Talk:Ed Gold

Note

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

Useful resource

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ed Gold Photographer Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Article would benefit from having some examples of Gold's work

At present, there is a photograph of Gold which he uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and licensed for free use. The article would benefit from having a couple of examples of his work with similar {{self|cc0}} licenses, or with more restricted licenses. Does anyone know of such material, which would be better than going down the "fair use" path to place examples in the article? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Help editing 'Wikipedia's article about me'

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

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

Where my Wikipedia pages starts a paragraph with: "Gold has also spent time living amongst the..." please could you insert, before "...and the US Army at the..." a mention of me documenting the Canadian British Columbia First Nation reservation 'Prophet River' where the Dane-zaa, historically referred to as the Beaver tribe by Europeans, are an Athabaskan-speaking group of First Nations people. (I have made 4 visits to this reservation - twice in 2009, 2014 and 2015. I can supply a link to the newspaper article here: [1] - you can download this file if you need to by clicking on the 3 vertical dots at the top right of the screen AND you can also zoom into it to read it also. This newspaper article was written by FORT NELSON NEWS on Wednesday 14 October 2015 and also BBC News published an online news piece using my work here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-34667118. I do not want to ask you to do more in one edit here and have some more stories in the future. I thank you very much for your help. Please give me an idea of how often I can ask you for additional help.EddieLeVisco (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

EddieLeVisco OK, now we are in the correct place, I'll take a look at the material you have supplied and think about how to incorporate it. If I find that easy, I'll go ahead and add to the article: otherwise I'll comment back here. There is no need to "ping" me again, as this page is now on my Watchlist. Likewise I won't ping you, as I'll assume you are watching it. I suggest you start a new section (as you did just now) for each subject area you wish to improve, which will help me and others keep track of progress. I tend to add the tag {{done}}, which renders as  Done to actionable items I've finished. Note that I created a section just above this one which you may like to think about. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Basically  Done. Overall article tidied up and given more structure. References checked and cited more fully in most cases. Key section on photojournalism split into projects (alphabetically for want of a better idea) and given wikilinks where appropriate. The long Google link (put in square brackets so it doesn't clutter the page) does not work for me, so that potential reference was omitted. However, the BBC one on its own is fine. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Good work on the editing, though it's not clear why the two images have been added, they look rather weird and surplus, not illustrating anything of importance.(Unsigned contribution by Theroadislong)

There's method to my madness. Please indulge me for a couple of days at least and don't revert them. I'm being WP:BOLD for a reason related to the section immediately above this one. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

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

Now you can see one of the pitfalls of having an biography article on WP. While the editors, in good faith and in the right way decide what would be best for the article by "chatting" on its Talk page, the wider world sees the new images — and the subject of the article may be apoplectic, knowing that it is forbidden to do a revert, while perhaps hating that s/he is now associated with the military in quite that way. Moving on, editor 1 (me) could put the case that Gold clearly chose to work with soldiery and, as far as is known from WP:RS doesn't regret being associated with them, while editor 2 (Theroadislong) grumbles that these particular images add very little. Later, other editors who are watching the page, like David notMD, I bet, come along. Hopefully the crux of the argument becomes "do those images say anything we are certain about regarding Gold" (answer, no unless reliable secondary source is found) and "are they about Gold?" (answer, no, they are about the army units concerned). So the result of the discussion is likely to be they disappear quite quickly. But I'm not going to do that myself until Therodislong and David have had at least a while to comment. They may think different arguments come into play. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Out. And I deleted the SnugPak sentence and ref. David notMD (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

SnugPak is an interesting case we might like to think more broadly about. In biographies of (mainly dead) academics such as Lord Todd would it be OK to include the names of corporations who had provided funding, research support and so on and without which progress would have been much slower? In chemistry, there are/were schemes like CASE Awards where industry and academia cooperated, with funding in addition to that provided by the Science and Engineering Research Council. Many academic papers acknowledge such support and most journals insist it be disclosed for COI reasons. Are you aware of a WP policy on this question, David notMD? That preamble leads me to ask whether WP:BLP can/should include sponsorship. Ed Gold is a freelancer who relies partly on sponsorship. If he had been a full-time employee as in-house photographer for a company, that employer would certainly get a mention in the article. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be a plausible reach if he was sponsored by a camera company. Being a "brand ambassador" for two years for a company that is not yet a Wikipedia article in its own right is a sleeping bag too far. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice thought, given how far across the world he's gone :-) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Sourcing

Any chance we could have the occasional reliable independent secondary source? The BBC sources are all primary. Secondary sources are required by policy because Wikipedians are not supposed to be the sole arbiters of the significance and reception of a thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is just a list of "Photojournalism projects" sourced to the BBC, but we need independent sources to establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Going back to Gold, I would expect the interested reader to look at the article here to see (selected, more significant) examples of his work but without WP:OR we are totally reliant on what is "out there" about him. Now, to me a reference like this "From the Paras to civvy street: Life after the Army". bbc.co.uk. 2019-03-19. is WP:SECONDARY just because it is NOT about him, it is about his work — and the BBC is clearly a WP:RS that take editorial responsibility for what they publish on their website. In the article there are some clear secondary sources such as from the www.essexmums website: the trouble is most people wouldn't see them as terribly "weighty" opinions about Gold: certainly not so weighty as that expressed by Don McCullin, if we editors could find such a thing. BUT essexmums are in the list of references to confirm the facts about certain solo exhibitions, not to pontificate about Gold's worthiness as a photojournalist. It is for that reason that I don't think that we should be deleting material from the article (as Theroadislong did today for "fighting the flab"). Better to mark it as to see if the sourcing can be improved than undo (my) work in putting it in there in the first place. As we work to getting the article past start class, there might come a time for deletion of less well-sourced bits but why do so now that it is still a clear work-in-progress?

That's my starter-for-ten but much more could be said, once we get a debate going. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If his work is notable it will have been reported on in independent sources, if there are no such sources then the content doesn't belong here, Wikipedia only reports on what reliable independent sources have said about a topic, his own website can list all his projects. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. My point is more regarding the fact that (as I think you said elsewhere!) WP is a work in progress. So, editor (a) adds something that is true and WP:V but hasn't the time to add the citation to the WP:RS. Then along comes editor (b), who adds the tag, so that editor (c) can spend some time finding and improving the article. Only when the collaboration has reached, say, "C" on WP:Content_assessment#Quality_scale does the issue of what to throw out arise, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems far simpler to just add the secondary source from the outset, if there is one? I can't find one. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What was wrong with the BBC one I had already added? It said "Photographer Ed Gold decided to find out what drove members of his local Anytime Fitness gym in Colchester to keep putting in the hard work." That is, a WP:RS (the BBC) referred to Gold as a third party who had done a piece of work. The webpage does NOT say "I interviewed members of my local gym". I of course agree that it's best to add the source from the outset but sometimes real life intervenes! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The BBC reporting on it's own work surely cannot be considered an independent source? Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point, if this were an article about the BBC. But it isn't, it is about Gold, and thanks, Theroadislong, what you are doing just now seems like a good compromise. Here are four other links for you to take a look at:

BBC News Website 'In pictures': Generations of change (2 photos and text for Water Aid - just an article that used a couple of Gold's photos) - [2]

BBC News Website 'In pictures': A day in the life of a Polish nurse - written by Gold but not about Gold. [3]

BBC News Website 'In pictures': Bitter to better: Squatters transforming a derelict pub - again reportage by Gold not about him [4]

BBC News Website 'In pictures': The remote UK community living off-grid - reports what Gold did in a third-party way [5]

I can't add any of these to the article now that I have been accused of WP:COI and/or WP:PAID — total bollocks, but there we are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and Theroadislong: Additional secondary source.... Gee, Alastair (2017-11-30). "Chronicling homelessness: the photographer living on streets all over the world". The Guardian. Retrieved 2020-10-23. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done At last a source that mentions him! I've added it thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Third-party source for Atchley family (Alaska) mentions BBC reporter = Gold: Brown, Vanessa (2018-08-08). "The family who live in isolation 11 months of the year". news.com.au. Retrieved 2020-10-23. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Gold here? Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

He is the BBC in the quote "According to the BBC, who visited the Atchley’s home in 2017, the family spend the shorter winter days doing carpentry, cleaning and repairs." This report is from an Australian online news outlet. Do you think that their reporter Vanessa Brown ever visited the Atchleys? No, she communicated with them over Skype (see video at the top of the article) having been alerted to their existence by reading Gold's BBC account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have a different perception of "in-depth" coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We may just differ in opinion about what should be in a WP:BLP. Gold went to some trouble to visit the Atchleys: his first visit there was "in depth" and resulted in work documented in [6] as well as on his own website. It was not the same as a casual vox pop interview of the type BBC journalists do every day from their local office. Hence IMO it should be covered in his biography. What we quote as WP:RS sources to WP:V this part of his career depends on what we can find "out there" and in this case may not require coverage that is itself in depth about him — the coverage merely backs up what we already know from the more primary sources: and such sources are certainly not forbidden on WP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources: request for additions to article, regarding Scoraig

Suggested addition to article, with primary and secondary source:

Scoraig, Scotland

In 2018, Gold documented a community in the Scoraig peninsula in the north-west highlands of Scotland. "The remote UK community living off-grid". bbc.co.uk. 2018-11-19. Retrieved 2020-10-23. McFadden, Brendan (2018-11-26). "Britain's real-life castaways: The off-grid community who rejected the rat race to live on a remote Scottish peninsula where wind powers the homes and school". Mail Online. Retrieved 2020-10-23. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL applies to the mail article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange to blanket-ban the mail Online when they are quoting the BBC. Nevertheless, if that's the decision, then how about this secondary reference? "Living Off The Grid – Can It Be Done In The UK?". thepublicpurse.org.uk. 2019-10-02. Retrieved 2020-10-23. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

These secondary references are quite easy to find if you Google the BBC "in-pictures" ID. Here's another.... Palin, Alan (2019-02-27). "Walking the Coast of Great Britain:Scoraig Circular". Retrieved 2020-10-23. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

But... Michael D. Turnbull there is no mention of ED Gold in either sources, let alone any in-depth coverage as required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here. The BBC (primary) source says "Earlier this year, photographer Ed Gold lived alongside the community, documenting people's lives and exploring what drove them to move to this remote location" and all the photograph's in the account are by Gold. The (secondary) source from thepublicpurse has that article as a "resource" and explicitly gives the weblink to it. Alan Palin's article says "I opened the small iron doors of the lighthouse to reveal a small room with a series of info boards on the wall depicting life in the Scoraig community. I recently read a small piece on the BBC website about Scoraig, the link is below" confirming a) that the BBC article is read by people interested in Scoraig and b) that photographs by Gold are part of that communities own local history. There is a third confirmatory article in the Mail Online (deprecated in general as a WP source but here merely confirming what all the other sources say). As WP editors, it is up to us to decide which of these references should go into the article to back up the fact of the existence of the primary source: and that source, as I've said before, is not as "primary" as some are given that the BBC, not Gold, has editorial control and responsibility for what they publish on their "in pictures" articles. Are you asserting that Gold did not spend time in Scoraig and that he never had a role there as a professional photojournalist? Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No I am asserting that unless there are secondary sources that discuss him in-depth then we don't have the content about him, and The daily Mail is of no use whatsoever to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

images

Even if the images now have the correct license, they do need to illustrate the article content, what does Margaret Thatcher visiting Parachute Regiment have to do with the article's subject? Theroadislong (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Gold is a photographer and these images illustrate his work: isn't that what readers would hope to see in a Wikipedia article? Taking, for example, Karimeh Abbud a photographer whose work is now out of copyright and so can be included in the article on her, there is a whole gallery of images illustrating examples (in the form of postcards, in her case). Unusually for a BLP, we have correctly licensed images of Gold's work and can therefore include a selection of them. If you think it would be better to explicitly place these images in a "Gallery" section at the bottom of the article, that's fine by me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

But the photograph is NOT mentioned in the article? Is it a notable work by him? Has it been the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable sources? We don't just stick random pictures of work in without context. Theroadislong (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the photographs are there as examples of his work. If you would prefer to use different examples, then please do so, there are many available. It would be strange, I think, not to take the opportunity to improve an article on a photojournalist by including some of his imagery. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the images don't add any understanding of the subject (and I really question why there are multiple sections about different projects he has been involved with, sourced only to the projects themselves!) I have removed the parachute regiment images. Since this article should not be a display case of the person's work, the images don't actually improve the article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Added: The case where one of Gold's own images would be relevant in the article is if that specific image had been discussed by secondary sources, or if it for instance was displayed in a museum. --bonadea contributions talk 16:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Request addition, with supporting references

Valereee Thank you for your reply on 29 June 2023. Please find suggested additions to Ed Gold Wikipedia page.

Specific text to be added: FOLLOWING ON FROM THE WIKI ED GOLD ARTICLE, MENTIONING ED GOLD'S VISIT TO UKRAINE IN 2011, PLEASE ADD 3 NEWS STORIES ABOUT HIS VISIT TO UKRAINE FROM JUNE TO JULY 2023.

Reason for the change: NO CHANGE, ADDITIONS PLEASE TO REFERENCES SECTION.

References supporting change: 1) Man to meet Minister in Ukraine using plastic waste to make electric; https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/23447311.man-meet-minister-ukraine-using-plastic-waste-make-electric/ 2) A British man crossed Europe on a motorcycle in 5 days to get to Ukraine from Great Britain; https://suspilne.media/506410-britanec-za-5-dniv-peretnuv-evropu-na-motocikli-abi-potrapiti-v-ukrainu-z-velikoi-britanii/ 3) Colchester photographer Ed Gold documents Ukraine trip; https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/23620677.colchester-photographer-ed-gold-documents-ukraine-trip/

I hope I have done this correctly. Thank youEddieLeVisco (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)