter 07:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
All I'm sure of is that the image of the child and soldier is utterly unacceptable. Rangeley left out one very important criterion, the image needs at least to follow rudimentary neutrality guidelines, the impression conveyed by this image is atrociously pro-American. I also disagree that it is interesting or compelling, it strikes me as rather tame, particularly as the focus is on the soldier, the least interesting aspect of the photograph. Nwe 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
A posible unique late commer- Baghdad burns after a
Shock and awe campainge.
I personally like this one too. A perfect example of the ever-present car bomb explosion... a regular event, it seems, in Iraq. -- VegitaU 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Car bomb, Army patrol and either Hands of Victory are of perticular relivence to this artical-- Comander E.I. Davis2 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)It seems that you are attacking Pine Oak for the links he left in his previous comment. Seemed a little heavy-handed to me. Lighten up. It gives the impression also that you disagree with their image choices, too. Like the time you struck out a comment from someone choosing a particular image, and said it was irrelevant because they had made a so-called vandalous comment previously. And attacking people for their misspellings has long been a no-no on most forums (not just wikipedia talk pages). Instead, I suggest recommending the Firefox browser to people. It has a spellchecker built in. It works great and in real time. I use 2 browsers. Internet Explorer and Firefox. The IP addresses of many people changes over time. So it is not surprising that unregistered users are often found using new IP addresses. Many internet providers assign dynamic IP addresses. -- Timeshifter 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)It seems to me, then, you don't understand vandalism, personal attacks, and what happened. I disregarded an unregistered user's comments based on his vandalism. Then, I suggested that Pine oak read WP:DEMOCRACY to understand why simply "voting" was not a constructive way of furthering the discussion. Nowhere did I make any personal attacks against these users based on their opinions. I really don't care what picture we use, in the end, so long as the discussion is worthwhile and productive. That's why I set up this box apart from the rest of the talk page discussions. Please show me the "mistakes" you mention. Adding double-commas to other people's edits and other nonsense sure doesn't seem like a good-faith mistake to me. And where is your constant vigilance "reverting vandalism"? You revert edits to your comments, not to anyone else's. And you revert my edits to the article. Did I vandalize the article? No, I don't think so. But I'm sure what you do isn't "too harsh", right? -- VegitaU 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Patrol and the Child have a more human element.-- Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The 'Child' and 'Patrol' are the only ones with a human and topical nature. rotation is not a good idea, it's unessasery.-- Atlanic wave2. 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) We could archive the image talk with a special name such as "Header image discussion". I know how to do it. We can put a link to it at the top of the main talk page. We can continue all header image discussion there, and paste stuff there from the main talk page too. That way if newbies to the discussion complain we can point them to the link (in bold red letters) at the top of the talk page. See the red link at the top of Talk:Jerusalem just above the table of contents. Here is an iconic image below for this war. Long after this war is over this photo will be remembered. Women in the military, torture, and Abu Ghraib. Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.-- Timeshifter 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I am sorry Rangeley, especially considering all the work you have done in this discussion, but I suggest just keeping the map at the top. I think almost all the other images would offend as many people as they would please. Many people absolutely do not want an image at the top that puts the USA in a bad light. So a map is better than some cheesy pro-USA image at the top. The war is in IRAQ. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Far more have been wounded. -- Timeshifter 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
May be we could have a British picture to make a safe compromise over. It is neither Iraqi or U.S. and dose show servicemen at work on the battlefield.-- Comander E.I. Davis2 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ba'athist Iraqis on the eve of war-
-- Freetown 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the image was a cooked up by an Iraqi P.R. firm or sympathizer to make them look 'cool' before the war broke out. -- Atlanic wave2. 11:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
May be this could be used instead of men?
Dopy image.
It looks phony to me, like a CIA mock-up zaped on to a Google image. Freetown and many others have fallen for a fake, I don't beleve it, but it's all so true!-- Kerry Perry 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is so, then why is it of such a low resilution? Google has better maps of Baghdad and Basra!-- Kerry Perry 13:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC) See-
[ [3]]
Central Baghdad and Saddar city at 2,000ft and 500ft resilution!-- Kerry Perry 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
O.K., I'll click them and see them in full.-- Kerry Perry 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think an effective way of choosing a picture, on top of the mentioned criteria, is to pick one where you immediately realize where it's from. That is, without a caption, the viewer knows it's from the Iraq War and doesn't have to think too deeply about what exactly the picture is conveying. Most of the ones we've seen (HMMWV and heli, patrol, Iraqis and heli) all convey the "Iraq War" without any captions, but ones such as the "Baghdad Burning" picture just raise the questions: "Where's this from?" "What is this about?" It isn't immediate and sure in the viewer's mind. -- VegitaU 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It's got the 'human factor'.-- Freetown 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
or
This is the only photo-reality in the Iraq war.-- Toddy Ball 2 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There are only a few casualty photos here: commons:Category:Iraq War-- Timeshifter 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Right-o. Like the one above. These casualty photos do make excellent candidates alongside the other "battle operation" photos. I don't think we're any closer to coming to a decision though. I think we should try first choosing the category we want as the header…battle operations, non-battle photos, or casualty photos? This discussion has become very long (which is a good thing!), but for new readers, it may become a little intimidating or complex, so I'm going to draft a summary at the bottom as a list of all the pictures submitted and the standings at this point. -- VegitaU 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The first contains a coaliton element, the second is starkly clear without a necessary explanation, and the third is what comes to my mind when I think of operations in Iraq. -- VegitaU 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a defining moment on the part of our history comparable to the fall of the Berlin wall. The pictures are active, relevant and pertinent. The Pulling down of the statue is also instantly recognizable as far as it's location is concerned. The land mine is also appropriate, since it's summarises the daily fear of booby-traps the troops have to live with.
-- Comander E.I. Davis2 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What about Saddam's jail-house Obi Wan Kanobi impression!
--
Kerry Perry
01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Try the Australian S.A.S. or thes Polish pictures. The jeeps are active, the dock a thriller and the croud is both high qality, easly located and shows faces verry well
-- Pine oak 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The picture is both compeling, well done, high-quality and well-cut. It's apropriate due to Iraq's and America's heavy sacrifice in the war so far.-- Kerry Perry 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Prehaps the 2 could be rotated with it?-- Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The dead Iraqi is inactive, faceless and of a very low picture quality-- Comander E.I. Davis2 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Wheelchair Man' is very sad, emotive and activated.-- Toddy Ball 2 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
'Child in arms' is POV and falsley portrays the war as a humaniterian mission.-- Pine oak 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
'Wheelchair man' is also a high quality and topical image.-- Kerry Perry 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's to brutal, Wheelchair man and Child in arms go to far- the pain!-- Freetown 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC) It's nessasery to the article.-- Kerry Perry 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wheelchair man is a good compromise for the header photo. It seems to be one of the top choices of several people who have been commenting a long time in this discussion. -- Timeshifter 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually, I agree with TheFEARgod about the POV of the photo. I know some people tire of this discussion, but here goes ... :)
Anyway we frequently waste (oops, spend) a lot of time in wikipedia arguing over a few words or sentences. I think images are important too.
I like the idea of stacking 2 300-pixel-wide photos on top of each other at the top of the infobox. There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. It looks a lot better than a collage of 4 tiny photos. Here is what TheFEARgod may have in mind:
I think this photo combination opens a real window into the Iraq War. -- Timeshifter 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'sand' picture is best!-- Kerry Perry 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Freetown 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's OK for me. -- TheFEARgod ( ?) 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a rotation of these 3 iconic images-
-- Comander E.I. Davis2 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the POV tag. I'm boldly replacing Image:Iraq_streetfight.jpg. Publicola 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I am boldly putting back the map. Publicus is right. In the middle of a war any header image is bound to offend some people for this reason or that. It is only years after a war that people can settle on a header image. I will put the various casualty photos in thumbnail form in the relevant sections of the article.
The discussion was useful. We found some great images, and I see more of them being used in the article. Also, the editing by Rangeley helped the wheelchair man image.
I moved the wheelchair man photo to: Iraq_War#Effects_of_the_surge_on_security since the photo was taken in March 2007 during the surge, and since the paragraph where the photo is now located mentions police officer casualties in March 2007.
I placed some of the other favorites in the article too. -- Timeshifter 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As a final go round, does anyone have any major objections to this image? Here was how it was judged by the criteria:
Any other thoughts on it? ~ Rangeley ( talk) 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This picture is okay, although Timeshifter listed a valid problem in that it doesn't show or reflect the importance of "irregular forces"(insurgents) in the Iraq war, especially since much of this war is conducted against or by irregular forces. Publicus 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why I like Image:Iraq streetfight.jpg. It has everything. ← BenB4 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's 'active'!-- Bosnia 2007 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
When it is unlabeled it evokes all the questions listed by Publicus. So it is a good photo for the header image in my opinion. -- Timeshifter 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[Later note. I had to put some of the casualty info in the infobox to the right in order to get it to widen up enough to allow 2 images side by side. --Timeshifter]
Iraq War | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() ![]() ![]() Casualties (clockwise from top left): April 2003. November 2004. March 2007. March 2007. | |||||
| |||||
Casualties and losses | |||||
Iraqi combatant dead ... |
Iraqi Security Forces (After Saddam. Allied with Coalition): 5,700+ killed (police) [1] [2] ... |
Images (clockwise starting from top left):
These photos are human, compelling, and uniquely relevant. From many sides of the war. And it is a timeline of the war, too. A non-cheesy, casualty timeline of the reality of war. And it doesn't look like a gungho, Army recruiting ad like many of the other photos. The captions aren't even necessary. People can click the photos. Just leave the dates in the header caption:
Each image is 150 pixels wide. The 4 thumbnail images add up to a total of only 29 kilobytes. Here is how it looks in the article.
Iraq War | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() What you won't find in Iraq. | |||||
| |||||
Casualties and losses | |||||
Iraqi combatant dead ... |
Iraqi Security Forces (After Saddam. Allied with Coalition): 5,700+ killed (police) [3] [2] ... |
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)
What do people think of this photo, Image:The Touch by Russell l. Klika.jpg, that I just found at Timeline of the Iraq War?-- Timeshifter 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
'The touch' would be a good adition to a civiln casualty section or the page on Tikrit city.-- Pine oak 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I'e Just added it to Tikrit's page.-- Pine oak 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The list below is a summary of every picture submitted for consideration and the current standing as far as the discussion generated. Please feel free to edit this list if new discussion is made, but please don't make major changes without a clear explanation why. Continue the consensus discussion above. Thank you.
|
|
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)
(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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
(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)
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? ← Ben B4 06:53, 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)
![]() |
Please discuss the lead picture here. |
Stop posting below this line. --
VegitaU
12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
-- Timeshifter 02:37, 16 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)
-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
![]() |
Please discuss the lead picture here. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
-- 86.29.246.148 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Use a dramticly smaller version or reduce the resalution to save on memory Kilobites.-- Freetown 01:32, 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.
-- 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 July 2007: Please sign your posts!
I think this picture is so true to life in Iraq-
-- 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)
We have changed images so many times, and many people's arguments have shifted so many times, that this is extremely confusing and has a real sense of going nowhere fast. I have a few criteria which I will put out there for people to consider, as well as a few "non criteria," which we should not be using to disqualify images.
Criteria
Not Criteria
So with the criteria out of the way, here are a few ideas for what might be "uniquely relevant" to this particular war, and what we should avoid. Things that are uniquely relevant might be pictures of in the outside desert setting, pictures that show Iraqis (civilians, troops) convoys on roads, patrols, buildings of Iraqi architectural design. Things that are not uniquely relevant would be photos of death, photos of something inside with troops, simply photos of equipment not being used. There seems to be a trend lately to show destroyed buildings, but this is not unique to any single war and is in all. Troops in a room, or training at home, happen in every war. People die in every war. A photo need not show these things to be a good photo - and we should try and avoid them for that reason. Wikipedia is not censored, but there are things that make a good image, and things that make a bad image. So long as a photo meets to above criteria, I think it would be a solid choice.
Now finally, for a review of the last couple of images we have used.
So, from this, I would have to say that the top image is the best we have so far. This is all just my analysis of course, but I hope that trying to put forward a concrete criteria of what makes a good image can help move things along. If others can find better images, we can compare using the criteria, and hopefully find an image that is the most agreeable. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
File:Blackhawk-CrossedSabers.jpg or
I think it might work as an addition to the Hands of Victory article though. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with it.-- 86.29.240.115 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, so far we have: Child-in-arms, War Map, Iraqi Soldiers, HMMWV and helicopter, Hands of Victory, Saddam at Trial, Burned Tank, and Iraqi on Leash. I also have to remark to stop making exclamatory remarks like BEAT THIS!!!!111!! This is not a competition and to the writers to make these, I would highly advise you read WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BATTLE. This adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to undermine the argument altogether. Such remarks will be disregarded in the future. Please make objective remarks on why the picture would serve best when placed up against the criteria at the top. Make an argument that will generate discussion. Thanks. -- VegitaU 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a good image from User:VegitaU. -- Freetown 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This is another image I like, along with the first picture (of the child.) The one of Saddam is not actually in the war, but seperate to the war, and the prisoner abuse is just a component as opposed to the war itself. They are both good pictures for their respective articles/sections though (trial and abuse). The destroyed tank is not compelling (active, human element) or uniquely relevent (destroyed tanks are fairly common.) ~ Rangeley ( talk) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm choseing the chopper under the Hands of victory. It has a unique historical role, captures a moment of global importance (the fall of Baghdad) and has a pleasent visual simitry to it.-- Pine oak 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It is aperent to me, that the Hands of victory picture was staged as a P.R. Stunt and is not of any real value to the site. -- Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe we can rotate the images. I really like many of the images people are finding. I keep categorizing more and more images to Category:2003 Iraq conflict. Some of the images need to be categorized to subcategories there. Feel free to do so. -- Timeshifter 07:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
All I'm sure of is that the image of the child and soldier is utterly unacceptable. Rangeley left out one very important criterion, the image needs at least to follow rudimentary neutrality guidelines, the impression conveyed by this image is atrociously pro-American. I also disagree that it is interesting or compelling, it strikes me as rather tame, particularly as the focus is on the soldier, the least interesting aspect of the photograph. Nwe 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
A posible unique late commer- Baghdad burns after a
Shock and awe campainge.
I personally like this one too. A perfect example of the ever-present car bomb explosion... a regular event, it seems, in Iraq. -- VegitaU 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Car bomb, Army patrol and either Hands of Victory are of perticular relivence to this artical-- Comander E.I. Davis2 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)It seems that you are attacking Pine Oak for the links he left in his previous comment. Seemed a little heavy-handed to me. Lighten up. It gives the impression also that you disagree with their image choices, too. Like the time you struck out a comment from someone choosing a particular image, and said it was irrelevant because they had made a so-called vandalous comment previously. And attacking people for their misspellings has long been a no-no on most forums (not just wikipedia talk pages). Instead, I suggest recommending the Firefox browser to people. It has a spellchecker built in. It works great and in real time. I use 2 browsers. Internet Explorer and Firefox. The IP addresses of many people changes over time. So it is not surprising that unregistered users are often found using new IP addresses. Many internet providers assign dynamic IP addresses. -- Timeshifter 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)It seems to me, then, you don't understand vandalism, personal attacks, and what happened. I disregarded an unregistered user's comments based on his vandalism. Then, I suggested that Pine oak read WP:DEMOCRACY to understand why simply "voting" was not a constructive way of furthering the discussion. Nowhere did I make any personal attacks against these users based on their opinions. I really don't care what picture we use, in the end, so long as the discussion is worthwhile and productive. That's why I set up this box apart from the rest of the talk page discussions. Please show me the "mistakes" you mention. Adding double-commas to other people's edits and other nonsense sure doesn't seem like a good-faith mistake to me. And where is your constant vigilance "reverting vandalism"? You revert edits to your comments, not to anyone else's. And you revert my edits to the article. Did I vandalize the article? No, I don't think so. But I'm sure what you do isn't "too harsh", right? -- VegitaU 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Patrol and the Child have a more human element.-- Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The 'Child' and 'Patrol' are the only ones with a human and topical nature. rotation is not a good idea, it's unessasery.-- Atlanic wave2. 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) We could archive the image talk with a special name such as "Header image discussion". I know how to do it. We can put a link to it at the top of the main talk page. We can continue all header image discussion there, and paste stuff there from the main talk page too. That way if newbies to the discussion complain we can point them to the link (in bold red letters) at the top of the talk page. See the red link at the top of Talk:Jerusalem just above the table of contents. Here is an iconic image below for this war. Long after this war is over this photo will be remembered. Women in the military, torture, and Abu Ghraib. Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.-- Timeshifter 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I am sorry Rangeley, especially considering all the work you have done in this discussion, but I suggest just keeping the map at the top. I think almost all the other images would offend as many people as they would please. Many people absolutely do not want an image at the top that puts the USA in a bad light. So a map is better than some cheesy pro-USA image at the top. The war is in IRAQ. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Far more have been wounded. -- Timeshifter 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
May be we could have a British picture to make a safe compromise over. It is neither Iraqi or U.S. and dose show servicemen at work on the battlefield.-- Comander E.I. Davis2 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ba'athist Iraqis on the eve of war-
-- Freetown 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the image was a cooked up by an Iraqi P.R. firm or sympathizer to make them look 'cool' before the war broke out. -- Atlanic wave2. 11:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
May be this could be used instead of men?
Dopy image.
It looks phony to me, like a CIA mock-up zaped on to a Google image. Freetown and many others have fallen for a fake, I don't beleve it, but it's all so true!-- Kerry Perry 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is so, then why is it of such a low resilution? Google has better maps of Baghdad and Basra!-- Kerry Perry 13:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC) See-
[ [3]]
Central Baghdad and Saddar city at 2,000ft and 500ft resilution!-- Kerry Perry 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
O.K., I'll click them and see them in full.-- Kerry Perry 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think an effective way of choosing a picture, on top of the mentioned criteria, is to pick one where you immediately realize where it's from. That is, without a caption, the viewer knows it's from the Iraq War and doesn't have to think too deeply about what exactly the picture is conveying. Most of the ones we've seen (HMMWV and heli, patrol, Iraqis and heli) all convey the "Iraq War" without any captions, but ones such as the "Baghdad Burning" picture just raise the questions: "Where's this from?" "What is this about?" It isn't immediate and sure in the viewer's mind. -- VegitaU 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It's got the 'human factor'.-- Freetown 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
or
This is the only photo-reality in the Iraq war.-- Toddy Ball 2 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There are only a few casualty photos here: commons:Category:Iraq War-- Timeshifter 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Right-o. Like the one above. These casualty photos do make excellent candidates alongside the other "battle operation" photos. I don't think we're any closer to coming to a decision though. I think we should try first choosing the category we want as the header…battle operations, non-battle photos, or casualty photos? This discussion has become very long (which is a good thing!), but for new readers, it may become a little intimidating or complex, so I'm going to draft a summary at the bottom as a list of all the pictures submitted and the standings at this point. -- VegitaU 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The first contains a coaliton element, the second is starkly clear without a necessary explanation, and the third is what comes to my mind when I think of operations in Iraq. -- VegitaU 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a defining moment on the part of our history comparable to the fall of the Berlin wall. The pictures are active, relevant and pertinent. The Pulling down of the statue is also instantly recognizable as far as it's location is concerned. The land mine is also appropriate, since it's summarises the daily fear of booby-traps the troops have to live with.
-- Comander E.I. Davis2 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What about Saddam's jail-house Obi Wan Kanobi impression!
--
Kerry Perry
01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Try the Australian S.A.S. or thes Polish pictures. The jeeps are active, the dock a thriller and the croud is both high qality, easly located and shows faces verry well
-- Pine oak 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The picture is both compeling, well done, high-quality and well-cut. It's apropriate due to Iraq's and America's heavy sacrifice in the war so far.-- Kerry Perry 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Prehaps the 2 could be rotated with it?-- Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The dead Iraqi is inactive, faceless and of a very low picture quality-- Comander E.I. Davis2 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Wheelchair Man' is very sad, emotive and activated.-- Toddy Ball 2 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
'Child in arms' is POV and falsley portrays the war as a humaniterian mission.-- Pine oak 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
'Wheelchair man' is also a high quality and topical image.-- Kerry Perry 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's to brutal, Wheelchair man and Child in arms go to far- the pain!-- Freetown 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC) It's nessasery to the article.-- Kerry Perry 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wheelchair man is a good compromise for the header photo. It seems to be one of the top choices of several people who have been commenting a long time in this discussion. -- Timeshifter 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually, I agree with TheFEARgod about the POV of the photo. I know some people tire of this discussion, but here goes ... :)
Anyway we frequently waste (oops, spend) a lot of time in wikipedia arguing over a few words or sentences. I think images are important too.
I like the idea of stacking 2 300-pixel-wide photos on top of each other at the top of the infobox. There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. It looks a lot better than a collage of 4 tiny photos. Here is what TheFEARgod may have in mind:
I think this photo combination opens a real window into the Iraq War. -- Timeshifter 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'sand' picture is best!-- Kerry Perry 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Freetown 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's OK for me. -- TheFEARgod ( ?) 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a rotation of these 3 iconic images-
-- Comander E.I. Davis2 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the POV tag. I'm boldly replacing Image:Iraq_streetfight.jpg. Publicola 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I am boldly putting back the map. Publicus is right. In the middle of a war any header image is bound to offend some people for this reason or that. It is only years after a war that people can settle on a header image. I will put the various casualty photos in thumbnail form in the relevant sections of the article.
The discussion was useful. We found some great images, and I see more of them being used in the article. Also, the editing by Rangeley helped the wheelchair man image.
I moved the wheelchair man photo to: Iraq_War#Effects_of_the_surge_on_security since the photo was taken in March 2007 during the surge, and since the paragraph where the photo is now located mentions police officer casualties in March 2007.
I placed some of the other favorites in the article too. -- Timeshifter 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As a final go round, does anyone have any major objections to this image? Here was how it was judged by the criteria:
Any other thoughts on it? ~ Rangeley ( talk) 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This picture is okay, although Timeshifter listed a valid problem in that it doesn't show or reflect the importance of "irregular forces"(insurgents) in the Iraq war, especially since much of this war is conducted against or by irregular forces. Publicus 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why I like Image:Iraq streetfight.jpg. It has everything. ← BenB4 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's 'active'!-- Bosnia 2007 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
When it is unlabeled it evokes all the questions listed by Publicus. So it is a good photo for the header image in my opinion. -- Timeshifter 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[Later note. I had to put some of the casualty info in the infobox to the right in order to get it to widen up enough to allow 2 images side by side. --Timeshifter]
Iraq War | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() ![]() ![]() Casualties (clockwise from top left): April 2003. November 2004. March 2007. March 2007. | |||||
| |||||
Casualties and losses | |||||
Iraqi combatant dead ... |
Iraqi Security Forces (After Saddam. Allied with Coalition): 5,700+ killed (police) [1] [2] ... |
Images (clockwise starting from top left):
These photos are human, compelling, and uniquely relevant. From many sides of the war. And it is a timeline of the war, too. A non-cheesy, casualty timeline of the reality of war. And it doesn't look like a gungho, Army recruiting ad like many of the other photos. The captions aren't even necessary. People can click the photos. Just leave the dates in the header caption:
Each image is 150 pixels wide. The 4 thumbnail images add up to a total of only 29 kilobytes. Here is how it looks in the article.
Iraq War | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() What you won't find in Iraq. | |||||
| |||||
Casualties and losses | |||||
Iraqi combatant dead ... |
Iraqi Security Forces (After Saddam. Allied with Coalition): 5,700+ killed (police) [3] [2] ... |
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)
What do people think of this photo, Image:The Touch by Russell l. Klika.jpg, that I just found at Timeline of the Iraq War?-- Timeshifter 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
'The touch' would be a good adition to a civiln casualty section or the page on Tikrit city.-- Pine oak 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I'e Just added it to Tikrit's page.-- Pine oak 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The list below is a summary of every picture submitted for consideration and the current standing as far as the discussion generated. Please feel free to edit this list if new discussion is made, but please don't make major changes without a clear explanation why. Continue the consensus discussion above. Thank you.
|
|
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)
(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)
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)