Talk:Kevin Ou

feat.sg

I've removed a reference to feat.sg. Here's what that site says about itself:

feat. is a photographer’s talent management agency featuring fresh dynamic photographers with one common goal – creating kick ass imageries for the fashion and advertising industry.

So it's just advertising Ou's services. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good edit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Could this be used as a cite for his work, rather than looked at as an advertisement? ---- User:JP22Wiki Talk - 16:20 7 May 2012

No it cannot, because its major purpose is to drum up business. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

evidence for award

The article cites this as evidence for having won an award. But all this says is

EntryID: 35926, Name: Kevin Ou Title: "Zymol "Irresistable" Campaign"
Category: Advertising, Subcategory: Automotive

Where's the evidence for having won? -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I 've added a cite tag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

cite added for award win ---- User:JP22Wiki Talk - 16:16 7 May 2012

Good, thank you. Do you have any source for the other awards? -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More strange sourcing

A long list of corporate clients was followed by:

<ref>reference to Ou's work with large [http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=494 companies]</ref>.

This doesn't seem to mention any of these corporate clients. Or am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it as a cite and put it in the EL section -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Misc clean up

I removed the EL to Lumenere Inc as the site makes no mention of Ou. Also removed the ref to YouTube as it was not posted by the owner of the content per WP:YOUTUBE. I have also copy edited to remove editorializing and unsourced claims about the subject. I also improved some ref formatting and updated the clean up tags. The promotional tone is gone but now we have the question of notability. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Four9seven

In 2005 Ou founded the Four9Seven talent agency

There's little sign of it on the web. Could it be related to four9seven.blogspot.com? But this underwhelming blog seems to have been born and died in 2009. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit more searching. Wherever "Four9seven" pops up, "Stephen Dummit" seems to do so as well. Here's his blog and here's his site. No obvious sign of activity since late 2010, though for all I know there may be within the murk of Myspace, where I don't want to venture. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Lumenere

The article says:

Lumenere Inc., a foundation aimed at improving global sustainability through enterprise.

That might mean anything, or nothing.

Ou himself says it is:

A global society-based company that leverages corporate revenue to create a positive social change in the world.

I am unable to derive any sense from this. (An essay by Harry Frankfurt comes to mind.) And I'm no wiser after reading this.

Perhaps somebody better than me at deciphering corporatese should take over. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication at the web site that Ou is a founder or has any significant role. His web site is listed under the LINKS section of the company site but that is all. I've removed the sentence claiming he founded the company. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Good edit. (Incidentally, I tentatively infer that it's an advertising company that specializes in charity campaigns.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern Home + Living (MHL) magazine

Modern Home + Living (MHL) magazine appears to be merely a blog? Not sure why it would be worthy of a mention.Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the blog section of the web site, it shows a man holding a paper issue of the magazine, so I think it exists. Its notabiliy and Ou's role there are a bit in question though.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The place to look it up would be Ulrich's. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources

I've put some possible sources in the EL section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Life

I've added a source for his education. While this doesn't cover everything mentioned it does discuss his schooling and also his education at university. JP22Wiki (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for awards

On this edit: rm unsourced section. replace contents only as reliable third party sources become available (not the subject, not the group giving the award)

I've no objection to the removal of the unsourced awards. However, one item read:

International Photo Award (IPA), for Zymol “Irresistible” Campaign, for an automotive advertisement<ref>[http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/zoomPRO.php?eid=35926&comp=7&mc=64238&type=subcat&sub=Automotive&cat=Advertising Zymol “Irresistible” Campaign] [http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/reportPRO.php?comp=7 Award Listing]</ref>

It has long seemed to me that an award-giver is an excellent source for the receiving of an award. Should we have one standard for Kevin Ou and another for other photographers, or must I revisit hundreds of edits I've made here over the years, in which I've cited the award-giver?

I do understand that if a photography award is notable it will be mentioned, at least, in art/photography magazines. The reality, though, is that only a minuscule percentage of the text of these magazines is indexed anywhere (let alone available online and thus googlable), and that Wikipedia lacks editors who have huge amounts of time and energy available for researching this kind of subject (unlike, say, The Simpsons). -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your points. I feel the edit was unjust, an award from the IPA is of huge importance in the photography industry, meaning it is notable. Secondly it referenced back to the winning work (the photos) and secondly the award page stating that Kevin Ou won the award. On these grounds that means if someone won a Noble Peace Prize a reference to wouldn't reference the fact that they'd won the award? Is something not reliable these days until someone writes a press release about it?JP22Wiki (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, citing to the awarding party doesn't indicate the biographical significance of any award. It doesn't have to be notable itself. If an award is prestigious, it should more easily avail itself to coverage by reliable third parties, even just a mention. Citing to Nobel is not congruent. More people know it as a notable prize, and so it's more clearly noteworthy; but still, citing to coverage of the award is better. Nobel prize winners tend to be reported. And yes, I'd say it's a mistake to cite to any award giver when the award is not widely known. JFHJr (㊟) 01:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right, citing the awarding organization doesn't indicate the significance of the award. The most "prestigious" (or anyway the most chattered-about) photography awards (Hasselblad, Deutsche Börse, and a very few others) are mentioned in the better newspapers. However, plenty of awards that are prestigious enough to be mentioned in photography magazines (which aren't googlable) go unmentioned in newspapers.

An example is the Higashikawa Awards. This page from the Aomori Museum of Art is about the posthumous awarding of one of these to Ichirō Kojima. We can infer notability of the award from the fact that it's written up by this (prefectural) art gallery -- and not just the town of Higashikawa (which isn't in Aomori) and the family of Kojima. I infer that the Higashikawa Awards (plural) are notable, and thus that individual examples (e.g. that given to Shunji Dodo) are notable; for the lastmentioned, sourcing to the Higashikawa organization is perfectly adequate.

Thus it's not necessarily a mistake to cite the award giver when the award is not widely known. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You might "infer" notability of an award, but inference is not enough. JFHJr (㊟) 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You point me (or anyone) to "Wikipedia:No original research". Yes, I am familiar with this. What do you wish to imply by pointing to it? Is it perhaps that (1) the significance of an award cannot be inferred from the fact that a publicly funded art gallery (the largest in a prefecture) devotes a web page to its posthumous conferral on a photographer whose works are in its collection, and that (2) such significance would instead have to be directly asserted ("This is a significant award", or similar, or the Japanese equivalent thereof) by a reliable source? ¶ You write above: In general, citing to the awarding party doesn't indicate the biographical significance of any award. It [[WP:NNC|doesn't have to be notable itself]] (my emphasis). What is this "it"? Do you or don't you demand evidence for "the biographical significance of any award"; if you do demand it, must the evidence be third-party evidence for the significance of that particular conferral of the award; and if so, why? ¶ Wondering whether the picture I was getting of your seemingly extraordinary (and perhaps contradictory) demands for evidence and significance might be mistaken, I decided that I should take a look at how you augmented or created articles. Your user page encouragingly mentions your interest in articles on Bhutan, but a quick look at your list of contributions suggests that such edits have recently been greatly outnumbered by edits to biographies. I hadn't heard of the biographees (just as I hadn't heard of Ou till a link to him popped up in an article on my watchlist); but among them (as photography interests me) I plumped for David James (photographer). You're right to point out on its talk page that the article is very feeble indeed. You're again right to say that it's in need of reliable third party sources [on which] to base prose and demonstrate notability. But then the strange part: you're the very editor who silently removed two usable sources from it. I get the impression that your way of dealing with biographies that look dodgy is to dispose of uncited and dubiously cited material but also adequately cited material; and then to point out the resulting lack of evidence for notability. Do I misunderstand? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"It" is the award; awards need not be notable in their own right to have been neutrally reported on and to be of enduring significance to a BLP. The importance of any given award will best be indicated by third party reporting. When you say you can infer notability based on a non-third-party source, that's just your opinion of the awarding group. It shows nothing objectively in terms of importance. Again, notability is not required of content; just noteworthiness. As for your discussion of my userpage and edit history: stay on topic. This is a BLP talkpage and should be used to discuss the subject. If you have comments, concerns, or opinionated characterizations to make about my editing, try my talkpage, BLPN, ANI, or perhaps even keep it to yourself. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you say that even a non-notable award may have been reported on neutrally, and that even a non-notable award may be of enduring significance to a BLP. Fine so far. But are you saying that a third party must be cited as having mentioned a particular conferring of the award in order for that conferring of the award to be mentioned in the relevant BLP? -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not always, but here, I'd say it's appropriate. I don't think a third party is necessary for, say, a Nobel Prize. People inside or outside of any particular field widely know the award (and again, the 3p coverage would likely exist anyway...). I don't think the same could be said for the IPA. Its "huge" importance isn't readily clear, but if it's there, a third party will have said something about it. JFHJr (㊟) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing's for sure: Ou's award was one among a large number. Indeed, the number suggests that this award has a simple business model: Photographers pay to enter, and enough of them pay enough money, and enough of these get awards to stick on their CVs, for everybody to be happy. What makes me doubtful, however, is the number of respected names that I recognize in the list on that page. Of course there could also be plenty of highly respected names that I don't recognize (I'd blame failing memory, lack of interest in commercial photography, etc), but I do see Amy Arbus, Sebastian Copeland, Charlie Crane, Lauren Greenfield, Josef Hoflehner, and Nadav Kander. (I've been interested enough in at least four of these to look carefully through books by them.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Sources for posts in companies

More from the article:

Ou co-founded ''Modern Home + Living'' (''MHL'') magazine in 2008 and he is its Visual Media Director.<ref>[http://www.mhlmagazine.com/people/Kevin/ Kevin Ou--article archive] Modern Home + Living web site</ref>{{primary source-inline|reason=This is the subject on his own company site. If at all significant, a third party will have given coverage|date=May 2012}}

Has anyone suggested, or is anyone suggesting, that "MHL" is an elaborate hoax? (To me, the notion of a magazine dedicated to showing the rubes how celebs consume conspicuously does indeed sound like something out of The Onion, but it also sounds totally plausible for 2012.)

I do intend to look it up in Ulrich's, but for now let's assume that it really does exist. Has anyone suggested, or is anyone suggesting, that MHL lies about itself?

If not, is not MHL a good source for this kind of information about itself? (Not, of course, for any claim that it is perceptive, interesting, popular, etc.)

If on the other hand there now is a Wikipedia policy that the notability of every small ingredient of every article must be demonstrated by sourcing to a third party, I'd like to know of it. Properly and solemnly implemented, it would lead to the removal of gigabytes of factoids (many of course spurious, but very many not). -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything is untrue. Notability is not required of every bit of content (see WP:NNC). Primary sources are good for some statements of fact, and especially elemental biographical details. However, the company seems central to this subject's apparent notability. If founding a company or being its visual media director is of encyclopedic biographical significance and worth any WP:WEIGHT, it will have been mentioned by at least one reliable third party; note this is not the same as requiring "multiple reliable third party sources" to qualify the statement. This article needs multiple reliable third party sources, though. I'd bet quite a few insignificant factoids, as you put it, probably ought to be removed from BLPs; other stuff doesn't matter a great deal though. At any rate, this isn't about a factoid. It's about a component to apparent notability and the weight that founding the company would merit within a living person's biography. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be questioning the veracity of the claim, merely its significance. If it's not significant, and if nothing much else about Ou is significant, then send the article off to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As you both have said, primary sources have a place on WP but the article should have secondary sources as its foundation. At present there are only 4 citations and one is the primary source. So notability is a question here. Regarding this specific primary source saying that he founded MHL. Its very weak. You have to do a rather specialized search to find it and when you do its a one line search result. I'd feel a lot better about it if there was a more comprehensive About or History page for MHL and it explained something about Ou and his activity. The other thing is that its a very minor point and doesn't do anything to establish notability for Ou as the company appears also to be non-notable. So I'm not sure it matters much to the article one way or another.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Updated the article as per online news media

Apart from the above discussion I just updated the page as per information I could collect and place. The reason for updating was that most of the references were not working. I find the subject notable as per on line search results I found. I am fond of photography and learn a lot from various tips given by popular photographers. He is one of them. This made me update this page. Christineaugustus (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)