Talk:List of photographs considered the most important

Improve list format

I converted the former bullet-point style list of the 19th century photographs sections into a table format. I intend on converting the rest of the article to this format also, as the current article looks untidy. I would be pleased if other editors helped me in this endeavor. – Howard🌽33 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't half bad, honestly. Sure the contents are more spread out but at least the cited survey column is good. Where'd you get this idea? I think this video game article could be a better suggestion as to where you can reference these images, but never mind if you knew about that already.

As for copyrighted images however, these should be removed. After the 1920s the tables start to look more...clunky? In most articles I've seen it's better not to have such an "unavailable image" box at all. Carlinal (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oooh yeah, I need to add this. This is something that would take quite a while and would take several edits to finish. If you prefer just one edit all at once instead you should copy this article's code, paste it onto your sandbox, and then do the rest of your business so that you can replace the previous version's code with your own instead. Now this looks a bit awkward, heh. I'm sorry.

I guess no one else here is opposed to this?? Such a change would probably need consensus but for some reason there isn't...any. At least you're being bold. Thanks again for your effort. Carlinal (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I would really prefer including the external links to the photographs. Having a list of the most important photographs is meaningless if people cannot view half of the photographs for themselves. I don't know if there are any rules against the usage of external links in this manner, but I have tried my best to only source images from websites which have licensed the image. If you are only opposed to the usage of the External Media template, then I can just add a short hypertext link to replace it. – Howard🌽33 00:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you removed many of my external media boxes, I highly advise against this. They are definitely necessary for understanding the list. – Howard🌽33 01:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I returned them, but they still don't make the tables look good. How about the external links be moved into citations next to the photos' titles instead? Carlinal (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I would personally prefer the images to be accessible at first sight. Citations are rather small and you have to hover over them to view. If the External Media boxes are so discomforting, we can use short hypertext links like I suggested before. – Howard🌽33 01:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If such external links on the titles do not replace those that lead to individual articles (such as Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare) then I'm up for it. Carlinal (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting changes. Probably should shorten the full link coding into consistent links, such as Click here to view photograph at an external link (sentence break after 'photograph'). Italics should also be consistent on named photographs (shown or not shown). Also italics might be removed from the 'copyright...external link' messages, the italics throws off Wikipedia's standard use of non-italics for what amounts to captions. Just some quick thought on scanning the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it would also be necessary for every individual photograph article to also feature said photograph as an image. For instance The Pastry Cook does not have any images at this moment. – Howard🌽33 11:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't recommend placing the external links on the titles themselves. It would be more practical to just place a link where the image would be. – Howard🌽33 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Randy Kryn has the best solution to this, I'll try it out. Carlinal (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Point de vue du Gras

Shouldn't we display the original image, not the later "enhanced" image? 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:8023:753C:A6E6:29DF (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Originally, the list displayed both. But I removed the original photo since I thought it looked made the list look cluttered and the original is quite murky. The enhanced image is far clearer, but I will switch to the original if other people agree with you. – Howard🌽33 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm the same user as above, it's just that my IP address has changed - Just want to expand on my thought process:

I agree that the enhanced image is a better image (likewise, the colourised version of the image is a better image), that said, the importance of the image stems from the fact it is "the oldest surviving camera photograph", and so the original version is of uniquely and significantly greater importance. That said I don't object to the inclusion of one of the enhanced versions if people would rather include both. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:2142:9612:D459:913C (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd make two further suggestions:

1) "Windows From Inside South Gallery" should likewise show the original (in this case, the negative), though I'd argue cropped down showing just the negative, and not the entire sheet of paper it was attached to (as was the case in an older version of this page).

2) Addressing the US-Centric concern raised above, a good UK-based source at least for older images - https://www.businessinsider.com/most-iconic-photos-moments-that-changed-the-course-of-history-2019-3 - A lot of it's images are already included, but a few notable absences are the photographs of OJ Simpson, Princess Diana (there are in fact two well known ones of her shaking hands with AIDs/HIV patients, although only one is shown in that article), and the Berlin Wall. The newer ones listed there I think are perhaps more swayed by popular thought at the moment to justify inclusion here. Likewise as mentioned by Time, there is the photograph of the Romanov Execution - https://time.com/4028250/100-influential-photos-colorized/ - The fact these two sources overlap so well with our existing list might be a boon as well, as the current page somewhat parrots and relies heavily upon LIFE magazine. - Of course, this doesn't alleviate the issue of the list remaining anglocentric, hopefully foreign language contributors might be able to provide similar sources from other languages. This'd at least however allow backing up on the sourcing of other images and add a couple extra images of importance from elsewhere. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:2142:9612:D459:913C (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suppose you are correct in all your points considering the original is the more historical image, however I would really prefer only one image per row, as it makes the row needlessly tall otherwise. I will make sure to replace the both photos you mentioned with their originals.

On your second point, I agree that the list must be less US-centric but for now I am more concerned with converting the list to a table format and adding external links to view the images, not adding new items to the list. I will, however, keep your suggestion in mind. – Howard🌽33 22:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Should this list be split?

I believe this kind of collection of photographs would be more fitting if each decade (plus pre-1850s) had their own article (eg. 1950s in photography). Currently the list is too large and cannot possibly cover every important photograph ever discussed at length. For each decennial article we could include a section for notable events which occured in the history of photography (trends, inventions, etc.) during that decade, while also providing information about notable photographs in a separate list like we are doing now. – Howard🌽33 09:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No, once splits start the overall views go down on the main article and become even less on the split pages. The length has been extended by the new format, so let's not use new formatting arrangement to suddenly split-up the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Each of the photos on the list still need explanatory notes for why they are considered historical. That will also extend the length of the list considerably. The previous format lacks information and accessible links for the photographs while the new format (when completed) may be too large. Also, there have been calls to include more photos in the list to reduce anglocentric bias. I'm not sure if this list would be sustainable without splitting. I'm not proposing a split right now btw, it's more of a future suggestion for when I'm done reformatting the list. – Howard🌽33 10:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Always good to think ahead, but if your concerns about size predominate then maybe stop the new format where copyright issues begin to exclude most of the photos. "Anglocentric bias" doesn't seem to fit here, this is a list of the most important photographs not a list of important photographs by country or nationality. Let's not let an improvement in formatting upend the purpose and criteria for this notable and heavily viewed list. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll finish reformatting the list first, and then I'll probably set up a proposal to split the list so more people can decide on this matter. I will only remove the external media links if they prove to be against wikipedia's rules or if it is discovered one of them is hosting the image illegitimately, but not to reduce the size of the list. Like I said before, the list is essentially meaningless if people are unable to view the photographs. – Howard🌽33 10:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the page will do much more "harm" than good to readers who come here from links. Thanks for all the good work though, and yes, viewing the photos for those who wish to seems essential. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The new format definitely bloats the article size, but not to the point where it escapes proper maintenance, nor does there seem to be an overabundance of text. I also do not think explanatory notes are mandatory for every image on the list, at least for those that already have their own article. Carlinal (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that most don't have their own article. A brief explanation would suffice for such photos. – Howard🌽33 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias

The latter sub-sections of this article are skewed towards the United States and its activities. I have therefore restored the "{{globalise-section}}" tag which I added a short while ago. Removing it with an edit summary of "so add more sourced photographs", and no changes to address the issue, is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is lazy, but looking through the sources and additional references almost all of them are in English, if not based in sources within the Anglosphere. There's only about three in French. With that in mind I don't see how the 21st century selections are any more biased than the ones before that since they all pertain to the same lists, besides the pre-21st century content being purely retrospective. Carlinal (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right Pigsonthewing, the first half of my revert was rude, and apologies. Since that occurred I realize that yes, the tag is a good one, as it will alert readers who may then dig through the sources and pick-up the non-U.S. photographs which meet page criteria. Good call, and hopefully a few new non-U.S. photographs will meet the bar. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

To save an enormous amount of space...

Here is the condensed version of what is now the longest entry on the page:

The Great Isaiah Schroll Still in copyright Click here to view the photograph

If we do that with every photograph in copyright the page becomes much less burdened with exposed coding. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. – Howard🌽33 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both so much, I can't express that enough. Carlinal (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Howardcorn33, that had to be a great amount of work. Looks very good. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Anachronisms in location column

Currently, I have been trying to note the location where every photo was taken. However, this has largely proven to be difficult on two grounds:

1. Disputed territory (especially during war), such as in the case of The Valley of the Shadow of Death (controlled by an Anti-Russian coalition force at the time. Also Crimea is a disputed territory now.) and Reaching Out (Photo was taken in the contested region of the Vietnamese DMZ.)
2. Whether or not to use the name of the territory which was controlling the location of the photo at the time or to use the name of the territory which controls it at present. This proves especially difficult in the case of The Dead Sea Scrolls as the State of Israel did not exist in the time the photo was taken (1947). It can also apply to the photos which were taken in and during the USSR.
3. Whether or not the historical periods of countries should be noted, such as photos taken during the time of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

At the present moment, I've decided to be consistent and avoid anachronisms by noting the specific historical period and country which was in control at the time.

– Howard🌽33 00:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can remove the location column entirely. Perhaps replace it with the dimensions or medium of the photo. – Howard🌽33 00:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Higher quality access to copyrighted photos(?)

So I saw the current external link to Hitler's image and the image it links to isn't of a comprehensible enough quality. I remember seeing the same image from a well-archived page of the Time 100 list, which has a hundred photos with their own page and presented images; this is the image of the Nazi Rally I got from the TIME 100 website. Would that website be good? Carlinal (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Links from the Internet Archive do not violate WP:COPYVIOEL (as far as I am aware), so it is allowed. For the sake of accessibility, I recommend using the higher quality image.

But...

Ideally, the external link should lead to a web-page which also contains further detailed information about the photo in question (such as item entries in museums, legitimate auction houses, libraries, and if need be, stock photo sites). I've only used direct links to images only when the only website legitimately hosting the image does not have a specific webpage dedicated to information about the photo.

Take for example the photo Barn Owl with Vole by Eric Hosking: the website for the Eric Hosking Trust does not keep individual entries and instead displays all their photos in a single gallery, so I couldn't link to a detailed webpage. In this case, I was forced to use a link to the photo itself, which is undesirable since potentially interesting additional information about the photo is lost to the viewer. – Howard🌽33 00:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand, and that's why I suggested the Time 100 source in the first place; the page for Hitler's photo, as with others, has a professional design along with displaying the image (that can be zoomed in) and credentials primarily, along with a description of its impact and even extra photos related to the one in highlight. While the main source is on a book, the web pages effectively give due respect to the images that it lists without any worry about a paywall or registration wall; if the links I'm suggesting is unsuitable, that's perfectly fine. Carlinal (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Review of criteria

So I just removed eight images total from the article, across four different edits, because they do not have a cited list (or survey) and I'm a little uneasy but I don't mind. But doing those removals made me want the criteria to be reviewed again since said article is having tighter quality control, I believe. How many surveys should be needed for a photo/image's listing? Just one, right? I mean I don't see a reason the minimum should be increased, since the current length is fine and the sources we currently have are all that's left. I'm not sure what exceptions should be put, especially since that Ford Strikers Riot photo won the first Pulitzer Prize for Photography, which is now replaced with two descendants by the way. Do all sources need to be a list or named "most important/best photos" or something? Or is it enough for a reliable source to call them "most important" and that's it? At least they all need to be by professional journalists and researchers right? No reader's polls or anything like that. Carlinal (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, much as I respect your restoration of seven of these eight photos, perhaps you'd also might be interested in this discussion? Carlinal (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Will get back to this later, but adding back The Blue Marble, Pale Blue Dot, the first aerial photograph, etc. just seems like commonsense (these have likely been on the page for a long time, again, per commonsense). Not sure about a couple of them, and the Ford photo should probably be added back, and others should comment. But The Blue Marble and Pale Blue Dot have historical significance to the extent that removing them needs much discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Pulitzer can be considered a suitable source for inclusion in the list, since its criteria are quite narrow: The "best" image produced by American newspapers in a given year (though they bent the "American" part of the rule on occasion). Its not even close to "authoritative sources [that] review the history of the medium not limited by time period, region, genre, topic, or other specific criteria". We definitely need at least one source for inclusion; we can't state in the encyclopedic voice that a photo is "most important" without a source; but there's no rush, images that have been in the list for a long time don't need to be removed immediately. And I think that ultimately the number of sources required for inclusion has to be increased. Otherwise, this is a rather indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that one Esquire editor considers an image to be one of "50 of the world's most remarkable images" (not even "the world's 50 most remarkable images") isn't really worth noting in an encyclopedia. By requiring more sources, the list can come to represent more of a consensus view of experts. Toohool (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we include the famous Einstein Tongue Photo?

The photo of Einstein sticking his tongue out is one famous pop representation that values as important as de hindenburg's or Che guevara's. If those two are why not add the first being as iconic and stuck in our collective memory when we think of Albert Einstein? Ericulture (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

it's already there. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Look at the 1950s section. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

More sources to expand the list

Here are some additional sources that could be used to expand the list, that seem to meet the criteria:

• 50 Photo Icons by Hans-Michael Koetzle. "Puts the most important landmarks in the history of photography under the microscope."
• Photographs That Changed the World by Lorraine Monk - 51 photos. "Photographs that have had a dramatic impact on the world and, in a myriad of subtle, inescapable ways, on all of us".
• Photos First by Ruth Thomson - 27 photos. "Tells the stories behind some memorable photographs spanning the history of photography, chosen for the vividness or importance of their subject matter, their pioneering photographic technique or their historic significance."
• Photography: The Whole Story by Juliet Hacking. "Leads you through the world's most iconic photographs... A celebration of the most beautiful, meaningful, and inspiring photographs that have arisen from this very modern medium." Contains around 1,000 images.
• 1001 Photographs You Must See in Your Lifetime by Paul Lowe. "A carefully curated selection of the greatest still images ... from the medium's earliest days to the present."
• Life: 100 Photographs That Changed the World - about 145 photos, if you include those listed as "other landmark images". Surprisingly little overlap with the other Life survey already used in the article.
• Popular Photography: The Most Iconic Photographs in History - 125 photos.
• Popular Photography: "Are These the 15 Greatest Pictures Ever Made?
• The Power of Photography: How Photographs Changed Our Lives by Vicki Goldberg - about 80 photos. "This is not a survey of great photographs, or of aesthetically remarkable pictures, or even of photographs commonly thought of as important... The issue is solely whether the world is (or was) any different because of this photograph or that one."
• The Short Story of Photography by Ian Haydn Smith. 50 photos. The section of the book called "The Works" devotes 2-4 pages to each photo. "A key number of images stand out as important imilestones in the development of photography and representatives of specific movements, styles, eras or moments. These images range from the innovative to the iconic."

Of course, with over 1000 photos in some of these sources, the list becomes much too large, so it might be necessary to set a higher bar of being included in 2 or 3 sources. But that entails quite a lot of work to cross-tabulate the sources.

Also, here are some books that offer a comprehensive history of the medium, with an emphasis on notable images, but they don't explicitly say that they've selected the most important/iconic/significant images. These are somewhat comparable to the Oxford Companion to the Photograph, which is already used as a source for the list.

• History of Photography by Peter Turner
• A World History of Photography by Naomi Rosenblum
• A History of Photography by Jean-Claude Lemagny and André Rouillé
• The History of Photography by Beaumont Newhall
• The Abrams Encyclopedia of Photography by Brigitte Govignon
• The Photography Book by Phaidon Press
• The Book of Photography by Anne Hoy
• A Chronology of Photography by Paul Lowe

Toohool (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer splitting the list by decade. We could definitely expand the amount of photos covered that way. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No split is needed, that just dilutes readership, and not all photographs in the sources are "considered the most important" which is a different criteria. Please be selective in adding new photos as "the most important", thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support adding images from some of these sources, but it would be a good idea to start a discussion here to get consensus before adding them. There's some nuance to be considered about the authority, scope, and intentions of each. Qono (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not split ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

---

@Toohool, Randy Kryn, Carlinal, and Pigsonthewing: I propose to split this page into several pages covering important photographs by decade. I am in support of this idea because the current list cannot possibly handle the amount of photos considered notable by several surveys. As user Toohool showed in the above discussion, this list could certainly make us of more sources. In addition, the current list has been considered by several editors to be anglocentric. By using Ctrl-F, I discovered that the United States is mentioned 123 times in the article, while there are about 230 photos in the list. So, the list also needs to be expanded to include more non-American photos.

The titles of the new articles should be:

• List of pre-1850s photographs considered important
• List of 1860s photographs considered important
• List of 1870s photographs considered important
• etc.

The list format will remain the same, except what used to be a section is now its own article.

Randy noted in an above discussion that the page views for this article would decrease if it was deleted, therefore I also propose we convert this article into something similar to a disambiguation page, where a list of the decennial articles can be seen. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, splits mean much less readers. This was a concern for using the chart, which creates more space, that it would mean a request to split. If need be go back to the old format, but a split if both unnecessary and seems harmful to the scope of the page. A disamb page only reduces readership, and the table of contents covers this. There have been photos added which are not "considered the most important", best to rethink and unload some of these before thinking of reducing the page concept. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand how a disamb page would reduce readership. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  First, that sends them to a disamb page (related but still a way to go), then makes them choose between decades. If they pick one decade and look at it, then move away, this overall page (which doesn't seem too large and can afford some cuts to relatively unimportant photographs) has lost its impact and appeal. Splits or disamb pages don't funnel readers to the topic but arguably remove them from it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why should it matter if the "overall page" loses its impact and appeal? There is no way of determining which surveys' opinions matter most in this list, which would require the inclusion of several more surveys. And I don't think a reader would have difficulty understanding the concept of decades, it wouldn't be difficult to navigate at all for most people. If necessary, we can include a template similar to the Popular music in each list which would help the reader navigate between the lists. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I said before that the new table format you gave bloated the article size, but now I see that as poor wording. You expanded it, yes, but by reinforcing the addition of relevant images within PD and CC onto the article along with better outlining details such as dates/chronology, authors, and sources. The article is now much better thanks to your revisions. That does not mean said article is too large for maintenance. It's much, much smaller than a page about, say, a list of Vincent van Gogh's works. There's only less than 250 photos/images on the article; similarly, a video games list article I'm watching has about 300 entries, but is well-curated and managed. This article won't be outside a manageable scope because I do not believe the amount of glossed over non-American photos would increase the amount by even 50%.

At the same time, combined with Toohool's gigantic providing of more potentially relevant sources for addition, the old rules thanks to your outlining of lists and surveys as sources are reason enough for me to request a criteria review, if not a reboot. There's now thousands of images to think about from these sources, but the answer to me is not including every last one. Instead, we should have an arbitrary minimum and have about 3-5 survey-type sources included while other photos (such as The Blue Marble) remain without the need of such. I think I can see a good balance there. Carlinal (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'll retract my move proposal if and only if the editors here can come to some sort of consensus regarding stricter criteria for inclusion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Click here to view" is an issue

They're self-references. The easiest and simplest solution is to replace them all with the urls themselves. That's not to say it's a good solution. Here's how it would look. I give it a 5/10. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that "click here" is not generally recommended. Showing the whole URL is unnecessary though, and creates a lot of visual noise. I think the link text could just be "View image" or "View photo". Toohool (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That could work; I prefer view photo because the article is a list of photographs. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria review 2.0

For better recency and a stronger start I'm making a new section on reviewing the criteria of this article. The article now has a new table-based format that outlines details, including highlights of lists/surveys such as TIME 100. After the initial discussion, Toohool provided 15+ new sources for review, which could increase the size of this article drastically. Howardcorn33 also brought two discussions on splitting the article by decade. All of this is reason enough to take on discussion of this in a greater manner, and at least reiterate any previous answers with better clarity and attention. Here's an excerpt of my comment from the original section;

"How many surveys should be needed for a photo/image's listing? Just one, right? I mean I don't see a reason the minimum should be increased, since the current length is fine and the sources we currently have are all that's left. I'm not sure what exceptions should be put, especially since that Ford Strikers Riot photo won the first Pulitzer Prize for Photography, which is now replaced with two descendants by the way. Do all sources need to be a list or named "most important/best photos" or something? Or is it enough for a reliable source to call them "most important" and that's it? At least they all need to be by professional journalists and researchers right? No reader's polls or anything like that."

For the sake of encouraging a wider and stronger consensus I'm inviting various users from previous discussions. Feel free to invite more. Pinging @Toohool, @Randy Kryn, @Howardcorn33, @Pigsonthewing, @Snowmanonahoe, @Veikk0.ma, @Hammersoft, and @Qono. Carlinal (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to not make judgements on if some reliable sources' opinions are more important than others. To be blunt, I choose quantity over quality in this case. It is not up to us to decide on some arbitrary threshold of sources because one reliable source calling it "most important" or "iconic" or some other synonym should be suitable enough for this list (or preferably lists). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Considered the most important" is a wide-net if all sources are taken as equal. Many of the photographs listed already don't seem to fit that language. "Most important" to who and to what degree? And, of course, no splitting is needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

i.e. one of many, picked at random: Why is Self-Portrait with Wife and Models, 'Vogue' Studios, Paris, 1980 one of the most important photographs ever taken? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't picked at random if it was included in the Oxford chronology. Regardless, it is not up to us to decide which photos are "actually" the most important. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I picked it at random out of the page entries, not implying it was "picked at random" as an important photo. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reiterating from above, I think the criteria should be inclusion in N sources, where N is at least 2. Otherwise this becomes an indiscriminate collection of information, growing to potentially thousands of entries, depending on which sources are adopted. By requiring multiple sources it will grow towards a consensus view of truly important images. "Most important" has to mean something; there has to be some cut-off that we can apply objectively. List of tallest buildings, for example, sets a cut-off of 340 meters so that it's kept at a reasonable size of < 100 entries; some reliable source has probably published a list of the 10,000 tallest buildings in the world, but that doesn't make that the right size for a list in an encyclopedia. Also, there is a copyright in lists issue. By requiring only 1 source, we're essentially reproducing the entire selection of each source, violating their copyrights. Toohool (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A reasonable idea if rating photographs was a common exercise, but it's probably not so the chance of two sources rating the same picture is reduced accordingly, and many "of course this qualifies" may not make that bar. Many single source entries should qualify, as should commonsense exceptions, which in some cases may have to be discussed one-by-one. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

With criteria that have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis or decided by "common sense", the article wouldn't survive an AfD if it were ever nominated. Many other "list of best X's" articles have been deleted because they did not have objective criteria. Anyway, with the sources I listed above that include hundreds or even a thousand photos, it's quite reasonable to expect that any "most important" photo should have made the cut for at least 2 of them. Toohool (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that I've accepted that there is no consensus for a split, I would support at least a mention by two reliable sources. Items which are included under "common sense" are highly subjective, and I see no reason for their inclusion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone recently removed, for example, The Blue Marble and Pale Blue Dot from the list, which were returned. If they were removed because they were not sourced to one of those "reliable sources", let alone two, then that's where commonsense creates the exception for those and other images. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example. I just added Secondo Pia's 1898 photograph negative of the Shroud of Turin. I didn't look for references, as the history detailed within the links shows its importance to society. This seems a commonsense exception to requiring two-sources testifying to its importance. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What is considered "common sense" with regards to opinion-based lists such as this one is highly subjective. There are plenty of movies or video games which many Wikipedians would consider to be "common sense" inclusions in List of video games considered the best or List of films considered the best. Does this automatically mean they deserve to be featured? We can't merely include entries based on what some consider to be "common sense" inclusions. And if it is "common sense", what stops one from seeking lists which note the photograph in question? Surely, if it is "common sense", it wouldn't be difficult to find surveys which do. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we maintain our current inclusion criteria: authoritative sources citing the "top" photographs in lists that review the medium's entire history without constraints. Only lists reflecting expert consensus and published by reputable sources should be considered. This excludes reader's polls and emphasizes the judgment of professionals.

Given the scarcity of comprehensive sources for these lists dedicated to the history of photography, a single mention within an authoritative survey suffices for a photograph's inclusion. This helps prevent the unnecessary exclusion of significant images that may not have widespread recognition across multiple surveys.

I generally just don't see a real problem with the images included in the article or the article's inclusion criteria. Qono (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If we strictly apply that standard for acceptable surveys, the Time and Life surveys might be the only sources left. The other sources currently used are pretty questionable. The CNN and Esquire lists have no info about their methodology; they could have been thrown together by a single editor in a few hours, hardly authoritative. The Atlantic list is made of several experts (and a few random reader submissions) each giving their personal pick for the most influential photo, certainly not a consensus. For the Oxford Companion, we just include the works named in the Chronology, which are only claimed to be "significant photographs"; there's no claim that they are the "top" photographs.

So, the standard that we're applying to sources right now is pretty lenient, and would certainly admit all the books I listed a few sections above, in my opinion. But that would make the list much too long. We can tighten up the standards, and restrict it to just the Time and Life lists, but then it becomes a due weight issue of giving too much weight to a small number of sources (as well as a copyright issue, per WP:TOP100). That's why I lean towards keeping a fairly lenient standard of acceptable sources, but requiring multiple sources, so that it becomes a true consensus view. Toohool (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing the inclusion criteria. This is the current full version:

"This is a list of photographs considered the most important in surveys where authoritative sources review the history of the medium not limited by time period, region, genre, topic, or other specific criteria. These images may be referred to as the most important, most iconic, or most influential—but they are all considered key images in the history of photography."

CNN, Esquire, and The Atlantic are recognized as authoritative and reputable sources. The works listed in the Oxford Companion's chronology are selected as key images from the medium's history, representing a more curated collection than every work referenced in the book. It is intended to spotlight the most significant images among the many discussed in the book.

It might be beneficial to concentrate on a specific list you wish to include. Choose one you believe best aligns with the current criteria and that you are actually hoping to add images from, and we can discuss it further. The purpose of the criteria is to evaluate potential lists, so applying it to your chosen list would be our next step. Qono (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You were paraphrasing, but you hit the nail on the head with "consensus". It will be a stronger list if it requires some consensus among sources.

To take the most extreme example in terms of quantity, consider Paul Lowe's 1001 Photographs You Must See in Your Lifetime. Compiled by a scholar of photography, published by a reputable publisher of arts books. It describes itself as "a carefully curated selection of the greatest still images ... from the medium's earliest days to the present." Browse through the book, note the research and analysis involved in each photo, and it's clear that this project represents years of work and thought.

Compare this with Esquire's "50 of the World's Most Remarkable Photographs", an online-only feature assembled by a staff photo editor, who was probably trying to meet the quota for the week. All it says about criteria or methodology: "While it is nearly impossible to choose the most impactful imagery from the millions of photographs, we present this list of 50 of the world's most remarkable. We chose them for a variety of reasons, from their historic significance to the indelible impact they left in their wake." Each photo receives only a brief, factual caption.

Not taking a dig at the Esquire list here, but I think it's clear that Lowe's selection of photographs deserves to be treated with at least the same weight. Toohool (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right to highlight the rigor and scope of Paul Lowe's 1001 Photographs You Must See in Your Lifetime. Its scholarly foundation aligns with our current criteria for inclusion. Your distinction between Lowe's work and the more casually curated lists, such as Esquire's "50 of the World's Most Remarkable Photographs", is well taken. The apparent research and analysis in Lowe's book suggests it merits consideration alongside other authoritative sources.

However, the breadth of Lowe's list raises a question about discernment. Introducing a cap, say of 100 images, for lists under consideration might ensure a focus on truly standout works in the history of photography. This approach would help maintain a manageable and focused list, avoiding the dilution of significance that might come from including extensive compilations. I think it's a practical and editorially sound adjustment to our criteria that balances inclusivity with selectivity.

Alternatively, adopting a methodology similar to the one used for the List of video games considered the best, where only works mentioned by multiple sources are included, would favor consensus over a diversity of perspectives. As you've noted, the challenge lies in managing and tracking such mentions. Editor capacity in undertaking this ongoing effort, particularly within a niche interest area like the history of photography, might not match the more extensive editor support enjoyed by topics with wider appeal, like video gaming.

I lean towards establishing a cap for lists under consideration. This method seems more straightforward and less resource-intensive, allowing us to maintain a focused and significant collection of photographs without having to manage thousands of mentions across multiple works. This approach seems to strike a reasonable balance between ensuring diversity and manageability of the list.

What do you think? Qono (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point about discernment. Sources with hundreds of entries start to dilute the meaning of "most important", even if we add a multiple-source requirement. And excluding them has the positive side effect of reducing the amount of work needed from Wikipedia editors. Though I worry that setting an arbitrary limit like 100 veers closer to WP:OR territory.

Currently the list has about 250 entries. If we add all the sources I listed in the section above that have 100 or fewer photos, it grows to about 400 entries. (I've been working up a spreadsheet.) That also dilutes the meaning of "most important", IMHO, and raises doubts about our own discernment. More fundamentally, it's a question of due weight. If we have 10 reliable sources that picked the most important photos, and only one of those sources decided that this one made the cut, does that viewpoint deserve space in an encyclopedia?

There's also the crucial issue of copyright in lists that persists if we stick with a single-source requirement. Toohool (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We should stick to at least 2 reliable sources. In addition, we should stick to sources by subject-matter experts and remove entries which only cite random news articles with dubious methodology. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, I've been waiting for discussions to flesh out enough without interruption before I make my case.

I suggest we adopt basically the same criteria and threshold as the listicle for video game soundtracks; at least three sources from separate publications, with all sources unrestricted in time period, genre, and subject matter, regardless of title. I believe three as a minimum would not extend this listicle to a breaking point, but my argument over three as a minimum stems from a conversation in the VG soundtracks talk page; while NegativeMP1 did not choose the criteria of that listicle during its formation, he settled with it and cited WP:THREE as a reason as users look to at least three quality sources before establishing an article of a notable subject. I believe WP:THREE is okay to apply here as well because this isn't and shouldn't be about including every image ever, but giving an overview of highly significant photography.

Now, in determining the varying quality of the sources (considering the lists of CNN and Esquire), that shouldn't be complicated. Besides passing the basic criteria, a trusted reliable source should go generally unquestioned. If we have a non-reliable or questionable source, it gets denied. Sometimes we have a well-produced list under a suspicious publication, after which we need to go case-by-case. If the list itself is well-produced under that source, then that should be accepted. Carlinal (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Criteria of similar lists

Just to enlighten the discussion, I took a look at the criteria used for other superlative lists of "best / worst / most notable" works:

• List of video games considered the best - Must be included in at least 6 "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications
• List of video game soundtracks considered the best - Same as above, but threshold is 3
• List of books considered the best - Same, threshold is 3
• List of films considered the best - Must be rated #1 in at least 1 national or international survey of critics or the public
• List of music considered the worst - Any reliable source calling it the worst of all time
• List of films considered the worst - Any reliable source calling it "one of the worst films ever"
• List of prominent operas - Must be included in at least 5 out of the 9 sources consulted, which are comprehensive lists of major operas
• List of major opera composers - Same, threshold is 6 out of 10

Toohool (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In other words, it's all over the place. It'd be nice if we had a project wide specification. Our consumers have no idea what we're putting in front of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

While it is all over the place, I believe it's unfair to compare listicles each concerning their own subject. There's a lot more "all time" sources for films than there are with video games and even books. I don't think it's relevant to point out the varying amounts by each subject/medium. I only wish to say, from my personal perspective, that the criteria for the video game articles should be looked at for inspiration for their treatment of publications behind sources. Carlinal (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Spreadsheet

I put together a Google Sheet with the works listed in all the surveys currently used in the article, plus most of those that I listed in the first part of "More sources to expand the list", so that we can get a concrete view of how different criteria could affect the list.

(I didn't catalog all of the "1001 Photographs You Must See Before You Die", only the entries that are also found in at least 1 other source.)

(Privacy note: The spreadsheet is globally viewable, so when you open it, others can see that somebody is viewing the document, but not any identifying information.)

Some possible scenarios:

• Currently the list has 252 entries.
• If we require inclusion in at least 2 sources, we get about 196 entries. (Counting the Life surveys as 1 source, i.e. the 2 sources must be from different publications.)
• If we require inclusion in at least 3 sources, we get about 86 entries.
• If we require inclusion in any 1 source, but exclude sources with >200 entries, we get about 588 entries.
• If we require inclusion in any 1 source, including Lowe's 1001 Photographs, we get about 1459 entries.

Toohool (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this spreadsheet, undoubtedly it is of great use to us.

In my view, the inclusion criteria should require at least three citations in separate sources. This will prevent the list from being clogged with endless additions, avoid violating WP:CIL, and maintain a more neutral stance. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:THREE I agree. Carlinal (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think you can reformat the spreadsheet and create an omnibus Doc alongside it? It would be really informative if we have both and we can keep better track of what's going on. Carlinal (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Three is too many, there are many more than 86 important photographs. The present list seems about right. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

For all we know there could be an infinity of important photographs, but we are only supposed to note the most important. This means that there should at least be agreement by more than one source, ideally three separate sources, that recognize it as important. Under our present criteria, the list has the capacity to expand to an unreasonable length. 86 is a reasonable number in my opinion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In terms of controlling the article to a reasonable length we would still be fine with 2 sources, and while I prefer three sources I wouldn't agree to that amount with vehemence.

Do we have an approximate consensus now? Carlinal (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No, if you go with two then how many of the present photographs will be removed? I count 18 just up to 1870, and many of those 18 are major and recognized photographs. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If all of the sources in my spreadsheet are included, 10 photographs up to 1870 would be removed. (The Haystack, The Mime Charles Deburau as Pierrot, Sergeant Dawson and his Daughter, The Brig, Portrait of Nariakira Shimazu, La Vallée de l'Huisne (River Scene), Cathedral Rock, Execution of the Lincoln Conspirators at Washington Arsenal, Portrait of Sir John Herschel, Beckoning West). Toohool (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Recap for consensus

Summarizing the views of those editors who have expressed an opinion about the list criteria:

• Carlinal: Prefers to increase the threshold to inclusion in 3 sources, or 2 as an alternative.
• Howardcorn33: Preferred to keep the threshold at 1, and split the article when it grows too large. Given there was no consensus for a split, supports increasing the threshold to 3. Also, exclude news articles with dubious methodology.
• Qono: Prefers to keep the threshold at 1 and exclude lists larger than a cap of, say, 100 images. Alternatively, increase the threshold (but has concerns about the editor effort required).
• Randy Kryn: Hasn't expressed support for any objective criteria. Consider each photo on a case-by-case basis.
• Toohool: Increase the threshold to 2 or 3.

We have 4 out of 5 editors who at least somewhat support increasing the threshold, and no other idea that has support from more than 1 editor. That seems like a consensus to me. A threshold of 3 has weak consensus (3 out of 5 editors). I would posit that a threshold of 2 is a good compromise, taking into account Randy Kryn's valid concerns that too many truly important photos would be removed from the list. Toohool (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I would much rather prefer 3 sources per photograph, however if Kryn and/or Qono are willing to agree to 2 sources threshold, then I am also willing to compromise on such an amount. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, this should be a case by case. Removing the Lincoln execution and the golden spike photo make the case for not having a firm threshold, as does the Shroud of Turin negative which has no cites but is, by common knowledge and IAR, a historically important photograph (I personally won't make the case of the rest listed above by Toohool, and wouldn't keep them if removed). Consensus on such a wide question on this popular page would have to include many more people and am concerned that the quality of the page will be harmed with what right now is not a problem (i.e. the Lincoln conspirators photograph, Beckoning West, and likely many more important photographs after 1870 would be removed - maybe make a full list and keep or discuss the ones objected to). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How would "case by case" criteria work? It is not practical for us to discuss at length every new photo that should be added to the list. WP:IAR is only for cases which prevent us from creating an encyclopedia, and if we are forced to slow down and discuss every single new possible addition to the list before it can be rejected or added, then we are hindering our ability to make progress on improving the article. Ideally, then, we should have a firm criteria for inclusion that we can check any new possible additions for.

It is not for us to judge if a photograph is truly considered important by our own personal standards. The Shroud of Turin photograph is of no importance to me personally, so I do not know how common sense can apply here. A Wikipedia list of this kind should select from what reliable sources, such as historians of photography, consider to be the most important photographs. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

By case by case I mean for the existing photographs on the list - those that already present and sourced (or, in the Shroud of Turin's case, implied by its history and historical importance since 1898). Some of the photographs listed above would be removed, but photos like the historically important execution of the Lincoln conspirators seem like obvious keeps even if only one source is currently listed. Removing sourced photographs should be done carefully, as should implementing new after-the-fact criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now decided to comb through some sources to see mentions of both photos in histories of photography. I have found some books on the history of photography which do indeed make mention of the negative. We do also have a second source for the Lincoln conspirators photo, and the aforementioned source also includes Beckoning West. So, as far as I see it, we do not need to rely on what we might consider "common sense" or "obvious".

But a criteria of what we might think is "common sense" or "obvious" does not help us build an encyclopedic list of photographs considered the most important, since many users will inevitably have different opinions on what counts as a "common sense" or "obvious" inclusion. This is why we need some sort of standard, so that we prevent such arguments in the future. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I came up with an alternative proposal that could aid the current selection of imagery without excluding too much, if not at all; we introduce a second category of references. Photos like the Shroud of Turin negative aren't found on lists of the most historic or important, but to enforce inclusion of them through common sense would be original research. However, that doesn't mean some of those images aren't mentioned in any useful sources at all, but rather in a different kind of source that mentions somewhat of the same subject; some photos would be backed by publications regarding the most historic and important photos in history, while not necessarily listing (or maybe even ranking them) because there's no feel to. For convenience, I'll refer to the two categories of references as "lists" and "honors".

I still support a threshold, but for lists. The proposed honors category of references goes into more historical studies and analyzation and whatnot, and one such ref that calls a certain image most important or historical should be enough for inclusion, rendering the list references optional. No threshold/minimum should be added for the honors category (yet) since I do not know the exact amount of its included refs.

To summarize, the new minimum under the proposal is either the image has two to three refs from lists, or just one from honors. I don't know if there could be an overlap of an image having refs from both categories, but that depends on how many honors refs are found. Carlinal (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do we determine if a photo is eligible for an honor reference? Does the source in question have to mention "...so-and-so is the most important photograph..." or "historical"? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

An honor source doesn't have to exclusively state something's the most important/historical (since that wouldn't always be a case), an argument or paragraph mentioning/discussing it could count. Maybe even a simple inclusion in a certain context. Carlinal (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Carlinal: Do you have examples of citations that would qualify as "honors" sources? If they are along the lines of the citations by Howardcorn33 above, I would be concerned that there are potentially thousands of more photos that would clear the bar, if we harvest references from all the histories of photography that have been published. Also, as we make the criteria more complicated, with multiple categories of sources with different thresholds, we veer further toward WP:OR territory, making the article less likely to survive any AfD attempt. Toohool (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

They would be the sources you provided on March 10. A World History of Photography, The Abrams Encyclopedia of Photography, A Chronology of Photography, etcetera. No listicles.

I understand your concerns in my introduction of a second category of references, although I don't find this too different than articles having primary and secondary sources, I think. But at this point if the article has to escape from original research accusations and inclusions, it needs either more references or we slice a bunch of unreferenced images off. There's no other way around this. Carlinal (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I could agree to a threshold of two sources in the interest of coming to a compromise and reaching a firmer consensus. Qono (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that makes four of us who agree to a two-source threshold, which should be a strong enough consensus (the only one who disagrees is Kryn). The only question now is if we should also include @Carlinal's proposed "honor references" as eligible sources. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't support counting photos based on mere mentions in sources. They should be on a more exclusive list as specified in the inclusion criteria. Qono (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Using sources like A World History of Photography is tricky because they include lots of photos for their importance/influence, but they rarely ever make a clear statement like "This is one of the most important photos of all time." And they also include lots of photos that are not very important, but illustrate a concept or show an example of a trend. To take a random example, page 471 has 2 photos by Max Alpert and Georgy Zelma that are described in the text as examples of a shift in Russian photojournalism towards a more humanistic approach. IMO, that doesn't support inclusion of these 2 on a list of important photos. If we accept a book like this as a source, then we invite endless debate about every photo in the book and whether it's included for its importance, or for some more mundane reason. And the sum total of those debates amounts to original research.

I would suggest that such history books can be used only to the extent that they identify a clearly distinguishable set of photos that are highlighted for their importance. For example, we already use The Oxford Companion to the Photograph as a source, but we don't include every photo in the book, we only include those that are named in the Chronology section as being "significant" photographs. In Photography: The Whole Story, there are about 113 works that get a dedicated 2-page "Navigator" spread (example). We could take those as a source, without opening up debate on the other hundreds of works in the book. Toohool (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

In this revision I tried out a revised footnote format using short citations. See the entries for Migrant Mother and The Falling Soldier. This allows for citing a page number for each survey, with a link directly to the page that mentions the photo, thus simplifying verifiability, and allowing easier access for readers to get more information about the photo. It would also reduce visual noise by combining several footnotes into one. Toohool (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent survey by the New York Times

The New York Times recently assembled a panel of photographers who selected 25 influential photographs taken between 1955 and 2022. It should make a useful addition to this article's sources.

The 25 Photos That Defined the Modern Age - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Rocfan275 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

How many of the 25 are already on the page (I can't stay on the site, too many pop up ads and other brick-a-brack float in). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list. 9 of the photographs (in bold) are currently on the page.

1. Robert Frank, “Trolley — New Orleans,” 1955

2. David Jackson, Mamie Till and Gene Mobley Standing Before the Body of Emmett Till at a Chicago Funeral Home, 1955

3. Gordon Parks, “Department Store, Mobile, Alabama,” 1956

4. Alberto Korda, “Guerrillero Heroico (Che Guevara),” 1960

5. Diane Arbus, “Boy With a Straw Hat Waiting to March in a Pro-War Parade, N.Y.C., 1967”

6. Malcolm Browne, the Self-Immolation of the Buddhist Monk Thích Quảng Đức in Saigon, 1963

7. NASA/William A. Anders, “Earthrise,” 1968

8. Ernest C. Withers, “I Am a Man: Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tennessee,” 1968

9. Blair Stapp, Huey Newton, Black Panther Minister of Defense, 1968

10. W. Eugene Smith, “Tomoko in Her Bath,” 1972

11. Photo Archive Group, “Photographs From S-21: 1975-79”

12. Cindy Sherman, “Untitled Film Stills,” 1977-80

13. Ed Ruscha, “Every Building on the Sunset Strip,” 1966

14. Nan Goldin, “The Ballad of Sexual Dependency,” 1979-2004

15. Wolfgang Tillmans, “Lutz, Alex, Suzanne & Christoph on Beach (B/W),” 1993

16. Lee Friedlander, “Boston,” 1986, From the Series “At Work,” 1975-95

17. LaToya Ruby Frazier, “The Last Cruze,” 2019

18. Sebastião Salgado, “Serra Pelada Gold Mine, State of Pará, Brazil,” 1986

19. Stuart Franklin, an Unidentified Man Blocking a Column of Tanks in Tiananmen Square, 1989

20. Adam Broomberg & Oliver Chanarin, “The Day Nobody Died,” 2008

21. Richard Drew, “Falling Man,” 2001

22. Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, Abu Ghraib Hooded Detainee, 2003

23. Carrie Mae Weems, “From Here I Saw What Happened and I Cried,” 1995-96

24. Deana Lawson, “Nation,” 2018

25. Carlijn Jacobs, “Renaissance,” 2022

Rocfan275 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the article. However, it doesn't meet the criteria for a source since it is limited to photographs taken since 1955. The article's list criteria specify that sources must "review the history of the medium not limited by time period." Qono (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR policy reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Yesterday the iconic and stable photographs The Blue Marble, Pale Blue Dot, Afghan Girl, and the 1898 Shroud of Turin negative were removed from this page, as was the recent Donald Trump attempted assassination image. Their removal runs counter to the policy to maintain Wikipedia. This recurring issue for this page has one commonsense solution: add the words "...and others widely considered iconic" to page criteria. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jjamison and @Anne drew Andrew and Drew. What're your counterarguments against WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE, if any? Carlinal (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, IAR isn't a carte blanche to ignore consensus. In past discussions, most editors are in favour of maintaining the current criteria or making it more stringent.

For my part, I do have a few thoughts. On one hand, I'm not sure The Blue Marble and Pale Blue Dot are such glaring omissions since the list does include Earthrise already. Including the Trump photo also reeks of recentism.

However the criteria does seem a bit limiting; How common are authoritative surveys of important photographs, really, and is that too high a bar to clear?

So I'm not totally against relaxing the criteria. We would just have to do it carefully to make sure this doesn't become a list of all 317 notable photographs. Something like widely considered by authoritative sources to be iconic and historical could work. What I think is unacceptable is misleading our readers by saying that the criteria is one thing when in practice it is something else.

Also pinging @Howardcorn33, @Pigsonthewing, @Snowmanonahoe, @Veikk0.ma, @Hammersoft, @Qono, and @Toohool. – Anne drew 01:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The images cited don't meet the list criteria, and so were correctly removed. I'm against relaxing the criteria; as noted, consensus from recent discussions leans toward making the criteria more stringent. Qono (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The key may be the words "widely considered iconic". Afghan Girl certainly fits this description, as would, arguably, some or all of the other photos mentioned in the opening post (for The Blue Marble see this for instance, with even more cites higher on the page). It would not every one of the 317 photographs, so the concern of too many entries would be addressed by the word "widely", which would "catch" some of the iconic photos not included within the overly-strict current criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We should consider the historical value of images such as the Trump assassination picture. It has merely been a few days since the picture was taken, so we cannot say if it will historically endure, or if the news will forget about it in a few weeks' time. Ideally, the sources we cite will be a general overview of photography throughout a long period of history, and not just recent news articles. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am against relaxing the criteria as well. As for recentism; indeed. Last year we were all in a huff about Trump's mugshot. Now? Average traffic on the image is less than the blue marble image. We must rely on sources for what is of historic value, and that can't come about without time passing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Marble receives 750 views a day, on average over the last year. The cites on its page designate it an iconic and important photograph. Page criteria is so restricted that it somehow missed this image, Afghan Girl, and the few others I've mentioned. This section is not about "relaxing" the criteria as much as applying the commonsense exceptions that all guidelines call for and IAR policy requires. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The Copyright while understandable, makes this page disappointing.

Hello, just recently found this page and was excited to browse through it. Very displeased with how many images can not be shown. From what I understand of copyright law, if I message holders and obtain permission for this page images can be displayed correct? 2600:1700:4620:2C80:342A:1344:540A:E0F0 (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No. It's not enough to obtain permission to display on Wikipedia. Copyright holders are frequently happy to do that. What we must have is release under a free license. Copyright holders do not do that generally. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to proceed in requesting permissions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair use images

Is there a consensus regarding WP:GALLERY for usage of fair use material, it fails WP:NFLISTS. 49.150.14.10 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not understanding what the concern is. Fair use is not used on this page, the photographs are either already in public domain or an off-page link is provided to their articles or images. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump, again

Courtesy pings: @Randy Kryn: @ArionStar: @Carlinal: @MBH: @Howardcorn33: @CMBGAMER 2018: --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And here we go again. Now we've got a nice little ...I don't want to say 'edit war', but ... going on with the Trump raised fist images.

So first off, as JJMC89 bot noted [1], you can't use a non-free image on this list. That's not going to happen, no matter how important people think the image is. Please don't attempt to restore it. If you think there's legitimate reason for including it, you're going to have to get past Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_14#File:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp and WP:NFC#UUI #6.

Second, we've been through this already with the Trump mug shot debacle. This article isn't and never has been subservient to recentism. It's been 10 days. We have no idea how historically iconic this image is or isn't, and won't know for a long time yet. Is it important now? Yes, absolutely. Are there lots of sources focusing on it now? Yes, absolutely. Trying to assert it's historical status now is a serious stretch...at best. We just don't know yet, and won't for quite a while yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct that it shouldn't be pictured on this page (copyright), but its linked bibliography (how many images have their own bibliography?) pertains to its already iconic status. In this case its importance and historical status seem assured, and instead of waiting to place it on this list because of recentism the opposite seems appropriate: it should stay until it is no longer viewed as iconic and historic (which, per commonsense, seems unlikely). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think, "there is an article about photo" is a more strict/harsh criterion of its notability then "photo is listed on some lists of best photos", so if we have an article about photo (and many commentators and observers think this is a notable photo), it should be included into this list even if it isn't listed in the lists of best photos now. MBH (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, what is "Trump mug shot debacle"? MBH (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, not every photograph with an article can be considered the "most important" (and many photos on this page are likely not the most important either, but the sources used proclaim them so), they just happen to be notable photographs. This one, however, seems to fulfill any commonsense criteria, per WP:IAR (removing it would, arguably, be against that policy). The mug shot is also considered important by some sources, although not yet listed in one of the criteria-worthy but could be at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That an image has its own article, or even a list of references/bibliography doesn't make it qualify here. Just looking at Category:1930s photographs there are lots of images that are not on this article; Woman training for a Republican militia, Toffs and Toughs, Sunbaker, Seville, Spain (photograph), Portrait of a Tearful Woman, Natcho Aguirre, Santa Clara, Mexico, Nude (Charis, Santa Monica), Hyères, France, Dust Bowl Cimarron County, Oklahoma, Cabbage Leaf (I'll stop at 10 examples). If we're to assert that an image qualifies here because it has an article, we might as well do away with this article and just point people to Category:Photographs by century. This article would contain literally hundreds of entries if not thousands. Invoking WP:IAR to claim removing it would be against policy is wrong. Doing say basically means that everything goes, so long as you invoke WP:IAR. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points and examples to address the editor's concerns. As for the fist-raised image (and I would argue several others recently removed, The Blue Marble, Shroud of Turin negative, etc.) IAR as policy gives a great deal of required leeway to apply commonsense, and commonsense would be to keep some photographs on the list even though they are not yet listed in the arguably limited present page criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no commonsense. What you think is commonsense is not commonsense to everyone. It makes sense to you, but not to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Any kind of criteria we apply to this list will not fit everyone's definitions of "common sense." We can only try and follow what prior surveys of historical photographs by reliable sources state. Applying our own standards of "common sense" is just original research, even if everyone in this discussion was in agreement that a picture should be included by "common sense." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, I agree that this is merely recentism. We must consider images in a much broader context, and until historical surveys appear in the future which list this photograph, it cannot be included. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Given lack of consensus for inclusion, I am removing this image from the article. Please do not restore the image with gaining consensus to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

People think they can see the photograph

https://www.loc.gov/item/2018661676/ says one apparently has to travel to the LOC, and only when inside their building, can one see the photograph, online, through one of their monitors.

Therefore the links on this wiki page give the user too much hope. Jidanni (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. When I initially placed that photo on the page the photo was available to see. Luckily, I've found a page on IWM.co.uk which hosts the photograph. I'll place an archived version of it so that it can't be removed. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding new sources

Since we seem to be moving towards consensus on tightening the list inclusion criteria, it seems a good time to open discussion on specific new sources to add.

I'll start with those that seem the most straightforward and unobjectionable to me:

• 50 Photo Icons (2011) by Hans-Michael Koetzle, a German author, curator, and photo historian. "Puts the most important landmarks in the history of photography under the microscope."
• Photographs That Changed the World (1989) by Lorraine Monk - 51 photos. "Photographs that have had a dramatic impact on the world and, in a myriad of subtle, inescapable ways, on all of us".
• Photos First (2013) by Ruth Thomson, author of juvenile nonfiction on art and art history. Includes 27 photos. "Tells the stories behind some memorable photographs spanning the history of photography, chosen for the vividness or importance of their subject matter, their pioneering photographic technique or their historic significance."
• Popular Photography: "Are These the 15 Greatest Pictures Ever Made? (1989) by Arthur Goldsmith, editor of Popular Photography.
• The Short Story of Photography (2018) by Ian Haydn Smith, editor/author on film & art topics. Includes 50 photos in the section of the book called "The Works", with 2-4 pages devoted to each photo. "A key number of images stand out as important imilestones in the development of photography and representatives of specific movements, styles, eras or moments. These images range from the innovative to the iconic."

If there are any objections/concerns about any particular source above, I'd suggest starting a subsection below, so we can keep the discussion organized.

I'll also drop another link here to the spreadsheet I put together with the entries from each source, so anyone can see what the impact of each source on the final list content would be. Toohool (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Toohool, great work on the spreadsheet and composing this giant series of comments. (I wasn't able to comment earlier because of college but now that's dealt with.) With Life, it's understandable there may be some conflict if a photo is featured by their lists twice, but it's definitely better if we implement a "two or more unique publications" rule with it. Every other source you elaborated on looks like they fit nicely – they're all unrestricted in time period, genre and medium. Perspectives may not matter if the lists are done professionally anyway.

I have a couple of suggestions for improving the spreadsheet for better organization and identification. It it alright if you highlight all the entries that have 2+ unique publications? I also recommend sorting the title column alphabetically, or maybe chronologically. Organizing by number of sources seems fine but it overcomplicates things. I think it's okay for you to be bold and implement a new criteria, assuming there hasn't been any objections to your proposals in the last week or two. If I'm proven wrong, at least the implementations brought more attention.

In relation to a similar video games article, here's their spreadsheet for comparison. I also suggest creating an omnibus Doc (and organizing the way it is there) so we can archive every added list for accessible referencing. Carlinal (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I re-sorted the spreadsheet chronologically, and added bolding for the entries with 2 or more sources, thanks. Regarding the omnibus doc, it would be a lot of work, and I'm not really clear on what it would add? All the data of which photos are included in which sources is there in the spreadsheet. Toohool (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The spreadsheet is revised quite nicely! Compared to an omnibus doc a difference would probably just be in perspective. Then again that's just another suggestion. Thank you so much for this effort. Carlinal (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging other participants in case there are any concerns about any of those sources. If not, I'll start working on implementing the new criteria, with the expanded set of sources. @Howardcorn33, Randy Kryn, Qono, and Hammersoft:. Toohool (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I was a bit skeptical of Thomson being included as a source, considering I thought she was only a juvenile nonfiction writer with no other credentials. However, I've now learned she has written for various eminent art galleries and has an MA in Museum and Gallery learning. Her inclusion seems incontestable to me. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

All in all, I have no objections to the provided sources. Good luck with editing. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Toohool, for the ping and for the impressive effort in compiling the potential sources into the spreadsheet. Unfortunately, most of the suggested sources do not meet the list inclusion criteria, which require that the images included are "photographs considered the most important in surveys where authoritative sources review the history of the medium, not limited by time period, region, genre, topic, or other specific criteria." With rare exceptions, if a source doesn’t explicitly state that this is the purpose of the images in their publication, then it doesn’t meet the criteria.

I hope my responses to each work help clarify my thinking and demonstrate that I’m responding in good faith to your suggestions. My primary concern is that we adhere strictly to the inclusion criteria to avoid subjectivity and maintain the article's coherence. I greatly appreciate your engagement and hope we can continue to improve the article with more sources, despite my reservations. Qono (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Understand the concern, but I think that's an overly literal approach to applying the criteria that will ultimately lead to a very weak list. If we require the sources to explicitly say that they have selected the most important/influential/iconic photos, the only sources that will be left are the Time, Life 2021, and Perricone lists. "100 Photographs That Changed the World" doesn't pass that test, and neither do most of the sources already used in the list (the Oxford book, "25 of the most iconic photographs", "50 of the world's most remarkable photographs"). Perricone might be out too, since the back cover says it has "139 of the most important images", not "the 139 most important images". If there were plentiful sources that met your criteria, that would be fine, but there aren't, so the result would be a list built from a very small number of sources, which is inherently undue weight. We need a more lenient approach so the list can be a blend of many perspectives. If the source has chosen a discrete set of photos for their importance/influence, and it's clear from the selection that they're applying similar criteria as the other surveys, that should be good enough. Toohool (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the potential impact of strictly applying the criteria. To clarify, I agree that the distinction isn't necessarily about a source explicitly stating "# of the most important" versus "the # most important," which would indeed be too rigid. Instead, it's about ensuring that the images selected by the source are intended to represent the "most important" or "best" photographs, rather than just being a collection of "really important" or merely "notable" images.

Even as we add sources, we want to maintain the focus and coherence of the list, even if that results in fewer qualifying sources, which I think is acceptable given the narrow scope of the topic. If it's evident that a source is selecting images as the best of all time, then it should be considered for inclusion.

Regarding the existing sources in the article, I believe all of them meet the inclusion criteria as currently defined, and I think the Popular Photography list you've mentioned would also qualify.

I agree with you that this will ultimately be situational and vary with each source, and so further discussion should probably be about whether each new source meets the list criteria. Qono (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss specific sources when there's such an inconsistent view of the criteria being applied here.

Monk's Photographs That Changed the World isn't acceptable because it doesn't claim that it represents the greatest photos of all time, but Life's 100 Photographs That Changed the World is acceptable. Based on what? Even the Life survey itself says "We do not claim that Life's 100 are the 100 or the top 100, but that they, and the other related landmark images presented here, argue on behalf of the power of pictures"?

Sources aren't acceptable if they only say their selections are photos that changed the world, or "some of history's most extraordinary photographs", or "important milestones in the development of photography". But the Oxford book is acceptable, when the only thing it has to say about the selected photos is that they are "significant"?

Requiring that sources can only be included if they are aiming to select the "most important" or "best" photos only has the function of filtering out authors who have some humility. Even the Esquire list that is already used in the article disclaims that possibility: "It is nearly impossible to choose the most impactful imagery from the millions of photographs". We can't reasonably insist on sources that do the impossible. Toohool (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I hadn’t responded earlier, hoping to focus the discussion on specific sources, as it’s easier to judge the inclusion criteria against concrete examples. Since the recent edits show you’re still engaged despite not addressing my earlier comments about specific sources, I thought it might be helpful to respond to these broader concerns now.

The purpose of the inclusion criteria is to ensure consistency, coherence, and authoritative sources, minimizing subjective interpretation as much as is practical. We want to distinguish lists that make intentional selections reflecting key works in the history of photography from those offering general commentary or loosely curated collections.

Regarding the Life list, the subtitle, “The Most Important Pictures of All Time and the Stories Behind Them,” aligns clearly with the inclusion criteria. In contrast, sources that highlight “extraordinary” or “notable” photographs risk diluting the focus of the final list. That said, some cases may require nuanced, case-by-case discussion.

I understand your concern about limiting the pool of sources. While I hesitate to lower our standards, I’m open to suggestions about the wording in our inclusion criteria to accommodate more lists.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I also propose reviewing borderline cases to strike the right balance between inclusivity and rigor. Qono (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Life: 100 Photographs That Changed the World

This is one of the most clear-cut sources that meets the criteria, IMO. There are just a few nuances:

• We already have a Life magazine survey, 100 Photographs: The Most Important Pictures of All Time and the Stories Behind Them. In terms of the inclusion criteria, I think we need to adopt a rule that multiple sources from the same publication/organization only count as one, so that Life doesn't get an disproportionate voice in the list. So if a photo is included in both of the Life surveys, that is not sufficient to meet a "2 or more sources" rule.
• There were 2 editions of this survey, published in 2003 and 2011. There are about 8 photos that are included in one of the editions but not the other. I would suggest that inclusion in either edition counts as 1 source, as there's no inherent reason to weight one edition over the other.
• They clearly identify their top 100 photos, but they also include about 45 other photos that are labeled as "Another Landmark Image" - Example. These "landmark" images have a high level of overlap with the photos listed in other sources. It reads to me as if these are the photos they would have selected if they hadn't been constrained to the arbitrary number of 100. So I think we should consider this as a survey of the 145 most important photos, and count them all as being included.

Toohool (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

When a publisher updates a list, I think we should only include the most recent version of the list. Qono (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, but it's a moot point here, as it wouldn't change the result. There are 7 photos included in the 2003 edition but not the 2011 edition, and all of them either have no other sources to support them, or have at least 2 other sources. Toohool (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Popular Photography: The Most Iconic Photographs in History

Popular Photography: The Most Iconic Photographs in History (2022)

Includes about 145 photos. This one has some pretty dubious selections that call the editors' judgment into question, in my mind. There are a lot of mundane photos that are apparently chosen for the importance of their subject/topic, not the importance of the photo, e.g. photos of Elon Musk, Malala Yousafzai, Disneyland, a robot graduation, and a spread of seven assorted photos from Woodstock.

But overall there is a lot of overlap with the other sources, and a "2 or more sources" rule will negate the effect of any poorly chosen photos in the book, since they won't make the cut for inclusion. And I think we should avoid getting into the sticky area of including or excluding sources based on subjective evaluations of quality. So I would support including this source.

I believe this source does meet the list criteria. The subtitle and back cover clearly indicate that the publishers intend this to be a list of what they consider the top images of all time. Therefore, it meets the inclusion criteria, and I support adding this source. Qono (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The Power of Photography

The Power of Photography: How Photographs Changed Our Lives by Vicki Goldberg - includes about 80 photos. "This is not a survey of great photographs, or of aesthetically remarkable pictures, or even of photographs commonly thought of as important... The issue is solely whether the world is (or was) any different because of this photograph or that one."

I think this one clearly meets the criteria, but is a bit tricky because it doesn't always explicitly say which of the photos in the book are the ones that changed our lives, vs. photos that are included to illustrate the context or influence of those photos. For example, p. 146 has an advertising photo that is an homage to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, showing the impact of that original photo. pp. 150-51 have photos showing the pop culture influence of George Caron's photo of the bombing of Hiroshima.

It requires some close reading/interpretation of the text to determine which photos are identified as important, but I think the "2 or more sources" requirement again negates the problem, because any photos that aren't important won't be corroborated by another source. Toohool (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The included photographs do not claim to be the greatest photos of all time, so this source does not meet the inclusion criteria. I don't support adding this source. Qono (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

1001 Photographs You Must See in Your Lifetime

1001 Photographs You Must See in Your Lifetime by Paul Lowe. Described by the publisher as "A carefully curated selection of the greatest still images ... from the medium's earliest days to the present."

As discussed earlier on this page, there is some valid concern that including a source with so many photos gives it disproportionate influence. I'm not sure there's a good way to avoid that; setting an arbitrary limit like "no source can be used that has over 200 entries" puts us further toward the border of original research.

So I would support including this one; it gives support to lots of photos that do seem to genuinely deserve a spot on the list. Toohool (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this one. The dust jacket explicitly states that the author presents "a carefully curated selection of the greatest still images... from the medium's earliest days to the present," which aligns well with our inclusion criteria. However, the clarity of this statement is undermined by the vast number of images and the more general characterization of their importance as suggested by the book's title. It strains common sense that including one person’s 999th most important photograph is in keeping with the spirit of this article. Therefore, I'm leaning toward not including this source. Qono (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Photography: The Whole Story

Photography: The Whole Story, edited by Juliet Hacking.

The book is a general history of photography, edited by a photography scholar and written by a team of "art critics, journalists, and scholars".

Throughout the book, about 129 photos are highlighted in 2-page spreads. Examples: [2] [3] [4]. It's never explicitly stated, but the photos selected for these spreads generally seem to be the most noteworthy images, and there's a high degree of overlap with the other sources. Toohool (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We need to apply the list criteria with strict consistency. If there’s any ambiguity about whether the photos included are considered the most important by the authors and editors, we should not include the source. There are various editorial reasons why a photo might be featured, and mere inclusion isn’t sufficient to meet the criteria. The implication must be nearly certain, or it must be explicitly stated by the source what the inclusion signifies. "Generally seems" does not meet the required standard. Therefore, I don't support including this source. Qono (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the ongoing conversation about the inclusion criteria, I’m open to moderating my earlier position. Currently, the Oxford Companion to the Photograph is included based on some level of inferred intention behind its timeline feature. Although the purpose of the two-page spreads in Photography: The Whole Story might be less definitive compared to the Oxford timeline, I believe there could be grounds for reconsidering this source, especially given the overlap noted by Toohool and the editor’s expertise.

I’d welcome other editors’ insights on this matter. In general, I believe explicit editorial intent is ideal, as relying too much on inferred implications may dilute our standards. That said, there could be room to allow some interpretation if the source in question is especially authoritative and there’s consensus. Qono (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

50 Photo Icons (2011) by Hans-Michael Koetzle

I don’t have access to the entire book, so I couldn’t locate the specific quote you mentioned that might suggest these are "the most" iconic photos. However, I did note that the back cover, a place of prominence, describes the photos as "some of history’s most extraordinary." While notable, this doesn’t meet the criteria for inclusion. Descriptions like "some great photos" or "some of the best photos" are not equivalent to "the greatest photographs of all time." Therefore, I don't support including this source. Qono (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

After revisiting this source, I found what appears to be the publisher’s description referring to the included images as the “most important landmarks in the history of photography.” Given this phrasing, I’m inclined to change my position and support the inclusion of this source. Qono (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Photographs That Changed the World (1989) by Lorraine Monk

This source does not meet the list criteria. The back cover highlights the significance and importance of the selected photos, but it does not claim they are the best or greatest of all time. For this reason, I don’t support its inclusion. Qono (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Photos First (2013) by Ruth Thomson

This source does not meet the inclusion criteria. "Some memorable photographs" is not the same as "the most important photographs". Therefore, I don't support including this as a source. Qono (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Popular Photography: "Are These the 15 Greatest Pictures Ever Made? (1989) by Arthur Goldsmith

That the article title is framed as a question I would excuse as something like a 1989-era clickbait tactic, except that the article explicitly states, "These images aren’t the only or necessarily the most memorable of the past 150 years." This disqualifies it from meeting the inclusion criteria. Qono (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Despite the introduction hedging on whether these are “the best or most important images,” a closer examination reveals that the article effectively serves as a synthesis of authoritative editors’ opinions. While the phrasing may shy away from definitively labeling these images as the greatest, the result is essentially the publication’s best effort at identifying iconic or influential photographs. The recurring choices reflect a shared editorial judgment, and in practice, this functions as a meaningful list of significant images, aligning with our criteria for inclusion. Qono (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Short Story of Photography (2018) by Ian Haydn Smith

"50 key photographs", again, is not the same as "The 50 most important photographs", and so it doesn't meet the list criteria. I don't support it's inclusion. Qono (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I overlooked that our current inclusion criteria allow for images “considered key images in the history of photography.” On further review, I think a strong case can be made for including this source, as the subtitle itself describes the images as “key works,” and the publisher refers to them as “50 key photographs” in the history of photography. Qono (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Marble

Are you telling me that the most distributed photograph of all time (The Blue Marble) ISN'T considered one of the most important photographs? Are you kidding me? lol 49.192.179.226 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There's this concern that adding images without any references could steer into original research, and discussions here are moving towards a strict criteria. No exceptions for uncited images, sorry. Carlinal (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care because someone else already put that Blue Marble photograph back on that page because he has common sense. So this is where our discussion ends. 49.192.179.226 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you don't care about engaging in a conversation like this shows a hypocritical effort of yours as an editor. Besides, a similar conversation was dealt with before you even started yours. You're justifying your edits by the arguments of one editor (Randy Kryn), whose opinion wasn't widely agreed upon. If you really want to continue this I suggest engaging as a legitimate participant and maybe even provide your own opinion than standing behind another's.

Going by these two revisions in the talk page (to point out sections "WP:IAR policy reads" and "Trump, again"), the first discussion Anne drew said "First of all, IAR isn't a carte blanche to ignore consensus. In past discussions, most editors are in favour of maintaining the current criteria or making it more stringent." Qono said "The images cited don't meet the list criteria, and so were correctly removed. I'm against relaxing the criteria; as noted, consensus from recent discussions leans toward making the criteria more stringent."

As for the second discussion, Hammersoft said "If we're to assert that an image qualifies here because it has an article, we might as well do away with this article and just point people to Category:Photographs by century. This article would contain literally hundreds of entries if not thousands. Invoking WP:IAR to claim removing it would be against policy is wrong. Doing say basically means that everything goes, so long as you invoke WP:IAR," which, while referring to photos of Donald Trump, I found applicable to images like The Blue Marble. Hammersoft also stated "There is no commonsense. What you think is commonsense is not commonsense to everyone. It makes sense to you, but not to me."

Lastly, Howardcorn33 (who I should note was also responsible for revising the article into the form it is today, for the sake of credit) said that "Any kind of criteria we apply to this list will not fit everyone's definitions of 'common sense.' We can only try and follow what prior surveys of historical photographs by reliable sources state. Applying our own standards of 'common sense' is just original research, even if everyone in this discussion was in agreement that a picture should be included by 'common sense.'" I agree with the quotes I provided given they're reasonable arguments.

There's no point in doing these edits as you currently don't have the consensus to do so, as with any photos that don't follow a criteria we're building, so unless there is consensus in including The Blue Marble without sources, do not do these edits again, especially as they're getting disruptive. The base over not having that photo wasn't established solely by me, in comparison I'm just another contributor. Carlinal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Carlinal. It doesn't matter what we think is common sense on inclusion of a photograph. Honestly, it wouldn't matter if 10,000 Wikipedia editors all considered the image to be one of the most important. Wikipedia relies on external sourcing to support conclusions such as this. Without the image meeting the inclusion criteria, which depends on such outside sourcing, the image will never be included. Common sense has absolutely no roll here in regards to including the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The Blue Marble is an obvious "most important photograph", no question about it. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR instruct that it should be included on this page, through "beyond policy" and policy. This applies as well for some of the other photographs recently removed, including Pale Blue Dot, Afghan Girl, the Donald Trump raised-fist photographs, and the most important religious photograph in history, the 1898 Shroud of Turin negative. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I pinged you guys? How the hell did I do that, I literally only linked your user pages for reference and that's it. I did not mean to ping at all, that brings unnecessary attention to my talk page. Carlinal (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when you mention another editor in a discussion both the polite and required thing to do is to do so as a ping (which you did, by mistake apparantly). As for inclusion, if The Blue Marble is excluded from the page under discussion that shows one thing: the criteria is broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah shit, you were right, per WP:PING. I just checked. That's beyond awkward, I'm sorry. Carlinal (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but not awkward and no need to be sorry. If an editor's name is used in a talk page discussion then the ping is pretty much mandatory (I'm not sure if it's a guideline but it doesn't have to be). The IP who added the image and is questioning its removal deserves to have reasonable replies from all points-of-view. My view is a minority among the few editors who watch and comment on the article's talk page, doesn't mean it's a minority among all editors. The main point that we are making is that the criteria is too limited if it excludes obvious entries. The Blue Marble, and most of the others I mentioned, fit the page name if not the stated criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As I noted above, the concept of common sense does not apply here and is irrelevant as an inclusion criteria. What is common sense to you is not common sense to me is not common sense to someone else. "Common sense" is a highly arbitrary criteria. Attempting to argue that common sense is our pathway forward will not gain traction. Doing so essentially opens the flood gates to allow any image, so long as someone...anyone...thinks it's important. Wikipedia relies on external, usually secondary sources to support conclusions. We don't generate our own conclusions and use them to buttress an article. That's original reseach. So, if you believe the Blue Marble image to be one of the most important in history, it should be trivial to find a reputable source that notes it as being so that fits within the criteria previously established on this page. Really, it shouldn't be hard. So, rather than try to get the criteria changed, or insist we use (your) common sense, just go and find some sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hammersoft, have you not read the page under discussion? Please read The Blue Marble#Cultural reception for sources as well as higher on the page for further sourcing of the photo's importance. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This took about ten seconds. From Popular Science. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Great! So why is "common sense" so important then? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but I didn't realize Popular Science fit this articles' criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it does. As you instructed me to do (which I had already done), read above :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why say "Great! So why..." if it doesn't fulfill the requirements to include entries here? Until The Blue Marble is included somehow, by hook, crook, or commonsense, the criteria is broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Then find the sources to support it. Look, we're just going around in circles on this. You keep insisting that common sense must prevail here, and you've been told multiple times that it doesn't. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you believe the criteria need to change, then start a new RfC and make your case there. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The page has enough sources right now to understand that The Blue Marble is considered one of the most important photos in human history. I don't know how expanded the criteria should or should not be to prove that obvious fact. It just seems that the policy 'Ignore all rules' instructs us to recognize that enough sources exist to figure out that The Blue Marble meets the logical criteria encompassed in the word "commonsense". Randy Kryn (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m with Randy on this. How do you rationally exclude a photo that is regularly described as such?:

“But no other photograph ever made of planet Earth has ever felt at-once so momentous and somehow so manageable, so companionable, as “Blue Marble” the famous picture taken December 7, 1972, by the crew of Apollo 17 as they sped toward the moon on NASA’s last manned lunar mission.”[5]

— HTGS (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never seen any inclusion criteria give any rule or exception for these kind of descriptions, only that the photo is selected onto a referenced list. Maybe harsh criticism has managed to build up at least two articles, but I haven't seen the same for praise. Pretty sure it's a case-by-case thing. For me, no matter how poetic you can be in lauding something that doesn't mean it should be included. Would likely turn this article into a puzzle game to find every similar description for whatever image anyone wants to add. Using quotes for an inclusion criteria do not sit right with me. Even if it's from a reputable publication such as Life, it just looks too loose for me to see as consistent. Carlinal (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Massive bias

So 85% of "photographs considered the most important" were taken in the United States (a country that adopted photography 35 years after its inception)? This is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.166.44.163 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely fair to criticize a list whose criteria is currently under questioning (and has been for several months), especially when your comment doesn't seem to add anything to our discussions besides chastising. A bunch of us are changing this list and adding stuff to reduce that bias, so what are you gonna offer? I'll assume good faith and say you haven't started reading any of the discussions in this page yet, of which I highly recommend you should. I don't think any users should make one-off comments without reading discussions first for that matter. Please do. Carlinal (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

URL for the 1989 Berlin Wall image by Robert Maass needed checking

The website for "The Wall Falls" by Robert Maass needs checking and possibly modifying. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the link with an archived version. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Obligatory conclusion section

Well it took seven or eight months to solidify but the list article is completely revised now. Compared to its state last year its incredible. I apologize for not being as active anymore for college and stuff. All that being said, are there any remaining comments or suggestions about its current state? I want to thank most of all Howardcorn33 and Toohool for their efforts. Pinging major contributors Qono, Randy Kryn and Hammersoft. Carlinal (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Carlinal, thank you for your continued interest in improving the article. I’ve reverted your recent changes because they introduced new sources and altered the article’s scope without prior consensus on the talk page. For significant changes like these, it’s important that we first reach consensus to ensure we apply the list criteria consistently.

Given the nuanced nature of these sources and the importance of maintaining coherence in the list, I’d like to revisit the individual sources one by one. This will help us align on how each source fits our framework and avoid subjective interpretations or inconsistencies. I welcome your responses to my earlier comments, where we discussed the potential new sources in detail.

I appreciate your perspective and look forward to continuing the discussion. Qono (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvements, you have provided a good service. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus

To move the discussion forward and incorporate the improvements suggested by engaged editors, I thought I would try to summarize the consensus as objectively as I can so we can focus on areas of disagreement and work toward a compromise:

• The list should not be split into separate articles – Per the RfC above, the majority agrees that the list should remain unified in a single article.
• Rejection of “common sense” as a basis for inclusion – Most editors agree that relying on “common sense” or invoking WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules) to include photographs (like Blue Marble, Afghan Girl, or Trump’s mugshot/"fight" photo) is inappropriate and conflicts with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and no original research.
• Increasing the inclusion threshold to two sources – As a compromise, the majority agrees that a photograph should be included only if it is recognized as important by at least two authoritative sources.
• Adding more sources – To maintain a meaningful list with the two-source requirement and address the Anglo-centrism of the article, we should explore additional authoritative sources.

I think we all want to add more authoritative sources, but the challenge seems to be how to align the inclusion criteria with these new sources.

My suggestion is to evaluate the original inclusion criteria alongside the potential new sources to determine which ones meet the standard, as we had started to do earlier in the Adding new sources discussion. If it turns out the inclusion criteria are too strict and prevent the addition of enough sources to maintain a robust list, we can consider revising the criteria. We could then re-evaluate the sources against the new inclusion criteria wording to ensure it's not too broad and allowing so many sources that it dilutes the list and makes it impractical.

I think the next step is to return to the previous discussion, evaluate the new sources against the current criteria, and proceed from there. Qono (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm going to stop participating in the discussion for this page, but before I do that, I will leave a final suggestion. It is my opinion that what Carlinal has done is drastically better for the article, and that we should revert to his edit as soon as possible. Even if it is not perfect, I believe most people would agree that the inclusion of more sources, the new criteria, and the new formatting of citations provides a more useful list to the general reader, at least for now.

I am now going to stop following the talk page of this article, so do not expect any more replies here. If necessary, send a message to my talk page. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Howardcorn33, for the sake of accuracy, it's Toohool who engineered what was done. Otherwise, thanks again. Carlinal (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

apologies, I mixed the names up ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We had three editors supporting all the new sources, and one editor opposing almost all of them. Consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMITY. The concerns about some of the sources were heard, but as I've said before, they come off as a quite inconsistent view based on nitpicking of how the sources describe their own choices, which can't really be squared with many of the sources that are already included. To me, there's not really that much nuance. One can infer from the content and the selections made in all these sources that they all meet some approximation of our criteria. And we should err on the side of inclusion to ensure a healthy mix of perspectives.

At most I can see that some rewording of the criteria in the lede may be in order, to avoid the suggestion that the sources all explicitly refer to the photos as the most important, most iconic, or most influential. (But that's just a matter of wordsmithing, it's not a prerequisite to reinstating the new version of the list.) Toohool (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The standard should be wide enough to include The Blue Marble. If it isn't, more work (and options) should go into this. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As I outlined, I believe there is consensus for us to add more sources that meet the list’s inclusion criteria and, once we have sufficient sources, to implement a two-citation requirement for entries.

List entries must align with the inclusion criteria, which hasn’t changed. I haven’t seen any proposals, let alone consensus, to alter the criteria beyond the two-citation discussion. Personally, I think the current criteria are adequate but would be open to adjustments as long as they remain objectively applicable. As noted in Wikipedia’s content guidelines, selection criteria for lists (WP:LISTN) should be “unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.” Clear criteria align with policies like WP:V and WP:NOR in protecting the list from “common sense” judgment calls, which, as I mentioned, there seems to be consensus against. If you have specific proposals to revise the criteria, I welcome them.

I also welcome further discussion on the sources you proposed to reach a consensus on those that might meet the existing inclusion criteria. I think we agree that the Popular Photography list meets the criteria and could be added, unless others object. Qono (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I just made a comment in the above section in relation to images The Blue Marble and Pale Blue Dot that praise alone, no matter how elaborate or flowery, shouldn't be a reason for inclusion, when you really consider the mechanics of it in inclusion criteria. If that happens then it would loosen the amount of reputable references too much, and would lead to allowing any source that can write as eloquently as the Life source I responded to above. It looks too much to me. Carlinal (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Praise for one of the most important photos in human history? Unheard of! Anyway, to comment on the above, I'd be against limiting the criteria to a minimum two sources. This would remove most of the page and lose some truly important photographs. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

...Not to be rude but that doesn't sound very constructive. You're starting to sound less like a contributor and more like a fan. As for the latter sentence, I couldn't be less bothered. Several list articles of similar subjects are not and will never look enough to anyone. If anything, those articles are more of an overview than a "every notable/great thing ever" collection. I don't see how with photos it would be that big of a deal, compared to books, films or video games. Carlinal (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Several things could be mistaken for being a fan of The Blue Marble, such as having a historical awareness of how important a photograph it was within its initial-publication era (1972+) and over the following five decades. Or knowing that its place within human history is assured based on its various uses throughout those decades (i.e. check out what Wikipedia uses to illustrate its Earth article). I'll repeat, if The Blue Marble is not yet entered on this page as one of the "considered the most important" images, then the fault does not lie in a lack of photosituational awareness or misplaced fandom, but in the page criteria itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Toohool, I've revisited some of my initial impressions of potential new sources in the previous discussion. Taking a closer look at some of the sources and considering some of the points you've made elsewhere, I think additional sources may qualify for inclusion. Qono (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait for Me, Daddy

Is Wait for Me, Daddy (1940) page worthy? It's one of Canada's best-known photos, has a statue rendition, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)