Talk:List of photographs considered the most important

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)

Although not a recognized criteria-worthy site, here's a summary of the photo. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump raised-fist photographs

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

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

Not trying to pressure as much as point out the obvious. The Trump photos (along with at least The Blue Marble) belong on this page, and it's hard to deny that except for saying "criteria" doesn't yet allow it. Can't envision the Trump and Blue Marble not eventually being listed here (which is what I mean by obvious), so why delay the inevitable, which is where WP commonsense possibly "trumps" criteria. As for the Canadian photo I mention in the section above, that's not me thinking it should be added but honestly asking if it belongs or not. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, not having it here just makes the article look biased. If a photograph is important enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it's clearly important enough to be listed here. 2DLove (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Another criteria proposal

Getting tougher to find solid consensus for improvements, I must admit. I've been looking for alternate perspectives with other articles that would have something that can add to this one without detracting a significant amount of valuable photos. I learned of this article on the most acclaimed albums of the 1990s, along with its 1980s equivalent, and I think I found a solution here. Both linked articles, rather than strictly follow only an arbitrary minimum, also alternatively link to a reception and/or legacy section for accolades. I'm thinking we could use Toohool's last revision as a template, and then integrate a refined accolades criteria to satisfy Randy's, HTGS's and 2DLove's concerns. Anything else I'm missing? Carlinal (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Tyler Hicks Photo of Donald Trump and Bullet in PA

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2024/12/Trumpshooting01_22.jpg

or link to Evan Vucci's Photo? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_raised-fist_photographs 207.237.91.123 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Tokyo Stabbing" not included?

I think "Tokyo Stabbing", aka the photograph of Assassination of Inejirō Asanuma (in which Otoya Yamaguchi attempted to stab Inejirō Asanuma a second time with his father's wakizashi}, taken 12 October 1960, should be included in the list. The photographer, Yasushi Nagao, won the 1961 Pulitzer Prize for Photography. Source: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/yasushi-nagao - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)