Talk:Kei Orihara

America remains a bit of a blank

She's taking photos there and putting them on her blog, but otherwise the 21st century seems a mystery. A website, keiorihara.com, promises to get up and running in 2010 and seems to have no content, but it does actually include a 2009 blog: lillichan.keiorihara.com. I can't find anything else. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

Article could do with some secondary sources! Currently almost everything is cited to a book by Kei Orihara. Sionk (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh? One of us is hallucinating, and I don't think it's me. As I read/hallucinate the article, nothing whatever is sourced to any book by her. Most is sourced to a page on her by 平方正昭 (the reading of which name I don't know for sure), within a book edited by a group working at the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography. If it seems odd that so much is sourced to a single place, no matter how respectable, then one could additionally source some of it to a couple of pages within a book published by Nikon some time ago. (Now, if you were after an article on a Japanese lady photographer that sources achievements to ... that Japanese lady photographer, try Miwa Yanagi. I've made certain slight improvements to that, but it's still horrible.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hardly hallucinating! If her full DOB is given in that book please add an inline citation next to her DOB in the article. Wikipedia is littered with uncited personal information, it is just one of my pet hates.

Normally when citing books or news articles on Wikipedia, the author is cited first. For that reason I mistook the citation to mean the author was Kei Orihara. Thanks for clarifying. Sionk (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the paragraph now says:

Orihara was born on [sic] 1948 in Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan. She graduated from the Faculty of Letters of Chuo University (Tokyo), and worked for some time in publishing before setting out in 1977 as a freelance photographer, concentrating on magazine work.

At the end is a reference. The reference is for the whole paragraph. The assertions that she was born in Shimonoseki, that she graduated from Chuo, that she worked in publishing, that she started as a freelance photographer in 1977, and that her [paid] work centred on magazine [editorial] work are sourced just as well or badly as the assertion that she was born on [redacted].

Actually I find the lastmentioned the least significant among these assertions: if it were later discovered that she'd instead been born on 17 October or indeed 3 January, I can't imagine how this would make her photography any more or less or differently interesting. I only added her birthdate out of a sense of duty, to avoid provoking some wikidrone to attach a "date of birth missing" template.

So what would satisfy you? Is the date of birth somehow of particular significance, anomalously demanding its own footnote (unlike place of birth, etc)? May I change "on" to "in" and forget about her date of birth? Do you want a reference for every sentence? For every clause? -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, a date of birth is of significance, like other (generally) private personal information. Wikipedia's fairly strict about adding private personal information to BLP's and suggests they should be "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". See WP:BLPPRIVACY as a specific guideline about dates of birth. Sionk (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. She's now living among a population of which only a tiny percentage would have easy access to, and an understanding of, the published source, no matter how easy this is to obtain and understand in my part of the world. So I blew the cobwebs off my "revdel" lever. Really, the removal is of no concern to me (as explained above). I hope that all is now well.

Thank you for your discovery and citation of the museum database. For a long time, the information was only available on terminals within the museum (and it was patchy even there). So I'd given up looking for its appearance on the web. Of course it's more up to date than the book, but it's also a lot more informative. (In the book: If the photographer's name has a little black square next to it [which is very rare], then nothing was in the collection circa 1999; if it doesn't have a little black square, then something [but what -- one photo, one hundred of them?] was there circa 1999.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kei Orihara. 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/20140319162043/http://www.gaido.jp/machikado/2003/10/15ori/index.html to http://www.gaido.jp/machikado/2003/10/15ori/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)