Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political motives? 

message: 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, Salam, August 6, 2006 and a freelance photographer based in the Middle East, who worked for Reuters over a period of more than 10 years. Reportedly a Jihad supporter, JDHM, August 9, 2006, he is known for a number of dramatic photographs of the Arab-Israeli conflict,...
Calbaer 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jihad/Islamist claim 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blogs as sources