This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
@ Drmies: I noticed that you removed significant portions of this article, citing them as "resume content." Could you kindly provide more context behind this decision? I've observed similar sections in articles about notable photographers like Edward Weston and Ansel Adams. Your insights would be greatly appreciated in helping me understand the rationale behind this. Greg Henderson ( talk) 04:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If you could provide the WL for RLS again, I can't seem to find it. Thanks Spintendo 01:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for providing these links. I've looked at all of them, the only issue I have is that while these items may be in the museum's collections, none of them appear to be what's called "on view" meaning they aren't currently displayed in the museums. The proposed claim statement does not go far enough to explain this distinction. Museums may have thousands of artifacts in their possession, but whether they give prominence to them by displaying them in the museum proper is a key point that readers may be interested to know. Perhaps if you could write a proposed sentence or two that denotes that, we could take a look at including it in the article. Also, a friendly reminder that it's important to sign all talk page posts. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 04:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 21:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Greg Henderson ( talk) 01:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 18:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"In 2004, Erin Clark wrote the [ sic] article titled Masquerade Winston Swift Boyer...") and contains an unexplained "note". Notes are not placed in an article's main text, nor are external links. Regards, Spintendo 00:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
oclc}}
number.
[a] Thank you! Regards,
Spintendo 22:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Notes
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
"LaRouche talks about Boyer's photos in his review of Boyer's book American Roads, which has an introduction by William Least Heat Moon, the author of Blue Highways."To quote Judge Judy, that all sounds like a lot of who shot John. You said you had another review to offer, so let's go ahead and try door number 2 — if you'll place the proposed text and reference below. Since this is ostensibly a section for reviews of Boyer's work, hopefully each review in any proposed text will contain only two names at any one time: Boyer's and the reviewer (because that's all we need). Then, if there is another review, hit return twice (making a new paragraph) and place the next review in the next paragraph — hopefully, again, with just two people mentioned — Boyer and the reviewer. That needs to be the structure for any review section going forward from here. A strict 1:1 ratio for each paragraph. A particular Boyer artifact, reviewed by so-and-so. Next paragraph. A particular Boyer artifact and its reviewer. Next paragraph. And so on and so forth, just like that. Articles should not stray from that format because it works so well, and is simple and effective in describing reviews of art/artifacts/photos - anything that is "re-viewable". Please advise. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 16:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Greghenderson2006:, Although I've made the adjustment already, why is it that only one aspect of what he is known for was included in your edit? There are two things the brother is notable for, but you only featured the flattering side of it. As a matter of fact, I happen to notice that your articles are devoid of unflattering facets even when present in sources, yet sometimes exaggerate flattering side beyond what's supportable in reliable sources. Why is this? Graywalls ( talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Comment: page 47, which purportedly carries material about Boyer, is not available/visible to me in preview mode. The very first bullet point at
WP:External links#What to link asks:
Is the site content
accessible to the reader?
Even if adding it to a further reading section is being decided upon, the last sentence of
MOS:FURTHER stipulates that the
WP:EL guideline governs such an editorial decision. Hence, I'm leaning towards this not being appropriate due to the accessibility issues, but will let others weigh in.
Left guide (
talk) 11:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Drmies, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:GiantSnowman: Per discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Winston_Swift_Boyer there are three editors who lean away from including this information as presented. I am a fourth. It's probably OK to mention his brother in some way but no consensus the way it is currently. -- Green C 06:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Left guide: Special:Diff/1200182352/1200184901 - this material was removed because it is a WP:PRIMARY. The policy states it is acceptable for use on Wikipedia for factual information, when not used frequently. -- Green C 06:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
being a finalist for the Ilford's International Cibachrome Award is a big thing? WP:DUE is assessed by the importance placed by sources, not by individual Wikipedia editors. And yes, I read those other details too, but the source doesn't connect them to the award, it mentions them distinctly and individually. For us to try to make such a connection ourselves when the source doesn't would be a WP:SYNTH violation. Left guide ( talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Comment See my comment above in the edit request above this one. Graywalls ( talk) 02:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 00:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 04:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Partially done Special:Diff/1200968906/1200976411. The text repeats Time Life books so I added more detail which book it is. I didn't add "attracted national attention" as that is too promotional sounding for this article, obviously Time Life books is national attention. I didn't include the magazines because they are not notable and it's unclear what was published how significant it was. -- Green C 17:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 04:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Added. Special:Diff/1200962828/1200968906 -- Green C 16:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 06:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1200763996/1200764396: User:Left guide the removal of this book is nonsensical. There is no policy that "a book is a primary about itself". The cited text says "Boyer is featured in the book", with the book cited, so readers can verify that Boyer is featured in the book, as described. There is no primary source. To clarify, if by "featured" we mean someone else writing about Boyer, it is not PRIMARY. If by featured that means Boyer's work is there, then it depends on how we word it, if its considered primary or not. I guess it's unclear what the word "featured" means. -- Green C 16:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Greghenderson2006: Looking at the book description at Google: [1] I don't see Boyer's name in the long list of people in the book. Do you have any information what "Featured" means? That's a loaded term often used to puff people up, is usually a red flag for promotionalism, you want to avoid using it unless it's like a cover article in a magazine, or a chapter-length coverage. It's also vague language that causes confusion, see above note regarding if this is a primary source or not. -- Green C 16:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Special:Diff/1201127126/1201191859 -- Green C 03:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Graywalls: Why would you add a Undisclosed paid tag, when there is already a Paid contributions tag? You said that "the account Winston Swift Boyer comes highly suspicious based on edit pattern as, such as leaving editorial notes. Possible paid agent of the article subject."
I already have the paid contributions tag on both the talk page and on the article. I am not getting paid by Boyer. He is just an old high-school friend that I did a favor for in writing the article. No money has ever exchanged hands. He gave me a photo in exchange for the article. I don't understand why you are placing all these tags on a professional photographer's page when it has already been disclosed that I may have a COI. If notability is in question, then that is the only tag there should be on the page. Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Instead of debating over semantics and hypotheticals, what really needs to occur is an inspection and analysis of the edits in question. Are those edits compromising the neutrality of the article's current live version? If yes, then those issues should be addressed and fixed. If no, then the tag should be removed and there is nothing further to discuss regarding this matter. Left guide ( talk) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the denial: Special:Diff/1201622410/1201640963. Since the notability of artists is frequently established by their exhibitions, they are important. The town is well known as a center of the arts, Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Arts_and_culture. It has national and international known artists. See the large list of Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Notable_people -- in a town of only 3,000 people. Not a typical small town. It is a famous Art colony .. there are other similar places where important artists congregate. So the "local" argument doesn't carry as much weight, in the same way a newspaper in Silicon Valley is not merely a "local" paper when it is covering nationally recognized companies like Facebook, Ebay and Google. -- Green C 03:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with GreenC. Friends of Photography was a nonprofit organization started by Ansel Adams and others in 1967 to promote photography as a fine art. I think it is important that Boyer's article represents the kind of exhibitions and connections he has made in his career. Greg Henderson ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
@ Drmies: I noticed that you removed significant portions of this article, citing them as "resume content." Could you kindly provide more context behind this decision? I've observed similar sections in articles about notable photographers like Edward Weston and Ansel Adams. Your insights would be greatly appreciated in helping me understand the rationale behind this. Greg Henderson ( talk) 04:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If you could provide the WL for RLS again, I can't seem to find it. Thanks Spintendo 01:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for providing these links. I've looked at all of them, the only issue I have is that while these items may be in the museum's collections, none of them appear to be what's called "on view" meaning they aren't currently displayed in the museums. The proposed claim statement does not go far enough to explain this distinction. Museums may have thousands of artifacts in their possession, but whether they give prominence to them by displaying them in the museum proper is a key point that readers may be interested to know. Perhaps if you could write a proposed sentence or two that denotes that, we could take a look at including it in the article. Also, a friendly reminder that it's important to sign all talk page posts. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 04:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 21:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Greg Henderson ( talk) 01:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 18:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"In 2004, Erin Clark wrote the [ sic] article titled Masquerade Winston Swift Boyer...") and contains an unexplained "note". Notes are not placed in an article's main text, nor are external links. Regards, Spintendo 00:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
oclc}}
number.
[a] Thank you! Regards,
Spintendo 22:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Notes
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
"LaRouche talks about Boyer's photos in his review of Boyer's book American Roads, which has an introduction by William Least Heat Moon, the author of Blue Highways."To quote Judge Judy, that all sounds like a lot of who shot John. You said you had another review to offer, so let's go ahead and try door number 2 — if you'll place the proposed text and reference below. Since this is ostensibly a section for reviews of Boyer's work, hopefully each review in any proposed text will contain only two names at any one time: Boyer's and the reviewer (because that's all we need). Then, if there is another review, hit return twice (making a new paragraph) and place the next review in the next paragraph — hopefully, again, with just two people mentioned — Boyer and the reviewer. That needs to be the structure for any review section going forward from here. A strict 1:1 ratio for each paragraph. A particular Boyer artifact, reviewed by so-and-so. Next paragraph. A particular Boyer artifact and its reviewer. Next paragraph. And so on and so forth, just like that. Articles should not stray from that format because it works so well, and is simple and effective in describing reviews of art/artifacts/photos - anything that is "re-viewable". Please advise. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 16:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Greghenderson2006:, Although I've made the adjustment already, why is it that only one aspect of what he is known for was included in your edit? There are two things the brother is notable for, but you only featured the flattering side of it. As a matter of fact, I happen to notice that your articles are devoid of unflattering facets even when present in sources, yet sometimes exaggerate flattering side beyond what's supportable in reliable sources. Why is this? Graywalls ( talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Comment: page 47, which purportedly carries material about Boyer, is not available/visible to me in preview mode. The very first bullet point at
WP:External links#What to link asks:
Is the site content
accessible to the reader?
Even if adding it to a further reading section is being decided upon, the last sentence of
MOS:FURTHER stipulates that the
WP:EL guideline governs such an editorial decision. Hence, I'm leaning towards this not being appropriate due to the accessibility issues, but will let others weigh in.
Left guide (
talk) 11:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Drmies, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:GiantSnowman: Per discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Winston_Swift_Boyer there are three editors who lean away from including this information as presented. I am a fourth. It's probably OK to mention his brother in some way but no consensus the way it is currently. -- Green C 06:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Left guide: Special:Diff/1200182352/1200184901 - this material was removed because it is a WP:PRIMARY. The policy states it is acceptable for use on Wikipedia for factual information, when not used frequently. -- Green C 06:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
being a finalist for the Ilford's International Cibachrome Award is a big thing? WP:DUE is assessed by the importance placed by sources, not by individual Wikipedia editors. And yes, I read those other details too, but the source doesn't connect them to the award, it mentions them distinctly and individually. For us to try to make such a connection ourselves when the source doesn't would be a WP:SYNTH violation. Left guide ( talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Comment See my comment above in the edit request above this one. Graywalls ( talk) 02:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 00:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 04:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Partially done Special:Diff/1200968906/1200976411. The text repeats Time Life books so I added more detail which book it is. I didn't add "attracted national attention" as that is too promotional sounding for this article, obviously Time Life books is national attention. I didn't include the magazines because they are not notable and it's unclear what was published how significant it was. -- Green C 17:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 04:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Added. Special:Diff/1200962828/1200968906 -- Green C 16:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 06:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1200763996/1200764396: User:Left guide the removal of this book is nonsensical. There is no policy that "a book is a primary about itself". The cited text says "Boyer is featured in the book", with the book cited, so readers can verify that Boyer is featured in the book, as described. There is no primary source. To clarify, if by "featured" we mean someone else writing about Boyer, it is not PRIMARY. If by featured that means Boyer's work is there, then it depends on how we word it, if its considered primary or not. I guess it's unclear what the word "featured" means. -- Green C 16:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Greghenderson2006: Looking at the book description at Google: [1] I don't see Boyer's name in the long list of people in the book. Do you have any information what "Featured" means? That's a loaded term often used to puff people up, is usually a red flag for promotionalism, you want to avoid using it unless it's like a cover article in a magazine, or a chapter-length coverage. It's also vague language that causes confusion, see above note regarding if this is a primary source or not. -- Green C 16:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
References
Special:Diff/1201127126/1201191859 -- Green C 03:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Graywalls: Why would you add a Undisclosed paid tag, when there is already a Paid contributions tag? You said that "the account Winston Swift Boyer comes highly suspicious based on edit pattern as, such as leaving editorial notes. Possible paid agent of the article subject."
I already have the paid contributions tag on both the talk page and on the article. I am not getting paid by Boyer. He is just an old high-school friend that I did a favor for in writing the article. No money has ever exchanged hands. He gave me a photo in exchange for the article. I don't understand why you are placing all these tags on a professional photographer's page when it has already been disclosed that I may have a COI. If notability is in question, then that is the only tag there should be on the page. Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Instead of debating over semantics and hypotheticals, what really needs to occur is an inspection and analysis of the edits in question. Are those edits compromising the neutrality of the article's current live version? If yes, then those issues should be addressed and fixed. If no, then the tag should be removed and there is nothing further to discuss regarding this matter. Left guide ( talk) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
References
Greg Henderson ( talk) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the denial: Special:Diff/1201622410/1201640963. Since the notability of artists is frequently established by their exhibitions, they are important. The town is well known as a center of the arts, Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Arts_and_culture. It has national and international known artists. See the large list of Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Notable_people -- in a town of only 3,000 people. Not a typical small town. It is a famous Art colony .. there are other similar places where important artists congregate. So the "local" argument doesn't carry as much weight, in the same way a newspaper in Silicon Valley is not merely a "local" paper when it is covering nationally recognized companies like Facebook, Ebay and Google. -- Green C 03:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with GreenC. Friends of Photography was a nonprofit organization started by Ansel Adams and others in 1967 to promote photography as a fine art. I think it is important that Boyer's article represents the kind of exhibitions and connections he has made in his career. Greg Henderson ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)