Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy/Archive 2

Proposed move

Could we move the page to Adnan Hajj photographs controversy? This article so far is on the controversy, not the actual photographs. Republitarian 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Stephen Aquila 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A useful summary

The best overview of this controversy I've found is http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/. It's a blog post, however, so it is not directly useable as a secondary source. Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Seeing how most of his article just deals with this controversy, can we merge this into Adnan Hajj? --DDG 15:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguably a good idea, but that assumes Adnan Hajj won't do anything else interesting in the future. I think this controversy stands on its own as a Wikipedia article. Also, his article is pretty slim on the bio side. Perhaps instead of merging the two, we should focus on developing his independently. Stephen Aquila

Nice flash movie

However, a bit biased, I'd concern. For your POV/NPOV considerations.

Other images

I agree with Mr. Arromdee's edit that the images of the woman are useful. If we are going to include allegations of Reuters bias (I believe we should, but there has been reasonable debate on that issue), potentially staged images should be at least as relevant as potentially-photoshopped ones. Stephen Aquila 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This and this may be helpful. Also, lets try to merge withe the main Adnan Hajj article. Personally I think the minimal detail should go here due to this being the source of his notability, but either way we should reduce the number of [redundant] pages. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Subtantial rewrite

I've just spent several hours reorganising, rewording and adding links to the article. I tried to retain all the previous content; I hope I succeeded. Corrections, improvements and comments are all welcome.

One thing that should be fixed is that we're using two different styles for references:

• a lightweight format ("[url title] website, date") CWC(talk) 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• the more complex {{cite web ...}} format

I find the "cite web" template quite inappropriate for posts by bloggers who follow the rules about clearly indicating updates. What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Watcher wanted

The article currently has only one "citation needed" marker, on the assertion that:

... shortly after this, the altered image appeared on the 7 August 2006 edition of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

(referring to the cloned smoke picture). Could someone with some spare time and a good internet connection watch the first three segments of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer for Monday, August 7, 2006 (available here) and edit the article accordingly? Thanks, CWC(talk) 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added the assertion, and I kept it in after watching the Internet feed and noting that the altered image was not there. I did this because segments from the show are typically missing due to copyright reasons. If someone has access to the actual show — someone who taped it or who works at PBS, for example — it would be good to double-check. Otherwise, I suppose the statement should be removed as per WP:Verifiability. (By the way, I agree with many of your points above; see Talk:Adnan_Hajj#Blogs_as_sources for similar comments I made a couple of hours prior to yours.) Calbaer 18:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has come forward yet, so I've cut that sentence and pasted it here:

However, shortly after this, the altered image appeared on the August 7, 2006 edition of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

If someone produces a cite, we'll put it back, but it seems unlikely at this stage. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies

I propose to merge this article into 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies to avoid excessive fragmentation. Kosmopolis 12:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they are two distinct things and that that's excessive merging (since Adnan Hajj was already merged with this). I think that we run the danger of over-merging: This might eventually be merged with Pallywood and/or Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, diluting the article and making it seem either more biased or less controversial, depending on how the merge takes place. Of course, future merges would have to be dealt with separately, but my point is that the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy is more focused and less open to interpretation than 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies. Calbaer 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While I think there are too many subpages related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict at this point, this page should remain as a separate documentation for the time being. Tewfik^Talk 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Was anyone actually fooled by the manipulated photos?

You would have thought if someone was going to digitally alter their photos (for whatever reason) they would at least make it look semi-realistic. Did anyone (including Reuter's editors) actually believe that the photos were real? With the one of smoke above Beirut in particular it is just so immediately obvious that it has been edited its silly and the F-16 is obviously firing flares not missiles, regardless of how many it actually fired; anyone with any aircraft knowledge could tell you missiles don't look like that. Oh well, gave me a good laugh. Canderra 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)