Talk:Ed Gold/Archive 1

Note
I worked this over. Person is clearly notable. Page just wanted a bit of cleanup and formalizing. I removed the UPE tag. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Useful resource
Editors may find this source useful, which documents his work in north-eastern British Columbia, Canada.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ed Gold Photographer Portrait.jpg

Article would benefit from having some examples of Gold's work
At present, there is a photograph of Gold which he uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and licensed for free use. The article would benefit from having a couple of examples of his work with similar licenses, or with more restricted licenses. Does anyone know of such material, which would be better than going down the "fair use" path to place examples in the article? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Help editing 'Wikipedia's article about me'

 * & :  Thank you very much for your helpful and thoughtful replies. Your information is exactly what I was looking for. I would like to mention that EddieLeVisco is my newly approved User name, and that I am the subject of the article. I am indeed [|Ed Gold], a British photographer. I appreciate the work that volunteers have done recently on Wikipedia's article about me, it is looking much better already.

I will only send information one story at a time as I do not wish to ask for too much help, too fast. The issue is that I have over 100 newspaper stories about my work and I would like to include the main ones and fit them into 'Wikipedia's article about me' in some sort of correct order of date. But perhaps there does not need to be any sequence by date and it doesn't matter? That can be up to how much time you have to help me and what is considered the correct way to do things. I am still new to navigating around Wikipedia and am learning your etiquette as I go along.

Where my Wikipedia pages starts a paragraph with: "Gold has also spent time living amongst the..." please could you insert, before "...and the US Army at the..." a mention of me documenting the Canadian British Columbia First Nation reservation 'Prophet River' where the Dane-zaa, historically referred to as the Beaver tribe by Europeans, are an Athabaskan-speaking group of First Nations people. (I have made 4 visits to this reservation - twice in 2009, 2014 and 2015. I can supply a link to the newspaper article here: - you can download this file if you need to by clicking on the 3 vertical dots at the top right of the screen AND you can also zoom into it to read it also. This newspaper article was written by FORT NELSON NEWS on Wednesday 14 October 2015 and also BBC News published an online news piece using my work here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-34667118. I do not want to ask you to do more in one edit here and have some more stories in the future. I thank you very much for your help. Please give me an idea of how often I can ask you for additional help.EddieLeVisco (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, now we are in the correct place, I'll take a look at the material you have supplied and think about how to incorporate it. If I find that easy, I'll go ahead and add to the article: otherwise I'll comment back here. There is no need to "ping" me again, as this page is now on my Watchlist. Likewise I won't ping you, as I'll assume you are watching it. I suggest you start a new section (as you did just now) for each subject area you wish to improve, which will help me and others keep track of progress. I tend to add the tag ✅, which renders as ✅ to actionable items I've finished. Note that I created a section just above this one which you may like to think about. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically ✅. Overall article tidied up and given more structure. References checked and cited more fully in most cases. Key section on photojournalism split into projects (alphabetically for want of a better idea) and given wikilinks where appropriate. The long Google link (put in square brackets so it doesn't clutter the page) does not work for me, so that potential reference was omitted. However, the BBC one on its own is fine. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work on the editing, though it's not clear why the two images have been added, they look rather weird and surplus, not illustrating anything of importance. (Unsigned contribution by )
 * There's method to my madness. Please indulge me for a couple of days at least and don't revert them. I'm being WP:BOLD for a reason related to the section immediately above this one. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss
In ending the Section just above, I wanted to illustrate another feature of WP etiquette — see WP:BRD. Although I edited yesterday along the lines we had WP:CONSENSUS for, I decided to be WP:BOLD and also included two image files: reckoning that they would do to spice the article up a bit while we await suitable photographs. Note how, within seconds, had posted a comment — forgetting to sign it in his haste to make a point! He was, correctly, a bit unsure whether the images illustrated anything of importance and hence "not clear why [they] have been added". Despite being happy with the rest of my editing, he could and perhaps should have reverted (i.e. removed the images). Importantly, if he had done so I would have then moved on to discuss that narrow issue here on the talk page. I would not have re-reverted him and insisted on my "version" of the article: that would have been the beginnings of an edit war, with potentially serious consequences for the combatants, as described at WP:EW.

Now you can see one of the pitfalls of having an biography article on WP. While the editors, in good faith and in the right way decide what would be best for the article by "chatting" on its Talk page, the wider world sees the new images — and the subject of the article may be apoplectic, knowing that it is forbidden to do a revert, while perhaps hating that s/he is now associated with the military in quite that way. Moving on, editor 1 (me) could put the case that Gold clearly chose to work with soldiery and, as far as is known from WP:RS doesn't regret being associated with them, while editor 2 (Theroadislong) grumbles that these particular images add very little. Later, other editors who are watching the page, like, I bet, come along. Hopefully the crux of the argument becomes "do those images say anything we are certain about regarding Gold" (answer, no unless reliable secondary source is found) and "are they about Gold?" (answer, no, they are about the army units concerned). So the result of the discussion is likely to be they disappear quite quickly. But I'm not going to do that myself until Therodislong and David have had at least a while to comment. They may think different arguments come into play. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Out. And I deleted the SnugPak sentence and ref. David notMD (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * SnugPak is an interesting case we might like to think more broadly about. In biographies of (mainly dead) academics such as Lord Todd would it be OK to include the names of corporations who had provided funding, research support and so on and without which progress would have been much slower? In chemistry, there are/were schemes like CASE Awards where industry and academia cooperated, with funding in addition to that provided by the Science and Engineering Research Council. Many academic papers acknowledge such support and most journals insist it be disclosed for COI reasons. Are you aware of a WP policy on this question, ? That preamble leads me to ask whether WP:BLP can/should include sponsorship. Ed Gold is a freelancer who relies partly on sponsorship. If he had been a full-time employee as in-house photographer for a company, that employer would certainly get a mention in the article. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it would be a plausible reach if he was sponsored by a camera company. Being a "brand ambassador" for two years for a company that is not yet a Wikipedia article in its own right is a sleeping bag too far. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice thought, given how far across the world he's gone :-) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been following progress and am very grateful to you all, thank you.EddieLeVisco (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
Any chance we could have the occasional reliable independent secondary source? The BBC sources are all primary. Secondary sources are required by policy because Wikipedians are not supposed to be the sole arbiters of the significance and reception of a thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article is just a list of "Photojournalism projects" sourced to the BBC, but we need independent sources to establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a tricky question and one we need, perhaps, to discuss more widely than just in in relation to this particular article. I'll kick off with a couple of comments but start with a question: "what would a reader of Wikipedia want to see when reading a WP:BLP of a WP:NOTABLE, but not notorious, person?" A scientist, an author, a photojournalist but not a global celebrity? Someone whose name they have come across externally to Wikipedia and are investigating here because they see WP as a reliable source.

I don't think they particularly need or expect to know where the individual was born (i.e. in which hospital and on what date) — and WP obfuscates that for BLP. A month and city is plenty. On the other hand, the hypothetical reader does probably expect to see a list of more significant works, perhaps summarised by third parties and presented in a WP:NPOV way as for J K Rowling. That's fine for superstars like her but what about less written-about but interesting people such as Stephen Ley, to take an example I happen to know about. His article currently mainly shows his honours and awards (because, I assume, these can be found in WP:RS). On the other hand, I as an organic chemist am really much more interested in how he has contributed to our field — something almost completely absent from the article. To expand that section could easily be done but would need to use primary sources, especially to peer-reviewed articles he might have written. Such peer-review makes (some) science articles move more towards WP:SECONDARY than might appear at the outset. Anyway, once we have established that someone passes the WP:NOTABLE hurdle, what's wrong with adding selected additional WP:PRIMARY sources to flesh out the full article?

Going back to Gold, I would expect the interested reader to look at the article here to see (selected, more significant) examples of his work but without WP:OR we are totally reliant on what is "out there" about him. Now, to me a reference like this is WP:SECONDARY just because it is NOT about him, it is about his work — and the BBC is clearly a WP:RS that take editorial responsibility for what they publish on their website. In the article there are some clear secondary sources such as from the www.essexmums website: the trouble is most people wouldn't see them as terribly "weighty" opinions about Gold: certainly not so weighty as that expressed by Don McCullin, if we editors could find such a thing. BUT essexmums are in the list of references to confirm the facts about certain solo exhibitions, not to pontificate about Gold's worthiness as a photojournalist. It is for that reason that I don't think that we should be deleting material from the article (as did today for "fighting the flab"). Better to mark it as to see if the sourcing can be improved than undo (my) work in putting it in there in the first place. As we work to getting the article past start class, there might come a time for deletion of less well-sourced bits but why do so now that it is still a clear work-in-progress?

That's my starter-for-ten but much more could be said, once we get a debate going. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If his work is notable it will have been reported on in independent sources, if there are no such sources then the content doesn't belong here, Wikipedia only reports on what reliable independent sources have said about a topic, his own website can list all his projects. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My point is more regarding the fact that (as I think you said elsewhere!) WP is a work in progress. So, editor (a) adds something that is true and WP:V but hasn't the time to add the citation to the WP:RS. Then along comes editor (b), who adds the tag, so that editor (c) can spend some time finding and improving the article. Only when the collaboration has reached, say, "C" on WP:Content_assessment does the issue of what to throw out arise, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems far simpler to just add the secondary source from the outset, if there is one? I can't find one. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with the BBC one I had already added? It said "Photographer Ed Gold decided to find out what drove members of his local Anytime Fitness gym in Colchester to keep putting in the hard work." That is, a WP:RS (the BBC) referred to Gold as a third party who had done a piece of work. The webpage does NOT say "I interviewed members of my local gym". I of course agree that it's best to add the source from the outset but sometimes real life intervenes! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC reporting on it's own work surely cannot be considered an independent source? Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, if this were an article about the BBC. But it isn't, it is about Gold, and thanks,, what you are doing just now seems like a good compromise. Here are four other links for you to take a look at:
 * BBC News Website 'In pictures': Generations of change (2 photos and text for Water Aid - just an article that used a couple of Gold's photos) -
 * BBC News Website 'In pictures': A day in the life of a Polish nurse - written by Gold but not about Gold.
 * BBC News Website 'In pictures': Bitter to better: Squatters transforming a derelict pub - again reportage by Gold not about him
 * BBC News Website 'In pictures': The remote UK community living off-grid - reports what Gold did in a third-party way
 * I can't add any of these to the article now that I have been accused of WP:COI and/or WP:PAID — total bollocks, but there we are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional secondary source.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ At last a source that mentions him! I've added it thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Third-party source for Atchley family (Alaska) mentions BBC reporter = Gold: Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No mention of Gold here? Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He is the BBC in the quote "According to the BBC, who visited the Atchley’s home in 2017, the family spend the shorter winter days doing carpentry, cleaning and repairs." This report is from an Australian online news outlet. Do you think that their reporter Vanessa Brown ever visited the Atchleys? No, she communicated with them over Skype (see video at the top of the article) having been alerted to their existence by reading Gold's BBC account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a different perception of "in-depth" coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We may just differ in opinion about what should be in a WP:BLP. Gold went to some trouble to visit the Atchleys: his first visit there was "in depth" and resulted in work documented in as well as on his own website. It was not the same as a casual vox pop interview of the type BBC journalists do every day from their local office. Hence IMO it should be covered in his biography. What we quote as WP:RS sources to WP:V this part of his career depends on what we can find "out there" and in this case may not require coverage that is itself in depth about him — the coverage merely backs up what we already know from the more primary sources: and such sources are certainly not forbidden on WP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)