Talk:Rodney Lough Jr.

Help needed
I would like to get some help editing this article. Please give feedback.

Hi there, I have tidied up this article substantially. It looked as it stood like a big promotional piece which was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I removed all of the commentary and just left the facts. I also trimmed down the awards section as many of the awards were not very prestigious. If you want to bring back the commentary then I suggest that you find some sources from reputable third parties (i.e. not lough himself). I could find no sources supporting the commentary offered in the article as it stood. Good luck with future editing. Jenafalt (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jenafalt, you certainly made an enormous improvement to the article, but when you say that you "just left the facts" I think you instead just left the assertions of facts. Anyway, the evidence is sorely lacking. Consider for example 2007 [...] The Lucies International Photography Awards - Professional Honorable Mention. There's no evidence given for this assertion, and what appears to be the relevant web page mentions neither honorable mentions nor Lough. -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Benny awards
The article tells us:


 * His most recent book Wilderness Collections won two Benny Awards

I'd never heard of "Benny Awards" and therefore googled for them. I found what seemed to be three or more awards with this name. It was all pretty complex and so I googled for the combination of "Benny Awards" and "Lough". I reached this page of a printing company, which tells us that


 * The company was also the recipient of two PIA "Benny" awards in 2001 for its printing of the "Wilderness Collections Coffee Table Book" printed for its customer The Lough Road Art Galleries of Portland, OR. The book was entered under the categories "Waterless Printing" and "Environmentally Sound Materials" and won a Benny for each entry.

If this is so, then yes, Wilderness Collections won these two awards, but saying so in this place is misleading. Better to say that it won two Benny Awards for the company that printed it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

while the company that printed the book "won" the awards, it was Rodney that did the color corrections, curves and all things technical that allowed the company to print the book. so to say that he didn't have a hand in it and therefore not an equal in the award - as alluded to above - is even more misleading. the book and the printing company would not have even had a book to print otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.53.24 (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that the company "won" the awards, in quotation marks. Why the quotation marks? If the company won (or "won") the award, then how is it that you are in a position to second-guess the award-givers? (Just how is it that you know that Rodney that did the color corrections, curves and all things technical that allowed the company to print the book?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Won" is in quote marks because it is quoting the statement above. How do i know? because I'm HIM. would you like to see the little statues they gave me? I have them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you, Qwest user 97.120.193.137, saying that you are Comcast user 76.115.53.24 and also Rodney Lough? -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

how many more ways would you like it said, yes, i am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

we have multiple computers in multiple locations with multiple dynamic IP's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rodney, Wikipedia has guidlines on conflict of interest in editing. Please refer to WP:COI or Autobiography. Jenafalt (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

right, heaven forbid you get the information from the horses mouth.


 * WP:RS mandates derivation from the mouth of other, uninvolved horses. At the end of any comment, please hit "~" (tilde) four times in a row. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"world's best landscape photographer"
I have removed text from the article that said that Lough had been honored by the Smithsonian as the "world's best landscape photographer". This statement was extremely misleading. He won the Landscape award from the Windland Smith Rice photography awards in 2007. The winning photos were exhibited at the Smithsonian. Jenafalt (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The text should be reinstated. The publishing company Nature's Best, who operates the Windland Smith Rice International Print Competition, is owned by the Smithsonian. To say that he was honored by the Smithsonian, given the publication is owned by the Smithsonian, is NOT misleading - it is extremely accurate. The winning photos, btw, are retained and remain part of the Smithsonian's collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.53.24 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lough only won one award for this didn't he? - the way that you had edited the page made it seem like he had won two awards - one from the Windland Smith Rice competition and one by the Smithsonian. I feel that there may be some conflict of interest in your edits. I have edited to remove the editorialising. Feel free to add the information back in if you have references that demonstrate that he is "beloved" by "40,000". Jenafalt (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference for being and showing in the Smithsonian, which you have removed again, should be reinstated as it is an undeniable FACT - and was demonstrated by the links provided. do you have some reason as to why the Smithsonian reference should not be there? please explain yourself. As for the 40k+ collectors, this information comes directly from the company registry of fine art collectors. what more proof do you want?

Secondly, I removed the reference to the second award because I could only see evidence of there being one award given - was there two? If so, again, provide a reference. You don't reference one award under two headings - one under the award's name and one under it's parent organisation. That wouldn't make sense. That would mean that the UN World Environment awards should be listed under both the UN and Canon as separate awards, for example. Jenafalt (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to provide references as this is an encyclopaedia. If you have a reference that can be verified then re-instate the information with the reference so that others can also find the information.

"You need to provide references as this is an encyclopaedia." Sounds like a circular argument to me, after all how does the chicken prove it's existence without the existence of an egg and where exactly did that egg come from - neither the chicken or the egg could be in the encyclopedia because they would lack the reference. I just provided the reference, assuming you a talking about the 40k+ reference, so it needs to be re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hi Rodney, Wikipedia has a policy on the verifiability of sources. Please check it out at WP:VERIFY. You need to provide sources according to wikipedia policies for any information that you add.  Jenafalt (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Yahoo Master Photographer"
In this thread, somebody called QT Luong writes:


 * What exactly is a "Yahoo Master Photographer"?

Good company there, but not sure how selective Yahoo is, if you pay the annual $300 fee.''
 * ''Someone listed on http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Visual_Arts/Photography/Photographers/Masters

So here are the "Masters". However, I can't find Lough there; can you? -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The assertion from QT in that article is erroneous and false. One cannot pay their way onto this list, the Yahoo internal expert has to put you here. the actual listing is here: http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Visual_Arts/Photography/Photographers/Masters/?b=80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.53.24 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right in that he is indeed on the list. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm right on all the issues with this Wiki. i'm just wondering how long it will take you guys to recognize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right now it's just your word against QT Luong's. Any evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

it surprises me that you would not make the tiniest amount of effort to look for yourself. it must just be easier to place the onus on someone else: this is the listing: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/directory/ctd/ctd-07.html which clearly outlines what i stated earlier and what their official policy is. as for 'evidence', would it not show, or even suggest, a charge, if in fact one existed? here's an idea, how about asking QT to prove it - since you are basing your baseless argument on it. from what i've seen there is no basis in fact for what was stated by QT above, which you continue to lean on. further - this is now the second time, on this one issue alone, that you have not taken the initiative to dig for facts. how come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.53.24 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, feel perfectly free to call me lazy: I'm thick-skinned, you won't offend me. I have put some time into finding out about Lough/yourself; here's one example leading to a result that you might have appreciated. &para; So, let's turn to the yahoo.com page. Perhaps we're looking at different versions, but as I see it the page talks of evaluating websites (and not, for example, the quality of the work that is more or less pleasingly/helpfully presented on those websites) and it doesn't even mention "Masters". &para; Do please press the tilde ("~") four times at the end of your every comment. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was this factual information removed from the listing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyloughjr (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it, because there's considerable doubt about what it really means, and whatever it means Wikipedia doesn't mention it for any other photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

well put it back! just because you don't think it's relevant does not mean that it is not. you are the last person i want editing this thing because you have shown strong prejudicious and bias against nearly every point on this. why is it that you get to make the determination - without any basis for your decision except what some other 'guy' on some blog type site has to say? based on the discussion written here previous it's clear that the list is a valid list of such 'masters' as seen by the 'discussion' and just because you don't think it's so doesn't make that point true. whereas it has been proven that one cannot 'buy' their way onto the list, they must be placed there - and by wiki dialog elsewhere it is pointed out that the company kept on that list is significant. your reason "because no one else has this listed' is BS! PUT IT BACK AH.   97.120.106.109 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What you say suggests that you are Rodney Lough. If you are indeed Rodney Lough, it would be easier for all if you edited as User:Rodneyloughjr.


 * If I am the last person you want editing this thing, you may wish to file a complaint against my edits. If they denigrate Rodney Lough, biographee, perhaps the place to go is here, if they denigrate Rodneyloughjr, editor, perhaps here; if it's an actual content issue, then perhaps here.


 * Let's jump to the end of what you write: your reason "because no one else has this listed' is BS!


 * (1) Does anyone else have this listed?


 * (2a) If anyone else does have it listed, who?


 * (2b) If no one else has it listed, what is so special about its inclusion for Rodney Lough?


 * Is the nature of the list an issue? If so, let's look at it. As pointed out above, here's the relevant page. It's a list of links, bold for the majority who have their own pages of links, regular for the minority of direct links. I've heard of all, or virtually all, of the former people. With the exception of Steve Pyke (specifically, his portraits of philosophers), the latter were all unknown to me until I encountered this WP article. There's an assertion cited above that listing costs money, there's another assertion above that money can't get you in; this page leaves the matter very unclear. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

book publication
Between them, worldcat.org and amazon.com show that the two books of Lough's were published by (The) Lough Road. The name is no coincidence: The Lough Road is Lough's company. Thus these books were/are self-published. While I am well disposed toward self-published photo books, happy to have bought and to own several of them, we should remember that getting published by Phaidon or Thames & Hudson is one thing, self-publishing another. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that there are 4 active selling retail galleries that he owns, it is no surprise that he has self published the works. It only makes sense given he has his own retail outlet, the margins from a business stand point are much better than those provided by an outside publisher. his first book originally sold for $69.95 (as does the current book) and now sells on ebay for hundreds of dollars if you can find one: http://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Collections-Rodney-Lough-Jr/dp/0970401108/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239931548&sr=8-5 to suggest that if his works are not printed by an outside prestigious publisher then they must not warrant publication is arrogant, ignorant or snobbish, but certainly not well informed from a business stand point. As for the use of the term The Lough Road, all one needs to do is go to http://www.TheLoughRoad.com to realize that it is of course his website - as listed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.53.24 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, is there a straw man hereabouts? Or who is [suggesting] that if his works are not printed by an outside prestigious publisher then they must not warrant publication? Certainly not me.


 * I can name several notable self-published photography books. And I can also point to where they are reviewed or discussed. I can point to a huge number of self-published photography books that are, to put it politely, unremarkable. I can also point to plenty of conventionally published books that strike me as mediocre or worse, but their very publication tends to indicate that the publisher either was confident of sales or believed very strongly in the worth of the book.


 * A dealer's price on Amazon.com is hardly an indicator of the going rate for a book. (Some dealers routinely charge a small fortune for books. And why not? There are plenty of suckers around.) As for online auctions, eruptions of foolishness can do remarkable things. -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"A dealer's price on Amazon.com is hardly an indicator of the going rate for a book." except when the book continues to sell at that higher rate. We know that it has because we've had people bring them to book signings and tell us how much they had to pay for the out of print/sold out book they got on ebay. and the statement above (which you made) "we should remember that getting published by Phaidon or Thames & Hudson is one thing, self-publishing another." alludes to a book, in this case - this book, not being worthy somehow because it was self published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Environmental photography international and UN 'award'
The article says that Lough was awarded a 'Professional Honorable Mention" at the 2007 Environmental Photography International. This link has a link to the person who was awarded the honorable mention in the landscape category. It wasn't Lough.  Lough's photograph is shown but not as having been awarded any thing.  I can find any category called 'professional'. Also how meritorious is a "Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Contribution" for the UN competition? Does this really merit listing? I cannot see him listed amongst any of the publicity associated with this prize . Jenafalt (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The honorable mention from the Environmental Photography International competition is such just by being selected for the showing. do you really think they show everyone that entered? if you want verification call them.

As for the citation from the United Nations, it is NOT/was NOT a competition. don't you guys read? where was it ever said it was a competition? "Does this really merit listing?" IF A CITATION FROM THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT WARRANT LISTING HERE, THEN JUST REMOVE THIS LISTING ABOUT ME FROM WIKIPEDIA COMPLETELY - I'VE TAKEN ALL THE CRAP FROM YOU GUYS I'M WILLING TO!

"I cannot see him listed amongst any of the publicity associated with this " SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU GUYS BLIND! THE ENTIRE EVENT WAS HELD AT MY 5,500 SQFT GALLERY IN SAN FRANCISCO! NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE UN ASKED ME TO PRODUCE THE AWARDS THAT WERE HANDED OUT TO THE COMPANIES THAT WON. AND JUST SO YOU CAN READ IT HERE FIRST - THEY WON AWARDS FROM THE UN (WHICH I CREATED FOR THE UN) THEN THE UN GAVE ME A CITATION - WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.137 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ok thanks I've removed the entries as they are not awards. Jenafalt (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

boy, you just don't get it do you? did you even read what was written? what you have just done does not comply with the request. "IF A CITATION FROM THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT WARRANT LISTING HERE, THEN JUST REMOVE THIS LISTING ABOUT ME FROM WIKIPEDIA COMPLETELY" who raised you, wolves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyloughjr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand now, sorry, you want the whole article deleted. You can request for the article to be deleted.  Please see WP:DELETE for guidelines for doing this.  Please also refrain from making personal attacks on editors as you did in your last post. Jenafalt (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I will do my best to disguise them better as you've given me much guidance here. As for your request to refrain from speaking my mind to 'editors' (dubious at best) I'm an American and as such am allowed to speak my mind as I see fit (you can "reference" the Constitution of the United States of America - if you'd like.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyloughjr (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no guarantee of free speech within Wikipedia and there's certainly no guarantee of free self-promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not originally post this wiki - so your jab has missed it's mark once more. after receiving a google alert, i was intrigued and came here. it was only then that i tried my best to fix issues, to put straight what was written, as it was so very wrong, and to correct the 'facts' that you guys edited incorrectly. as for guarantees?, i'm not convinced that's your motive and frankly i'm not sure what it is - other than to lord over others. Either help me fix this thing or delete it completely. but i will not sit by idle and silent while you post 'facts' that aren't and i grow weary doing what i believe should be your job. I actually have a real business to run, so either help - and STOP with the nastiness - or delete this thing! what will it be? help or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.53.24 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want the article deleted, here's how. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

how do we contact the Wikipedia legal department? we've taken all we're going to take from User Hoary. back in April there was a 'neutral' version of this document posted that was mutually agreed upon. User Hoary and User Gwen used a later single edit to destroy what was posted to the bastardized version we now see. we will have no more of the bad mouthing nor misrepresentations either of these 'users' make. to quote Popeye "We've taken all we can takes, we can't takes NO MORE!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyloughjr (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * hi Rodney. What you might be after is the section dealing with dispute resolution, which will tell you how to go about mediating any issues you have with other editors.  Please look at WP:DISPUTE for all the policies and processes involved in this. Jenafalt (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure it does. Read WP:LEGAL, and you'll know all about legal issues, and who to contact about them. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Time out, please
Okay, I'm not sure how this all got spun into such a contentious situation, but I'd like to try and defuse it if possible.

I've reverted the article to the neutrally worded version, for the moment, as there was some definite promotional aspect to a lot of the wording. I'd like to hear from Mr. Lough or the people editing in his place just what the specific issues are that need to be adjusted or corrected here - please remain civil in your responses, and explain what you feel needs to be changed. Then we can have a discussion as to how we can meet those issues within Wikipedia guidelines, without the contention, hopefully. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input and comments. Three points for now:
 * Article says: He uses the same type of camera Ansel Adams used, primarily the 8x10 large format film camera. If this means something other than that he uses view cameras, I'd like to know what it means, and to have evidence for this. In the meantime, I don't understand the need for a reference to Adams here.
 * Article says: He is currently listed as a Master Photographer in the Yahoo! directory Yahoo's Master Photographers List. This is true. However, the appearance in this or that Yahoo directory is not the sort of thing that WP usually bothers with, and (despite protestations above) it's not at all clear that inclusion means much. I'm asked above to provide evidence that it doesn't mean much; however, I think it's for somebody who claims it's meaningful and worthy of inclusion to indicate that.
 * Article lists awards, but most aren't sourced. They either should be disinterestedly sourced (cf this) or should go. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, I have placed the most accurate listing back in place. I will do my best to outline the reasons why it reads the way it does.  What has been listed is FACT - not supposition as Hoary would suggest.


 * Article says: He uses the same type of camera Ansel Adams used, primarily the 8x10 large format film camera. If this means something other than that he uses view cameras, I'd like to know what it means, and to have evidence for this. In the meantime, I don't understand the need for a reference to Adams here.
 * RESPONSE - in the article by Outdoor Photographer (the preeminent experts in this field here in the US - which arguably makes them the largest in the world for this type of publication) they state that the torch has passed from Ansel. Given that there are very few full time professional photographers using an 8x10 film camera, as their only means of creation, it is a relevant statement.  The connection is one that most people can relate to - otherwise the point is lost.  The article from Popular Photography makes a similar inference.  Hoary does not seem to have read the information, otherwise the statement "to have evidence for this" would never have been made and we would not even be discussing this.  It is simply his opinion that it doesn't mean anything - so why does his matter but mine doesn't?


 * Article says: He is currently listed as a Master Photographer in the Yahoo! directory Yahoo's Master Photographers List. This is true. However, the appearance in this or that Yahoo directory is not the sort of thing that WP usually bothers with, and (despite protestations above) it's not at all clear that inclusion means much. I'm asked above to provide evidence that it doesn't mean much; however, I think it's for somebody who claims it's meaningful and worthy of inclusion to indicate that.
 * RESPONSE - Again this is simply Hoary's opinion and not based on fact. Given the truly vast pool of photographers on the Yahoo lists, having had an internal expert make such a classification, does have merit.  And just because Hoary doesn't think it so, does not make it fact.  He may be of the mindset that an artist must first be dead to be considered a Master.  Yahoo! experts, and one would have to prove that they are not, have placed the listing into the Master Photographers category.  It's not made up, it's there, it's sourced - it doesn't matter what Hoary thinks or not, FACT is it's sourced.  What frustrates me is that he claims things aren't sourced, then when they are he still continues to complain.  Why?  What makes him such the expert?  As for wether or not a Master is a Master, by example, Fuji Film uses my images in their advertisements, on display at the conventions they do - do we truly believe that Fuji FIlm would pick just anyone?  So Outdoor Photographer, Popular Photography, Yahoo! and by using the images Fuji Film - All say the same thing - He's a Master!


 * Article lists awards, but most aren't sourced. They either should be disinterestedly sourced (cf this) or should go. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE - All one has to do is go to those sites, dig even the tiniest amount to find the proof, or allow us to display the award on Wiki, we'd be happy to allow that, do you want a pic of the awards? if every award in wiki needs to be source to the level Hoary would require, i can point to multiple other photography listings that are not sourced at all and therefore they should ALL be removed.  The implication here, and one that I am truly tired of, is that I'm lying about this.  That's an insult I will not tolerate.  Nothing posted is a lie, all of it is factual, provable.

In closing let me say this - I believe that a listing about someone should give the relevant points about the individual, that it should provide insight into who they are and if possible chronicle their path. This allows the reader to know a great deal about the person without having to read a novel. I am happy to continue this as a peaceful discussion, but am not interested in having to defend every single sentence that is written. Too many times now the change to the listing has false and misleading statements, as an example: "He began his photography career in 1995", not true, it actually/technically began when i sold my first piece, at the tender age of 16 - that would be back in 1976. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I would like the information listed to be accurate - and not necessarily what someone else BELIEVES it to be, but what I know that it is. If there is a balance that can happen great, because i do feel that there is value to having information listed here, but not at the expense of the truth being excluded. 76.115.53.24 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see another editor has re-edited the article to remove some of the non-neutral language again; I feel this version looks fine. Mr. Lough, the issue with some of your edits is that they are not sourced reliably; we need articles to be verifiable through secondary sources, not through primary sources (of which you are one in this regard), and we need them to be written in an encyclopedic tone. If you can provide links to listings of the awards, those would be useful in sourcing that section; any articles about your works that are available online or in notable journals or magazines would be greatly useful as well. I'd also request that you don't revert further, as these discussions continue. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will do some more work in tracking down the sources that you mention in order to justify the claims in the article. I have removed statements that are not encyclopaedic - as I did with the original article, which before I edited it really just looked like a promotional piece which was quite contradictory at times. I do not think that the editor is lying about things, but that the facts discussed in the article need to be more appropriately discussed in order to remove confusion.  If I am confused about it then no doubt others reading the article will also be confused as we do not know Lough personally. Jenafalt (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, Jenafalt - thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you all, I have absolutely no issues with how it currently reads. If you need further evidence which might only be available via picture of item (be it award ect...) please request it and we would be happy to provide it.  We are happy to help source the statements, given that they are in fact true.76.115.53.24 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, do please source some more of the statements. See the subsections below: a lot of issues have got jumbled up within this section, which threatens to grow to inordinate length; so let's separate them. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

the expertise, or not, of User:Hoary
Question raised above: What makes [Hoary] such the expert?

I do not claim to be an expert. Please evaluate my questions, comments, etc, on their merits, or lack thereof. If a comment of mine only merits a peremptory response, feel free to give it one. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Awards
Me: ''Article lists awards, but most aren't sourced. They either should be disinterestedly sourced (cf this) or should go.''

Response: ''All one has to do is go to those sites, dig even the tiniest amount to find the proof, or allow us to display the award on Wiki, we'd be happy to allow that, do you want a pic of the awards? if every award in wiki needs to be source to the level Hoary would require, i can point to multiple other photography listings that are not sourced at all and therefore they should ALL be removed. [...]''

No, not photos of the awards.

Yes, every assertion of an award in Wikipedia needs to be reliably sourced. Yes, many are indeed poorly sourced. These should all be removed or sourced. If you find a section (e.g. a list of awards) that's unsourced, feel free to add "" to the top of it. If you find items that are unsourced within a patchily sourced list, feel free to add "" to each that's unsourced. It would be much appreciated by all if you put some effort into sourcing them yourself, rather as I sourced the exhibition for cited in this article. If what's labeled as unsourced remains unsourced for some time (just how long being a matter for your own discretion), then remove it.

I have done some digging for evidence of the awards mentioned in this article, and, for whatever reason, have failed. If you can do better, yes, please do so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are references listed for the number of awards received by Lough at the 2008 and 2009 Professional Photographers of America awards. An editor keeps editing to make it seem like there were more awards given than there actually were (as listed in the reference) as shown in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Lough,_Jr.&diff=314687786&oldid=310291708. If you have another reference to say that loan awards also receive a separate merit award then please give that reference. Loan awards are awards of merit but they are just one award - not two as this editor keeps trying to make out. Here are some links about the awards: http://www.ppa.com/press-room/release/27/International-Print-Competition-Honors-Worlds-Best-Photographic-Images-and-Photographers.php http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/competitions/its-official-print-competition.php Jenafalt (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

8&times;10, and Adams
Article says: He uses the same type of camera Ansel Adams used, primarily the 8x10 large format film camera.

Me: ''If this means something other than that he uses view cameras, I'd like to know what it means, and to have evidence for this. In the meantime, I don't understand the need for a reference to Adams here.''

Response: ''in the article by Outdoor Photographer (the preeminent experts in this field here in the US - which arguably makes them the largest in the world for this type of publication) they state that the torch has passed from Ansel. Given that there are very few full time professional photographers using an 8x10 film camera, as their only means of creation, it is a relevant statement.''

That Lough "primarily" [article] or "exclusively" [talk page] uses 8&times;10 sheet film is a clear, informative, and helpful statement.

Here's what Outdoor Photographer says about Adams, Lough, and the torch:


 * The torch is passing. The path blazed by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Eliot Porter, Galen Rowell and others is being followed by an ever-growing number of new-breed photographers who aren’t saddled with the same restrictions of film and darkroom.

This comes together with (i) the clear indication that Lough is a notable example of this "ever-growing number", (ii) the statement that Lough uses an 8&times;10 camera, and (iii) other interesting material, such as that Lough has no great love of carrying this stuff around and would be delighted to use a smaller, lighter substitute if the results were just as good.

Specifically, the article says that Lough uses an Arca-Swiss 8x10 F-Line camera, Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150mm f/5.6 and Fujinon 300mm f/5.6 lenses. While I claim no photographic expertise (see above), I venture to suggest that the precise choice among well-constructed 8&times;10 view cameras is less important than, say, the focal lengths of the lenses, let alone the creative vision of the photographer.

Therefore I don't understand the prominence given to Adams in the Wikipedia article.

(Incidentally, that's quite some mixed metaphor perpetrated by Outdoor Photographer, isn't it? A torch -- for illuminating? for blazing? for razing? -- is being passed; yet a blazed, charred or merely trodden path is being followed. Maybe William Sawalich was in a hurry when he wrote it, or maybe he's entirely innocent of it and it was later added by some cliché-loving editor.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He uses the same type of camera Ansel Adams used is like saying, "My kid plays the same type of keyboard Johann Sebastian Bach used." It's meaningless, however true. By the bye, I'm typing this with the same alphabet Charlotte Brontë used. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What, you mean your real name is Gwen Galë? -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fujifilm Talent Team Claim
I cannot find Lough here. Any other sources? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the names are listed alpha by first name, except for Lough which is under the L's. The listing does in fact exist. 67.160.165.199 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - could've sworn I did a search on that page. Now, is it noteworthy enogh to be put in the article? -- Neil N   talk to me  16:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that I've read on that very page, or a very similar one, that he was on the "Talent Team". But yesterday, when I last looked, he wasn't. One obvious possibility is that he once was but now isn't. Unfortunately web.archive.org doesn't offer any version of the page, so it's hard to check.


 * A separate but related matter: How noteworthy is it to be on the team? There are a lot of names there, and (although this probably means little) I don't recognize any. -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked through the Cable Release archives here. The only mention of Lough I could find was here (last page) which looks like a sponsored ad to me. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

inaccuracy and the truth
IPs have been adding this:


 * THIS PAGE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY RODNEY LOUGH JR, HIS AGENTS OR ASSIGNS. IT HAS BEEN OVER EDITED BY WIKI (JUST LOOK AT THE DISCUSSION PAGE) WHO SEEM TO NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AND HAVE WORKED HARD TO KEEP THE TRUTH FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE WITH THEIR DELUGE OF OVER EDITING OF THIS PAGE, WHICH IS NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE - TO FIND OUT THE REAL STORY VISIT HIS WEBSITE.

As whack-a-mole is dreary with dynamic IPs, the page has been protected.

Now, what within the page is inaccurate, and what truth needs to be added? Please explain below, and, if the explanation is persuasive, somebody will fix the article accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hoary on this - explain (here) what is inaccurate, what is wrong, and what needs to be added. Please include links to reliable sources - this will allow us to verify your information, and then we can amend the article so that it is as accurate as possible. Incidently, Mr Lough is not in a position to authorise (or otherwise) this article - it is not on his website, or in his publicity. Inaccuracies and untruths can be sorted out - but as long as the article contains information that is verifably accurate, it should stay here. Inaccurate information should be corrected or removed - once verifiable sources of information confirm that. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just not assuming good faith here, but if you look at the edit history of the page it is clear that Rodney Lough Jr. has been editing using 3 IPs and one registered account, I think we should just put in info that's cited, block him for sock puppeting and leave it. RaseaC (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly baffled at what the problem is. The article appears to be factual, doesn't appear to be disparaging to the subject, and has external links to help readers go off and see more information. If the article was more promotional, it would be edited back to roughly where we are. Mind you, I do feel that at times some of the conversation between experienced editors and the subject could be more understanding of his unfamiliarity with Wikipedia.
 * Rodney, if you're reading this (and I'm sure you are), all you're doing is making yourself look bad by the IP sockpuppetry. As noted above, please place your concerns with the article here; we'll see what we can do with those concerns. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards revisited
There seems to be a lot of awards that were simply given to some company (with which the subject seems affiliated) and not RLJ himself, and I would argue that as this is an article about the man himself that there is no place for such awards on this page. Afterall, the Bill Gates article doesn't have a list of awards Microsoft has won. RaseaC (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all convinced by your analogy. However the article shouldn't pretend that an award to the company was an award to the photographer (just as an article on the company shouldn't pretend the reverse). If you believe that anything in the article should be elaborated or qualified, go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 2001 Two Printing Industries of America Awards ("Benny Awards") - for Contributions to Printing Excellence for book Wilderness Collections Uncited.
 * 2007 Nature's Best Photography Windland Smith Rice International Print Awards - Best Landscape Photographer
 * 2007 Environmental Photography Invitational - Exhibited Not an award
 * 2007 Professional Photographers of America - International Print Competition (Three General (Merit) & Two Loan Awards)
 * 2008 Professional Photographers of America - International Print Competition (Three Loan Awards)
 * 2009 Printing Industries of America Award ("Benny" Award) - Best of Category for 'Art Books (4 or more colors)' - for Beyond the Trail Awarded to the publisher, not RLJ
 * 2009 Gold Ink Awards - Pewter Award, Hard Cover Books Category - for Beyond the Trail As above
 * 2009 Professional Photographers of America - International Print Competition (One General & Two Loan Awards)

I propose removing the strikethroughs on the basis provided. Any objections? RaseaC (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But the books are published by Lough's company. I think it's OK to leave in those two items, perhaps with little explanatory notes. Though since one award is described as coming from the Printing Industries of America (my emphasis) and the other is a "Gold Ink Award" (ditto), all of this may anyway be obvious.


 * That said, the "Gold Ink Awards" seem odd, somehow. If you take the link in the article to this award and then click for "2010 Competition" you'll see that the winners get not exhibitions or piles of money or similar, but plaques. The organizer emphasizes how saying you've won will be good for your business. To enter, you have to pay, and there are lots of winners. To me, it seems oddly close to "Pay us for something that you can mention in your advertising." I hope I'm wrong. Its other appearances in en:WP are in the articles France magazine, Clear (magazine), and Cathy Rubin, all three of which have "issues". -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's nothing to do with him as a photographer and, given that the awards are a sham, we shouldn't include them here. We can't every single award anybody has ever won, especially when they're paid for! RaseaC (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a Pewter Golden Ink Award is clearly just puff. --Leivick (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition the International Print Competition give out so many awards (48 pages of winners) that it appears barely worth mentioning. --Leivick (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A "Benny" is a "Premier Print Award". This 1.2MB PDF file is combination explanation and entry form; it's very revealing in its emphasis on how many there are of these things, how impressed the media (including Wikipedia?) will be to hear that you've got one, and how likely it is that winning one will be good for your business. The entrance fee: $20 (student), $100 (member) or $200 (nonmember) per item (with 1% discount for either of the last two, and another discount for early submission). &para; This should not to be confused with a "Jack Benny Award" (of which there's only one a year). -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So are we agreed that the awards section should be cut down to:


 * 2007 Nature's Best Photography Windland Smith Rice International Print Awards - Best Landscape Photographer
 * 2008 Professional Photographers of America - International Print Competition (Three Loan Awards)
 * 2009 Professional Photographers of America - International Print Competition (One General & Two Loan Awards)

note: the 2007 Professional Photographers of America award cannot be sourced because there are no records dating that far back (don't ask me why in this day and age, I doubt it would be difficult to keep a PDF somewhere) as advised by the PPoA. RaseaC (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. If the "Golden Ink" and "Benny" awards don't merit a mention within this bio (and I'd agree that they don't), they also don't merit a mention within any other. Removing them from all bios would be easy, but somebody could then or later reasonably object to the way such a policy-ish decision was made in the talk page of a particular bio that was on the watchlists of only a tiny number of editors. It should be discussed elsewhere. Just where, I don't know; I've asked about this here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have any idea how many other articles mention these particular awards. --Leivick (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The search button is your friend -- and a very short way above I even listed the other bios that sport mentions of "Golden Ink". Hoary (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then from what I can see. This is the only page to mention the International Print Competition. --Leivick (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However, that's just one subspecies of the [not Jack] Benny Award. For the latter, see also Ron Larson (mathematician) and, curiously, Rob Guest. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the guys over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts would be interested? RaseaC (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Let's first work out where the best place is to discuss the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoary hinted I might like to comment. I generally agree with his approach, but I do not know this subject in particular. I agree that number per year is relevant, & I use it as a rough screen when I have no other basis. But awards given to the publisher can be relevant, because the publisher becomes notable through publishing notable books, and the awards can reflect this. For example, the many awards given Princeton University Press say something about their books, and vice versa. One thing I would not do: assume that material not on the internet cannot be sourced. And as for the Benny award, I think it is significant based on the material presented on p.4 of that pdf. That one has to submit material and pay an entrance fee, and that everyone gets some sort of certificviate, does not diminish the value of the top level.    DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that an award you pay for is significant. Also, a representative of the PPoA stated that records are unavailable for 2007. RaseaC (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't just an entrance fee, it's a stiff entrance fee. Yes, I'd agree that awards to publishers can be noteworthy. Take this one, for example: it includes publishers and titles I've heard of (most encouragingly, they're together with many I haven't), there aren't that many categories or winners, and the website doesn't bang on shamelessly about how much the earning power of contestants will rise if they win. (Incidentally, the en:WP coverage of awards for books-as-physical-objects seems terrible -- or am I missing something?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this webpage and seeing all the controversy going on with this page, I figured it would be best to see if I could give my input here and have someone else add it to the actual page itself. That and I don't really know proper Wiki page editing edict. So, Rodney just one another award from the largest photographic organization in the US, the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). He one first AND 3rd place in the open category almost sweeping the board. First place image "Vortex", and 3rd place image "The Territory Beyond". Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Here is a link the PPA's Announcement - http://www.ppa.com/competitions/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1661&navItemNumber=2896 Thanks, Mike50.193.217.62 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rodney, please stop pretending to be other people. Thank you for posting here instead of just editing the article yourself, but trying to mislead people by pretending to be someone else is very much against our policies.  If you want to be helpful you need to follow our policies.  Gigs (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Failure of Galleries
I read this page and was astounded at what appears to be a misleading promotional piece.

All but one of his galleries has been closed, and he is currently in litigation with the angel investors who lent him the money for the San Francisco Gallery, which was a financial fiasco.

A balanced Wikipedia report should note the former existence of all of the galleries mentioned, but also note the date they were closed due to insolvency.

If you refer to Rodney's home pages you will see the exact writing style and overinflated ego that I see here. Like many, it is clear to me that Rodney Lough wrote this material in his puffery.

As a Wikipedia donor, the content of this sickens me...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.190.155 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Any further comments like this will be deleted per WP:BLP. If you want to make changes to the article, provide proper sources. -- Neil N  talk to me  03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation issue

 * The above citation was on the WikiProject: Oregon Clean-up list for CS1: Accessdate with no url. I located a url for the issue of the newspaper referenced (behind a paywall) but no amount of searching key words of that issue gains a reference to this subject or the statements it is attached.  I have cleared the error by providing a url but this citation is not correct and needs replaced. Flagged with {citation needed} in main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.P.Pike (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above citation was on the WikiProject: Oregon Clean-up list for CS1: Accessdate with no url. I located a url for the issue of the newspaper referenced (behind a paywall) but no amount of searching key words of that issue gains a reference to this subject or the statements it is attached.  I have cleared the error by providing a url but this citation is not correct and needs replaced. Flagged with {citation needed} in main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.P.Pike (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)