Jump to content

Talk:Seph Lawless

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

This notice is to disclose that I, User:Bernie44, was paid to create this entry. Of course, I claim no ownership over it. Whether paid or not, I always aim to contribute positively to Wikipedia and to edit within Wikipedia's guidelines, with properly sourced, neutral, constructive edits. I hope my work is judged based on those standards.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bernie44, the article is an egregious ADVERT. It does your reputation no good.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

Gotcha FreeRangeFrog. Let me revert my change on the court case and see if I can find a better source. It's the only one I can find to tie him in other than a Cleveland.com article about his tryst with some gal (where he got assaulted and where he sued for $1.5 million). seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seicer: That's my only concern, the primary source. No problem if a secondary one can be found. This article has been the target of some bad-faith pointy editing in the past (thus the protection) and the subject has been in contact via OTRS as well. So it's important we keep everything factual and well sourced. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. Was there something significant that was deleted - even in talk? It must have been some time back. seicer | talk | contribs 00:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me, at least. Nothing in the logs other than protection. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it further, this may be a good candidate to propose for deletion. Once his non-notable works were removed, I'm not sure what differentiates him from other explorers who have been in the news on occasion. seicer | talk | contribs 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly a good idea. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Career section

[edit]

User:Bernie44 - In the section "Career", 3rd para, the last sentence currently reads - His work has been exhibited internationally in Munich, Milan and Paris, based on this source. However, this source says - His work is currently on display in Munich Germany...The Munich exhibit will next move on to Paris, then Milan and other cities, the locations of which are still being discussed. Here is another source from Amerikahaus which says his exhibit runs through March 2015. So technically, based on those two sources, his work has not yet been exhibited in Milan or Paris. Minor re-wording should fix this. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - went ahead and changed it with a new citation. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the line about trespassing at Disney, the photos were clearly made while trespassing and the Wiki comment reflects this. However, the subject does not acknowledge that they were done this way, and claims the contrary in the article cited that they were taken legally with a drone or a high powered lens, a suggestion that is preposterous on its face. Perhaps this line should be removed.Jacobssteph (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps In 2016, Lawless photographed the abandoned River Country area, a secured section of Disney World, which resulted in him being banned from the theme park. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that he has been banned from Disney either? The subject hasn't confirmed it. Could just be more puffery.
When I was researching this article I couldn't find evidence of the ban from Disney. The sources only mention him saying he was banned. Perhaps change the text to "Lawless claims his photography led Disney to ban him from all their properties." Manc1234 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's the definition of an unreliable first person source, which is why I'd leave it out altogether. Jacobssteph (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accede to the removal. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism to this page seems to be reoccurring problem for some users, namely user Jacobssteph, according to the users history has only made negative edits to the page called Seph Lawless and this started in 2015 with his failing attempt to remove sources to this article and have the article put up for deletion. Jacobssteph continues to do that with this recent edit removing, yet again, a source ignoring user Ryk72 and his more fair proposal of changing the verbiage accordingly. According to the statement above User Jacobssteph states he believes Seph to be an "unreliable source". That's a personal attack not holding true to what the article states. We ask the Wikipedia community to restore the original edit per Ryk72's proposal and include new source here: [MySanAntonio Article]
Which clearly states the photographer was standing inside the abandoned park, hence trespassing, it should be duly noted that regardless of what kind of equipment he used to capture the images is irrelevant. Using even a drone constitutes trespassing in all 50 states as part as a federal mandate to protect business and private residences of a 'column of air up to 40 feet above the ground'. But if we go only on the what the source says than this new source clearly states the photographer was inside trespassing and also states he has been banned from the park. Wikipedia must go by what the source says not personal opinion by a user Jacobssteph. Once again this user continues to engage in vandalism of this page and should be watched closely. FrankMiller99 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:FrankMiller99 and welcome to Wikipedia. First, please make sure you review our policies on personal attacks. User:Jacobssteph's comment that Seph is an unreliable source on himself is simply a statement about our policy on WP:Reliable Source. Also, I'm not sure who "we" is that is asking for the change to the article. Usernames should be used by individuals, not groups. That said, I don't see why we can't include a statement along the lines of "In 2016, Lawless reported to the press that he was banned from Disney for taking photographs of Disney's River Country." (and cite to Frank's link). meamemg (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't report that, because his own website says: "We are waiting to hear, if in fact, Seph has been banned from Disney World parks or not. It has been speculated that anyone that takes images of these places automatically does get banned, however, we have not received written confirmation of that. That could be because Disney is aware we took the images legally from a rented boat. This still hasn’t stopped people commenting and alleging that he has been banned. We also received several comments, emails and phone calls of people pretending to be Disney saying we have been banned, although until we have this in writing we can not comment on this issue at this time. It should also be duly noted that none of these images are for sale, so please don’t ask.": [1]. I'd simply restore the mention that he photographed the abandoned River Camp, but without any mention of being banned. There are a number of articles online about the photos that do not mention that: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Line [19] even in this article when it's clearly a conflict of interest. The source is from the Huffington Post and the artist himself is a known Huffington Post journalist that's published several stories for the source that's listed. Subject's Huffington Post About Page FrankMiller99 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The artist is not a Huffington Post Journalist. He has a blog at the Huffington Post, which anyone can apply for. In fact, it states in their TOA that if you have a blog there you are not allowed to refer to yourself as being employed by them. Hardwired 16:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is known for having an entire platform based solely on contributors from celebrities, public figures amongst others. The Huffington Post does not had employees outside of paid editors, and much of their content is written, published and produced by contributors and Seph Lawless is a contributor stated clearly by the Huffington Post here (posted clearly in the top of this page) [Huffington Post Article] Furthermore, several of Lawless' stories have been on the Huffington Posts front page and have went viral. The fact that you claim anyone can become a contributor isn't true or it would be an open forum for anyone to sign up and use. It is not you must be hand picked by the Huffington Post. You also wrong in stating TOS states you can't say you are employed by the Huffington Post that only applies when appearing at events. This is clearly a conflict of interests to list a source in the article that clearly had hired the same artist to represent it's platform.FrankMiller99 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, you are wrong. Anyone can become a contributor at the Huffington Post. All you need to do is enter your e-mail at the following address. It is an open forum that anyone can use. Huffington Post Contributor Sign Up Yes, some of Lawless's content on the Huffington Post has gone viral, and one of them was one he wrote, but the majority of it was written by actual Huffington Post Journalists. Hardwired 00:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)
Hardwired50 you clearly are wrong. You posted a link that is an email signup page that is not an open forum to which anyone can contribute to the Huffington Post. That is common knowledge. You must be APPROVED to be a contributor they do NOT let anyone post to their news site. That notion is absurd and further review of your wiki account shows only 5 edits all to this page (negatively) your first edit was to vote to DELETE this Wikipedia page. Under the talk section of this page 'under reliable sources for names' you failed to source things which were removed by a wiki administrator. I'm not sure we can trust your judgement here based solely on your edits to this page and even arguments you had with wiki admins about proper sourcing. You were told by Wikipedia administrators to better educate yourself on sourcing issues and I'd recommend that once more.FrankMiller99 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FrankMiller99 Your comments indicate that you might have a conflict of interest on this article. You should perhaps review WP:CONFLICT. Jacobssteph (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to know how the Huffington post works and how they pick contributors like this artist Seph Lawless than read this: [How to Become a Blogger at The Huffington Post] This is proof positive the Huffington post is NOT an open forum and never has been. You must be chosen or asked by the Huffington Post and since Seph Lawless has published several Huffington Post articles including updating the sourced Huffington post story listed on this Wikipedia article then that CLEARLY is a conflict of interest and should be removed. No Huffington Post story should be on here. Would you add the stories that he wrote for the Huffington Post? No because that's a conflict of interest. This artist has several thousand stories written about him doing a simply Google search of his name, so it makes no sense why the Huffington Post source needs to be in this wiki article for two reasons: First, get another source and/or secondly, the sentence (mentioning a correction to a news story which is a common thing) and the source itself isn't relevant to the article to begin with, thus it should be removed. FrankMiller99 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FrankMiller99 You also might want to review WP:TUTORIAL, as you are new here are are formatting your comments incorrectly.Jacobssteph (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JacobSteph I have never edited the existing Wikipedia page nor vandalized the page. According to your wiki history you have done both resulting is several failed attempts to vandalize this page with more than one wiki admin reprimanding you for your actions. Please remain unbiased and as the last wiki admin told you in September 2016 that read as follows: ' I'm not sure why you keep making claims about personal knowledge, in this case "outing", I'm not sure why you have no interest in Wikipedia except to disparage the subject of a single article, and I'm not sure why I'm not blocking you for disruptive editing. Go find something else to edit where you contribute in a positive manner to an article. Please. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)FrankMiller99 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They no longer pick the contributors. Anyone can sign up. It was a fairly recent change, so you may have missed it. I've included two links that may clear things up for you. First is How to Get Published On the Huffington Post and a Contributor profile I created. Sample Contributor Profile There is no proof that the subject works for the Huffington Post beyond his own claims, so the Huffington Post links should remain on the page. And I've been editing wikipedia for years, but never bothered signing up for an account until I saw that this page was up for deletion. I still think that the subject is not notable, and the page should be deleted. However, I respect that the vote reached no consensus and that the article will remain. It should just be a factual article. Hardwired50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly are posting links that prove nothing and nothing was recently changed at the Huffington post it is NOT an open forum for the public to publish new stories for its site. I'm not taking the artists claims at all I'm simply stating the factual evidence that he has wrote several published stories for the Huffington post. You clearly are being biased and according to wiki admins they have warned you and JacobSteph of continued disruption of this page but yet you continue to do so. Let the wiki community know the following:
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Seph Lawless. . Your sole activity here on Wikipedia has been to disruptively edit on Seph Lawless. If you continue this behavior, you will be reported to administrators and blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC) September 2016[edit source]
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Seph Lawless. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing.
Now you're just making things up. Perhaps a real admin can clear this up for us? Hardwired 04:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)
More possible vandalism and removing of sourced contributions from the community from USER: JACOBSTEPH. According to his talk page his been warned several times to stop his disruptive behavior of this page. Removed four SOURCED articles that said Lawless was banned from Disney, but alleges it's not true. We go by what is reported not by what USER: JacobSteph thinks happened. Furthermore, his edit history shows a disturbing connection to this page. DanKopec (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

@Seicer: Please remove the citation for his real name - that is very eminently a primary source. Seriously, I'm not sure what it is about this person that generates so much disruption. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would citing his book be acceptable? seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*The wiki [Primary Source] requirements suggest that the Copyright Office should be permitted.
- Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. Reading the link provides a very straight forward and self-evident descriptive statement that both references his book, his fake name and his real name.
- The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does. I think this is also very self-evident and requires no special knowledge or understanding.
- Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name. This is not an issue, because the copyright office website CLEARLY states the name of the book that Seph himself claims as his, his fake name of Seph Lawless, and his birth name of Joe Melendez. I don't see how there could be any confusion, as there might be from a drivers license or other primary source document.Jacobssteph (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something that I just noted while looking through the (formerly) listed publications, I came across (Redacted). Would that be admissible? seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrap your head around this one: Seph Lawless To Appear With Actor Joseph Melendez for book tour seicer | talk | contribs 15:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of why this subject cannot be considered a reliable source about information pertaining to himself. Jacobssteph (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names without real reliable sources

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about someone's birth name, and until and unless a truly reliable source appears discussing such matters, it is not suitable for discussion here or in the article. Please do not mention such names without real sourcing, such mentions will have to be oversighted and you may face sanctions under the BLP Discretionary Sanctions.--Guerillero | My Talk 08:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seph mentioned his books in many of his interviews - how is it kosher to not even mention a link to his publications? There's no speculation. The source for his name is the copyright info for his book. Hardwired 15:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs)
I suggest you read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS --Guerillero | My Talk 18:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


infobox

[edit]

Where an article has as few facts as this one has, does anyone support retaining an infobox which is mainly a photo of the person and a link to his SPS website (which also furnishes as a cite for most of the claims as well)? The BLP is not much more than a stub for a pseudonymous person at best, and the infobox for such a short article is overkillish IMO. Collect (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's valuable in that it provides a photo, his birthplace and current residence place, years active, and occupation. I'm generally in favor of infoboxes unless there is a strong consensus otherwise. One reason this article is so short is that it was gutted a few years ago by someone with an axe to grind, which spiralled into a free-for-all. Softlavender (talk)
Inasmuch as all that information is found in the very short article proper - is the real estate taken up by a photograph of a pseudonymous person and links to his own website, which is noticeably used in the article, of significant value to readers? As for accusations of any "axe to grind" implicit or explicit, I assure you that I never even heard of this person before, thus have no conceivable biases at all, and find your raising of such a non-issue to be non-utile here. Collect (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made no reference to or implication about you; I'm only explaining why the article is somewhat short. Whether you have heard of the person before, or whether he is pseudonymous (many persons in the arts are), is irrelevant. The only relevant thing here is whether there is consensus or not to remove the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, 2/3 of the article is an outright advertisement for his works. I find this a tad high. Collect (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You think? I mean, he paid someone to write the article. seicer | talk | contribs 12:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you gutted it repeatedly [3], removing citations/content from CNN [4], The Weather Channel [5], American Photo [6], ABC News [7], Fast Company [8], Complex [9], New York Daily News [10], and Fox 8 Cleveland [11]. And after removing all of those citations (and content), you AfDed the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless) as being non-notable, and on the same day removed citations/content from Cleveland Scene [12], PetaPixel [13], Vice [14], and Slate [15]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was per Talk discussion. Jacobssteph (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD rationale was "Non notable live figure. An urban explorer with no credentials does not need a Wikipedia page, much like every other explorer. No notable books (with reliable ISBN numbers), other publications and experience": [16], a statement Seicer made after removing 61% of the aticle's text and 65% of its independent reliable-source citations. Softlavender (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent" =/= reliable (subject is an unreliable first person source for just about everything written about him). Re: AfD FreeRangeFrog, who concurred with seicer, seemingly was aware of the edits and didn't express any concern at that time. It was not a unilateral action. Jacobssteph (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie44 Since you asked where the subject has made conflicting claims about where he was born: https://imgur.com/a/hj0Pl JosephMelendez (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. Thanks for letting me know.--Bernie44 (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, Bernie44. So do you agree that the subject has made conflicting claims about where he was born, and that the article needs to be changed?FranklinBlvdBaller (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney ban

[edit]

One WP:SPA editor appears to be the lone objector to including him being banned from Disney. There are a number of highly WP:RS already in the article supporting this and I have added another. There appears to be no doubt whatsoever of this ban. If anyone wishes to remove it (yet again), please achieve consensus here first. Further removal without consensus will be considered WP:TE and WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard block of yet another sock. seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the author repeatedly uses sockpuppt accounts to make self-serving edits. Wiki's policy to trust the subject assumes that the subject won't lie about their particulars to game the system, which Lawless repeatedly does. His website originally said that no ban was in place, but after this was pointed out here on Wiki he changed his website. There remains no evidence that Disney even knows who he is, let alone cares enough to officially ban him. Just because the subject himself claims it doesn't make it true. Jacobssteph (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reference mentions that he was banned from Disney. In my opinion, references given are quite credible and the sentence that Lawless claims to have been banned doesn't seem right.Usman Khalil_Talk 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference[17] is an interview with the article subject; answers to interview questions are clearly attributable statements, not statements of fact. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No independent confirmation of this has emerged, and Disney themselves have issued no statement on the matter (or given any indication they know he exists). Media reports have been simply reposting the claim that the subject himself has exclusively made.Jacobssteph (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 Why were the edits that removed Daily Mail (unreliable source per wikipedia) and two NOR blogs (but retained a BBC article on same topic) reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail link removed per [article]Jacobssteph (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations removed in the past

[edit]

Justlettersandnumbers, numerous RS citations were removed a couple of years ago by a single editor, and they support some of the material you are deleting. Here are the removals: CNN [18], The Weather Channel [19], American Photo [20], ABC News [21], Fast Company [22], Complex [23], New York Daily News [24], Fox 8 Cleveland [25]. Cleveland Scene [26], PetaPixel [27], Vice [28], and Slate [29]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of non-notable info

[edit]

I propose that I be allowed to remove the following that in my opinion is not notable information and thus distracts the reader from gleaning the most worthwhile facts in this article:

  • That he photographed this one abandoned town for a photographer who photographs abandonment is not notable info: "In 2016, Lawless took photos in Picher, Oklahoma, a toxic abandoned town which the Environmental Protection Agency had mandated to be evacuated in 2006."
  • That his photographs were published in a newspaper in and of itself is not notable info for a photographer: "In 2015, The Guardian newspaper published Lawless' photos documenting the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina."
  • That his photos were shown on a TV program is not notable info: "In 2014, Lawless's photos of abandoned malls were featured in segments on CNNMoney
  • That he was interviewed on TV is not notable: "and he was also interviewed about the photos by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News."
  • Quantities of exposures made for a book is not notable info: "He took approximately 3,000 images and 17 hours of video footage that he used in"
  • This is not notable: "In 2016, the Huffington Post issued a correction to its 2014 article about Lawless's "haunted buildings" book because of factual errors in Lawless's captions on the photos."

-Lopifalko (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last two bulleted items do not exist in the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tired, and just going from the edit log where you reverted all of the above, rather than looking at subsequent edits. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert all of the above. As I stated at the AfD, "I restored the relevant non-trivial portions" of your 1,800-byte deletion, and this was after admin 78.26 had fully reverted your massive 2,805-byte removal of cited text [30]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, it's requiring too much attention to detail at the moment for me to be able to pick apart different peoples' edits, so I shall refrain from mentioning them in particular. Hopefully we can stick to the actual points I'm proposing. Lopifalko (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Here are some useful links for further information for the article. It's not exhaustive by any means. Some of the links may already be in the article but the significant information from them hasn't been adequately gleaned.

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Impact" section

[edit]

I think the "Impact" section that SoftLavender added should either be renamed or moved to the top under the one line intro. "Impact" implies that he has had an impact in the world of photography, or through his photography generally, which would be a third party determination. The included paragraph only states what the subject wants to do, which isn't the same thing. Its more of his artist statement than his achievement. Further, if you look at the wiki entries of other photographer who ARE significant and have done ground breaking work in photography, for example Ansel Adams, Sally Mann, Dorothea Lange, Steve McCurry, etc... none of them have a similarly titled section. Jacobssteph (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The advert tag now on the page should NOT be removed until the PROMO has been removed and the article tightened to show only notable aspects of topic that are reliably sourced; preferably 2 secondary WP:RS for each assertion showing INDEPTH coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the wording that you consider promotional. Someone has already removed the tag you placed, with the edit summary "I don't see any advertising going on here. The language is reasonable for what it is." I don't see any promotional wording either. I'm removing the tag again in the absence of evidence of content that is written like an advertisement. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in the second line under Theme definitely reads like promo. It is out of place with the rest of the article and more or less replicates what the line directly before it says. Jacobssteph (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited from an academic journal. Softlavender (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it isn't out of place in the article, or that it isn't wording that I'd consider promotional. (and the journal just quotes some newspaper article that quotes him. It isn't like the journal author did independent research into the matter). What does it add that the line preceding it doesn't already capture? Jacobssteph (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

[edit]

This and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless (2nd nomination) are so strange that I am actually wondering if Wikipedia is being deliberately played in some bizarre work of performance art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an idea! I've never figured out why this minor (but still notable in my opinion, and it's just an opinion) photographer has drawn so much attention from those determined to either venerate (ok, it's promo, so that part makes sense) or utterly disparage the subject at every opprotunity. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment on text, sources for an anonymous artist

[edit]

His hometown, high school, education are unknown, and since his name is also unknown the Cleveland childhood and auto factory worker father must be regarded as unsubstantiated assertions by Lawless and , if used, framed by text along the lines of "according to Lawless" until this sort of biographical info is published by independent, reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His real name and identity are known; he simply keeps that out of the public and out of his and other publications. Unless you have proof that something is incorrect, we go with what the sources say. This article doesn't mention his hometown, high school, or education. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A flaw in the the wiki way of doing things. i.e. if something stated in an otherwise reliable source can only be disproved by original documentation, which aren't allowed to be used. Assumes that media these days actually are interested in reporting and not just regurgitating information on fluff pieces without checking for accuracy. Enables and enshrines inaccurate information that isn't important enough to be dug into by staff, but automatically deemed sufficiently reported to be included here.Jacobssteph (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as some articles about his "real name", what I saw persuaded me that to take an extremely skeptical approach to any "facts" he asserts about his "true" identity or his arrest record for trespassing. We do not have anything even approaching a fact-checked, reported source on his "real name," or bio. Until we do I think we should approach anything we say about his bio and the facts of his life with careful phrasing, such as: According to Lawless, he has been arrested many times....; or Lawless told the Cleveland Daily Whoziwhatsis that he keeps his identity secret because.... unless, of source, you have some RS source I haven't yet seen? What we can, of course, confidently source are the fabulous photos and their reception. Fabulous is my personal opinion (I knew the work long before I saw the page and AfD.) I do wish we had more on him form art critics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no RS for his background, and only (numerous) original documents stating his real name (journalism is not in its golden years these days). His "years active" is also speculative as well, since there are no published photographs prior to the photos (allegedly) taken between 2012-2014 for his first self-published book ("Artivist" is a name he made up, and does not exist as a publishing house). Perhaps it is time to revisit the usefulness of the Infobox, given that it has no RS supporting it that isn't first-hand info by the subject. The subject is a textbook definition of an unreliable first person source. Jacobssteph (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

Why was the quotation and reference removed to the article posted wherein the Mayor of a town that the subject photographed criticized him for having done so? Shouldn't relevant critical media attention be included in an article as well? http://www.highrivertimes.com/2017/05/31/beachwood-trespassing-falls-into-loophole In another instance, the HuffPo had to add a disclaimer that he did no archival research in putting together his book "13" and basically made the whole thing up (a library pointed this out and he attacked them for it). https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/seph-lawless_n_6063654.html Jacobssteph (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, since you have no connection to Lawless, and the Huffington Post article says nothing about it, how do you know he attacked a library? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He used his official verified account on facebook to do so. I'd post a photo of it, but I don't know how to do that. Jacobssteph (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:78.26, User:Jacobsteph: here you go: https://imgur.com/a/T4vNh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranklinBlvdBaller (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

At least one major contributor to this article has a declared paid connection to the topic, and thus has a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Does that also apply to the subject of the article? He's put out a call for people to edit this page. Call for Wiki edits Hardwired 00:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life

[edit]

Unless we have reliable sources that contradict the reliable sources used in the article, we should not be using weasel words here. Please note that BLP discretionary sanctions applies to this article and talk page. --NeilN talk to me 22:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEO manipulation and attacks

[edit]

(Redacted)

But of course someone will come along and remove this, claiming it's just fake details and hate. Nobody wants to accept that Wikipedia has been manipulated by this fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopsicle (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Wikipedia has absolutely been manipulated by this person. There are big banners about paid editing at the top of this talk page. We already know that, believe me. That doesn't mean we can ignore our policies on reliable sources and how we cover living people. Blogs and such are not reliable sources, especially for this, because they are WP:UGC. Frustrating isn't it? If you can find reliable sources for any of this, let's seem them, but that doesn't include court documents for reasons I've indicated on your talk page. Right now this is casting aspersions, and is a violation of WP:BLP, so yeah, I have removed it. PLEASE don't post this kind of thing again without reliable sources, or you will likely get banned. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted

[edit]

(Redacted)

As these are all sourced from his website (which, admittedly he might now modify as they have been mentioned here (however they are available on archive.is too), it seems reasonable that they are "fair game" for wiki inclusion. Jacobssteph (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've previously been warned, multiple times, for precisely this issue, so knock it off. This is WP:OR. Find a reliable source and summarize what that source says. If there is no reliable source, do not ignore that problem and inject your own research or speculation. You clearly do not understand WP:BLP. So where is all this coming from? There are multiple accounts focusing on this trivia. Is there some blog or podcast or something about this? Is this a WP:SOCK issue? Is it a Chan thing? Stop testing the limits of BLP, stop posting this information, and stop playing games, please. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." In this case, the information was literally published by the subject of the article on his own website. That is a legitimate primary source by WP:BLP, period. Furthermore, not only does it not meet any of the 4 criteria for "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", it specifically meets the one exception for keeping it (i.e. "unless written by the subject of the BLP"). You might not like it, but it doesn't violate WP:BLP. Jacobssteph (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were attempting to use flimsy WP:PRIMARY sources to hint and nudge readers towards the conclusion that you, as an editor, have made about his real name. This is absolutely not appropriate. Find a reliable source making the connection from A to B. Otherwise this is WP:SYNTH, and we are not stupid to these kinds of games, so this is also still a WP:BLP issue. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter's website cannot both be a reliable source (reference #1) and an unreliable source. For example, if mention in the article was made saying saying that Seph Lawless and actor Joseph Melendez were appearing at an event together and it was *sourced to the subject's own website* that would absolutely comply with WP:BLP. If it did not, then the reference to his "Years Active: 2005-Present" should also not be considered a reliable source. IF the other 2 items were then also added, and referenced to the subject's website, and no other inference, interpretation, or WP:SYNTH, it would absolutely comply with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH (even if you don't like it). It either is or is not reliable, and according to WP:BLP it absolutely complies to include it. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with you that the subject matter's own accounts are indeed "flimsy". But either that means that ref 1 should be removed, or that anything on his website is valid for inclusion. Jacobssteph (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This wikilawyering nonsense isn't helping anyone. Flimsy doesn't mean 'never use under any circumstances'. Routine information, such as an approximate time-span for his professional activity, can be sourced to primary documents. Are you disputing that he has been active since 2005? Okay, maybe this is also BS, so why are you disputing that? Based on reliable sources, what reason do you have to believe that specific claim is inaccurate?
An appearance with an obscure actor is not routine, and absolutely would not belong in the article for multiple reasons. If we had some reason to mention this, perhaps it could be used to fill-in details. But that reason would need to be supported by a reliable, independent source. Do get it now? Just because you can find a source for something doesn't mean it belongs. Further, just because you like what that source implies especially doesn't mean that it belongs. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite for me the sections of any of those WP:BLP, PRIMARY, or SYNTH that including it would violate. I have quoted the sections that *literally* support their inclusion. Back up your claim man. This isn't the first time you've done this, according to your talk page. If there is a *specific* policy against including information about the source provided by the source on the source's own website, when there are more than one plain english sections that support their inclusion which I cut and pasted for your convenience, then just point me to it. It doesn't at all matter what it does or does not imply. It matters whether or not there is a WP policy about it, and in this case I have cited to you where WP's policies support its inclusion *including the ones you pointed me to that say it shouldn't be included* (i.e. you're respectfully, but simply wrong). Show your math. You can't say that the source is telling the truth about his years active but lying about three other things published on the same website by him. Both can't be true. Either the subject is a reliable source for everything, or nothing. Jacobssteph (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRIMARY, simply stating a factual claim that he announced something on his website would not seem to violate the policy, assuming that it is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". A statement with a reference link to the source on the website would fulfill this requirement to me. Of course, whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion is a different question. FranklinBlvdBaller (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... where are y'all coming from again? Did something happen or get tweeted somewhere? Is this some reverse-SEO thing? Do you all know about WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT and WP:WIKILAWYERing? You up to speed on those? Okay good.

Using a source to imply something not specifically stated by that source is WP:OR: Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. I simply do not know how I could make this any simpler.

Arranging a source to mention something in such a way as to imply a connection is the same thing. We are not idiots to context, and for all sources, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Using a primary source to imply the real name of someone who, for whatever reason, wished to be anonymous or pseudonymous is not appropriate, as Wikipedia strongly presumes in favor of privacy. If a solid, reliable source documents this, so be it.

His website is WP:SPS and should only be used if: ...the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. In this case, these events and press releases are unduly self-serving, as they are painfully bloated trivia that isn't even minimally biographically significant.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. Press releases should not used for anything controversial without a reliable, independent source.

As I said we could use these primary sources to fill-in details... but why on earth would we bother mentioning some public appearance based on some tedious drama? It's a badly-written press release. He has issued a lot of badly written press releases, but so have a lot of people. Who, other than strangely motivated Wikipedia editors, gives a shit about this?

No really, find a source for this! The article really would benefit from reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book References

[edit]

(This was previously included under Career, but I'm moving it to a new section per Greyfell's suggestion)

This section (now renamed Photography) seems to be about half "in this year, he self published this book" rather than a description of his photography, which shows up in the Theme section. Should Theme be moved up to the top of the Photography section, and basic references to self-published works be removed? (since there is a list of the books below anyway). FranklinBlvdBaller (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FranklinBlvdBaller, yes I think that merging the Theme section into somewhere near the top of the Photography section is a good idea. I think it worth keeping accounts of books that were published where this is a prose description of what the book is about. Where there is no such description I see no value in retaining mention of it, as you say they are described in the Publications section. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edits made. Open to revisions. Also removed references in PUBLICATIONS, because they aren't necessary. FranklinBlvdBaller (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't add references for books, but someone told me recently that all books needed them. Also, in this article recently someone removed all of Lawless' self-published books and I added them back with the references you just removed. They were independent reliable sources too, so I think they are worth retaining. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This probably should've been a new section the bottom of the page, per WP:TPG and WP:BOTTOMPOST. This section is over two years old and some of the participants are no longer allowed to edit articles, so a fresh start would make this much less confusing.
I was the one who removed the unsourced self-published books. Based on prior experience, self-published book are much less commonly included in bibliographies, and this is for a few good reasons. These sections are decided by consensus, so this can change if we agree, but it helps to understand why they wouldn't be. Self-publishing a book is so very easy to do and so difficult to assess, so there is a much higher burden on the reader to determine what a book is, and how encyclopedically significant it is. As a worst case scenario, I have seen these sections bloated with 30-page ebooks which merely recycled other, previously published material. I don't think that's happening here, but without a reliable source, there is no way to know exactly what these are, so we risk misleading readers.
Generally, having an ISBN number is a good sign, since this links to Worldcat and various shopping sites where interested readers can at least find it themselves. I don't think it's always enough, since some self-published or even predatory vanity presses have them. Having an ASIN isn't good enough, if that was in question.
At one point cited sources included Daily Mail, which is not reliable on Wikipedia (WP:DAILMAIL). I don't think the other ones were dramatically better, in context. Tabloids, puff-pieces, and click-bait sites generally don't do a good job of explaining how significant something is, and they often get important details wrong, also. While they are sources, they're are not ideal, especially for an article with a history of promotional problems.
I hope that explains my perspective. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally of the opinion that self-published books are not notable for inclusion. Anyone can slap some photos together on Blurb (or whatever) and put them up for sale. An exception might be if a self published book has an ISBN and/or gets some level of critical acclaim (note: actual acclaim, not only media mentions), making it notable for inclusion. Simply because it resulted might have in a slide show on a website doesn't make it notable. (those are basically the equivalent of third party press releases by sites looking for clicks in my experience)FranklinBlvdBaller (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK it was cheeky of me to include the Daily Mail, but I disagree with Grayfell and FranklinBlvdBaller on your other points because these are independent reliable sources (The Weather Channel, HuffPost, BBC, Mashable and the Daily Mirror (this latter one admittedly a tabloid)) with sustained coverage of these books. This is a rare degree of attention for a photobook and so in my opinion is significant in terms of adding notability to the article. I don't say this lightly as I find this article's existence tedious due to the attention it attracts with people clutching at straws in order to prove notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look references I removed, I don't see them being notable for inclusion. I mean, one was his own blog on the HuffPo (is HP even considered RS anyway?). The others were slide shows, with maybe minimal text that is not unlike the text found on pretty much any article about him. The Mirror is basically the DailyMail, but maybe less credible. FranklinBlvdBaller (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seph_Lawless&oldid=1245721786"