Talk:Magnum Photos

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

Photography: History Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Surname, forename in list[edit]

The "last name" first, "first name" last format of this list is unlike other Wikipedia lists, so I suggest it be changed to conform to others (like the List of photographers. Pinkville 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the list is a sortable wikitable, I propose reworking it again to surname, forename, to allow searching by surname. (Here's the list before and after, for reference.) Is there any support here for doing this? --Trevj (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Member list[edit]

Reading WP:Not and looking at this list, I'm wondering if Wiki should include all these names, regardless of whether the photographer has an article. Seeing as the majority of names are not associated with and article, and Magnum maintains its own list, I think we should trim down the list to only include names with articles. This would make the list easier to maintain and help prevent hoax entries. Anyone wishing to see the exhaustive list could always go to the Magnum site. TheMindsEye 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something in what you say -- but the Magnum site doesn't have the exhaustive list. Instead, it has current members, associates and nominees, and a unexplained collection of some past members (the most famous ones, perhaps).

This list is indeed a mess and I may have made it worse in places. One problem is that various sources say that various people "joined Magnum" in this or that year without saying which of four or more possible meanings "join" has. -- Hoary (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to try and sort out this list, I apologise to Hoary for my earlier uncited edits - should one cite for every single detail on the member list? I am in the process of researching for this page and will attempt to clear up the differences between nominee, associate, member, contributor and correspondant for everyone which has long been very ambigious. Barbicanf (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed! You're new hereabouts; there are a zillion rules and you can't be expected to take them all in at once, even the important ones. Unfortunately, yes one should cite something for every damn detail. And yes, this is very tiresome. Though with practice, it becomes a little easier and faster. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Markosian and Matt Stuart[edit]

Diana Markosian and Matt Stuart were made Nominees on 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.33.218 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added Diana Markosian, thank you. Matt Stuart was already listed. -14:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added recent Magnum Nominees Sohrab Hura, Emin Ozmen, Cristina de Middel and Enri Canaj. Barbicanf (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolios in External links[edit]

I think this link section has gotten out of hand. The portfolios -- which are largely located on a single website, are in French, and, in many cases are broken links -- really should be located on the individual photographers' pages, not in this article. TheMindsEye 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominees[edit]

I see no reason to list nominees, present or past, and suggest removing them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Magnum nominees and associates can remain in the process for up to 5 years, I feel that it is necessary to list them - especially as they have an increasingly large role within the agency. Indeed, for research purposes, people ought to be able to find out who are current nominees within Magnum. Barbicanf (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years on, I've got mixed feelings. For research purposes, people perhaps ought to be able to find out who previously were nominees. (For the current nominees, they can just go to Magnum's website.) Presumably the people who once were nominees but no longer have a connection with Magnum include a few who decided that Magnum was not for them; but I guess that more of them, well, failed to advance. Do we want to publicize this? This seems rather cruel, and the benefit for research may be minor. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that even becoming a Nominee is a fiendishly difficult process, it seems logical to me to add them. However, it is also difficult to see why we should add them if we remove them if they dont 'make it.' Including all nominees past and present though is untenable, as the list is too long and not well recorded publically. Perhaps we should break up this total mess of a list into different sections, one for full members, one for estates, etc? Barbicanf (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm confused on the issue myself. On balance, I tend (today) to think that we should add them, and that if a particular nominee doesn't make it then we should say something like "Nominee 2013–2016" and leave it at that; after all, there's nothing dishonorable about this. The list would never be complete; but a list that's incomplete and described as such is more helpful than no list. If sources can be found and the list balloons to the point where Bischof, Erwitt, Riboud and similar become rather lost within it, then it can be split into two. On the other hand this time tomorrow I might have changed my mind about this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

flags?[edit]

I'm curious why there are flags in the list? It seems a little unusual and not necessarily the most useful piece of information. --Lquilter (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founders[edit]

Should Maria Eisner and William and Rita Vandivert be listen alongside the other 4 founding photographers? Traditionally, the founders are listed as HCB, Capa, Chim and Seymour, however its true the others were present in the early days of Magnum. Barbicanf (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem -- Chim was Seymour! You mean HCB, Capa, Chim/Seymour and Rodger. Recently, I've seen this simplified to HCB and Capa.

We should list the founders just as scrupulous, reliable sources list them; we should not simplify the account to agree with orthodoxy as created and reinforced by careless or lazy sources. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course chim is Seymour; it has been a long day! Anyway, The more I read the more I think that it is correct to list the other 3 as founding members. A particularly good source is Magnum's new book Magnum Manifesto and https://www.magnumphotos.com/about-magnum/history/ Barbicanf (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]