Talk:David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

Notable and Primary Sources are not a problem here from the Article's drafter

I am the one who drafted this article. The author has written many books and given many art shows. The article cites many critics and notable figures in sexology and advocacy. It already contains lots of secondary supporting material. It seems a stretch to suggest that the article doesn't meet Wiki's standard of notability.

The claim that this article relies excessively on primary sources is not valid. It contains exactly one direct quote. (Compare to the wiki page of John Updike which contained 18 direct quotations (the last time I counted). I am following what I consider to be a standard on Wikipedia.

I used book publication information from the author's own site because I'd prefer not to link directly to Amazon. This strikes me as very uncontroversial. Also, providing 2 links to indices of 15-20 years of columns reproduced on the author's website from 2 defunct publications strikes me as both as reasonable and appropriate and fulfills Wikipedia's overall mission of making information easy to find.

Wikipedia's policy do allow use of self-published/questionable sources in certain cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Finally, let me speak of someone who runs a small indie publishing house. Pre-digital age, a lot of articles/book reviews/positive reviews were never digitized. Clippings that appear on the print book's jacket and inside the book were indispensable sources of information before publications went digital. This kind of information is also very important to wiki editors for determining notability. In my 20 years working in book publishing, I have never heard of a book blurb or jacket blurb misrepresenting a review or the person who made a recommendation. Publishers take these things very seriously!

(By the way, not related in any way to any of the publishing houses publishing Mr. STeinberg's works nor have any conflict of interest).

I have looked over the blurbs on these books (at least the ones I have been able to see), and let me say that the book was praised by many many notable people in the field of sexuality/sexual politics/sexual photography. I have chosen only a small representative number. But I could easily produce 10 or 20 more statements by other people who have been judged by Wikipedia to be notable. That is why I find this message to be so unfounded and perplexing.

I am very well-versed in wikis policies about living people (I have been editing author bios on Wikipedia for 17 years!), and I tried my best to make an article that meets these guidelines. Please consider removing this message. Thanks. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You might have been better submitting this for review at WP:AFC, there is the possibility of it being sent to WP:AFD, the number of primary sources is excessive and we NEVER use Wikipedia as a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I substituted the Wikipedia reference with an original source. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The statement that the number of primary sources is excessive is just wrong. I explained in the above comment my reasons for doing so, which all seem reasonable and allowed by Wiki's policies. If a book's content are mirrored online, I would prefer to use it. The alternative, it seems, is to link to Amazon or just give the ISBN -- which is fine, but it is hurting Wikipedia's readers. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's normal to just provide ISBN numbers and it's not clear how he passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

At some point I will add ISBNs and maybe archive.org links if I can find them. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

The fact that he was "selected for inclusion in the Open 2023 exhibit at the De Young Museum" confers zero notability as it is primary sourced, unless this has received significant coverage in reliable' independent sources it is irrelevant to mention it. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a relatively minor detail; it's not that crucial to the article. But I did provide a link to the museum's own page for it. Robert J Nagle (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability Issues

Some editors have raised questions about notability here. David Steinberg (journalist and photographer). I have addressed those issues at length here: Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert J Nagle If the article is kept then your spirited defence will become part of the permanent record on this talk page. If deleted then your link to it will go, though the discussion will be preserved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (November 2024)

Clear conflict of interest, editor has been in contact with the article's subject. Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have dealt with conflict of interest issues here. Please note that my personal page discloses conflict of interest for several authors already, but not this one. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC). My understanding of COI is that it does not absolutely forbid contact with the article's subject, but it's discouraged and mostly inappropriate and if done, it needs to be at arm's length. As I stated in my response about notability, I feel that my contact with the subject was minimal and fully appropriate.

I encountered this issue before with an author bio I did about Clay Reynolds. I have never met or talked to this man, but I interviewed him once by email -- and used some of what I learned from the interview to write the wiki article. (I also checked with him two or three times about chronology and dates). I was then accused multiple times by wiki editors of having a COI and had to explain multiple times the extent of my limited contact with him. Ironically, Reynolds was pretty furious about the final article I wrote for him when he saw it. He even wrote me to complain. Sadly, the author passed away months later and I ended up having to be the one to update the article with the death notice. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest issues

I have dealt with conflict of interest issues here. Please note that my personal page discloses conflict of interest for several authors already, but not this one. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Update. I will post a COI under protest. But I just realized that my 2 previous COIs for unrelated articles were not done correctly, so I have to take care of this first. I will put a COI on this article in the next 2 days ...even though I believe it's not warranted. Robert J Nagle (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert J Nagle Please also deploy {{connected contributor}} on this talk page with relevant parameters filled in. Delaying for "a couple of days" feels to be a somewhat pointless protest. While your COI is slight, and I see why you make the argument that you have none, being in contact with and gaining information from the subject is an ipso facto conflict of interest. To maintain your good standing here I recommend the fullest possible transparency at all times.

tl;dr Why delay? It makes you look unusual. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to deal with family issues to deal with and real life obligations. I posted  with the template you suggested and I can see that it appears on the top.     It really concerns me that I did it wrong last time -- I thought I had done my homework and  used the template correctly. Looking at the current template (which frankly strikes me as incomprehensible),  I haven't figured out whether I am even supposed to be the person to fill out some of the parameters. Robert J Nagle (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally it is better if the person with the conflict fills out the template. Thank you. I've never seen one with an essay in it before, but it serves its purpose 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)