Jump to content

Talk:Manuel Rivera-Ortiz

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.167.112.12 (talk) at 23:32, 13 August 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeManuel Rivera-Ortiz was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Publications

The subtitle "Publications with contributions by Rivera-Ortiz" does not seem to be accurate. Some books were published by him (e.g. the India book), even tough there is a foreword and a postscript by others. Perhaps this paragraph should be split in "Publications by Rivera-Ortiz" and "Publications with contributions by Rivera-Ortiz".

The Rivera-Ortiz Foundation Logo should be updated to reflect the new foundation name (The Manuel Rivera-Ortiz Foundation for Documentary Photography & Film). Also, the foundation should probably be described in a stand-alone article. 178.38.229.42 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links/References

I would suggest to use these links in the article:

64.134.243.17 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Manuel Rivera-Ortiz was born in Puerto Rico, but has been living in he U.S. since the age of 12. He should therefore be characterized as a Puerto Rican-American.-KissmeKate (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Puerto Ricans are US citizens. 69.193.211.209 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility problem

There is no credibility problem. I wish all articles were equally well documented with references. -- 68.76.227.6 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using boldface to assert that that "there is no credibility problem" does not add to the persuasiveness of the assertion. Yes, some of it cites material that's linked and that we can check for ourselves. Those aside, we have the following footnotes:
  • Democrat & Chronicle April 3, 2005, pg C1
  • Metropolitan Magazine; Arts & Cultural Council, Rochester NY, cover story Spring 2007
  • ConXion Magazine, interview February 2007, pg. 10-11
  • Nueva Luz Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 2, pgs. 2-9, 2006.
  • ConXion Magazine cover story, August 2004
  • ConXion Magazine cover story August 2005, pgs. 10-11
  • Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, July 30, 2004, p. I.61 (Insider Section)
  • Democrat & Chronicle, August 27, 2004, page 24, Section I
  • Miami Herald, April 5, 2007
which are not linked. Now, it's perfectly acceptable to cite material that does not appear on the web but that is available in a good library. We start by assuming honesty and good faith in editors' work here, until we get around to checking in the library for ourselves. But there's no obligation to continue with these assumptions when confronted with evidence of mendacity.
A quick search reveals several websites which recognise Rivera-Ortiz as a street photographer: Here [1] Rivera-Ortiz together with Gary Winogrand is mentioned as a classic practitioner of street photography on a website of a leading supplier of photo accessories and here [2] on a photographers blog on Street Photography: "Sehr eindrucksvoll sind u. a. die Bilder von Arthur Leipzig, Bruce Gilden, Manuel Rivera-Ortiz" (very impressive are amongst others the pictures of Arthur Leipzig, Bruce Gilden, Manuel Rivera-Ortiz) and here [3] on a website of a design agency. And this website [4] includes him in a list of "Top photojournalists of All Time".
The footnotes which are not linked seem not available online free of charge. Here [5] is an overview of articles written about Rivera-Ortiz in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Unfortunately only the abstracts are free of charge. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the pieces about Rivera-Ortiz that appear in the Rochester newspaper. None of those other pieces about him that you link to impresses me. The page of "Top photojournalists of all time" is long and interesting, but it's unsigned and (for example) says nothing about the photography of Nagai other than that photography is what he was doing as he died. It includes at least one other lesser-known photographer who has been hyped (and attacked) in en:WP. The other pages seem insubstantial. ¶ Again, I know little about MRO's photography. He merits an article. But until he puts out books that are well reviewed in places that matter, or wins prizes that matter, I find it hard to see how he should be regarded as one of the greatest exponents of this or that kind of photography. -- Hoary (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Rivera-Ortiz merits an article. Would you also agree with me that the article per se is not (or no longer) mendacious? The article has been cleaned up and in my view the WP:COI tag can now be removed. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the need for it isn't obvious. It was added in this edit by Hekerui; let's see what Hekerui has to say about it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article reads fine now, then remove the note. Hekerui (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads fine, and it neither overstates nor understates Manuel Rivera-Ortiz's work as a photographer. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, just look at the last paragraph of the section "Photographic career" - purely promotional, no specifics. Hekerui (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph, consisting of just one sentence, is commending. However, it is fully backed up by the reference to the Zone Zero article. The article refers to a select few established documentary photographers, including Manuel Rivera-Ortiz, whose "works resulting from a documentary task are praised" in "multiple exhibits, in several continents" (hence the title "Documentary Art"). Zone Zero is a well-respected photographic site, and Robert Hirsch has referred to it as "top-notch" (Robert Hirsch, Light and Lens: Photography in the Digital Age, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Boston: Focal Press, 2007; ISBN 024080855X, p.329-330; here at Google Books, accessed 2011-01-16). As a matter of fact, it is surprising that Zone Zero has not yet earned a Wikipedia article, and I think this will be one of my next projects. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I don't think the quote, as it appears in the article, is a fair representation of the source. By splicing together material in two different paragraphs, the quote has stretched the original way out of proportion. I think a fair reading of the source merely supports the concept that MRO has had exhibits in art museums. Moreover, the sentence appearing in the Wiki article barely make sense. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to improve the language. I think the quote is a fair representation of the source. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality/importance assessment

In this edit, User:SwissLawyer gave this a B grade for WikiProject History of Photography; in the next edit, he or she did the same for WikiProject Visual Arts. This despite the adulatory and unsourced quotations, the largely unsourced biographical information, and the lack of sourcing for exhibitions.

Not so odd when you realize that the assessor is the author.

I've changed every "B" to "C", and deleted "importance=mid". -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I've changed every "B" to "C", and deleted "importance=mid". -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Realist

I think it is important that we mention the fact that he is a Social Realist. That only serves his right for his great work depicting social issues. -- ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, say that he's a social realist. ¶ I can't say much myself, because I know little about him. People who know more than I do (and I'm sure that there are many of these) are of course welcome to build up the article about him. (They're also welcome to build up the articles on people of whom I do happen to know a little; yes, the articles on people of whom I know enough to realize that WP's articles are terrible in most senses. All we need are a few tens of thousands of man-hours.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

User:ConcernedPhotographer stated that they were the copyright holder of the logo of the Manuel Rivera-Ortiz Foundation, File:MROFoundationLogo.jpg. Since the user is a major contributor to this article, the article has a case of WP:COI. Hekerui (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now the logo got a fair-use rationale. What's the explanation? Was the original claim wrong? Hekerui (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the copyright holder of the logo. I did not really know what I needed to do when I uploaded the file. I have now amended the file entry. I did actually get permission from Manuel Rivera-Ortiz to upload the logo (not quite sure how I should reference to this permission in the license description). I met Manuel Rivera-Ortiz 12 years ago while studying at the University of Rochester, but don't have close relations with him or the foundation. ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was misinformation, the article is still written like a resume, a list of achievements, and reads like a promotional tool. One glaring instance is the matter-of-fact statement in the last paragraph of "photographic career", when that is an opinion and it's not maked who gave it and where, to provide any context. Hekerui (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the matter-of-fact statement in question, and I believe it is now fully back up by the source. ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article

I just saw pictures of Manuel Rivera-Ortiz at the opening of Paris Photo at Grand Palais in Paris yesterday and think that the article, in particular the section about his photographic career, should be expanded. 78.249.200.166 (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera-Ortiz's work is featured in photography classes at various universities, e.g. here [6]. Some of these materials could be used to expand the article which still seems to be incomplete. 92.150.203.174 (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite openly published material from reliable sources, you are welcome to expand the article yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rivera-Ortiz Foundation

Shouldn't the section on the Manuel Rivera-Ortiz Foundation be expanded and become a separate stand-alone article? 93.62.138.2 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know whether this seems reasonable. 93.62.138.2 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering. These reasons seem a bit obsolete now that we have 7 references from reliable sources. Wouldn't that justify a stand-alone article by now? 93.62.138.2 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided so far are largely press releases, either direct from the source or recycled. If these are the best sources that exist (and I haven't looked), then it doesn't look so good. Still, if you think that an article can be made that meets Wikipedia's requirements, you're welcome to create a draft in your own userspace (e.g. User:93.62.138.2/Draft) and, when you think it's in pretty good shape, ask about it at User talk:Sandstein (since it was Sandstein who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rivera-Ortiz Foundation). -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manuel_Rivera-Ortiz&oldid=734385074"