Talk:Sharon Tate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sharon Tate is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 9, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
Contents |
[edit] Early comments
As I view this page with netscape, the photograph is covering up the text. That doesn't happen with other photographs in other articles. Could someone correct the problem? -- Mike Hardy
Is this picture fair use? -- Zoe
- Could you be a bit more precise? --KF 00:13 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
-
- Did you take the photo, or if you did not, do you have permission of the photographer to use it here? -- Zoe
-
-
- No, and no. I believe it is one of the best-known pictures of the couple; it has appeared so frequently over the past decades (newspapers, books, the Internet) that I thought no one would mind if we used it here. If you do, please remove it. --KF 00:25 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
-
-
- I know the picture is famous, but naked images of dead people might be considered inappropriate by some cultures. --G
-
-
- Well then, one more reason to get rid of it. If ever in the future I feel the unlikely urge to look at naked images of dead people I'll retrieve it from my hard disc. When did Polanski die? --KF 00:36 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Polanski isn't dead, but Tate is, of course. -- Zoe
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cut it in half then? --KF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Since the picture is supposed to be attached to the Sharon Tate article, it wouldn't make much sense to leave just the Polanski half of it on the page. -- Zoe
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let's delete the whole picture and use our time wisely. I'm still looking forward to the day when everyone recognizes my cynical remarks as what they are, and I do apologize, Zoe. :-) --KF 00:54 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)
-
-
-
Sorry, KF, I didn't catch it. :-) -- Zoe
[edit] Copyright status
i just spent a considerable time cleaning up the article, only to notice this external link:
- *http://www.allstarz.org/~sharontate (Majority of biography used from this site!!)
furthermore, text from the source: http://www.allstarz.org/users/sharontate/biography.html has been used verbatim. the source claims that in order to use any information (which is copyrighted), you need to ask "erin", but i see no note in the talk page here that the copyright owner gave permission to wikipedia to use the text under the gfdl. the edit in question that first introduced this content was by User:FireflyAngel, in a fairly old edit (back in august 2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sharon_Tate&diff=1271396&oldid=1266401
could fireflyangel please clarify the copyright status of this text? thanks Clarkk 10:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I am the same person. Sorry for not replying sooner. =)
-
- i.e. just to clarify you are the "erin" that wrote the text, and that therefore you are contributing the text to wikipedia under the GFDL? thanks for contributing! clarkk 09:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- As far as the picture - I honestly don't know who took it or where it came from... Sorry. =( It may have been taken by her personal photographer/documentarian Hatami. I do believe it was taken at Patty Duke's house (Hatami began working for her while she was doing the 'Eye of the Devil' film, and continued to do so up until she died) while she was staying there since it looks to be the same picket fence, but that is all I know about it.
- Sorry if I have done anything wrong - I'm still getting used to this system! =)
- Sincerely, FireflyAngel
-
- it's ok, i'm not so much concerned with who took it (because if it was a work-for-hire, like a newspaper or magazine photographer then the copyright would be with the newspaper not the original photographer). but you must have downloaded it and/or scanned it from some source originally, so first we should establish that source, and from that source we can trace the copyright. unfortunately due to the horrible state of the copyright laws, we pretty much have to assume a photograph is "guilty" until proven innocent, otherwise we can put the wikipedia project in jeopardy. pretty much the only "safe" images to use are images that you took yourself, or images from public domain sources like the us govt, or images that others have released under the GFDL or certain other licenses like those from the Creative Commons. that said, there is such thing as fair use for using excerpts from copyrighted works (like quotes or images), but these days fair use simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your fair use rights (see Free Culture, in particular page 107 to page 111), which means we have to extra careful when using works in this way, because the law is so ambiguous (by the way, IANAL). clarkk 09:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I honestly have no idea where the image came from - I have hundreds upon hundreds of images saved on my computer. I believe Sharon's sister Debra may hold copyright on it right now, or could help out, so I'll get in contact with her and see what can be done. Sincerely, FireflyAngel
-
- Surprisingly, the very first picture of Tate is also still around. It seems there's a whole collection of Sharon Tate images we can't use. <KF> 09:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is a Sharon Tate Yahoo group you may want to check out. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sharontatethegoddess
[edit] Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] uncredited use of this article?
2violent.com has several pages that seem to be copies of wikipedia articles, for example [1] looks like a 09:52, 2004 Jan 20 revision of this article. I don't know the exact procedure, so I've listed the site on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#2violent.com (see for details). -Wikibob | Talk 20:05, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
[edit] Notes
Could we make these more sensible? The first reference points to number 4! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Done. I thought the way to do it was to list the references in a logical sequence. ie books by title. etc and then the references linked to wherever. I must admit I didn't care for the randomised effect it had, but when it went through PR and FAC without anyone commenting I didn't think about it anymore. I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Manual of style or similar reference, but it looks better. Rossrs 09:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks - looks much better :-) Even though I do like {{ref}} and {{note}} better... :) - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Grammatically tortured sentence
The sentence, "Van Houten had been considered as the most likely of the killers to achieve parole, however, following the efforts of Kay and Tate, was denied" in the "Legacy" section does not make sense. Could someone please identify what it is supposed to be saying, and fix it? Kelly Martin 02:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- It's trying to say that of all the killers, Van Houten was considered the most likely to be parolled. However, when it looked like she (Van Houten) might get it, Kay and Tate layed the smackdown and Van Houten's parole application was denied. →Raul654 02:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Death location
10050 Cielo Drive is where she was killed. I attempted to add that page to the Tate bio, but the edits were reversed. Don't you think it would be good to have?
- I think it should be in the article – and it is. It's mentioned specifically in the "Marriage to Roman Polanski" section, complete with a wikilink, and then it's referred to during the remainder of the article, making it clear that the house was the scene of her death. I think the opening paragraph should be no more than a summary of the article, and should only deal with the most relevant aspects of the article. The address itself doesn't add to our understanding of the subject in the opening section. It's just an address. I didn't revert it, but I think it fits better later in the article. Rossrs 12:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Odd photo
Is it just me, or is it quite hard to work out what is going on in the photo with the caption, 'Tate at her home shortly before her death'? Her arms look like stumps or is that the glare in the photo? Can we clean it up?
-
- I don't think there's much we can do with it. To me she looks she's about to stretch her arms and the glare of the sun has created the effect. The image is taken from a video recording off a tv program and the original is not great quality. It's about the best I could do but if you want to try enhancing it, go ahead. The main reason I put it in originally (and I realize that my intention has been lost with subsequent edits) was to illustrate Watson saying he didn't realize that Tate, who was wearing only her underwear when she was murdered, was pregnant. She certainly looks pregnant in the photo which is more or less how she was dressed when he saw her. So with that in mind, I was looking at her stomach rather than her arms, but now that you point it out, I can see what you mean. Rossrs 07:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sharon Tate was murdered
Saying Tate was "killed" is not as strong as saying she was murdered. "Killed" could mean anything. Maybe Manson accidentally set the house on fire. That could certainly result in people being "killed". Murdered shows intent, and this is one of the most extreme and diabolical cases of murder in recent history. "Murder" is also the correct legal term. ie the Manson family members were convicted of "murder" not of "killing". "Killed" does not even begin to summarize what happened, so can we please leave the word "murder" in the opening paragraph. It's more than mere semantics. Thanks Rossrs 16:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly concur. Her KILLERS were charged with MURDER, and duly convicted. This is FACT, not opinion.
[edit] 2nd paragraph
Should the 2nd paragraph in the introduction -- about her mother's work and law changes - be placed below in the regular article? It seems to get a little far off-topic to be in an intro. Just a thought. --Spesek 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I disagree. The article is in three sections - career, murder/trial and legal changes that have been implemented since. The lead paragraph needs to summarize the article, so it needs to cover the three main sections. I think it's probably a little detailed but then, on the other hand, most of Tate's "fame" and certainly her influence, has come about since her death. I can see your point, but I'm not sure how to edit it without making the lead too sparse. I think the end quote ""help transform Sharon's legacy from murder victim to a symbol of victim's rights", brings it back squarely to Sharon Tate and makes the preceding information absolutely relevant. Rossrs 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, thanks for taking a look. I think you're right, now! --Spesek 03:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted the section about Doris Tate's work back into the lead paragraph as I think it's an important aspect of Sharon Tate's story, and without it, the lead section is incomplete. Tate is unusual in that her "fame" occured because of and after her murder, much more than her acting career which was only in its early stages when she died. For the lead to be a summary of the article I think it needs to extend past her death, and although at first glance it may appear that the paragraph is about Doris Tate (and it is in the sense that after Sharon Tate's death, her story and that of her mother are intertwined) - it actually establishes Sharon Tate's notability. To put it simply - minor actress, high profile murder victim. This is just my line of thinking, but please comment if there is disagreement. Rossrs 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair Use Explanation for photo of Sharon Tate pregnant
Just wanted to mention that I was very impressed with your detailed justification for the fair use of the photo of pregnant Sharon Tate. I found your argument to be well-reasoned and convincing. As a law student and former professional writer, it appealed to me both for the points you made and the way you made them. Well done.
64.173.171.134 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) joykatleen
