Talk:Adnan Hajj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adnan Hajj article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] A couple issues

  1. Can we get sources for the "a number of others show signs of having been staged" bit? I think it could probably stand to be reworded, too.
  2. Should we talk about any similarities/connections to the Killian documents incident, or perhaps other instances where the truthfulness of news media has been called into question?

--Slowking Man 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

re. staged.
Don't know if it's worth a mention, but there's definitively speculation in that direction and when he already has been caught with a hoax once, perhaps it's mandated. Here's a few cites:
The passage from the Reuters cite:
“He was among several photographers from the main international news agencies whose images of a dead child being held up by a rescuer in the village of Qana, south Lebanon, after an Israeli air strike on July 30 have been challenged by blogs critical of the mainstream media's coverage of the Middle East conflict.”
And further:
“A number of web logs in the United States and Britain have claimed that a man who appeared in much of the international press's coverage of the Qana bombing lifting children's bodies may have been a Hizbullah agent who staged photo-ops for the international media.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284546,00.html
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/08/still_more_reut.htm
etc. Rune X2 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political motives?

If this reporter had political motives, and not just "story selling motives" behind this, I feel it should be categorized under Category:Political forgery. Even if this is hard to tell for sure (adding smoke and missiles can be both to make a military power look more powerful or to sell more impressive pictures), maybe there's another category for people involved in forgeries, because that, it certainly seem to be. -- Northgrove 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adnan Hajj photographs

I combined the content of this article and Reuters#Allegations_of_bias, putting the result in Adnan Hajj photographs. Hopefully this page can focus on the man, while the other page can focus on the scandal.

[edit] Merge?

Given that this article pretty much only talks about the controversy surrounding his doctored photographs, can we merge Adnan Hajj photographs controversy into this article? There seems to be a lot of duplication. --DDG 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the Adnan Hajj photographs article in order to combine the stuff on here with the stuff in the Reuters article and to nudge this page towards having more biographical information, similar to how Mary Mapes has more biographical information than Killian documents. However, no other biographical information has yet become known. Some suspect [1] [2] that photographs attributed to "Adnan Hajj" are not necessarily all taken by a man named "Adnan Hajj." (And, in fact, Reuters has admitted that there was some misattribution involved.) This might be a one-time mistake, Hajj might be one of many photographers, or "Hajj" might be a mere alias. (Both words are very common as Arab names, yet more distinctive to Western ears than something like "Mohammad Abdullah.") If this is the case, it certainly would affect how or if a merge is done.
Because of this, and since none of the other players in the scandal have yet become known, the two articles are currently very similar, and someone looking up one might not notice the other without using the links. However, I'd hold off on a merge until it's clear whether this scandal looks more like the Stephen Glass scandal (where the person and scandal pretty much remained equivalent) or more like the Killian documents scandal. Calbaer 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know that about the suspected misattribution. Interesting. I wonder if we're dealing with photography sock puppets? Anyway, I agree with Calbaer about the current inadvisability of a merger. Stephen Aquila 00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently someone recently created 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies, likely in response to the fact that Hajj seems not to have been the only deceptive photographer. Unfortunately, that means some people will come to Reuters (although the link there has discouraged that section from growing), some to Adnan Hajj, some to the new article, and some to Adnan Hajj photographs. There probably shouldn't be three articles with such large overlap, but, since this is a current event, I suppose for now it's best to just make sure they're sufficiently crosslinked.Calbaer 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, dear. That's a lot of articles. What do you say we remove the merge from AH and AHp and attempt to merge the AHp article into 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies? Stephen Aquila 12:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I vote 'no' on the merge. While the article today still has too much biographical info on AH, I believe the Wikipedia article on Fauxtography shoul, and will, broaden over time to include much more about the fauxtography phenomena in general, the Lebanon/AH photos will be just one case, and will of course be an important historical footnote to the begining of the use of the term. Google hits on the word are now at 425,000, whereas they were just over 800 last week on 2006-08-09 at about 11 pm Central European time. The term is bigger than the incident. N2e 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove the merge tag, since no one (other than DDG) seems to think this and Hajj should be merged. As far as other potential merges, I still say hold out for more information. What started as "Reutergate" has turned into a plethora of allegations of misleading reporting, many having no connection to Hajj. Time will tell whether or not they should be merged. Calbaer 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming from the Lebanon articles, I can tell you that there are currently far to many subarticles, and efforts to consolidate would be much appreciated. Personally, I think this should be merged to the "Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" as that is his primary notability, and despite your concerns (or perhaps because of them if you explore the Sock possibility), I don't see anything else justifying this page. But whichever you choose, try to turn these two pages into one. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Considering this biography of a living person deals in speculation and attacks him in every paragraph, does not mention any of his work aside from the two photographs and reuters work, it is fair to say it suffers from a POV bias, and so a tag of that nature has been added. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your liberal use of the [citation needed]-tag in a large number of absurd places as well as places which are already cited, is nothing but vandalism. Now it may very well be the article needs more citations, but use it in places where there's a real need, not just to throw dirt on an article you don't like. Rune X2 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The citations provdied did support the assertation made, and in both instances required a translation tool. Thats why another source was requested, and required.--Irishpunktom\talk 11:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(I take it you left out a “no” in your reply.) I have left the two {{Fact}} tags on the Arabic citations be, we'll have to wait for the creator of the cites to explain. The rest were either spurious or already cited. As were your pov tag. Pov tags applied without some sort of prior debate and consensus in the debating pages is merely a form of vandalizing. Many people have contributed in making this article, you alone do not get to designate it pov. Rune X2 12:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have explained above my reasons for adding the POV tag, you have failed to address any of the points and that is why it should stay. The citations should be removed when the claims are sourced. It should not be that difficult. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, cease your vandalism. The claims are cited. Nobody, including Adnan Hajj, dispute that he modified the images in question. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, this is a Biog of a living person, yet all thats in it is an attack piece regarding the images. Secondly, not all the claims are cited.
  • Adnan Hajj is reportedly a Lebanese Islamist - Is this a self description or is this someones opinion of him? Its unsourced, despite the link to here.
Is it unsourced, or can you just not read Arabic? Either the citation is relevant or it isn't. We're trying to figure that out right now. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it is the “Islamist” you object to. And I agree. I suspect it is a nonsense word used in the same manner as “Zionist” which is often brandished about. However there is a cite, which I cannot read. So I think the correct thing would be to wait a little while for the person providing the cite come back and give some information. Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think someone anonymous (84.99.23.206) first posited the Jihad/Islamist claim and pointed to the links, then Nhaqueoi added "reportedly." Unless and until we get a translator (maybe try [3]?), it might be safe to remove the claims. Especially since, as I said before, Adnan Hajj is a pretty generic name, and it could always be a case of mistaken identity. It's pretty tacky to have the "citation needed" next to a citation already there, especially in the head of the article. I'll move the section to the talk page; if someone objects, it can be moved back. Calbaer 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reportedly a Jihad supporter - What report? Who made the report? Where is the report? Its unsourced despite the link to here
See my previous comment. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As above I agree on principle. But we'll have to wait for clearing up the cite. Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • he is known for a number of dramatic photographs - "a number"? What number? How many is it? I thought it was two, is it not?
No, the dramatic photos mentioned here probably include the ones from his work at Qana, and I don't think anyone knows exactly how many he took there. This is clear from the sources. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No it is not. Obviously what is referred to here is not only those which have been manipulated, but also those which are not manipulated. AP alone had more than 900. Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ...of the Arab-Israeli conflict" - The Arab-Israeli conflict? - The entire thing? Was he taking photogrpahs of the Jaffa riots? Obviously not. For what specific conflicts have his "dramatic photographs" been "known" about?
Would you be ok with that sentence if it just claimed he took recent photos of the conflict? As for which bits, see my previous comment. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes the Arab-Israeli conflict. That in itself doesn’t imply that he has taken photos of everything. But if you want to change it to 2006 Israeli Lebanese conflict, that’d be fine with me. In any case, it doesn’t speak for any kind of pov. Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Critics rejected his claim - what critics? When did they reject it? Where did they reject it?
It's in the cited source. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • stating that Hajj's doctored photo added an entire plume of smoke, duplicated several buildings, and showed a repeating pattern indicating that at least eighteen separate copy/paste functions were used on one plume of smoke - The onlys crtics to make such claims are a Web-Blog. Have their claims been verified, or is it just the opinion of a partisan news blog?
It's a partisan blog _that got him fired_. I think that makes it relevant, as do his editors, apparently. Since the fabrication was discovered by blogs, it would be kind of hard to do this article without mentioning them. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Other photographs by Hajj have been questioned by critics scrutinizing his images of a rescue worker.. - What other photographs? What critics? We have a link to one partisan blog, is that it?
Again, it's in the citations. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is Hajj simply a photographer? - The answer is no.
so? Does the article state that? Not indicative of pov Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Does he do broadcast work, the anser is yes, so, why isn't this mentioned?
Possible because it’s an article under work – like the whole of Wikipedia. Fell free to add more material. Not indicative of pov Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Does he edit a widely circulated newspaper? - Yes, why isn't that mentioned?
I suspect it isn't mentioned because no one who knew about those has edited this page yet. Would you be kind enough to contribute that information? Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Possible because it’s an article under work – like the whole of Wikipedia. Fell free to add more material. Not indicative of pov Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What else has he done, hasn't he done?
I don't know. That's why Wikipedia is collaborative. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add more material you find relevant. Not indicative of pov. Rune X2 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is highly partisan, as per the cites given, and needs to be marked as such. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything you've written, especially your conclusion. And, as it seems to be against the general consensus, I am removing your tag. Please cease your unilateral action and try to come to some sort of consensus on this discussion page first. Stephen Aquila 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad/Islamist claim

As per the above, I've moved the modified introduction here. If someone can show that this indeed indicates that the photographer is a Jihadist and/or an Islamist, it should be put back in:

Adnan Hajj is reportedly a Lebanese Islamist[1][citation needed] and a freelance photographer based in the Middle East, who worked for Reuters over a period of more than 10 years[2][citation needed]. Reportedly a Jihad supporter[3], he is known for a number of dramatic photographs of the Arab-Israeli conflict,...

Calbaer 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that he is an Islamist. Someone with a name similar to his left a pro-Syrian message. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs as sources

This article makes a lot of use of blogs as sources. Please read up on WP:RS where it says "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." and "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." // Liftarn

Reread the above in context. Blogs are okay; comments on blogs by random, anonymous people are not. Similarly, blogs may not be largely acceptable as sources, but they can be acceptable. Finally, considering the role the blog in question played in this controversy, it is only right that the blog itself be referenced. I'm reverting the changes based on this and reverting the unilateral merge. A merge may well be warranted at this point (since Hajj still hasn't made himself public, if he exists at all), but it should be discussed before being done. Calbaer 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the discussion above set certain criteria for merging. Most importantly, no new biographical (or other) info has emerged about him, so that everything here is duplicated at Adnan Hajj photographs controversy. I understand your concern about the merge; what other issues do you feel may still exist? Let me know, TewfikTalk 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, my main concern was that the discussion above seemed to agree that a merge would be premature. I'd like a discussion (or at least a merge request) to occur prior to a merge. If all information is duplicated, it might be best to start out excising such information, relabeling as a stub, pointing to the other article, and then asking for a merge. Clearly it would be a stronger case at that point. Although I personally think a stub for Hajj would be appropriate, especially one that ended with, "No other personal information has emerged about Hajj, nor has he talked with any media outlets other than Reuters." Calbaer 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As the only information we have is in the context of the controversy, it seems that once you follow that procedure, you would end up with a solitary line: Adnan Hajj was a freelancer in Lebanon responsible for the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy. I just don't understand what the point of such an article would be, especially as this type of case seems to be exactly what Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages have in mind. But perhaps I misunderstand you - what alternative outcome do you think will be achieved? Let me know, TewfikTalk 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just arguing for the process, not a specific outcome. By the way, if a merge does occur, a pointer to this talk page might be appropriate. Calbaer 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a perfect place to apply WP:Bold. There is no controversy surrounding this merge, and all of the conditions set in the discussion above point to merging as being the next step. While process is certainly important, there is no reason to let bureaucratic procedure stifle encyclopedia writing (also per WP:IAR). TewfikTalk 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:Bold clearly states not to ignore discussion and unilaterally make your own decision. Anyway, I guess I'll leave it to others to see if they want to act on this. If it's still controversial, it'll get reverted. Calbaer 20:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)