Talk:Zoriah Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Misleading notes[edit]

In this series of edits, I removed notes that presented links. If you say that your biographee X had a certain relationship Y with an entity Z, then your note after this should normally verify this entire proposition; it shouldn't merely say something else about entity Z.

This article is essentially unreferenced, and deserves the "Unreferenced" tag, which I placed on it earlier. -- Hoary 06:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editor has now pretty much reverted my changes. He or she has (i) deleted a lot of FACT tags, (ii) added some "references" that aren't actually references, and also (iii) added one or two genuine references. But (iii) is so overwhelmed by (i) and (ii) that I felt no compunction in reverting the lot.
If there are genuine references for specific claims, feel free to add them. That the photographer himself claims to have won this or that award or achieved some other feat is not a credible reference. That a particular organization has a website is not a reference for a claim that it had such and such a relationship with this photographer. Et cetera. -- Hoary 06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP did the same thing again. I reverted the edit, for the reasons explained above. -- Hoary 06:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current events[edit]

Should something about the al Anbar suicide bombing pictures and the aftermath (takedown request, unembedding by the Marines) be documented here? (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/14/embedded_photojournalist_accuses_us_military_of) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.54.65 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of requests for evidence[edit]

This article has a strange history:

I may have missed some other examples of this.

Don't remove requests for evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lightstalkers.org[edit]

The article sources some claims to lightstalkers.org, but this site gives the impression that the biographies are written by the subjects. Indeed, a biography such as this one is written in the first person. How is lightstalkers.org a reliable source? -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

purely spam[edit]

Sorry i don't know how these thing work, i'm not a regular editor on wiki. Is this where i'm supposed to comment back to Hoary?
It is clear that Zoriah Miller's page is purely SPAM under the Speedy Deletion - spam rule, it should be blanked right away. There is absolutely no importance to this this person to the rest of the world, he has made no contribution to photography, and 90% of what is written on that page is simply not true. If you follow the links i added, you can see the general opinion of the photographic community about him. Like Bruno Stevens said "nobody has heard of him before 2 days ago" when he posted a noise-making controversy unto Lightstalkers. There is no doubt it was written by him, as you can see in the original links, there are no real awards or real publications available for verification. The only thing he is "famous" for is being kicked out of Iraq by the US military for not fulfilling his embedded contract and photographing dead American soldiers. Even these photos, were never published outside his blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskphoto (talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's where you're supposed to comment, yes. You're not commenting to me, you're commenting to anybody interested.
It's not clear that the article is purely spam. If this is clear to you, argue your point.
Wikipedia doesn't deal with truth, it deals with verifiable statements. Please point out evidence for falsity in what the article says.
I followed the link. I reached a group of people (among whom you are very conspicuous) who have a generally unfavorable opinion of Miller. Some people express a favorable opinion. But even if the opinion were all unfavorable, so what?
You say "There is no doubt it was written by him". Provide evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, i reacted on the wrong page, i think i got it now.

I just argued my point above. this wiki page files clearly under the speedy removal - spam terms of wikipedia. why did you remove the speedy removal request? don't you think it's justified? The only thing "Zoriah" is "known" for is his lack of professionalism and unethical behavior. how does anything in the page adhere to the wikipedia spam rules?

If you look at the links he posted on his wiki page, you'll see. not one is a real external link. what is a photojournalist with 0 publications?

Ok, Here's the full argument:

Zoriah Miller (born January 27, 1976) is a noted photojournalist SAYS WHO? and war photographer whose work has been published and exhibited extensively.NOT TRUE, WHERE IS ONE LINK? [1] Initially trained in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Aid to Developing Countries TRAINED WHERE?, he worked for international aid organizations such as the Red Cross before returning to photography after a long absence. Although working with numerous international photo agencies including World Picture News (WPN), Reporters Agency, The Image Works, and EyePress Photo Agency in China, THESE AGENCIES ARE REPS, YOU CAN SIGN UP TOO. Miller remains independent and produces his photo stories on a freelance basis.

His images of conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon have been widely published NOT TRUE, 0 PUBLICATIONS AND HE IS PROUD NOT WORKING WITH THE MEDIA and have traveled to many countries around the world in museums and fine art galleries AGAIN, NOT TRUE, WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE? . Photographs that he took in Iraq of dead US Marines after a suicide bomber in Al-Karmah that he posted on his website were widely discussed and brought to light the issue of wartime censorship.[2] Contents [hide] 

   * 1 Awards, honors and achievements
   * 2 Photography
   * 3 Notes
   * 4 External links
         o 4.1 Video

[edit] Awards, honors and achievements

Although making a living on and off as a photographer since the age of 15, Miller's career did not fully take off until late 2005 when his work covering and following up on the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was published by Newsweek ONE VIGNETTE PHOTO, HIS ONLY PUBLICATION SOLD BY WPN and then went on to get more than 20,000 hits daily online ON HIS BLOG. during the weeks leading up to and following the one-year anniversary of the tsunami.[3] } Soon after, he won the 2006 portfolio contest hosted by the VII Photo Agency THERE IS NO SUCH CONTEST and began submitting directly to some of the world's famous and respected publications. SENDING YOUR PHOTOS DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET PUBLISHED, EVERY PHOTO STUDENT SENDS PHOTOS TO EDITORS, WHICH USUALLY GET DELETED FROM THE SERVER RIGHT AWAY[4] [edit] Photography

With his background in disaster management and humanitarian aid, Miller specializes in documenting humanitarian crises in third world countries. He has covered disasters, critical social issues and conflict around the world and his work has been widely published in newspapers and magazines AGAIN, NOT TRUE, WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE?. About fifty percent of his time each year is devoted to doing pro bono work for aid and humanitarian organizations , often shooting photos used for fundraising and international exhibitions for subjects such as World AIDS Day. NOT TRUE, WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THESE NGO PUBLICATIONS?

Miller's work has appeared in many publications[5] NOT TRUE He has completed assignments and freelance projects for agencies and publications in various nations.NOT TRUE HE DOES NOT WORK ON ASSIGNMENT[6]

Is this a better argument? should these details have been dealt with when this article was first published? shouldn't there be proof before allowing somsone to publish such an extensive lie about himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskphoto (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make some points that are worthwhile, some that are dubious at best.
Your last question assumes that this article was created by Miller. You have presented no evidence for this.
If you think this article is spammy, you may be unfamiliar with the abysmal depths of spam as seen in Wikipedia articles on photographers. Get an eyeful of this -- but only after putting down any drink you may be holding, as your reaction (nausea? laughter?) may cause you to drop it.
Right then, let's turn to what you say:
  • These agencies are reps, you can sign up too. Got any evidence for this?
  • One vignette photo, his only publication sold by WPN Got any evidence for this?
  • Miller's work has appeared in many publications[5] NOT TRUE There's an external link that has an enormous list. Is this not a credible source? If it isn't, please explain.
Now, you may be thinking "Why do I have to put up with this crap? This is going nowhere!" But this could very well go somewhere, toward deletion. (Not a speedy deletion but a somewhat slow one.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These agencies are reps, you can sign up too. Got any evidence for this? No, It's common knowledge in the photojournalism world. just go to those agencies websites and sign up, it's quite simple.
  • One vignette photo, his only publication sold by WPN Got any evidence for this? Yes, I was one of WPN's featured photographers for 5 years.
  • Miller's work has appeared in many publications[5] NOT TRUE There's an external link that has an enormous list. Is this not a credible source? If it isn't, please explain. Again, go and sign up, it's as credible as facebook or myspace as a source. this website is a self made profile. just click on "s'enregistrer" on the top left and make a page with whatever you want.

Is there still any doubt in your mind that this page should be deleted? i understand your need to be theral, but Zoriah only won one, very minor award, and even this one is currently under review and will, most probably, be retracted soon. Which doesn't really matter, since it has been proven here beyond the Shadow of a doubt that this page does not represent Zoriah Miller. Gskphoto (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)gskphoto[reply]

Briefly, yes, I have plenty of doubt of all kinds. Because I have doubt, I have interest in what you are saying. I'm open to persuasion.
What's common knowledge in the photojournalism (or any other) world doesn't count, as long as anyone could challenge it. I mean, I don't have to provide evidence for an assertion that grass (or anyway most species of it) is green when healthy and yellow when dry, as nobody would challenge this common knowledge; by contrast, Wikipedia has had at least one vigorous proponent of the claims made for Miller.
Most of what you're saying is that the claims made for Miller are false or vacuous, and you're pointing in the direction of evidence toward what you're saying. However, you're leaving the hard work of laying out the evidence in lucid, convincing form to other, unspecified people. Now, the person who has expressed the most interest so far in what you are saying is me, but I simply lack the interest or energy to spend a day of my life investigating the claims made for and against this obscure photographer. (After all, in the same period, I could have created an article on a significant photographer who definitely merits an article, such as Alex Webb or Peter Marlow [if you click on either you'll see what I mean]. Though actually I can't do this as I have a "real life" workload to attend to within the next 24 hours.)
So please drop any charge that you can't soon back up with evidence, even if you're absolutely certain that the charge is true. Instead, concentrate on what you can show. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's award(s), and the reliability of a source[edit]

The article tells us that:

he won the 2006 portfolio contest hosted by the VII Photo Agency

This is sourced to this web page, which actually says rather less and rather more:

Zoriah has won many awards over the years including Photojournalist Of The Year, the Songs of The People Award, WPN Most Powerful Imagery and the VII Portfolio Contest.

Let's examine these.

I see no sign of Miller or any contest at the VII site. However, Miller does have a page here on a subsidiary site. The page says nothing about any contest.

"Photojournalist of the Year" is something conferred by NPPA. Its website is bop.nppa.org. Google does indeed turn up hits for "zoriah" at nppa.org, but nothing about any award. Here is our man's profile; this too says nothing about any award.

The WPN Most Powerful Imagery award is a fascinating one. Here's what Google comes up with for different combinations of search strings:

  • wpn "most powerful imagery" A lot, most (all?) of them about Miller
  • wpn "most powerful imagery" -zoriah Seemingly quite a few, but actually Google has substituted "weapon" for "wpn", therefore none
  • "world picture news" "most powerful imagery" A lot, most (all?) of them about Miller
  • "world picture news" "most powerful imagery" -zoriah Nothing

I have trouble believing that the WPN Most Powerful Imagery award even exists.

The combination of "songs of the people" and "award" gets millions of hits. However, "songs of the people award" gets a grand total of two, both about Miller. "Songs of the people prize", perhaps? No, no hits.

www.mondofragilis.fr/Projets/mondolibrary.net/Biographies/Zoriah is the only source for this article that at first glance looked any good to me. But now I come to examine it, it seems to be full of poppycock. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, here is an actual award. -- Hoary (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? This is just ill will on your part "Hoary"! I have answered all your questions, and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that this page is a total misrepresentation of this "obscure photographer"... as YOU put it, you even agreed on most thing. now you're not going to waste you "Real life" on it? what's the point? why do you get into it if you won't see it through? how about you let someone who actually knows something about photojournalism and photo agencies deal with this? Every link on that page is fabricated by Zoriah himself not ONE reliable link or resource to corroborate a single fact. But you still won't delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskphoto (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete it in a flash. For that matter, I can block you from editing. I can do all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that they'd necessarily stick.
You know what would happen if I deleted it? Somebody would complain, and it would come back. Actually it would come back with added sympathy from people who'd have very reason to think that there was some kind of vendetta (involving you, me, and others) toward this Miller person. Come to think of it, if I wanted to assure a future for this article, deleting it now would be a great first step toward this.
You have proven very little beyond the shadow of a doubt. You've raised some valid concerns. Valid concerns aren't enough even for this deletion process to succeed and they definitely aren't enough for immediate deletion. Given a valid concern, somebody has to do some drudgery to remove those shadows of doubts. You seem to expect that I'll do it all. Why me and not you?
Well, one good reason why it should be me and not you is that I have more experience than you do at getting articles deleted. But unlike me, you actually know something about photojournalism and photo agencies; so you'll have an advantage over me in finding and presenting evidence for what you claim above. If you find and present that evidence here and if it convinces me, I'll act upon it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you said so well: "Well, nobody can provide "reliable sources" to back up a claim that a photographer has no publications or that an article has no external links. So that part of your request is rather unreasonable, antiuser." What i did prove, is that none of the external links are reliable sources, moreover, they are all generated by the subject himself, either his own websites, or his own profile on other websites. I have also proven blatant lies like a list of awards that don't exist (VII, WPN, songs of the people), and awards that do exist but he did NOT win like "photojournalist of the year". What other evidence can i present? links that say he is not a published photographer? links that say he is not respected by his peers? (I actually did that one by providing the LS link. LS is the largest professional photojournalist forum with over 30,000 members), Links that say he is not who he claims to be? what possible other link could i send you? what more proof do you need? you haven't even done so much as a minor edit or a flag to this article saying it is contested.Gskphoto (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)gskphoto[reply]

Wrong. You have not proven that (for example) none of the external links is a reliable source; you've merely asserted this. If we may pursue this: are you saying that nytimes.com and sfgate.com are not reliable sources? If so, you're definitely in a minority hereabouts.
You have not "proven blatant lies like a list of awards that don't exist (VII, WPN, songs of the people), and awards that do exist but he did NOT win like 'photojournalist of the year'". Instead, you asserted this or something similar (for which I thank you), but left other people to do the donkey-work of googling for stuff and writing up the results (close above).
You say: you haven't even done so much as a minor edit -- have you even looked at the edit history of this article? -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more lies, the agencies he claims to be represented by: WPN: World Picture News, the list of photographers, Zoriah isn't on there: http://worldpicturenews.com/web/Photographers.aspx?region=NorthAmerica Reports Agency, the list of photographers, Zoriah isn't on there: http://www.reporters.be/photographers Image works is a stock agency, no assignments: http://www.theimageworks.com/au_agencydescription.php Eyepress in Hong Kong (not China) is an elusive name that's websote dropped off the face of the earth in 2006.

VII does not have an award. www.viiphoto.com Neither does WPN: www.worldpicturenews.com

I just noticed the latest revisions, but i fail to understand, especially after the revisions, why this photographer is of enough interest to have an article on wikipedia. an article riddled with lies and misinformation should be enough grounds for removal, shouldn't it? If having a exhibition in a tiny gallery in Denver is enough to have an article. Then i should have a whole book on here...

Gskphoto (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)gskphoto[reply]

WPN[edit]

The claim that Miller worked for WPN is unsourced. His name does not appear in this or any of the others in this series of WPN's pages of photographers. I've therefore removed mention of WPN. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters Agency[edit]

The claim that Miller worked for Reporters Agency is unsourced. His name does not appear in this list. I've therefore removed mention of Reporters Agency. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyepress[edit]

The (Chinese-language) website of Eyepress (whether or not the Eyepress alluded to in the article) is here. But there's very little to see.

Googling does quickly confirm what's claimed above: that an image company called Eyepress was based in Hong Kong (which you may or may not decide to call China). -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyepress doesn't exist anymore, nore is there any evidence showing Zoriah was ever a part of it.
"he won the 2006 portfolio contest[dubious – discuss] hosted by the VII Photo Agency." VII photo is member owned agency like Magnum. they do not have competitions, actually, no agency has competitions. www.viiphoto.com
"In February 2010, Miller conducted a photography workshop in Haiti, charging each participant $4000 USD to experience "the life of an award-winning photojournalist" amongst those afflicted by the January earthquake"
Don't know what happened to my answer. did you delete it? Again you are asking for a proof that something didn't happen. which is impossible. but to the facts, i don't know where you got the idea that it did. Do you have proof it did? It was supposed to be in a week or more from now anyway, and was then taken off his blog.
www.zoriah.com
The Image works i already answered about. It is a stock agency, not assignments or represented photographers: http://www.theimageworks.com/au_agencydescription.php
Now that i have proved he hasn't worked with any agency and there is no proof he has been published anywhere, why does it still say: "Although working with numerous international photo agencies" and "widely published and have traveled to many countries around the world in museums and fine art galleries"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskphoto (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that you are right about VII not having contests.
I didn't have any idea about Miller having actually run a course in Haiti. That factoid was added in this edit.
If Eyepress no longer exists, then what's this website doing? (Incidentally, it served me with Chinese when I tried it with one computer earlier today, but with English when I tried it with another computer a few minutes ago.) I can't find any list of photographers on this website and therefore don't want to say that Miller has or hasn't worked with Eyepress.
I haven't deleted anything by you from any talk page.
Yes, in its own words The Image Works is an independent stock photography agency that has unified numerous photographers and specialized collections from around the world into one impressive archive. "Work with" is a vague term -- right now, I am working with Epiphany, with Ubuntu, with my little Dell, with an article, with you -- and I think it's fair to say that photographers work with a stock photo agency the Image Works. So far as photographers work with the Image Works, has Miller done so? Yes he has. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gskphoto: VII photo is member owned agency like Magnum. they do not have competitions, actually, no agency has competitions. I'd be surprised if VII had a competition, but (together with Hewlett Packard) Magnum certainly does have at least one: the Expression Photography Award. It's new; the first award was won by Bieke Depoorter. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact, VII doesn't do contests, so it shouldn't say that he won one, even with a citation/ dubious tag. www.viiphoto.com Gskphoto (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)gskphoto[reply]

Big fuss over Miller[edit]

I see what prompted the latest edits:

Very interesting, and perhaps it will later turn up as a real news story somewhere. But until then, I don't think it's usable in any way. -- Hoary (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now tells us:

In February 2010, Miller attempted to conduct a photography workshop in Haiti, charging each participant $4000 USD to experience "the life of an award-winning photojournalist" amongst those afflicted by the January earthquake. but pulled the proposal off his website after being widely criticized by the Lightstalkers.org community of professional photojournalists. <ref>"[http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/zoriah-in-haiti Zoriah in Haiti]", lightstalkers.org.</ref>

Although that's a mere forum page, it does have clear evidence that Miller was advertising this course, e.g. in a longish message signed by him and posted on 5 February. By the next day, the conversation seemed to have descended into a schoolboyish game of how high a ratio of "fuck" people could attain in their messages. On 8 February, somebody posted an image claimed to reproduce a posting by Miller elsewhere, one in which Miller defended his course. What I don't see in this thread is evidence that Miller made any change as a result of pressure from that or any other website. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you added the assertion that Miller had a workshop, without any proof. then after i pointed that the workshop hasn't hapenned yet and wasn't planned to start for a while, you didn't remove that assertion. Now, again, you're asking for evidence that something didn't happen. The original post, on HIS website, is now gone. Miller is no longer advertising the workshop on his website, simple as that. if anyone wants to contest that, let them come forward with a link proving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskphoto (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of the assertion that Miller had a workshop: right here.
I'm not asking for any evidence that anything didn't happen. Your desired pulled the proposal off his website after being widely criticized by the Lightstalkers.org community of professional photojournalists is easily read as implying a causal relationship. Do the people at lightstalkers.org constitute a community? Are they professional photographers? If Miller pulled the proposal off his site, was lightstalkers.org in any way related to this? -- Hoary (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're pointing to something you wrote in the past as an assertion?

Ok, now you're just being difficult, so do as you please, this has taken enough of my time. But just to entertain you, I'll answer your questions, and if you are the uber-editor of articles on photojournalists, you really shouldn't ask these questions. The answers are clearly: yes, yes and... absolutely!Gskphoto (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)gskphoto[reply]

Did you even look at the link? For the second time, I'm pointing to something somebody else wrote in the past as an indication that, contrary to what you still seem to think, it wasn't me who wrote it.
I'm not an über-editor of any field, though this Miller person has taken way too much of my time too. Lightstalkers seems to be a website of photojournalists (I even recognize one famous name among them). But I don't know offhand how many of them really are PJs and how many just fancy themselves as PJs or like to hang around with PJs (or with those who fancy themselves as PJs). Should I click on each profile (and evaluate its truthfulness) in order to find out? What I see in that thread is a lot of hot air about Miller, perhaps the loudest voice among them belonging to somebody (let's call him GSK) whose name has a remarkable resemblance to your username here. (GSK certainly is a PJ.) But I also see GSK getting a lot of flak in that thread. If, over at Lightstalkers, GSK and others want to rip into Miller, and others want to defend Miller and rip into GSK, they're all welcome to do so for all I care. Meanwhile, this place purports to be an encyclopedia in the making.
For all I know, Miller may have pulled his ad when he'd got 16,000 USD from four people and had no space for more. Let's wait and see if a reliable source says any more. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miller in Newsweek[edit]

The article tells us:

his work covering and following up on the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was published by Newsweek

However, a search at newsweek.com for the string "zoriah" brings no hits.

It's very likely that print and web differ, and this is particularly complex for Newsweek if (as I think) this has different versions for different markets. Still, the article should specify the issue of Newsweek. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tampering With Zoriah Miller Wikipedia Entry[edit]

The Wikipedia article refencing Zoriah was not created by Zoriah and has existed for several years now. It has been edited by numerous different people, we often see edits made to the page and have no problems with them. Some have called for citations but obviously it is difficult to provide online citations to things that happened many years ago or things that are not referenced on the web (including many print publications.) However, most of the things that people are claiming can not be backed up, we can back up and would be happy to do so. We also need to contest some of the slander and misinformation that has been added to this page after the recent controversy.

We accept the fact that Zoriah's workshop in Haiti has caused a major debate and has been criticized (by some, praised by others) in the photojournalism community. What we cannot accept is Zoriah being mis quoted with things like "charging each participant $4,000 USD to experience "the life of an award-winning photojournalist" amongst those afflicted by the January earthquake". This quote has nothing to do with Zoriah's workshop offerings and should be removed immediately...as far as we know Zoriah has never said anything like this and if he did it had nothing to do with a post-disaster workshop. We also believe that the repeated using of the word "claims" is unreasonable since these "claims" are and have been supported by actual facts (once again, please reference the links below.

He has covered disasters, critical social issues and conflict around the world.[citation needed]

A quick look at any of his websites shows the vast number of areas he has worked and subjects he has covered:

www.diariesofashooter.com www.warphotographer.org www.zoriah.net


He claims that about fifty percent of his time each year is devoted to doing pro bono work for aid and humanitarian organizations,[citation needed] How would you like us to prove this or if you want to look into our tax statements we ask that this is just removed or we can re-word it.


Zoriah's work has been exhibited around the world, not just in Denver as has been falsely written recently:

http://www.zoriah.com/exhibitionsa.html (A full list of Zoriah's exhibitions on his website

http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=091509-3 (Zoriah's exhibition at the University of Utah)

http://www.zoriah.com/publicity.html (There are numerous articles, interviews and tearsheats available here to prove that Zoriah's work is widely published and exhibited.)


http://worldpicturenews.com/web/SearchResults.aspx (Proof that Zoriah shot for WPN for a number of years. Just enter Zoriah into the search box to see the work that this agency represents. Doing the same on all of the agencies sites that host Zoriahs work will bring back similar results...including The Image Works, Reporters Agency and EyePress.)

http://www.theimageworks.com/ (Just enter Zoriah into the search box to see the work that this agency represents)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html (Zoriah's images from Iraq have been widely published including several in the New York Times)

http://www.battlespaceonline.org/zoriah/us-marines-killed-by-an-al-qaeda-suicide-bombing-1.shtml (Zoriah is part of the Battlespace project which has exhibited photos, including Zoriah's, around the world)

http://morepraxis.org.au/upperroom-hiv-aids/ (Zoriah's work exhibited in Australia)

http://translatingsilence.blogspot.com/ (Another exhibition Zoria was part of)

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22images+of+resistance%22&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=QUGGS9XDKori7AOb-82JCg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQsAQwAA (A flyer from a traveling European exhibition including Zoriah's work)

http://www.flickr.com/zoriah (here are a few photographers who dont dislike zoriah...see testimonials)

VII did have a photo contest and to varify this you can contact the managing director, and ask him the names of those who won the 2006 portfolio contest in New York City. WPN does not have a contest but their most powerful imagery list for that year included Zoriah's work so we would consider that and "Honor" and thus be acceptable in a "Honors and Awards" section.

MANY organizations, and most schools with photojournalism departments, have phtojournalist of the year awards, not just NPPA. Zoriah has never claimed, nor has anyone submitting to the Wikipeda page, that he won the NPPA award. Zoriah was name photographer of the year by Morepraxis, info on this can be found on the Morepraxis website.

Added at 05:24, 12 March 2010 by 76.15.232.67 (talk)

Then let the article expand accordingly. With luck, some people who are interested and have time will soon arrive to do more of the work. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We removed this piece as it keeps returning and is nothing but slander: "charging each participant $4,000 USD to experience "the life of an award-winning photojournalist" amongst those afflicted by the January earthquake". This quote has nothing to do with Zoriah's workshop offerings and should be removed immediately. If people will not follow the links to see that Zoriah's work has been exhibited around the world, we want that section removed completely. If we have time to gather all of the links necessary to prove this we will do it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.148 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions for you, IP.

First, among the changes that you made was one from

In a three-minute video on YouTube filmed in the [[Gaza Strip]] in 2008, Miller explains what has motivated him to take photographs in disaster areas.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOHiQMefAAQ War Photographer Zoriah - In Harms Way], YouTube, November 2008. Retrieved 6 February 2010.</ref>

to

In a one hour television program produced by Warner Brothers [[Gaza Strip]] in 2008, Miller explains what has motivated him to take photographs in disaster areas.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOHiQMefAAQ War Photographer Zoriah - In Harms Way], YouTube, November 2008. Retrieved 6 February 2010.</ref>

So you're using YouTube as the authority for an assertion that Miller appeared in this TV program. Putting aside the question of whether Youtube videos are reliable sources (and it's generally agreed that they are not), I don't see any evidence of a TV program. What am I missing?

(I could ask several more questions like this, but it's too laborious to write them all out.)

Secondly, though I as a private person refer to myself in the first person singular, you use the first person plural. Why is this? And what's your relationship to Miller? -- Hoary (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O[edit]

I saw that there was a pending 3O for this page. While there hasn't been any actual discussion here, I'll go based on the comments left at User talk:Gskphoto#Zoriah Miller yet again. Aside from the fact that Gskphoto clearly has an axe to grind with Miller, adding dubious remarks like "claims to" and screeds like "unethical journalism" are unacceptable. This set of edits is particularly troubling due to its entire lack of reliable sourcing. If any sources could be provided to illustrate anything, then perhaps we could discuss its inclusion. But as it stands right now, text like that is wholly unacceptable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the claims made by the person who write and re-writes Zoriah's page (most probably ZOriah himself) are backed by any form of truth. None of the links put on the as refs are real sources, most don't even point to website that relate to those claims, the others are websites owned by Miller. This subject has been widely discussed a few month ago, and changes were made, but recently some changes have been made back to the way it was, apparently with Hoary's support, who's only response is a threat to block from editing.

Zoriah Miller did not win any substantial award in journalism, neither is he "widely published and exhibited", and all of that was proven in the last discussion. Yet, all these changes were made without providing a single new proof.

There is very litle doubt that this page was written by Zoriah himself, as the professional photojournalism industry regards him as a complete joke: Search Zoriah on lightstalkers.org the largest forum for photojournalists. search Zoriah on Google and you'll see comments that explain who this guy really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.141.184 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the others are websites owned by Miller Specify which these are, and provide evidence. ¶ recently some changes have been made back to the way it was, apparently with Hoary's support, who's only response is a threat to block from editing Rubbish. I threatened a block of Gskphoto -- are you and he related? -- and the threat still stands. The reasons are on his talk page. My other responses include reverting most but not all of Gskphoto's changes to the article, and making other minor improvements to it. See the article history for yourself. ¶ If there is substantial commentary from reliable sources on who Miller really is, this can be added. Wikipedia doesn't bother with message-forum scuttlebutt. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the About page, or even just the title of the website of each of these websites that YOU added. He doesn't hide it for a minute. Zoriah.com Zoriah.net warphotographer.org www.diariesofashooter.com http://zoriahphoto.blogspot.com/ ... added by Gskphoto in this edit
Which of these is presented as a reference, and for what? -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say there hasn't been a discussion here? Read the very long page above this text, every point has been addressed and proven. this article should have been deleted as blatant and fake self promo a long time ago.125.25.141.184 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't, so what are you going to do about this? You can do something about it. (Here's how.) Or you can just continue to whine about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course i have an axe to grind with someone who is actively giving a bad name to my profession, behaves in a completely unethical manner, and spends more time self promoting himself (like wiriting Wiki articles about himself) than actually taking pictures. But besides all that? "he claims" means he claims, yet no proof has been given, it's the difference between someone's delusions about himself and reality. Read the discuccion, the "We" part could have only been written by Zoriah himself yet, when i mention reality, Hoary is more worried about his record being reverted than keeping the truth relating to this matter, so he chooses to threaten me with blocking my future edits to scare me off revertiing his changes. no 1 editor here holds absolute truth. and Wiki should always be relying on clean, crisp facts. nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskphoto (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's have clean, crisp facts, from reliable sources. Do you have any? -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Hoary is right. The crux of Wikipedia is that all text on here must be verifiable by and attributable to reliable sources. This rule is even more true on biography articles where the person is still living, of which this is one. Without sources, text cannot be added, and text that's libelous, malicious or otherwise disparaging is wholly unacceptable. Whatever Miller has done here on Wikipedia is irrelevant unless he's edited this article directly. The fact is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder towards him, and rather than blast him on Wikipedia where we have actual rules about what is and is not allowed, you may want to focus your efforts elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All text must be verifiable. Exactly! Yet, the vast majority of the claims made by whoever wrote this article are not verifiable. The awards, recognitions, publications, exhibitions are all sourced/ ref from Zoriah's own websites.

The only verified facts are:

  • An award from "Photophilantropy", an organization owned by Zoriah's friend and former client. (yes, she says that on her website too)
  • A controversy involving Zoriah being dis-embedded from a marines unit and banned from embedding with US forces again for breaking the rules and publishing photos of injured and dead US soldiers without their approval.
  • A controversy involving Zoriah offering a workshop in Haiti for 4,000$ per person during the recent earthquake.

The changes were made and stayed like that for a while, but then reverted and accepted by none other than Hoary himself. Hoary: Are you related in a personal way to "Zoriah"? I doubt you would answer the question honestly if you are, but the question still remains. After making all the changes at my request after a painstaking procedure where i had to provide you several proofs about each point a few months ago, you suddenly chose to rewrite this into a glorifying article that is riddled with lies and unverified information.

One thing is sure, if you do a tiny bit of research, Zoriah is known in the industry... As the laughing stock. Gskphoto (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"Gskphoto (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you related in a personal way to "Zoriah"? I doubt you would answer the question honestly if you are -- Then any answer from me would be a waste of your time and mine. If you believe that I am related in a personal way, then feel free to take the matter up at "WP:COI". -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube as citation?[edit]

Is this appropriate? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zoriah Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zoriah Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoriah_Miller&oldid=1206150678"