Talk:Victory Arch

Hands of Victory
"Cast in Iraq, they are partly composed of metal from guns and tanks of Iraqi soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war." Iraqi or Iranian? Just wanted to make sure, as I thought using the equipment of ones own casualties for a monument is a little backwards, though still understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.134.229 (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullet holes in helmets?
I heard a programme on BBC radio yesterday which had someone (an American soldier, I think) saying that most of the Iranian helmets had a single bullet hole in them, caused when the solder (a POW) was executed, reportedly by Saddam personally. I can't find any mention of this here, or anywhere else. If it's true (not just black propaganda or febrile imaginings) and we can find some reference to that effect, mentioning this would make an important improvement to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.16.135 (talk • contribs)


 * A few of the helmets do have what appear to be bullet holes in them. I would say from my observations yesterday that the majority of the helmets do not appear to have holes in them. I spent probably about an hour there and even climbed up into one of the hands, with the assistance of one of the local national children. Doc Duffy

I have made a few changes to the article, attempting to refine the technical details of the sculpture. The blades, for example, are cast in stainless steel, not bronze, and it is only the blades that are composed of metals from the weapons of Iraqi casualties in the Iran-Iraq war. I have also changed the fact about the bullet holes in the helmets, nothing I have read has indicated that each and every helmet is pierced by a bullet, but indeed, many have. For these clarifications, I am referring to the book, "The Monument: Art, Vulgarity and Responsibility in Iraq" by Samir al-Khalil, who's real name is Kanan Makiya. -NLK 12:46 November 4, 2006


 * Sadam Hussein always claimed that the bullet holes in the helmets were caused by gunfire during the actual war. Scholars have always doubted the veracity of Hussein's claims, but the notion of bullet holes is an integral part of Hussein's narrative about the war and Iraq's victory, and a key element of the monument's symbolism. The monument was always intended to be a testament to victory, and also designed to immortalise Saddam Hussein himself as a strong and powerful leader. The monument is aggressive in its symbolism - and that is the whole point of it! (Why else are the helmets even included as an element in the sculpture?) References to bullet holes, inevitably qualified as a "claim" by the then Iraqi leader, are not difficult to find in the scholarly literature (see, for example, Amatzia Baram's Culture, History and Ideology in the Formation of Ba'thist Iraq, 1968-89, Springer, 1991, p.81 OR Weschler, L., Calamities of Exile: Three Nonfiction Novellas, University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 44) AND/OR in reputable newspaper articles, (see for instance, Kirk Semple, "Iraq Confronts Hussein Legacy Cast in Bronze," 8 April, 2007, Online:)


 * Obviously, based on the preceding comments, there are some concerns about offfending political sensitivities. However, this does not necessarily mean that references to bullet holes need to be written out of the story altogether. Instead, they can be presented as qualified statements, in the same way that scholars qualify their writing, by simply presenting the information as part of the monument's "narrative." This effectively distances both the editor, and Wikipedia from the comments, and should mollify any objections from political interest groups.


 * I am not a fan of deleting content without doing a few basic checks. It may not be factual that EVERY helmet has a hole, but it is a FACT that Hussein promulgated the idea that the helmets were pierced by bullets. Any attempt to write references to bullet holes out of this article, effectively undermine the intended symbolism inherent in the monument, and therefore diminishes the monument's significance, not just to local Iraqi's, but also to the art community across the world.

Iraq's victory in the Iran Iraq war
Hello there,

I think the way it is written in the article is quite biased. The results of the Iran-Iraq war have more been a return to the status quo between the parties than anything else. Iranians consider to have successfully resisted an invasion backed by Western and Arab countries while Iraqis think they caused more damage than they got.

Thus, to bring neutrality back, I suggest to put either "commemorate Iran-Irak war" or "commemorate what Iraqis consider as a victory in Iran-Irak war". I personnally prefer the neutrality of the first proposition.

Cheers, Keizer

I agree, and I will insert some sort of clarification. What's with the spelling of Iraq as "Irak"? Is this linguistic variation? If so, I am curious as to what language it is derived... -NLK

Sorry, I muddle sometimes between the French spelling "Irak" and the English one :) Keizer

move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Victory Arch. Sources and consensus are pointing there. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk  22:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hands of Victory → Arc of Triumph, Baghdad — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Official name in Arabic is "قوس النصر"، which is easily translated to Arc of Triumph. Check article for references. R a f y  talk 03:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:Use English; but what is the common usage in English? 64.229.101.183 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Hands of Victory" seems to slightly have the upper hand here. But again this name was popularised after the American invasion apparently by some bloggers. The official name in Arabic is "قوس النصر" and it can be found in official publications. R a f y  talk 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Rafy. I have reverted your changes of the name in the article. Your webproof is in arabic. Please supply proof in English. I have been in Iraq before and when you talk to Iraquis they call them the Hands of Victory as well. I'm against the name change and move. --Shorty23sin (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:NOENG before making any personal judgements about non-english sources. Removal of referenced paragraphs might be considered vandalism. I was born and raised in Iraq and I assure that I have never heard of the term "Hands of Victory". The structure is very commonly known as "قوس النصر".
 * The NY times used another term (Victory Arch) derived from Arabic here. --R a f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 07:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to provide the english translation for the original foreign language source. I have not seen your english translation. --Shorty23sin (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Check the discussion bellow for English sources. The website refered to is the official website of the Governorate of Baghdad. Unfortunately they don't have an English version. but you can use google translate to check the claim yourself. <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We should follow English usage, not (translated) Arabic usage. Rafy says (above) that "Hands of Victory" is most common in English; that means we should use it. Ucucha 19:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like I spoke too soon. A google search with different possible combinations of "arch of victory", "victory arch" or "arch of triumph" yelds 158,000 results. While "hands of victory" shows merely 14,700 results. A similar search in google books shows similar results. I see no reason in keeping the current title. <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Raw Google numbers are all but meaningless. The Google Books results for "Arch of Victory" and "Hands of Victory" are to a large extent about other structures. In any case, your numbers don't support the name "Arc of Triumph". Ucucha 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * search in google books in combination with "iraq" yields 255 vs. 89 in favour of "arch of victory" or "victory arch". <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 22:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, moving to "Victory Arch" seems reasonable. Ucucha 22:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support move to "Victory Arch". My Google Books searches indicate that that is the more widely-used term, although "Hands of Victory" is gaining in popularity. Perhaps in a few years, it will be acceptable to return to this title, but for now, "Victory Arch" is preferable. Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Victory Arch This seems to be the correct translation according to sources. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 07:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elaborate on debate
The debate about whether to keep the arch intact needs to be spelled out. What were the arguments in favor and against? 98.210.208.107 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Who was the designer? Who is Adil Kamil?
I can find no record anywhere of an Iraqi sculptor by the name of Adil Kamil who the article claims was the sculptor who designed the monument.

It is fairly clear that Saddam Hussein came up with the design concept, but the article claims that a mystery man, Adil Kamil, was charged with the task of converting the concept into drawings. However, one of the books that is actually quoted in the article, Samir Al-Khalil and Kanan Makiya's The Monument: Art, Vulgarity, and Responsibility in Iraq, specifically states that the original designer was Khaled al-Rahal, who died before he could complete the work. The project was then turned over to Mohammed Ghani Hikmat who completed it. (see pp 1-2)

Other publications that also attribute Khaled Rahal and Mohammed Ghani include:


 * Jonathan Bloom and Sheila S. Blair (eds), Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art & Architecture, Oxford University Press, 2009


 * Malcolm Miles, Iain Borden and Tim Hall, The City Cultures Reader,Psychology Press, 2000, p. 104


 * Maruska Svasek, The Anthropology Art and Cultural Production: Histories, Themes, Perspectives, Pluto Press, 2007, p. 74


 * Design Book Review, Issues 21-24, 1991, p.7

In newspaper/ magazine articles, Ghani is generally credited with complegting this work. So, where did Adil Kamil come from????????????? Can anyone out there enlighten me?? BronHiggs (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Update
Well, it has only been one day since I posted the preceding comment about a glaring error in the article. But in spite of the short notice, and in the absence of any discussion, I have begun cleaning up the article. The error has been present since the article was started back in 2003. That means that it has been there for 15 years, and I notice that mirror sites and blogs which tend to quote Wikipedia, have perpetuated the mistake, so that the Internet is now replete with misinformation. It's time that the article was corrected. BronHiggs (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Postscript
After a bit more searching, I have found one reference to one Adil Kamil who was an Abassynian novelist, active in the 1940s. This cannot be the same Adil Kamil, who was incorrectly cited as the sculptor of this monument, in the Wikipedia article. This misinformation has remained in the article for 15 years, and has proliferated across the Internet due to the sheer volume of sources that cut and paste from Wikipedia. The actual designer of the monument was Khalid (or Khaled) al-Rahal who died in 1986, after which the monument was completed by Mohammed Ghani Hikmat. In case, there is any doubt, here are a few more references that credit the al-Rahal/Ghani team with the project's design and construction:


 * Makiya, K. and Al-Khalilm S., The Monument: Art and Vulgarity in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, IB Taurus, 2004, p. 1 (one of the authors, Kanan Makiya, is the son of Iraqi sculptor, Mohammed Makiya, who was a contemporary of al-Rahal)


 * Floyd, T. E.,, "Hikmet, Mohammed Ghani (1929–2011)" in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism, Routledge, 2016, DOI: 10.4324/9781135000356-REM830-1 doi:10.4324/9781135000356-REM830-1 Online:


 * Brown, B.A. and Feldman, M.H. (eds), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art, Walter de Gruyter, 2014 p.20


 * Weschler, L. Calamities of Exile: Three Nonfiction Novellas, University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 44


 * Marozzi, J., Baghdad: City of Peace, City of Blood, Penguin UK, 2014 [E-book edition], n.p. [not paginated]


 * Michalski, S., Public Monuments: Art in Political Bondage 1870-1997, Reaktion Books, 1998 p. 198

This search only consists of books/articles available via Google Books, and does not include books published before 1980 - there are plenty of journal articles, etc published in the 60s an 70s that also cite the al-Rahal/ Ghani team, but I have not itemised these. Nor does it include books from an actual library search (I wonder if anyone actually goes to the Library any more?) BronHiggs (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 100IQD1991back.jpg

Documentation of Additional Media added
I have added Video Footage of Iraqi Army Parades at the Monument I have also added a construction Image during 1986-1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PreserveOurHistory (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)