Talk:Philip Bloom (filmmaker)

I believe Philip Bloom meets the criteria given in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals

Further changes will reflect this more and more.

Dear Wiki editors, don't delete what you don't understand!


 * We understand, but you don't understand our notability requirements. The references provided are not suitable. The first does not mention him at all. The second is iffy, but by itself in sufficient. The third (Zacuto) seems to be related to sales or promotional material, and therefore not considered a reliable source. The remaining two are from his own website and are therefore primary sources, also not considered reliable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * RE Realkyhick. I will find better references. I have only had 5 minutes so far. Give me a chance to rectify it first. Philip Bloom IS a notable creative person, as much as any other cinematographer on Wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikemichaelreid (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Added IMDB entry for Philip Bloom on Red Tails (Lucasfilm), corrected lack of mention in Gizmodo ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikemichaelreid (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have a gut feeling you may be right, so I'll take down the speedy for now, with the right to post it again later if warranted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ya, we should give the guy a chance, he did just create the article less then an hour ago. i'll be keeping an eye on it too. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: WookieInHeat, Realkyhick - Thank you. Can I ask of you both a question. Philip has completed cinematography for Sky, Fox, Canon, Panasonic and the BBC - will carefully select appropriate refs soon - How reliable are the personal blogs of others as references - are they generally accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikemichaelreid (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Added BBC reference RE Philip Bloom's pioneering (as cinematographer) use of social media to share and democratise filmmaking skills
 * personal blogs don't usually qualify as a WP:RS, there are some exceptions, but very few. reliable sources usually consist of news articles from established media outlets, books and magazines published by reputable publishers, etc. if you have any further questions regarding sources feel free to ask me. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

More free images here
In case anyone wants to migrate them: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=philip%20bloom&license=4%2C5%2C9%2C10 Victor Grigas (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section dispute
The section has been added and deleted, edited and re-added and re-deleted, and now re-edited, and re-added. There is clearly a dispute over this information. It's my view that everything in this section is verifiable and accurately reflected, and does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines, given the external sourcing and references. If the other editor here disagrees, I would be more than happy to seek dispute resolution here on Wikipedia. Caracta (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, after I updated the section to include web archive copies of pages, it has been deleted. I disagree with the assessment that the lack of original live comments, via the existing news article link, creates a libel problem. The news article is from a well-known photograhy news website and contains direct quotation. The additional sources I added contain the text as written on the Bloom statement page and the Kessler page, whether live or archived. If no editor wishes to talk about this dispute, resolution seems necessary. Caracta (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is my third attempt to discuss this here, and the second with a note attached to the other editor's (user ArnoldGeoffrey1945) talk page to alert them of my desire to discuss this. My second attempt was 8 days ago. The first attempt was ignored in favour of a total reversion of my suggested edit, and the editor simply restating his position, which I believe to be incorrect. I did not write this section originally, but have edited it twice to improve its accuracy, in response to ArnoldGeoffrey1945's comments about some of the citations (such as the incorrect blog link, updated to the correct link, then updated to an archive copy). I am not interested in simply reverting back and forth without further discussion, since it seems we disagree on the reliability issue. For clarity, the main difference of opinion seems to be that ArnoldGeoffrey1945 believes that the section is based on an unreliable source, and that the source is unreliable due to lack of publicly-linked and viewable primary sources. This seems to me to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on sources. The direct linking of viewable primary sources is not the necessary requirement for the reliability of this section, and would in fact be a violation of BLP policy if done directly, with no additional reliable news source as a citation. The question over the sourcing, which the editor disregards as "3rd party", must surely rest on Wikipedia reliability policy for the news article. Certainly PetaPixel is a well-known and reputable photography industry news source, and the cited article (here) is a reliable, verifiable summary of a piece of industry news, by Wikipedia standards. It contains all necessary information, including summary and direct quotation, and has a named responsible author and is hosted on PetaPixel's site, which fulfills all necessary reliability requirements. Further links in the section simply corroborate their content. The claim that citing this source's reporting is a libel risk is simply incorrect, in my view. The deleted paragraph reflects only what is published at PetaPixel, and it reflects it accurately and fairly. It is sourced biographical content, and cannot be described as a libel risk, in my view. If I have in any way misunderstood or misrepresented ArnoldGeoffrey1945's view, or if he has knowledge of some rule I'm unaware of, I'm more than happy to discuss and resolve this, or to seek resolution if necessary. Caracta (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What I don’t understand is that there seems to be a personal agenda from you here. Do you know Bloom? Do you have a problem with him. He is not even a minor celebrity. He’s a guy who is a director of photography for hardly anything anyone has heard of. I personally have followed his work on and off and have found him to be one of the more positive presences in the filmmaking community with a reputation of honesty, ethics, education and even some very admirable work for some charitable causes.

This controversy happened five years ago and was about something ten years ago. There has not even been a whiff of anything more about it 5 years on, apart from it seems your desire to see it on his Wikipedia page.

The PetaPixel article underplays the story heavily, focusing on the Kessler business angle rather than the personal side. It clearly states this was a social media post and nothing mote. It comes across as a bad and bitter break up. There was nothing more than that. The posts read like a woman revelling in the attention she was getting, it was attention seeking. Then when Bloom put out his statement her posts were suddenly gone and that was the last we heard of her.

Kessler retracted their statement quietly some weeks later.

What we have here is a private and personal matter that has no place on a living bio. This is a man’s reputation, his life. Should a brief social media tirade by his ex be forever tied to him? No. There was no legal action, no charges, no investigation. It amounts to little more than gossip and gossip has no place on Wikipedia.

That these posts were deleted. That Kessler retracted their statement. These things to me clearly show that it was something that should never have happened in the first place. Everyone involved appears to have moved on with their lives and I see no need to perpetuate it here.

Wikipedia must maintain higher standards than sharing gossip.

I hope this makes sense to you.

AG ArnoldGeoffrey1945 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It should not be a relevant question, but since you asked, I have no personal connection whatsoever to the page subject or to anyone linked to him. My knowledge of the man stems only from my knowledge of the online filmmaking community. I have no comment whatsoever to make as to his ethics or honesty, or on the accuracy of any claims in the articles cited. Your comments regarding these topics seem overtly personal, in my view. He is, however, notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, and on that page is cited biographical information. I didn't create this section, but I did notice the discrepancy when it was deleted, and found the reasoning behind its deletion to be inadequate. Wikipedia has no stance on making a subject appear better, or worse, and the decision regarding biographical information should be as neutral as possible. It seems to me that citing the industry news source was in line with Wikipedia policy, and deleting it was not.

The wording of the summary of the PetaPixel article originally printed here was an essentially accurate summary. Your claims regarding the nature of the original allegations seem entirely immaterial to me. I have no opinion on them. However, it is inaccurate to call the summary of industry news, including the loss of a business partnership/contract, as reported in a reputable source, as gossip, or even "private". Personal controversy is obviously a delicate matter in a bio page, but it cannot be described as "gossip", according to the Wikipedia policy on sources. The summary as written and edited clearly summarised the nature of an allegation, the subject's denial, and the professional impact in the camera/photography end of things, which I agree is essentially the relevant part of the section and why it was reported by PetaPixel. It was a fair summary. The description of it being a major libel risk is inaccurate.

I'm unclear on your current stance on this. Are you maintaining that you believe the use of the PetaPixel article on this page is a libel risk, or are you stating that you personally think it doesn't belong on the page for the various reasons you just stated? Or both? Because those seem like different tracks to me. Caracta (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been following this and have to say it seems very tenuously sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimesterlingtrevor (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The whole controversy addition seems very tenuously sourced. I’ve looked into it and what you have is based on article based on a withdrawn statement based on a deleted personal facebook post. Incredibly tenuous. Jaimesterlingtrevor (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've left multiple talkback requests on ArnoldGeoffrey's user page, but he seems unwilling to discuss what I said above about the nature of the source, or to provide the clarity on his position I asked for. I explained the Wikipedia rules as I understood them regarding the source I linked above. The article originally cited in the deleted section fulfills all necessary Wikipedia reliability criteria. If you disagree, please specify which criteria in particular you believe it does not fulfill to justify the deletion. Again, I'm happy to seek resolution on this issue if the dispute can't be resolved. Caracta (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've left several talkback notices and plenty of response time. I've explained clearly why the nature of the source meets Wikipedia standards (reputable news source, named author, industry news content). It meets Wikipedia policy standards on sourcing, and justifies its presence on the page. If you disagree, to justify the deletion I must insist on a reference to a Wikipedia policy. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above and re-establish this section. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Caracta (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Section has been deleted again, by a separate account, with the same ostensible justification that doesn't cover the concerns I've raised here regarding Wikipedia's actual policy on primary and secondary sources and the Wikipedia definition of reliability. No message on my user talk page, or message here, despite my obvious attempts to discuss this. I'm not going to endlessly restate the same information and I'm going to leave plenty of time for the other editor to respond, but what I must absolutely insist on is a specific reference to Wikipedia policy; not an opinion on the material itself, a rule that specifically says this source linked is unreliable/this information is libellous. I've read and re-read the rules and a news article at PetaPixel is a reliable source, in my estimation; I'm happy to hear an argument otherwise if you have one Jaimesterlingtrevor. Caracta (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that one account here disappeared without a trace and a separate one, with the same wording and position, turned up, the moment I asked a straightforward (and not accusatory) question regarding conflict of interest. Once again, I've left multiple notices and time to respond. I'm going to reinstate this content. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Caracta (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC).

As Kessler Crane retracted their statement within a month of publishing it, I think this points towards not being newsworthy. Also if it is you making IP edits, be aware you would be breaching WP:SOCK, even with innocent intentions. Poojean (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. I've made no IP edits since I created this account, and have attempted my level best to follow Wikipedia rules by always discussing here the edits, and stating my intention to do so on the edit summary. I have no knowledge of anyone else editing the page, anonymously or otherwise. I've also attempted to follow these rules with regards to accusations of rule-breaking, which I have discussed on the relevant user-pages instead, where appropriate (as well as leaving talkbacks and plenty of time to respond, a courtesy I have not been returned by the other editors here). I'm willing to respect the opinion of an established editor like yourself, even if I disagree, since this is the first time a reliable third-opinion has ever been given here. That said, I somewhat resent the obvious rule-breaking that has taken place on this page, and that despite this, I'm the only editor who has been accused of either having an undeclared conflict of interest (see above) or of using sockpuppets. I believe this page has been manipulated by both sockpuppet accounts and accounts with undeclared conflict of interest, and it's very obvious who did what. I will no longer make any edits to this page, and consider the matter closed, but I thought I'd point out the very blatant rule-breaking that has occured, while I'm being accused of breaking rules.Caracta (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not accusing you - just mentioning in case you did not know, and you were inadvertently breaking the rules. And yes, you have been very forthcoming with discussing your views here. Thank you for that.
 * I think there is possibly a middle ground here, where if we can find out when and why Kessler Crane retracted their statement, this could provide balance. Also, if we could find a suitable source for when and why the accusatory facebook post was deleted (if at all possible). And whether there has been any type of reconciliation. Does that make sense? If we could add more balance to the section, then I would support its inclusion just to try to draw a line under this dispute. Others may yet disagree further, but I think that would be a reasonable compromise. But first we need to find more sources.
 * It may not be possible to find any, especially if there was a mental health crisis or something behind the original allegation; this would drop off all media very quickly. Or elsewise something could have come to light that proved the original allegations were false. So the absence of any sources providing context as I described, would push me back towards the default position of leaving this section out entirely - does that make sense? Poojean (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, no such follow-up exists. Archive copies exist, and the PetaPixel article exists, and otherwise Kessler's statement and the page subject's statement were deleted at unknown times. An editor here (above) claims to know when the Kessler statement was deleted ("some weeks later"), and given his apparently unique insight into the life of the page subject, I have no doubt that this is accurate. No reasoning has ever been given, as far as I know, and I would be speculating if I suggested any. Equally, as far as I know, no reconciliation has occurred (or been reported to have occurred). Kessler's website has made no mention of Bloom at all since this event, and they have never released any new products with his branding. They also appear to have stopped all manufacture of existing products with his branding, which are listed as unavailable or no longer sold. The page subject has never referenced Kessler Crane on his blog since this event. Nothing has ever publicly come to light or been published disproving anything, as far as I know, and the page subject appears to have deleted his own statement of denial. If it's the opinion of genuinely neutral third-party editors that the section is unjustified, then I accept that. Although I did not write this section, I originally disputed its deletion because it was blatantly apparent that the deletion was not based on a good-faith interpretation of Wikipedia rules by neutral good-faith actors (feel free to see my comment on ArnoldGeoffrey1945's page for details, not that his account is in use since I made that comment).Caracta (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the archive.org saved snapshots of the Kessler statement page and it had been removed within two years - unfortunately there were no snapshots between April 2015 and May 2017. I had looked at it earlier and mistook it for a month, especially given what the other user had said. I apologise for that.
 * I have also tried just now to look for alternative sources, yet in vain. I used a proxy to reach search engines outside the EU/UK in case the stories had been removed via the "right to be forgotten" but that also has yielded nothing. Just a few blogs which aren't good enough to include (and are likely partial), and primary statements from both the accuser and accusee that are well crossing over the privacy line.
 * I really appreciate your candour about why you have been advocating for the section to remain. I totally understand your reasoning. Personally I am of the opinion that we are straying into unencylopaedic matters, so would suggest to not include this section, at least in its current form. However, contrary to your earlier remarks, I feel that I am far from an established or experienced editor when it comes to decisions such as these. As this is a particularly sensitive issue in recent years, how society deals with allegations that can have political ramifications in the #MeToo era, I would feel more comfortable if more editors with experience making these judgment calls would also weigh into whether they think this should be included.
 * One thing I will do now, is to look for other controversial WP:BLP examples and see how these were mediated. Poojean (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly it is a very niche and low-profile piece of news, relevant only to the film and photography industry in which the subject works. I'm happy to yield to any neutral input on either editing or removing the section, as long as the consensus is that Wikipedia rules have been followed in its deletion or re-wording. Thank you for taking the time to treat it seriously, though.Caracta (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)