Talk:Glen E. Friedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Contents

[edit] Copyvio

All of the information on this article was copyvio material from here. I removed it all and stubbed the article looks like we need to start from scratch but that's better than what we had.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An anon has added a claim that the owner of the (copyrighted) website that was cut and pasted to this article has given permission. I asked user:Mindspillage how to document such a release and received the following reply (italics mine):
First, you have to be sure that they mean to release it under the GFDL or into the public domain (if it is text) or under one of the several allowable licenses (if it is an image) -- "permission to use" is not enough, and if they really mean to release it, they need to say so. There are some example request letters to help explain to people what is meant by that at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. After that, they should comment on the talk page that they release it, and also send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permissions

OTRS icon The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available here for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.

Ticket link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=706394

. Note: this permission only speaks to the text copyright and not to the quality of the article or the notability of its subject.Bastiq▼e demandez 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why would this page be removed?

The author is clearly note worthy and has been quoted in publications world wide and shown in exhibitions world wide. It seems crazy that some one would want to delete this article with out better explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.111.109 (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Nominating this page for deletion is ridiculous. Freidman is clearly a notable artist (take, as an example the wiki pages that link to this article). The article does indeed require a great deal of cleanup, but it is certainly not beyond repair. Citing lack of further discussion in the next day or two (since that's pretty much all the article has until being delete, I'll take off the banner myself.Drewcifer3000 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

This page was written like an advertisent of the subject and no reliable sources have been provided to back up the assertions made in the body of the article. I've removed all unattibuted matreial from the page. Please do not add any other material unless it can be sourced. In the mean time I'll be trying to find some other sources myself and looking into his published works history. Feel free to leave any questions or comments here or on my talk page. NeoFreak 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the constant revisions

This article was badly in need of cleanup. It did indeed read much like an advertisment, and seemed to ingnore most of Wikipedia's rules about neutrality, verifiability, and not to mention basic formatting. However, many of this issues with the page (or I guess I should say with the old page) were not beyond repair. Things could have been reworded, referenced (I got the impression that the majority of the biographical info was from the burningflags website, so citing things shouldn't be too hard), and formatted correctly. Much of the page, however, was beyond repair (the glowing reviews from newspapers and magazines, for instance). That said, I think deleting almost the entire page was a little drastic, and a few [citation needed]'s would have gone a long way. I for one don't know much about Friedman's work, so I doubt I'm the right person to fix this article up.
So, too avoid an editing war, I'd recommend anyone who thinks information should be added back to the article to first look up such information, then when adding it back to the article to cite it appropriately (see WP:REF). Uncited and unverifiable information has no place on Wikipedia. What might work is to add information back sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, all of which is referenced and cited appropriately. Otherwise, adding information to the article that is uncited will get reverted, and with just cause.
I'll do my best to appropriately revert some of the article.
--Drewcifer3000 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My purge and burn removal of the majority of the article was in fact drastic but this article was in terrible shape. Adding a cite needed tag every other sentence would have been less than productive. The user on the other end of the reversions has shown an intelligent and contructive attitude in the past day toward improving the article. While some accusations have been thrown around that are less than appropriate I have no doubt that we can resolve this artilcle's issues without much more in the way of reversion. I'll address the other editor in the detail he deserves when I have a little more time, I would hope in the next day or so. NeoFreak 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I think we have a good start, it's looking better and better all the time. However there are still a couple unreferenced statements which I've tagged. And I'm still kind of iffy on the newspaper quotes, even though they are somewhat enlightening. Perhaps those should be referenced too?
--Drewcifer3000 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Do you think a gallery of some of Friedman's photos/works would be appropriate? Something like:

Edited out gallery for potential copyright violations. The gallery is in the article proper anyways.

I'm sure there's a ton more examples of his photography on Wikipedia, but this is all I could find in a quick search.
--Drewcifer3000 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why were these great galleries removed?

Please replace the gallery, all the uses were fair, all images in these well put together galleries were examples of the artist's work, from gathered promotional materials, including book covers, record album covers, publicity photographs for the artists and books. 26 june 2007

[edit] Not an advertisement?

Some IP has removed the ADVERTISEMENT template.

Let's take a look at one section:

Friedman's childhood was largely spent skating in the legendary [ Just what legend would this be? ] West Los Angeles schoolyards of the area called "Dogtown.".... Several years later Friedman began to shoot the punk shows he was attending. He was passionately loyal [ Meaning? ] to his subjects, and relentlessly devoted [ How? ] to winning them exposure in the press.

The tone here is less of advertising than of uncommunicative awe. (Legendary schoolyards? Really?) -- Hoary 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Took out the questionable words/phrasing. Wasn't that big of a deal. Jeesh. Drewcifer3000 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But actually these schoolyards are legendary in the history of skateboading!!! These schoolyards are where skateboarding on slanted walls first took place and led to changing the sport/art forever. 26 June 2007

OK, good. But for what are the schoolyards "famous"? And he's A consummate artist -- you mean, somebody with the genius of, say, Henri Cartier Bresson? Really, this article needs more work. -- Hoary 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's been a number of movies and books based on Dogtown. Unfortunately, it seems to lack an article, so it only links to a disambiguation page which mentions it briefly. But that's another issue. I also took out a bit more questionable language. Drewcifer3000 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lords of Dogtown NeoFreak 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
YES according to some of the critical reviews this artist does have the genius of say Bresson, why don't you research further before doubting things you have no knowledge of? Is you tearing apart this piece politically motivated? 26 June 2007

[edit] "available in many places"

In this edit, an IP has pulled five {{fact}} tags and made various other changes, with the edit summary This information is available in many places online and books, and is common knowledge on the artist, citations requests here are clutter.

"Common knowledge" is often wrong.

If the information is available from reliable sources, cite those sources.

My favorite among the latest additions is Friedman is an active political activist, um I suppose as opposed to a passive political activist, an active political passivist or whatever. -- Hoary 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An IP has removed all the FACT tags again, with the edit comment Hoary has not done research him/herself, please before you delete photos and things you are not sure of dig a bit on your own. Some common knowledge is not correct, but this common knowledge is!
That's right, I haven't done research myself. And you don't have to do so either. Somebody has to do research, however. Till that time, the FACT tags stay.
If "Dogtown" is famous, surely it will have its own article. (After all, it's in the US, and even US trivia gets articles in WP.) It doesn't seem to have one. There is indeed a disambiguation page titled Dogtown, but that's not helpful.
It wasn't me who removed the "gallery" the first time. But I removed it the second time as it doesn't meet any fair use criterion. -- Hoary 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to comment on something you said above: notability is not defined by having a Wikipedia article. It's the other way around: for something to have a Wikipedia article it must be notable. Or, in this case "famous." To assume that Dogtown is not "famous" simply due to its lack of an article is silly. I think this is the 3rd time you've posted here about the adjective describing Dogtown. (The first time I changed it from "legendary" to "famous" to be more NPOV) You're beating a dead horse here. There have been movies made and books written about Dogtown. If that isn't famous I don't know what is. It's lack of an article is irrelevant.
And while I'm at it, the gallery should go and the {{Fact}} tags should stay until references are cited, so I'm with you on that.
Drewcifer3000 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You write If [Dogtown] isn't famous I don't know what is. I wondered what would happen if I clicked on the "Random article" link. I landed on Uruguay at the 1972 Summer Olympics. (Quick: What did Uruguay do in the 1972 summer Olympics? No, I didn't know either. It was a highly notable participation to some people, not a notable one at all to me.) Conveniently, the article has just a single sentence before the lists start, and it reads: Uruguay competed at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany. Uruguay, Summer Olympics, Munich, West Germany: Yes, I'd say that they're all pretty famous, indeed, hugely more famous than Dogtown. But the sentence doesn't read for example Uruguay competed at the famous 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany. And nor should it: see this. -- Hoary 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Well that Uraguay thing was a complete tangent, and I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest. Good point? I guess? Seems completely irrelevant, but I follow you on the other point you make in the last sentence. I suppose the word "famous" could be considered a peacock word, but, at least in this case, it connotes a condition of notability rather than quality. see: [1]. However if you dig a little deeper (WP:PEA) you'll find the word "famous" on a more substantial list of peacock words. I myself find the logic of putting "famous" and "infamous" into that list a bit shakey (see the discussion of its inclusion), but in the end of the day, it's one word in a million plus articles, so I'm willing to let it go. Drewcifer3000 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Then more simply: If something is famous, you'll know of it. You won't need to be told that it's famous. I look around my bookshelves and my eyes land on Educating Eve by Geoffrey Sampson. He has a certain degree of fame in linguistics (and also of notoriety in politics). If I say a journal issue has an article by "the famous Geoffrey Sampson", it's a peacock. If otoh I say that it's "by Geoffrey Sampson, famous among linguists for his book-length attempt at a refutation of Pinker's The Language Instinct and of nativism in general", this has some merit. Better still, it's "by Geoffrey Sampson, writer of a book-length attempt at a refutation of Pinker's The Language Instinct and of nativism in general". And best of all is just to say that it's "by [bluelinked] Geoffrey Sampson". -- Hoary 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Like I said, I'm willing to let it go. Drewcifer3000 11:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Dogtown should be placed back in and is famous! and on the disambiguation page titled Dogtown, in fact it does state: "A nickname for the former Pacific Ocean Park beach area at the Santa Monica/Venice border in California, famed for its skateboarding and surfing culture, used as the setting for the 2005 Lords of Dogtown, based on Dogtown and Z-Boys" . There have been two movies made (one award winning), several books and countless magazine articles based on the Dogtown skateboarders that are refered to in this artists piece. If there are movies and such does this not qualify as well known or famous?