Talk:Rankin (photographer)/Archive 1

Dead link removed

• Biography on Bailey+Rankin website

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Text removed

The text I just removed seems to have been copied wholesale from Photographers Limited Editions which I think makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia. Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: also noted at User talk:Rankinphotography. If it continues, a report to WP:COIN would be in order. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Basic Error

It says he was born in Paisley, Gasgow. Paisley is not in Glasgow--- Paisley is a town in its own right and Glasgow is a city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.178.126 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No references to "Britain’s Missing Top Model" show.

This is just to point out that there is a reference missing for his statement on the show's website. Sanjit Nair (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Entirely copied from bio page

The current version seems to be copied in its entirety from http://rankin.co.uk/biography/. With all due respect, this seems very inappropriate to me. 178.27.41.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

I looked it through and no doubt it certainly is, I am reverting this due to copyright violations. Donnie Park (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Still reads like a CV to me. --Ef80 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

possible sources?

These might be useful for citing some of the unsourced content. Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/11337370/Rankin-I-see-the-person-not-the-celebrity.html
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/rankin-you-ask-the-questions-532747.html
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rankin-if-i-ever-get-hard-up-ill-just-sell-a-kate-moss-smt02d2dm
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rankin-is-tuuli-thankful-for-his-lot-5j33r2mfw7r

Unsourced exhibitions

Just as an observer, but the section in a BLP article has been tagged as unsourced. To MB - as a compromise - why not wait the normal period of a month or so to see if Contrafibularity can find sources to support the inclusion? If not, the section gets removed. I personally agree with removal, as there is currently nothing to show notability of these exhibitions. There is no argument that they happened, but are they notable? But then again - that's what the request for sources is for, and I suppose there's nothing unreasonable in giving a pro-insertion editor time to find some. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This list of work does not belong in the article, even if properly sourced. The article is supposed to be a encyclopedic summary of the person. It should not contain a complete list of every exhibition, documentary, publication, short film, music video, and commercial. We are not a web host and are not here to promote people. Some "selected works" that demonstrate why the person is notable can be included. There is a link, right in the infobox, to the subjects website, where presumably someone could go to find this list. It does not belong here. MB 14:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, MB, Theroadislong, this page has been plagued by WP:COI editing for the last fourteen years or so. It really needs to be mostly or entirely rewritten by unconflicted editors. The last non-COI version might be this; can anyone access those two Independent articles? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is one of them https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/rankin-an-image-maker-at-the-cutting-edge-of-fashion-103070.html are you able to see that? Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand why cites are being asked for some items, but Theroadislong has removed a large chunk for 'cite bombing' so that seems contactictory as before the recent edits there were numerous requests for cites in his bio and elsewhere, so whats the opionion on that....for instance, this article https://smartify.org/artists/rankin mentions Thirsk, Brighton & Barnfield so one cite would cover all those institutions. His early life is covered by the article mentioned above by theroadislong. His marriage to Kate Hardie has been removed despite is being on her Wiki page and in more than one article www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Interview%3A+I+learnt+a+lot+from+mum+and+dad%27s+break-up%3B+ACTRESS...-a060171082 so its still appears that cites are being asked for for every iota of information on there?

David Baileys page also has lists of uncited exhibitions and publications are all of those noteable? addmittedly Rankins page is now over egged as the list is too comprehensive, not selected so trimming it and addin a few cites (so not bombing) should be an option without it tipping over into self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrafibularity (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Contrafibularity, please read about what constitutes a reliable source. This is not one, or anything like one – it was copied from our article in 2018, as is (for once!) clearly stated on that page ("Text courtesy of Wikipedia, 2018"). The freelibrary.com link appears to be a copyvio, as it is clearly marked "COPYRIGHT 1999 MGN LTD No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder". I've truncated the url you gave for it, as we do not permit linking to copyvio sites. If you can identify the original article it might or might not be a reliable source for the page about Hardie.

I asked you here to disclose any conflict of interest you may have in relation to this topic, but I don't see that you've done so. Why do I ask? Because of your 35 edits in the last year, only 6 minor edits are not to this page or related to this person. Most specifically, if you are paid by him or on his behalf, disclosure is obligatory. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Contrafibularity, as I pointed out in my first post - there is no doubt that the events happened, the issue is are they notable enough to be included? and that is what requires sourcing - something to say that any given exhibition stood out and was critiqued in mainstream media. David Bailey's page is probably due a prune as well, but that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF and simply heading over there to hack & slash because it's happening here is somewhat pointy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No I'm not paid by him, I knew Rankin in the 80s in St.Albans then into the early 90's until Dazed took off and he went all celebrity, I was also at LCP the year after him hence being aware of the 'Untiltled' magazine he did for ULU, I couldn't find any refs on-line, but I have a copy of one of the issues whih is why I added it to the Bio...but as that ref has been removed I assume its not noteable, the reason for filling out that early section was it was an intersting time in Media with magaziines like the Face & ID feeling a bit stagnant, hence new ventures Like Dazed coming along to share the shelves with those old stalwarts, it was an interesting time and felt his page was a good place to mention it, so maybe that was wrong. Above no one mentions why the Kate Hardie marriage has been removed, thats a fact so seems odd to take it off. As far as his works, I like completeness so researched, which was easy and added (along with a couple of others by the look of it) until it was a complete list, this is my fault for thinking wiki is a resource for gathering info about a subject rather than being a springboard for further reseach, a précis rather than an essay, so clearly I added too much info. Anyhow, I dont really care either way, obviously any kind of edit war is pointless & I have nothing to gain..I'd thought I was making the page more interesting,seems that wasn't the case or maybe interesting isn;t the point of Wiki so just came across as promoting him in some way, but he does it himself quite well....so if anyone here fancies revising the any of the listed works or leaving it blank then fine, I'm done doing anything else to it. I use Wiki alot for work, its an amazing resource, personally I'd like more info on pages not less, but if thats not the remit then fine. BTW, if anyone want to check then quite a few of those minor edits were correcting spelling/grammar etc by myself and other users, not just adding info.

I don't really have the time or will to trawl the web & see if anyone decidie anything he did is notable, maybe none of it is...maybe the 90's would look the same without his input.

BTW...I was in no way suggesting myself or anyone else should head over to David Baileys page to hack & slash, not sure why you would say that. Hes a genius & an icon...I only mentioned him as a ref to what I saw here, thats all....and I don't think its due a Prune either, what would be the point of that other than degrading the page?

If this comes across as snippy or like I'm offronted, I'm really not...I'm actually surprised the edits have drawn this attention (btw, quite a few of those minor edits were coreecting spelling/grammar etc by myself and other users), shows the system works even if I don't fully agree with all the reasoning behind it....the great thing about Wiki is its moderated by a ton of people, anyone can now come along and addd/delete & be part of the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrafibularity (talk • contribs) 08:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

any feedback or comments MB, Justlettersandnumbers, or Theroadislong as you all seem quite invested in this page? Contrafiblularity

(fixed notification by Contrafibularity who did not sign).

No one will object to correcting grammar/spelling. Unfortunately, if there is so much unsourced/COI/promotiional editing in an article sometimes the best solution is to go back before it all started, even if some improvements get removed also.

As far as adding back some exhibits and other examples of their work, it is fine to have a showcase of some of the most significant or well-known ones. The section is commonly called "Selected works". But when it gets too long and appears to be a resume-like list or a catalog of all their work it is just too promotional. MB 00:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

sure thing, will keep in mind for future edits on any pages Contrafibularity (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, this is my first time seeing these comments, as I am new to Wikipedia. I had re-written the start of the biographical bit of the page, as it wasn't accurate when I first saw it (wrong place of birth)and I thought it could be improved.I didn't realise I had to add citations for every fact I added, even if they have been widely covered online, which was my mistake. I don't want to add any more edits until I know that it won't cause a problem - at the moment his page seems to have been wiped of all his works, so I am really sorry if my making edits has caused this - my intention was to improve the page, but instead it has been almost completely deleted. I didn't realise that the pages on Wikipedia were moderated by editors who control them - I thought it was open-access and anyone could contribute, so I am understanding things better now. Can I ask for the recent wipe of the page to be restored, if I can make any changes required by the editors? I could add ISBN numbers to all the books, for instance, or trim down the lists of exhibitions and commercials, adding citations or linking to the contributors, if that would help? I really do want to improve the page, and I'm happy to put the work in. And looking at the comments above - I do not work for Rankin, and I am not affiliated with him in any way. Please give me any guidance you can, so that I can try to restore his page so that it is in line with, for instance, Herb Ritts, David Bailey, or Don McCullin, who all have lists of books, exhibitions, commercials and their other professional work.CujoJnr (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hospital porter

A few minutes ago ITV News mentioned that Rankin worked a hospital porter, early in his career. Does anyone know when, and where, or have a citation we can use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Now added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Music videos?

What role did Rankin do in these music videos? The list was added 11 January 2015 without refs and has been carried forward ever since. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

he directed them https://musicvideo.fandom.com/wiki/Rankin::CujoJnr (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a Wiki and not a reliable source as it is user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if that's true, it doesn't necessarily make them notable without reliable third party sources mentioning them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

his role as a director of music videos has been well documented online in the public domain, he is well known for this role. Whether it is a notable act to direct a music video with McFly, for instance, in it, I couldn't say, but Herb Ritts, for instance, has a list of the music videos he directed on his page without individual citations for each one. Actually of all the directors I checked the Wiki pages of, none of them had individual citations on each commercial or music video they directed to justify it as a notable work, so it would seem that this page is being held to a different standard than others. If each published book, each directed music video or directed commercial needs to be reduced to the entries which can be referenced and citated online, I will try to reduce them as you have instructed, and try again to replace the list of his works to his page::CujoJnr (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists as to why article "X" cannot be used as a yardstick for article "Y". WP:FANCRUFT and MOS:EMBED also exist as to why all this detail (without sourcing and justification) is not necessarily a good idea. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "all this detail"- my intention is to restore some of the works of the subject. The music videos have always in the past, before being deleted recently, been linked to the contributors and to the works themselves. I would appreciate any help you can offer in restoring this page in line with other pages of similar subjects::CujoJnr (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Rankin has directed over a hundred commercials, and dozens of music videos, and at the moment all these have been deleted from the page. He has had dozens of books published, and has had a number of notable exhibitions. All this information is now missing from the page, after the big deletion/wipe recently. These should be added, as an example of his work, to be factual::CujoJnr (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, if his commercials have been reported on in significant detail in reliable sources then we can add them, otherwise NOT, Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

before the recent complete deletion of all his works; mention of his books, videos, and commercials were all verifiably linked on wikipedia to his contributors and can be linked elsewhere in the public domain, and should not be considered unreliable sources or additions. these are all easily citated. I understand that editors have felt it recently necessary to wipe and remove all these works. My only wish is to restore this page in line with other artists of a similar status. I would again mention Herb Ritts, or David Bailey. These artists have uncitated mentions of their works in wikipedia which have not been deleted. I would appreciate any help you can give me to restore this page to reflect the artists body of work.I would say that his contributors may be be made very upset and unhappy that their works in relation to Rankin have been deleted recently, while I understand that this may not be an issue for wikipedia editors, I would say that a great deal of unhappiness may be generated by the recent deletion of all Rankin's works. We may need to consider the wellbeing of his collaborators, if not the artists wellbeing..::CujoJnr (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

See other poor quality articles exist, it is not a good argument both those articles are tagged for poor sourcing. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way personally, and that wellbeing is not an issue for you. If you have any suggestions to improve the page, rather than mass cropping and deletions of information, please message me and let me know how the page can be improved in line with your philosophy::CujoJnr (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What? "We may need to consider the wellbeing of his collaborators, if not the artists wellbeing" Do you have a conflict of interest here? This has NOTHING to do with the way I feel about anything, it is Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, if reliable sources with significant coverage of the body of work can be found, you are free to add the content. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I certainly have no contact with any of Rankin's collaborators or the artist himself. I have recently referenced other artists on Wikipedia who have similar pages. It seems that this page is being held to a different standard to other artists on wikipedia, and my only intention is to restore the page in line with similar artists. I would hope that we can all consider the wellbeing of contributors to wikipedia. This page has recently had all the artists works deleted, and I am attempting to restore them in a way which is appropriate by wikipedias guidelines. I hope that you can join me in this effort.::CujoJnr (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing "This article needs additional citations for verification" & "This section of a biography of a living person does not include any references or sources" alerts

Hi,

I have made the required changes - everything has citations, and I added what I think was missing in the opening paragraph, which was a date of birth. I can't work out how to remove the alerts, though - can anyone help, please?

And if any of the citations are unsuitable or need changing, please let me know, and I can make those changes.I have added another 2 citations to the opening paragraph, justifying his using the name Rankin, and his general work as mentioned in the paragraph, hopefully the request for additional citations can be removed CujoJnr (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately interviews are not reliable or independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

please give an example of what might be considered a reliable or independent source, if interviews with the international media are not considered sufficent? I'm sure enough material exists in the public record to prove that the subject has photographed the people mentioned in the opening paragraph, so if you can give me some guidance, I'm sure I can link to it, and my only intention, as I'm sure yours is, is to reflect reality as it presents itself in regard to the subject of the page. He has very famously photographed all the subjects mentioned in the opening paragraph, and this has been frequently mentioned in the public domain https://www.famousphotographers.net/rankin::CujoJnr (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

the banner request for additional citations still appears despite added citations - how can this be removed?::CujoJnr (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you think that the issue is resolved you are free to remove the template.Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not have the know-how to remove the template, I have tried and failed, I would appreciate any help you could give?::CujoJnr (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

i see that despite the opening paragraph being heavily edited recently, the template stating that additional verification remains. I have looked up Wikipedia's policy on this, and they say that these are not intended to remain as permanent "badges of shame" (Wikipedia's words), but should be placed to highlight an issue, and removed when the issue has been resolved. What remains of the opening paragraph is fully citated, with no issues yet flagged with any of the citations, and I am not able to remove this myself. Even his date of birth (verified online) has been deleted ::CujoJnr (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A massive load of codswallop

This page appears to be stuffed to the gills with unsourced and/or unbelievable content. Example: about a photography project in 2009 we read that "For seven weeks in 2009 with his Rankin Live project he photographed people directly from the streets, completing one shoot every 15 minutes, with the portraits printed and hung within 30 minutes. He finally photographed 8,000 to 10,000 people for the project, with each subject getting a print of their portrait to take away". Did anyone do the arithmetic? Seven weeks is 98 days, so to do 8000 photos he'd have needed to average 81.6 per day; at 15 minutes each, that would've taken him just under 20 hours and 25 minutes per day. To do 10000 he'd have needed to work a little more than 25 and a half hours per day. That's quite an achievement. Not surprisingly, the source does not remotely support the claim. I'm not sure what's been going on here or when, but it needs to stop. Andy Mabbett, Chaheel Riens, MB, Theroadislong, do you by any chance have any spare time you could devote to cleaning this up? It's just taken an hour out of my life and I'm only at the second sentence of the Career section. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ping Pigsonthewing, failed before. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, this is obviously an emotional situation for you. Do you consider that the subject has not achieved anything which is described on his page?everything is citated with external verifications.::CujoJnr (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

CujoJnr, I have no emotional involvement in this at all – I have exactly zero interest in this person, who I have never heard of outside this page. My only interest is in making sure that Wikipedia content is accurate and well-sourced – that's something I do care about. Since this page is not, I'd like to see it cleaned up. Yes, as above, I consider that the claim that he photographed 8000–10000 people in seven weeks is (a) unbelievable and (b) unsupported by the source cited. That claim was added here by Contrafibularity. What was your source for that, Contrafibularity, and why did you not cite it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I was really trying to stay out of this page, but this recent activity drew me back in...I agree there is no cite for the 8000/10000 people being photographed, I added that after talking to a journalist for Vogue who may have been referring to the whole project which also went abroad for a longer period.....from what I can see the actual figure for the Truman Brewery shoot was 1600, according to an article in Artylst not sure where they got this number from so I'm not going to even try putting that back in, if someone wants to then go for it. However, I completely disagree that the page is 'stuffed to the gills' with 'unsourced and/or unbelievable content', for someone who has zero interest & has never heard of Rankin outside of this page then I fail to see how you are such an authority on what is unbelievable, with all these revisions looks like almost everything that can be is cited...so what else do you think comes under that banner? also if you have never heard of him and have zero interest what drew your attention, there are 55 million wiki pages, so casual browsing can't have been the reason & titling this section 'A massive load of codswallop' is pretty off really considering its clearly not all 'codswallop' Contrafibularity (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The obvious codswallop was removed by me, namely " He finally photographed 8,000 to 10,000 people for the project" and "talking to a journalist for Vogue" has absolutely zero value on Wikipedia, all sources need to be published, we cannot rely on what you have heard. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

exactly, I have no argument with that and say as much in my comment above, so repeating that back to me like I don't understand doesn't really help as I've already conceded that point, pointed out an aticle with a much lower figure & clearly understand that hearsay has no place on Wiki. if the 'codswallop' was just that item then the article was hardly 'stuffed to the gills' with it......and yes I have seen all the little changes that have been made in addition. Contrafibularity (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

looking at the page now, it has been hacked back until it barely makes sense. Not only have all the works of the artist been stripped out and deleted, every paragraph and sentence has been written and re-written recently- I have asked for help in making the page better, and nobody has replied - when I have made edits, they have been immediately deleted. Even the citated mention that he studied accounting at Brighton before dropping out has been wiped from the page, and it is hard to understand why. Can anybody help me understand why biographical elements which have been citated and verified have been deleted? The citated and verified mention of him starting a student magazine has been cut out::CujoJnr (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at the History? It looks like nearly all of the edits have edit summary comments giving a reason why each individual change was made. MB 20:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

the addition has been added again by me with a clear number of subjects, it has been citated, I hope that is sufficient::CujoJnr (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Rankins name

I reverted the edit on his name back to Rankin....here why. theroadislong (talk) I left a message on your talk page giving the reason (comparable pages of people know by a mononym used as their name throughout the page) before Justlettersandnumbers reverted it back, I don't want to get in an edit war over this tiny thing so perhaps before anyone changes it again (if indeed anyone is thinking about it...) they can explain why this would apply to him and not the people mentioned in my explanation & discuss here before going ahead, as recommended by the edit war flag thats appeared on my talk page. In fact if there was a little more discussion on here instead of lists of changes it'd save wasting everyines valuable time.Contrafibularity (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I support the use of "Rankin" throughout the article. WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, it seems to be accepted practice that when an individual is commonly known by a specific name - even if that isn't their given name - we use it here for clarity. Even if the mononym in this case wasn't used in their early life or career, it still seems applicable for consistency. There are many articles that adhere to this - Lady Gaga for example that states "Gaga began playing the piano at age four...", etc. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

100% if someone uses a name as their professional name, I think that should be allowed.::CujoJnr (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)