Jump to content

Talk:Réhahn

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

Promotional tone

[edit]

This article is written in a highly promotional tone, written like an advertisement for the artist. A promo-script tool finds many words like famous, highlights, inspired by, more than, numerous, ranked, remarkable, worldwide. It doesn't have standard biographic content like his actual full name, etc. It has several indications that there may be COI, AUTOBIO or UPE issues.

There is also a copyright issue with one of the images, File:An Phuoc, which is licensed as the "own work" of DinhGiang, when it is actually the work of Réhahn, there is no indication that the photographer transferred the rights to DinhGiang and released it into the public domain to let anyone "use copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." Meaning anyone can print it out on their digital printer and sell it. The artist's website is clearly marked, COPYRIGHTS © 2025 RÉHAHN PHOTOGRAPHY. Netherzone (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I also just saw that the photo Flame – Photographie impressionniste was uploaded with a public domain license by DinhGiang with no indication the artist released his rights. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, I would like to confirm that I contribute to this article as part of my professional role. I am affiliated with Réhahn Photography. I aim to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, and I welcome any suggestions to improve neutrality and sourcing. My disclosure is available here: [[User:DinhGiang]]

Thank you,

~~~~ DinhGiang (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Concern: Request to Review “Criticism” Section

[edit]

Hello, I would like to raise a concern about the “Criticism” section in this article. As someone with a disclosed conflict of interest (see User:DinhGiang), I am not editing the article directly, but I respectfully request community review based on the following:

• The section relies almost entirely on Matca, a local Vietnamese blog, which may not meet WP:RS standards for biographies.

• It quotes opinion-based material extensively without editorial framing or balance. This may give undue weight to a single viewpoint, in conflict with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.

• My full name is mentioned, even though I am not a public figure. This may be a violation of WP:OUTING and a privacy concern.

• The subject’s reply is paraphrased in a way that suggests speculation and lacks neutral context.

For these reasons, I request that the section be reviewed and either removed or rewritten to comply with Wikipedia’s policies on living persons.

Thank you for your attention.

~~~~ DinhGiang (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the sources used, but preferable to "Criticism" would be a section on "Reception". Some guidance at WP:CSECTION (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DinhGiang, As described on your user talk, you need to STOP directly editing Rehahn's article, and his museum's article (and any other associated articles with which you have a COI, and instead use the Edit Request System for Paid Editors and place requests on the article(s) talk pages. Keep requests short. An experienced volunteer editor will then evaluate the request and either make the edit (or a variation thereof) or not make it, based on their analysis. Here is a link to the Edit Request Wizard: Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard which is quite easy to use.
  • I have completely removed your name from the article, so no worries about that.
  • Matca Journal is a well-respected online journal specializing in photography, it's a reliable source.
  • The article is written promotionally, and includes many favorable statements about his work. To only include positive critical reception is WP:UNDUE because it is not balanced. To include an analytical critical review or a well-crafted opinion, such as the one by Hà Đào achieves more balance. The Matca Journal piece is a relevant and historically grounded piece of art criticism. Wikipedia is not censored, and just because the artist (or his assistant) may not like the critic's viewpoint, is not a reason to delete it from the article. The purpose of WP is not to promote, but to provide to readers balanced information based on verifiable published sources.
Please remember to discontinue directly edit the articles associated with Réhahn. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new section called, "Reception" per the advisement of @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. The new section contains, in chronological order, the existing positive critical reception, as well the analytical critical reception, to achieve balance in how the photographer's work has been received. It also contains the image of the photographer receiving an award from Macron. Netherzone (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I made Category:Rehahn on Commons. And if this photographer wants to provide more pictures on Commons, PLEASE DO!!!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and please make sure they are licensed correctly. If uncertain about which license to use, the Commons Help desk can explain. Netherzone (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. In case the photographer or someone in contact with him reads this, a good way (for the Wikipedians) would be to make a page with some photos at https://www.rehahnphotographer.com/, and state on that page "The pictures on this page are released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." If that is done, anyone can then upload those pics on Commons, linking the page as source. See https://lundeensculpture.com/free-use-images/ and File:Davy-and-George2.jpg. for an example.
Other ways for the photographer to provide pictures to Commons are described at Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, there is also a license where re-use cannot be done without permission - sort of limited use license -(and I'm thinking that would also protect from others modifying, mixing, sharing, selling, etc. the image) - Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of Commons accepting a license like that, Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses is what I'm familiar with. The thing to understand is that if you "give" pics to Commons, you "give" them to everybody. And many professional photographers prefer to get paid. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've 99.9% sure I have seen it used in the past. I'll look into it - it may be an obscure license (which may take a while). I'm not a Commons expert by any stretch, but I am supportive of artists rights. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another example, Ed Gold provided Commons with these pictures (hint hint). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Licenses from Foter Creative Commons license diagram
@DinhGiang and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Here is a chart of licenses that shows Creative Commons licenses from least restrictive to most restrictive. If the artist wants to restrict other people from selling, modifying or creating derivatives for commercial purposes, they should use CC BY - NC-ND, or upload it as a copyrighted image (a C license) for one-time use on the Réhahn article. I'm pretty sure that a VRT ticket should also be submitted to prove that he has ownership of the copyright, should he wish to retain the rights rather than publish as public domain or less restrictive use. Some of the less restrictive licenses allow people to re-use and modify but the original image must be attributed to the creator. Netherzone (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone However, Wikimedia Commons does not accept any NC licenses [1]. The artist can use them all they like, but then those pics won't be seen on any WMF-sites. Of course, an artist who wants to "give" something to Commons can choose a more low-res version, and keep high-res for their commercial/whatever activities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. If they wish to retain their rights, would you happen to know if they can they upload directly to WP (not to Commons) as a one-time use copyrighted image? or a one-time Fair Use image? The reason for these questions, of course, is to protect the rights of artists and photographers, but still allow them to share their work (but restrict others from using their work for resale.) Netherzone (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that that is not possible. en-WP:s rules for fair/non-free use are very restrictive (but more free than many other language WP:s).
Basically, if there is a WP-article about the Best Friends picture, then WP:NFCC/WP:NFCI would allow a locally uploaded en-WP low-res leadimage of that picture in that article. File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp is one example (but this pic is not used on for example Photographies de Donald Trump le poing levé because French law does not allow it). If we have a WP-article about Vietnam, Mosaic of Contrasts, the same goes for the book-cover. And the artist has no say in this, we wouldn't ask.
The great thing about having pics on Commons (correcly uploaded) is that any language Wikipedia (or anyone else) can easily use them.
Ping to @Marchjuly if you feel like expanding on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just briefly read through this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång is correct (to the best of my knowledge) about NC-ND images and Commons as explained in c:COM:LJ and c:COM:FAIR. FWIW, Creative Commons offers lots a variety of licensing, but only those meeting c:COM:L are OK for Wikimedia Commons; for reference, despite the similarity in name (which can be confusing) Creative Commons and Wikimedia Commons are two completely different things.
All the images used in this article are uploaded to Commons; so, any issues with them (or others not being used in this article but also found in c:Category:Rehahn) will need to be sorted out on Commons. The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered the person who takes the photo and an acceptable CC license is usually fine for most cases of c:COM:Own work; however, if someone photographs another's copyright eligible creative work, their copyright over their photo doesn't include the copyright of whatever they've photographed. Such photos can be examples of c:COM:DW (or even possibly c:COM:2D copying) in which there could be multiple copyrights and multiple copyright holders that need to be considered. Commons will only host derivative works that are 100% free; so, even if the photo itself is free, Commons will only keep the file if the photographed work is also free. For museum exhibits, artwork (even publicly installed), architectural structures (e.g., buildings) or other copyrighted works, this can depend upon things like c:COM:FOP, c:COM:DM and c:COM:CB, and how the applicable copyright laws are interpreted.
As for fair use / fair dealing and non-free content, these things aren't the same per se when it comes to (English) Wikipedia; non-free content needs to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and this policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than either fair use or fair dealing. So, just claiming something is fair use, for example, doesn't automatically mean using it on Wikipedia will be seen as policy compliant. NC-ND types of CC licenses are treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes; so, such images need to satisfy Wikipedia policy. For visual media artists, the idea is still to use as much free content (i.e., freely licensed) as possible whenever possible; in some cases, though, non-free content might be OK when its use can be justified per WP:NFCCP. For a visual artist, that could be a non-free image of their best-known work (the one that has received the most critical coverage in reliable sources) (as long as item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI is not deemed an issue) or the work considered to be the most representative of their particular style or technique (again according to reliable sources). Anything else beyond that probably will have a hard time meeting one or more of the NFCCP.
Finally, regardless of how a copyright holder decides to license their creative work or how they decide to make it available to others, they as the copyright holder are responsible for enforcing their copyright if they feel their rights are being violated as explained in c:COM:ENFORCE; moreover, Creative Commons licenses are, in principle, non-revocable as explained in c:COM:LRV, which means they pretty much last as long as the work is eligible for copyright protection. These are some other reasons why Commons tends to delete files of questionable licensing and sometimes requires formal c:COM:VRT verification of copyright holder c:COM:CONSENT. Commons can't control what other websites do, but it tries to make sure as best as it can that the content it hosts meets its licensing policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Marchjuly for the in-depth detailed reply, I'm grateful for this info (and am saving it for future reference). It's going to take a while to unpack it - no wonder I find photo licensing so confusing!
Is there a short answer to this question:
If an artist wants to retain their copyrights to their own work, and insure that others cannot re-use or sell it for monetary profit (commercial use) what is the best license, if any, to use? Netherzone (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an artistic work (assuming Threshold of originality is met) is covered by copyright by default (Berne Convention, I think), why should the artist add a license?
If you mean "... insure that others cannot re-use or sell it for monetary profit (commercial use) but still wants it to appear in a specific en-WP article ...", I'm unaware of any, and I think I would have encountered it by now if it exists. But I'm interested to hear Marchjuly's reply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: The best short answer that I can give is that the artist should contact someone (e.g. a lawyer) specializing in copyright law or intellectual property rights law (particulary for where they live) and ask them what works best for their situation. Creative Commons does have licenses that specify "non-commercial reuse only", but those licenses are too restrictive for Wikipedia and Commons purposes; so, any content licensed as such can't be uploaded to Commons and can only be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content, which means each use needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Finally, regardless of how an artist decides to license their work and where they decide to release it, there's no guarantee that everyone wanting to re-use said work out in the real world will abide by the terms of its licensing. In such cases, it's up to the copyright holder to seek redress if they feel their copyright is being infringed upon. So, someone who makes their living off their creative work should probably expect at some point that someone somewhere is probably going to violate their copyright; copyright holders should, therefore, have an idea as to what they're going to do when faced with such a case because they're the ones that are going to need to do something if they want their copyright respected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, people constantly upload stuff on Commons as "own work" that is not that, either because they don't know the rules or don't care for them. And of course, sometimes it's not easy to grasp what "rule" applies. The Commoners do their best to remove such content, but like with sub-par WP-stuff, it can linger for years. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Under most copyright laws worldwide today, copyright formalities are no longer required; in other words, you're correct that a creative work becomes eligible for copyright protection as soon as it has been published. However, a copyright holder might still decide to formally register their work for copyright protection just to reinforce their copyright claim and create a paper trail as a way of avoiding or dealing with any possible disputes. It also allows a copyright holder to clarify how they want to release work to potential re-users; if no license is specifically mentioned, most likely the most restrictive one possible is going to be assumed to be in effect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the both of you for this info, and especially thanks for taking the time to explain in depth! I have a much better understanding now. Netherzone (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basic biographic information missing

[edit]

The article focuses solely on his career but is missing biographical information that is normally found in biographic articles. For example, his full name, education, etc. Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll use whatever WP:BLP-good sources we can find, minding WP:BLPNAME etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Netherzone (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google's AI, "The photographer Réhahn's full name is Réhahn." It's probably trying to lull us into a sense of false security. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Bored Panda is used twice as citations, the source flagging tool I use tags it "red", meaning unreliable. It a clickbait site republishing user-submitted content from social media posts. Sometimes also publishes listicles type clickbait.

I found this discussion in the WP:RSP archives: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#boredpanda.com. I think it should be removed and/or a better source found to back up the associated text. I'll add a couple maintenance tags for ease of improvement. Netherzone (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the Réhahn#Reception reception thing, it's contextually 100% reliable. The question is if we want it there per WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the ref to one that noticed he was on Bored Panda. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the other one, source is too crap. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of historical interest, it seems Bored Panda was the very first citation in this article in 2015 [2]. In short, WP is pickier with sources now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP/UNDUE concern – Long quote from Matca in “Reception”

[edit]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I am raising a concern regarding the “Reception” section.

A long quote from the Vietnamese blog Matca is currently included. I believe this may violate several content and BLP policies:

• WP:UNDUE – The quote takes up more space than any other paragraph in the section, giving excessive weight to one opinionated view.

• WP:BLPQUOTE – Long quotes about living people should be minimized, paraphrased, or carefully framed. This quote lacks secondary commentary or balance.

• WP:RS – The blog is not an international or academic journal, and it lacks independent sourcing to verify or contextualize the claims.

While I acknowledge that criticism can be included, I respectfully suggest that the quote should be **trimmed significantly** or **paraphrased**, rather than taking up a large portion of the section.

Thank you for reviewing this.

~~~~ DinhGiang (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument on length as currently written. However, compared to the other refs in this section, it's very in-depth, and may deserve some space because of that. https://matca.vn/en/about/ lists a staff of people, and they publish stuff like [3]. It's not obvious to me that this is a "blog", what is your basis for that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, British Journal of Photography writes about Matca here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting also that Matca (and it's definitely independent of the article subject) has some other useful info, like "And Réhahn has been successful. He has two galleries in Hoi An, one in Saigon, and one currently under construction in Hanoi. He has half a million followers on Facebook; his iconic image “Best Friend” makes headlines for being the most expensive photograph sold in Vietnam (17000$). The mainstream local media dote on a foreigner who has spent seven years exploring Vietnam’s beauty." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at re-writing the paragraph with less direct quotes. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DinhGiang, Matca Journal is a very well respected online journal focused specifically on photography, it is certainly not a blog. The content it publishes is not user-submitted content, but rather the journal has an extensive editorial board of contributors. They are also a respected publisher. It is definitely a reliable source.
The artist and/or their assistants or representatives or PR people do not get to control the content of the encyclopedia article. The encyclopedia's integrity would be compromised considerably if that were the case. That is what personal websites or social media or Fandom is for. Wikipedia is not a web-host, it's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored. This is a relevant recommended essay to read: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
After the changes Gråbergs Gråa Sång made (and my previous edits trimming the quotes), according to a word-count tool, there are 184 words of positive criticism, and only 88 words of analytical criticism. The section was not UNDUE previously and and it still is not, in fact it is more weighted towards the positive.
Having said this, I also wish to express my respect for the work of the artist, it is beautiful, and a wonderful contribution to culture. Netherzone (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And "more weighted towards the positive" is of course not wrong in itself, if that is the general approach in sources, which it seems to be, judging by my non-scholarly research that started yesterday when I learned he existed. DinhGiang, if you haven't looked at it yet, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of interest.
Per the nature of Wikipedia, it sometimes happen that an article subject or their representatives gets to "rule" an article quietly for years. But then suddenly, some other Wikipedians notice and involve themselves, making the article subject et al wonder "WTF just happened?" This can work out quite well, though sometimes it doesn't. On the plus side, there seems to be no doubt that Réhahn is WP:NOTABLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP/UNDUE Concern: Matca Paragraph in “Reception” Section

[edit]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello,

I’m raising a follow-up concern regarding the “Reception” section, particularly the paragraph summarizing the 2017 Matca critique.

While earlier edits trimmed quotes and length, I believe the current version still raises policy issues:

• WP:UNDUE – The paragraph is heavily focused on a single, negative opinion that includes multiple interpretive claims. Other entries in the section are brief, factual, or awards-based. This imbalance may give excessive prominence to Matca’s viewpoint.

• WP:BLPSOURCES – There is no independent secondary coverage of this critique. Presenting it in detail gives legitimacy without context.

• WP:NPOV – The phrase “projected a colonialist fantasy” and comparisons to Curtis and Nelson are strongly interpretive and may not meet neutrality standards without clearer attribution.

• WP:RS – Matca is a niche, photographer-run platform. Its content has not been discussed or confirmed by neutral, reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for uncorroborated personal opinion, BLP content should reflect views that have received wider attention or analysis.

I fully support including well-sourced criticism. But in this form, the Matca paragraph may not meet Wikipedia’s expectations for due weight and neutrality under BLP.

Request:

I ask that the section be either:

– Trimmed substantially to remove speculative language and unattributed claims

– Reworded into a more neutral summary, clearly attributing the views as individual opinion, or

– Removed altogether until better, balanced sources are available.

I’ve disclosed my COI at User:DinhGiang and I am not editing the article directly. I’m seeking neutral editor input on whether this content complies with BLP standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

DinhGiang (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this reading, but then, I'm the one who last edited that paragraph. There is nothing strange that the in-depth article in a photography journal about a photographer gets more words in this WP-article than coverage like [4]. I don't see how attribution is unclear, and the content fits well under the "Reception" heading. If there are similar reviews in decent sources out there, we can use them when we find them.
You are welcome to WP:APPNOTE at places like WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree as well, @DinhGiang. Two recent independent volunteer editors have worked on the passage. It is neutrally worded as it stands, and has already been trimmed twice. Actually there are three editors who feel the passage should be included; in 2018 it was added by Banh93: [5]. Although the edit did not have an inline citation, the content itself was clearly attributed to Ha Dao (writing in the ) in the Vietnamese journal "Matca". It was then removed by an anonymous IP (14.176.232.201) who blanked the "Criticism" section entirely.[6]. Shortly after that is when the COI editing began.
The Reception section is balanced, and in fact balanced in favor of positive reviews. Many articles have sections for criticism; an entire academic field for analytical/critical art criticism exists in fact. The attribution is crystal clear, and it's sourced to a well respected journal based in Vietnam, thus understands the culture from the point of view of the Vietnamese.
Respectfully, just because you or the artist doesn't like something does is not a valid rationale to censor it. Netherzone (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems an administrator came by and added an AI template to DinhGiang's comment and it is now collapsed. Nevertheless, I also wanted to adding response that many biographic articles also have "Controversy" sections, so calling it "Criticism" or "Critical reception" or "Reception" is not impolite or unbalanced whatsoever. Here's an example of another photographer who photographs of tribal/indigenous people, including those in Asia, who has a "Controversy" section. Jimmy Nelson (photographer). So the current version of this article has been very much "softened". It is not UNDUE, nor a BLP violation, it is not non-neutral, and it is very much reliably sourced. It should not be "softened" any further, and it should not be removed again. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered, but I don't try to check for AI that often, and the only one I tried, zerogpt.com, gave nothing. I tried a couple of others now. Oh well, disappointing. I'll be more cynical next time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think many younger people who have already fully integrated LLMs into their daily work and non-work workflows, especially those not working in their native language, might be puzzled by the use of the Collapse AI template in cases like this. I don't think the reason the template was used here and at RSN are self-evident. An element of disruption appears to be required by the Collapse AI template guidelines, unless there is an unstated assumption that LLM use is inherently disruptive, which would be both absurd and unenforceable. So, there is presumably a "disruptive LLM use" test that should be passed. Do these instances pass the test? The content that has been collapsed here and at RSN doesn't look disruptive to me. There is a statement at RSN that the content showed a lack of understanding of policies and guidelines, but this is common among editors, so that isn't a useful test for disruptiveness. Furthermore, the statements/questions look close enough to reasonable interpretations of policies or guidelines to merit a response as far as I can tell. Either way, from the perspective of the editor, the content was presumably fit for purpose. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can only guess. My reading per for example "there is no independent secondary coverage of this critique" and "may not meet neutrality standards without clearer attribution." is that the poster is just using the AI-output without looking at the WP-context. The source is independent secondary coverage of Réhahn, that is what we're after, as opposed to the, less extensive now, WP:ABOUTSELF reffing. And the level of attribution is/was clear. My impression is that AI generally suck at WP PAG, and often hallucinates them. Ping to @Newslinger if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a bit off target, but maybe there's some motivated reasoning in there. On the issue itself, having read Ha Dao's article and the response, it would be a shame to completely lose them altogether and deprive readers of the links. They are fascinating artifacts in themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the poster is WP:PAID, that's motivation. That said, the "BLP Concern" posts 1 and 2 on this talkpage did result in article edits on how the Matca piece was included, but this third one did not, so far anyway. And the RSN one brought you and Newslinger here, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, those were interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use AI content detection tools (such as GPTZero) at all because their accuracy rates are too low. Instead, I check for characteristics associated with LLM-generated comments, particularly in the style and markup. The initial comment of this discussion is obviously LLM-generated, as it uses non-wikitext markup, and there are similar instances of botched formatting in DinhGiang's other edits. Posting LLM-generated comments across this talk page and two noticeboards, especially without proper disclosure of the LLM use, is disruptive. The fact that the editor is paid is an exacerbating factor: paid editors can certainly make the effort to write comments in their own words without using an AI chatbot, as it is their job after all. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many threads on this talk page, I don't know where to place my response. The writer, Hà Đào, of the review in Matca Journal is a subject matter expert and a photographer herself. Here is some information about her: [7], [8], [9] (which also has information on Matca Journal). She has also been published in The Routledge Companion to Global Photographies, Taylor & Francis: [10]. There's more, but I think this gets the message across that not only the journal, but the writer herself is well respected. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on “Reception” Section

[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for all the editors who involves your time here.

English is my second language and to give a clear context with all respect to you than a broken, non-professional text to posting here regarding the "Reception" part issue, yes I did use Ai to help me and gave me clear Wikipedia rules related.

And yes, I do not like to have this part of text in Réhahn Wikipedia page because as a Vietnamese, I see clear what he done for our country and it's not fair to see a place like Wikipedia accept this unreliable source from an opinion of the small Vietnamese photographer group, and when they use words like "a colonialist fantasy" when the war is in the past been long time and we all welcome foreigner in positive ways. And they tried to spreading it in 2017 but of course anyone read it would understand that's kind of typical point of view between photographers. Especially to someone sucessful like Réhahn.

Last thing, why I keep trying to ask for considering this part is because I understand the motives and perpestive of personal attack than a positive genuinly contribution. And why this part still stay here from your side is because "I want to remove it" than the real consideration of the source and real information. That's the difference.

This is my last words here and let that part stays if you all think it's right and let people read and judge by themselves. Thank you again. DinhGiang (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask: you've never replied in an ongoing thread on this talkpage, you just start a new thread for every comment you make. Why is that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way Ha Dao sees the relationship between past and present is not very unusual in younger generations in many parts of S.E.Asia, and it's understandable regardless of whether it's fair or accurate, but many readers in the "Western world" may not have encountered this perspective. In that sense, I think including something rather than nothing in the article adds value for the reader. And as Réhahn said in the response, "you are free to interpret my art however you see fit. This does not mean that your interpretation aligns with mine." Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DinhGiang, thank you for using your own voice. I understand when you say that as a Vietnamese person who personally knows (and works for ) Rehahn, you see how much good he has done for the people and for the country through both his artistic work and his philanthropic work. This is clear to the readers, and it is clear to me (and probably the other editors in this discussion). The article is filled with praise for all of his good work, you can be assured of that.
The writer, Hà Đào, of Matca Journal is also Vietnamese. Her critique is valid that the photos could be seen by some as an extension of colonialism, or possibly Orientalism (and perhaps as defined in this book Orientalism by Edward Said.) That does not mean she is calling Réhahn a colonialist himself. I believe it's this art historical framework that is the lens through which see is seeing/writing. That's a valid critique, and she is a subject matter expert. She is not being mean, she's being analytical - critical/analytical thinking is a solid foundation for art history, theory and criticism. Once an artwork leaves the artist's studio, it's open to interpretation by others. That's fair and valid, and is what Réhahn is expressing in the quote that @Sean.hoyland has included above.
No one is disputing the fact that Réhahn's work is really great, this is evident when reading the article. And I get the impression he's a wonderful, warm and generous human being in real life. The critical review does not negate this whatsoever, it simply provides another viewpoint about photography, not about the person. Hope this is helpful! Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Réhahn&oldid=1297355498"