Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Fauxtography

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of widespread usage of this term -- The vast majority of the sources in this article are simply talking about regular photo manipulation, and do not use this term. --SB | T 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fauxtography

Two or three day old neologism with no reputable published sources on it

This is a very new term, there are no reputable published secondary sources as of yet. I am of the opinion that there could be a redirect to Photo manipulation in the page, but it doesn't merit its own page due to it's unverefiable nature.Thanatosimii 01:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the term "fauxtography" is too new to qualify for Wikipedia, then where should the information contained in this article be placed? Is there a different entry name that should be used? Is there an existing page where it would better fit? Dicentra

The problem is that the info is itself not suitible for wikipedia whatsoever, because it is not from published or peer reviewed reputable secondary sources.Thanatosimii 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as yet another blogger neologism. -- Koffieyahoo 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete, term is not in widespread use. Dicentra, in answer to your question - the data could get redistributed to one or more of the following articles - Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Reuters, 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories (I'm hoping this one gets renamed), and Pallywood Korny O'Near 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Different kinds of Neologism. There must not be neologism in Wikipedia's article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete We ought to change this, its a protologism. A neologism before its actually widespread in use for wikipedia to utilize it. Neo/Proto-logism, whichever, its one of them. I note that the non-blogger references seem to refer to things the bloggers want to call it by this word. If this word is actually referenced in something like that new york times article, I'm all for keeping it. But not by my check of the reference links so far. Kevin_b_er 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as Photo manipulation is a perfectly fine term for it, no need to cover every made up word. Scoo 06:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
see below. ~~Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Photo manipulation could mention the word fauxtography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 07:32Z~~
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Stare at pixels long enough and you'll eventually see your own politics. BTW, what does "altered electronically" mean?
Delete with vehemence. Another so-called 'blogger' thinks they can make up words because they got a free page to type their boring opinions on. W guice 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:OR, Not for things you pull out of your butt, WP:So many policies WilyD 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup, rename and merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy into a more general article about the current controversy regarding news agencies' use of questionable photography changed; see below VoiceOfReason 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This story has gotten to the point where the blogs are themselves reporting a story--not just making comments about a story reported by someone else. So if the blogs use a new word, that should be treated the same as if the New York Times published the story and used a new word. We would not say "you need a published or peer reviewed verifiable secondary source before we can use a word from the New York Times".

Most of the comments above seem to ignore that blogs can be news sources. New terms used by blogs who are wearing a news source hat should be treated as new terms used by other news sources, not as new terms created by Joe Blow on the Internet. Wikipedia *is* for things I pull out of my butt--if I'm the Times, or if I'm someone else in a similar position. Ken Arromdee 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The two aren't even comparable as sources. If a blog uses a new word, that should be treated the same as if the New York Times used a new word? Er... no. That position kind of assumes equal credence for both, which is ridiculous: the point about blogs is that any idiot can get one, whether they can design fancy websites and create stupid portmanteau words or not. It's still just original research by a private citizen. W guice 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Blogs may be reporting this story, but they still do not in general meet WP:RS. I agree, however, that the details in this article are verifiable enough and notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, but the word itself is still a protologism and does not deserve an article. ~~Hence my merge recommendation.~~ VoiceOfReason 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The details actually *aren't* verifiable without reference to blogs, because the blogs are drawing conclusions (these two photos show the same woman, this seems to be a 4 hour span, etc.) In order to have this story at all, you must accept the blogs as reliable sources. A word made up and used by the major sources of a story isn't a neologism in the sense barred by the guideline. Ken Arromdee 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to draw the line. Surely before the blogs did their digging, Reuters publication of one of the Hajj photos would have been considered a reliable source, but they've admitted that they were fake. Surely before the blogs did their work, CBS would have been considered a reliable source on the Killian documents. How many errors must a major news source make before it's no longer a reliable source, and how many blockbuster scoops must a blog score before it's considered reliable? When it comes to the qualification of a reliable source, I have a strong predisposition to err in favor of inclusion, trusting Wikipedia readers to be able to judge for themselves which sources are reliable and which aren't. For example, I would have no problem with an article citing ZombieTime's analysis of the photos in question; it's original reasearch (but on the part of Zombietime, not the hypothetical article creator) and it's got enough documentation to enable a reader to decide for himself whether or not it is credible.

This article isn't perfect. It does cite some plainly unreliable sources, and its title is a blatant protologism that doesn't merit inclusion. But there is some salvagable content here, and it should be salvaged. After careful consideration, my opinion remains cleanup, rename, and merge changed, see blow VoiceOfReason 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete and transwiki the first paragraph to wiktionary, per WP:NEO. TheronJ 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per TheronJ. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a repository for the breaking newsworthy item. The neologism is not about photo manipulation, nor is it about the current mideast crisis or Adnan Hajj, but is about the breakdown of purportedly reputable sources of information. Photo manipulation and other relevant topics should reference fauxtography. K012957 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, although the article should definitely be renamed to something less protological, with Fauxtography redirecting to the renamed article. As I said on the talk page, suggesting that Fauxtography redirect to Photo manipulation would be akin to saying that Rathergate should redirect to Forgery. Fauxtography may be a neologism, but it still has a definition, and that definition refers to a specific scandal, not to photographic manipulation in general.

The article is poorly-named, no question. But the subject matter is certainly notable. It should be renamed, expanded, edited, and merged with redundant existing articles like Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, but it should be kept. VoiceOfReason 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming it sound like a good idea; thanks for being a voice of reason. :) For a new name, how about something like "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy"? Korny O'Near 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete, a platform for blogger original research. Gazpacho 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, totally non-notable. RFerreira 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete The story should be told at Adnan Hajj, since everything on the page is about him. DJ Clayworth 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, yet another neologism. I'll bet none of the sources mention the word "fauxtography". JIP | Talk 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a neologism. Blogs are not reliable sources. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy; the merged article could be called 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy, per Voice of Reason & Korny O'Near. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 20:19Z
Weak keep Enough evidence of ongoing use for me. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge or move. We don't have an article on most of the many words The Colbert Report has invented, and that's probably viewed by more people than these blogs. The phenomenon itself is notable and widely reported, but its article should be given a boring, generic name that people would actually understand. Deco 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
keep for now. Many of the comments pro and con are cogent, but neglect the fact that deception by image manipulation is a new phenomenon which has no name of its own, and hence only falls within the area of lie, cheat, and so on. Retouch, a term used to refer to improving or altering an image, or trick photograph, both apply more to chemical emulsion imaging techniques. Fauxtography may be the answer for the digital era.Ghlkq 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)ghlkq

This is user's sole edit. --Wafulz 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

keep Wikipedia does not need to wait for other media to legitimize facts before documenting them. Moving them to the Adnan Hajj page or Reuters page will not work, as examples are being found by other photographers and other "news" organizations (i.e. AP). Staged photographs do not fit on the Photoshop page. Some news sources reporting on this today, include...

- Comment Actually quite the opposite is true- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We won't post things in anticipation of them becoming popular/commonplace. Also, none of those links use the term "fauxtography" itself- they just mention photo manipulation. --Wafulz 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NEO. Wikipedia shouldn't be collecting neologisms. --Wafulz 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I was the one who put this up for deletion, and I almost want to change my own vote, because of the disregard for the rules which people are performing by excercising such predjudice against this page. Come on people, the problem is that there are no reliable secondary sources as of yet, not that "evil bloggers" are trying to rule the world, or that neolgisms must be squooshed without mercy. The issue here is lack of established credible sources because it's way too young to have sources that qualify under WP:RS. Thanatosimii 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge somewhere sensible, or slap a "current event" tag on it and reconsider when no longer current. Ace of Risk 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep It seems to me that the root of the argument here is the whole reliable source problem. The only reason this topic exists is because many of the sources considered as reliable, have repeatedly published questionable material, and have taken little responsibility for their actions. This topic also covers more than just photo manipulation, it includes staged pictures. The concept of publishing pictures to distort events is what the topic is about, not specifically about chaning pictures. Due to the number of publications dispensing this material, I do not see that it should be rolled into a single occurrence. This may need to be discussed again in the future, but for now it seems to be a reasonable place to give the details of what is happening in the sources previously considered to be reliable. RedLyons 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy into an article called 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy per Quarl. If the word "fauxtography" ever catches on, it will undoubtedly be applied to situations that have nothing to do with the current war in the Middle East. And if the word "fauxtography" doesn't catch on, then it shouldn't have an article at all. Either way, Fauxtography should not be an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I created an article titled 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy, since that seemed to be somewhat of a consensus approach here, taking in some of the information from the Fauxtography article, although this one is differently structured. Korny O'Near 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy per Korny O'Near. VoiceOfReason 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies StuartH 07:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism no redirect, salvaging factual info. Mukadderat 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- I'm a journalist, I've always hated manipulated photos, and it's time they were stuffed down the bastards' mouths. This may be a neologism, but it is a REALLY old problem.Scott Adler 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- This is on par with Rathergate, and should be kept in terms of the story ViteroHoratio 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep The word is popping up everywhere. If it eventually dies out, we can kill it, but for now keep.--Alabamaboy 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The term is becoming rather notable within the press. -- Freemarket 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep - There are plenty of neologism in Wikipedia. They are still notable and so is the word "Fauxtography". It is becoming used within the mainstream media as well as the blogs. -- HowardDean 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, plainly a neologism with little currency outside certain blogospheric circles. We can always revisit this in a few months if it has any legs, but I expect it'll soon be forgotten. -- ChrisO 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Fauxtography

Fauxtography

Navigation menu

Search