Talk:List of photographs considered the most important

James Webb

The first photo of James Webb telescope should be on this list too. 2600:1700:6800:71F0:D5C7:5571:3934:2091 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Only photos that meet the inclusion criteria can be included: "photographs considered the most important in surveys where authoritative sources review the history of the medium not limited by time period, genre, topic, or other specific criteria." If you can find an image listed in an authoritative source's list of the most important photos ever, we can included it. Qono (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Le Violon d'Ingres (Ingres's Violin), 1924, Man Ray.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Anglocentrism

Both the list and its sources (4 sources are from the United States, 1 from Canada and 1 from Oxford) overly focus on photographs related to American society. As many as 5 photos concern the September 11 attacks, this is not a problem in itself, but it creates an ugly contrast with the lack of iconic photos for other nations. Iconic photos that would be useful to add for some balance:

Swiãtopôłk (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, what a great list, and thank you for taking the time to collect it (and the list is being added to after I wrote this, no idea how large it will get). It would be nice if all of these could be added. I don't agree with your criticism above, the existing page photographs deserve inclusion, it's just that the criteria for this page should be changed to include most if not all of your list. Each are iconic, notable, and important photographs. Let's get some more comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's how the list looked like when I wrote the above. Haven't checked any of the new listings. Was hoping others would comment, probably needs a note at a WikiProject or two to discuss criteria (as of now most of those images probably don't fit page criteria?). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually done, while I'm writing I changed my plans about it and made a list to get on with it when I have more time. I would be grateful for new sources. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the criticism, I was scrolling through it just now, and went to the talk page just to express the same opinion. I don't know what would be a good source to base this article on, but the current ones create a heavy (perceived) bias. — WardMuylaert (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree that the list's Anglo-centric focus is due to its reliance on sources from English-speaking countries. However, the inclusion criteria for the list is not necessarily the problem here (English sources aren't a requirement). We should consider incorporating authoritative and reliable sources from non-English-speaking countries to help balance the list. If anyone knows of such sources, please share them so we can consider them for inclusion. Qono (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Americentric is the best word to sum this list all up. Some of those are unknown outside the US. The 1984 photo of Michael Jordan is only famous because it inspired the famous Jumpman logo, the photograph itself is not. Marilyn Monroe's white dress is mainly famous for the dress itself, not for the photograph of the dress. Not helped is the sources are from the US, therefore too US biased. - How about I suggest that it should be listed in 3 sources, henceforth removing most of them.

Wikipedia is becoming the Watchmojo of lists or it wants to be. 81.99.82.214 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Lists citations

I've seen at least two lists used as references not as sources, which I've come to suspect is because of disorganization. Shouldn't all list related pages be used as sources? Carlinal (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump mug shot

There have been repeated attempts to add the Trump mug shot to this article. As of now, the image fails the criteria stipulated at the top of the article and in the "Sources" section. Discussion to achieve consensus is welcome. Continued edit warring to attempt to force the image onto the article without support in the Sources section will (a) fail, (b) likely lead to protection of the article, and (c) possible blocks of editors who engage in continued edit warring. Please, discuss. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep its entry. Page criteria seems dependent on actual surveys, so commonsense exceptions should be made for current photographs which have been agreed upon by multiple very reputable sources to be both iconic and history making (i.e. when will the next "survey" be taken, and whenever it is this photograph seems almost assured to be included within it). As an aside, this page received almost 7,000 views the first day that this entry was included, which adds to showing the photographs' already iconic status. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose an entry. I can't see how the inclusion of this (yet) would not be original research or an NPOV issue in the context of the inclusion criteria of this list, or how it makes sense from a non-policy standpoint. Just assuming that this photograph will be included on future RS lists seems very crystal ballish and is an editorial opinion that should not be represented in mainspace per WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

Irrespective of whether we should wait for another such medium-level review or instead extrapolate from the existing sources, I don't think that the current sources being cited can be taken at face value. We're talking about an incredibly high-profile, controversial event that has naturally drawn tons of media attention. "Importance" and "influence", as used in the context of this list, would require a level of historic significance over time. I would argue that any news source claiming, on the night of its release, that the image is "historic", "iconic", "infamous", etc. is not really considering the situation with a long-term view. It's very well possible that the photo will hold this significance in the future, but to speculate on that now would be premature. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion of the image because it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. I think it's likely that the image will eventually be added to a list that meets the criteria but until it does, adding it is original research. Qono (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/25/1196049416/presidential-photographer-says-trump-mugshot-will-be-most-published-photograph-e

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-trump-mug-shots-art-historical-lineage

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2023/08/25/why-donald-trump-mugshot-matters/?outputType=amp

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/style/trump-mugshot.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66612433

Here are a collection of sources that all testify to trump's mugshot being a historic and historically important photograph. NerdKnight66 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

38.81.150.88 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like for Donald Trump's presidential mugshot to be listed in the 2020's section. This is the first ever mugshot of a former US President and is on the list of the most important mugshots. I understand that it was only released in less than a week of writing, so I understand that there hasn't been time to add Trump's mugshot to the list of photos.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. see discussion immediately above Cannolis (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sergeant Dawson and his Daughter

According to this article, Sergeant Dawson and his Daughter by John Mayall is considered the most important. No other works by Mayall are listed. If it is so important, then why does John Jabez Edwin Mayall not mention the work at all? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:AFEF:A9F7:EA5:1764 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I revamped Mayall's article a bit mainly to accommodate this image and so things look a little smoother. I added a gallery to group all four images in the article into one place, and I wouldn't mind if it gets expanded or tweaked for further improvements. I copied the reference the Dawson photo was cited with and now things seem to be done. I'm open to further suggestions. Cheers. Carlinal (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Unite the Right

I would argue a case could be made for this image of the Unite the Right rally https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dailyprogress.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/17/81746fb4-7f0a-11e7-882c-5350968dd2f1/598e6f7b9d51d.image.jpg?resize=750%2C500 NerdKnight66 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

King Camp Gillette (1906)

The original was taken in 1906 by Benjamin Joseph Falk. Variations were widely used in Gillette's blade packaging until at least 1960, and it's still used for blades made in various Asian markets. Pictured on the right is a packet of modern Chinese-made Gillette Super Blue Blades.

This may or may not qualify based on current criteria and available sources, but I thought I'd share this anyway, since it seems to be pretty much forgotten in the modern day.

This photograph of King Camp Gillette, the inventor of the double-edge safety razor, has been reproduced tens of billions of times and distributed worldwide as part of the packaging of Gillette's double-edge razor blades. Whether or not this is one of the most important photographs, it's definitely one of the most circulated in terms of numbers and worldwide availability, and its heyday lasted from the early 1900s until the late 50s or early 60s.

I don't have an exact estimate, but the 1978 book King C. Gillette, the Man and His Wonderful Shaving Device (Q123153782) by Russell B. Adams states (p. 123 and the caption of the photograph after p. 178) that the picture has been circulated tens of billions of times. By my estimation, the Blue Blades packaging is the most widely known of these, as it was Gillette's "main" blade for ~30 years and this style of Blue Blades package was in use until at least 1960 (A Safety Razor Compendium, p. 451). While this wasn't the only blade made and sold by Gillette (the Gillette Thin Blade was another popular one, and Gillette had made private label blades since the 1920s), in 1947 Gillette was selling over a billion blades in the United States alone (Russell B. Adams, p. 201-203). So tens of billions seems very plausible.

It's not a very well-known picture today, and it's only used in Gillette's blade packaging in some Asian markets. Examples I was able to find (from razorbladesclub.com) are blades sold under the Gillette Super Thin Platinum brand in China, Vietnam, and Thailand. --Veikk0.ma 08:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)