Talk:Glen E. Friedman

message: .  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)
thread_title:  Permissions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why would this page be removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: 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 '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning the constant revisions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: C'mon this page has been through a lot, it's pathetic to see people say this artist/photographers work questioned because the accusers are not familiar with the work or artist. Everything on here is referenced, quit putting up these tags and work on pages that really need the help and the tags, this is a good fact filled page and has stood the test of time (almost a year) well. I will remove the tone tag in a week if no one makes better suggestions here. This piece is fine as is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.124.60 (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 3 months, a bit more than the week discussed above and not one contributor has suggested why the "tone" tag should stay, so we will remove the tag. This is a good entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.118.7 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: advert tag

message: In this edit, 68.161.71.43 reverts my removal of links to "Fuck You Heroes", with the edit summary the book has it's own page, why not link to it?
The premiss is mistaken. Yes, "Fuck You Heroes" is bluelinked. Go ahead and click on it, and you'll see that it's merely a redirect to this article. The book doesn't have its own page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on ''Fuck You Heroes'' (or not)

message: Earlier, I replaced a number of footnotes citing Friedman's bio page on his own website with "citation needed" flags. In this edit, 68.161.71.43 reverted this replacement, with the edit summary undoing reckles user needlessly hacking this entry. An official biography of a museum collected artist is a perfectly legitimate reference
Here are the assertions:
*"Friedman's photography has been seen in international publications for more than thirty years, on record covers for over twenty five years, and has been exhibited in art galleries and museums worldwide for over ten years."
*"Original prints of his work are in [. . .] the Photographic History Collection of the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., the permanent collection of the Experience Music Project Museum in Seattle, Washington, and private collections globally."
*"In the fall of 1976, Friedman discovered an empty pool, and corralled a few friends into riding it so he could take pictures. He showed the results to a freelance SkateBoarder writer he met on the local schoolyard banks, who put the eighth-grader in touch with the editor. They published the first photos Glen submitted as a full-page subscription ad. He soon after became their youngest staff member."
*"1976 - At fourteen years old Glen E. Friedman shoots his first published photograph."
*"1983 - Friedman produced Suicidal Tendencies eponymous debut album, which became the biggest selling hardcore punk album of the decade."
I've no particular reason to think that any of these is untrue; I'm open minded. If true, each of these seems to me something for which Friedman deserves some respect. (Contrast these with assertions about, say, which high school he went to, how many sisters he has, when he married, or what he likes to eat for lunch -- such information would imaginably be of interest but is unlikely to change our degree of respect for him.)
Now let's turn to "WP:BLP". This is not merely a guideline but a policy page. And it tells us:
:Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
:::1. it is not unduly self-serving;
"Unduly" here strikes me as rather too weaselly for use in a place such as this. Is this material self-serving? Yes it is. Is it unduly self-serving? We can argue about that.
The article goes some way to show that Friedman is famous. He's primarily famous in the US. Surely the US is the nation that creates the largest quantity of googlable material that can be called reliable. So why does this article have to resort to citing Friedman (unfiltered by any publisher) for assertions about Friedman's achievements? 
The assertion above that's most easily compared to those in other articles is the one about Friedman's presence in public collections. (Whether he's in private collections seems trivial. I, a private person, have original prints by moderately well known photographers "in my collection" [i.e. in boxes lying on the floor under the sofa]. So what?) Try my (!) articles "Nikos Economopoulos" and "Chris Steele-Perkins". (No, no print by either lurks under my sofa or anywhere else chez Hoary.) Each article says something about representation in public collections; and each component assertion is sourced in a way that easily meets Wikipedia's requirement for disinterested, reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedman's accomplishments, according to Friedman

message: There was significant discussion about the edits by Lopifalko on his talk page.
  
Search&dastroy (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Lopifalko

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Glen E. Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060523002746/http://www.southern.com/BURNINGFLAGS/introduction.html to http://www.southern.com/BURNINGFLAGS/introduction.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512054327/http://www.burningflags.com/press/warp.html to http://burningflags.com/press/warp.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100927101618/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rap_mogul_paned_plea_for_tolerance_q9RdZHUAMGKdkSE6VVTR5H to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rap_mogul_paned_plea_for_tolerance_q9RdZHUAMGKdkSE6VVTR5H
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100627043706/http://www.photoireland.org/2010/programme/event/fuck-you-all to http://www.photoireland.org/2010/programme/event/fuck-you-all
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121071703/http://blogs.laweekly.com/play/weiss/the-raw-power-of-glen-e-friedm/ to http://blogs.laweekly.com/play/weiss/the-raw-power-of-glen-e-friedm/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified