Talk:Michele Merkin
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
Prurient interest edit
Yeah, I know. To say the pictures on this page appeal to "prurient interest" makes me sound like some kind of wannabe 21st century Comstockian-- but think about it. This is a minor entertainment biz figure, and her tiny article is stuffed with three pictures? Pick one, boys, before I do. JDG 13:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- She donated all three. Encouraging donations of free content helps the wikimedia mission of promoting free content. She is a model. These images illustrate that. But I get your point. My point is I want visitors to this page to know these free content images exist. So perhaps the solution is to make some or all of the images smaller. Why don't you try your hand at reducing some or all of the image sizes and see if you can come up with a solution? WAS 4.250 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I reduced all three in size. WAS 4.250 14:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, WAS 4. This seems more in line with the project. I don't mean to put anyone down, but, you know, moralists are people too. JDG 11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
sexualized pictures? edit
does anyone else think that her pictures here are too sexualized. i think we need more general pics (maybe from imdb) for an encyclopedia. - unsigned
- These are pictures she herself has provided with a copy-left license. WAS 4.250 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, WAS is right. Had Merkin provided us with less sexualized images, they would have been used instead. -- Zanimum 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't ask me how I got here, but I think "unsigned" has a point. Two virtually identical images is a bit too overdone for my taste, if there were to be two images in this article, a more general pic would be more appropriate. The generosity of Ms. Merkin is imho not an argument to post two "sexualized" pictures of her on an altogether quite short article. Things being as they may, there aren't any other free pictures, so one has to do for the moment. Niels(F)? en | nl 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, WAS is right. Had Merkin provided us with less sexualized images, they would have been used instead. -- Zanimum 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the image in the article falls afoul of the above page's advice. Perhaps a less, um, surprising picture can be found? --Jakob (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reading there, it seems to apply to the wording of text and links. I didn't see anything regarding graphics. Also, I don't find these images to be anything other than artistic. I have seen way more shocking pictures on other pages. Human biology articles come to mind. In any event, the policy above seems more concerned with linking to spam or just trying to be a wiseguy in the articles, IMO. --Bark (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Bark: True, but one could expect to see such pictures on human biology articles. Principle of least astonishment is also not a Wikipedia-specific concept. No reason it shouldn't apply to images. Perhaps as a compromise it could be moved away from the top of the page? --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Jakec:A couple of points worth mentioning that should be taken into account: This picture was released by the person in question for use. I don't think that there are any other pictures released by her to use instead. (I could be wrong.) This picture is a featured picture on Wikipedia. Finally, this picture will be the picture of the day on June 25, 2014. (I got all of this from the picture's page.) My point is, there seems to be a consensus (prior to this exchange) that the picture is okay to use here in this context. It might also be a little weird to censor the picture here in the article when it's queued to be the POTD in early summer. IMO, a model in a bikini picture is not that surprising. --Bark (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Correction: The exchange above ours raised the point, but that was back in 2007. I think at the time their were multiple pictures from the same shoot. In any event, the exchange died with the apparent resolution of only posting one photograph. --Bark (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bark: There is a Commons category commons:Category:Michele Merkin, but nothing there is significantly better. I am confused at how it's supposed to be queued for POTD (bad idea IMO) when it's still listed at WP:POTD/Unused. Consensus can also change and the current consensus is almost seven years old. BTW, I would personally classify the photo as a nude picture not a bikini picture. Just my opinion. --Jakob (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Jakec: I would guess that commons category is what she released to Wikipedia for use. They appear to be from the same shoot. Your classification of this picture as a nude is something I don't agree with and illustrates the subjective nature of art and photography. She is clearly wearing bikini bottoms and her nipples are hidden by her body position. IMO, those elements keep the picture from being classified a nude. In any event, we should probably just agree to disagree on the definition of bikini picture vice nude picture. On the subject of consensus, so far you and I are the only ones discussing this here. My rationale basically comes down to the following points. (1)As a living person, care must be taken as to the content on her page. (2)She has released these images to Wikipedia, so any potential copyright issues are resolved by using one of the released images. (3)This article has an infobox with an image area embedded in the template. (4)This article has only one image, which is placed in the aforementioned image location within the infobox template. (5)A previous discussion as to the content of this page and the images to use resulted in a resolution that has been acceptable for some time. (6)To date, only you have proposed changing the status quo. (7)The nature of the objection is subjective in nature. (8)I do not favor censorship as a general principle, which is how I view the proposed change. So to summarize, the only resolution I find agreeable to me would be to replace the specific image with another one from commons:Category:Michele Merkin, as those images would not violate any of my above points. What about Michele_Merkin_3_b.jpg or Michele_Merkin_4.jpg? My inclination would be 3b, as it's a profile portrait.--Bark (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bark: 3b is OK. I'm still not sure how the original got queued for POTD, all I can tell is that Crisco 1492 seems to have put it in the queue without discussion. --Jakob (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's because you looked in the wrong place. User_talk:Howcheng#Merkin: current POTD coordinator speaking with the former one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I still think there should have been an RFC or something so that the community (not just two people) could have discussed this. This will undoubtedly cause controversy on the main page. BTW since a consensus has been reached for this article and the discussion now just concerns POTD, maybe we should continue at WT:POTD. --Jakob (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The last POTD we ran a (publicized) discussion about was File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg; you can see the discussion here, which was not a formal RFC (I don't think one of those is necessary, just a ping at the associated article and talk page of the MP). As this does not expose any nipple, nor is it posed in an overly sexual manner, I did not think it required such discussion. But for the sake of transparency I guess we can start a discussion sometime in April, and close it a month before Merkin's birthday (when I hope the picture will run). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bark: 3b is OK. I'm still not sure how the original got queued for POTD, all I can tell is that Crisco 1492 seems to have put it in the queue without discussion. --Jakob (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Jakec: I would guess that commons category is what she released to Wikipedia for use. They appear to be from the same shoot. Your classification of this picture as a nude is something I don't agree with and illustrates the subjective nature of art and photography. She is clearly wearing bikini bottoms and her nipples are hidden by her body position. IMO, those elements keep the picture from being classified a nude. In any event, we should probably just agree to disagree on the definition of bikini picture vice nude picture. On the subject of consensus, so far you and I are the only ones discussing this here. My rationale basically comes down to the following points. (1)As a living person, care must be taken as to the content on her page. (2)She has released these images to Wikipedia, so any potential copyright issues are resolved by using one of the released images. (3)This article has an infobox with an image area embedded in the template. (4)This article has only one image, which is placed in the aforementioned image location within the infobox template. (5)A previous discussion as to the content of this page and the images to use resulted in a resolution that has been acceptable for some time. (6)To date, only you have proposed changing the status quo. (7)The nature of the objection is subjective in nature. (8)I do not favor censorship as a general principle, which is how I view the proposed change. So to summarize, the only resolution I find agreeable to me would be to replace the specific image with another one from commons:Category:Michele Merkin, as those images would not violate any of my above points. What about Michele_Merkin_3_b.jpg or Michele_Merkin_4.jpg? My inclination would be 3b, as it's a profile portrait.--Bark (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bark: There is a Commons category commons:Category:Michele Merkin, but nothing there is significantly better. I am confused at how it's supposed to be queued for POTD (bad idea IMO) when it's still listed at WP:POTD/Unused. Consensus can also change and the current consensus is almost seven years old. BTW, I would personally classify the photo as a nude picture not a bikini picture. Just my opinion. --Jakob (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Correction: The exchange above ours raised the point, but that was back in 2007. I think at the time their were multiple pictures from the same shoot. In any event, the exchange died with the apparent resolution of only posting one photograph. --Bark (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Jakec:A couple of points worth mentioning that should be taken into account: This picture was released by the person in question for use. I don't think that there are any other pictures released by her to use instead. (I could be wrong.) This picture is a featured picture on Wikipedia. Finally, this picture will be the picture of the day on June 25, 2014. (I got all of this from the picture's page.) My point is, there seems to be a consensus (prior to this exchange) that the picture is okay to use here in this context. It might also be a little weird to censor the picture here in the article when it's queued to be the POTD in early summer. IMO, a model in a bikini picture is not that surprising. --Bark (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bark: True, but one could expect to see such pictures on human biology articles. Principle of least astonishment is also not a Wikipedia-specific concept. No reason it shouldn't apply to images. Perhaps as a compromise it could be moved away from the top of the page? --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion which may interest editors of this page edit
At WT:POTD there is a discussion regarding whether an image of Michele Merkin should run on the main page as picture of the day. If you are interested in weighing in, please comment at the discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018) edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Michele Merkin. 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/20131215032227/http://www.michelemerkin.com/ to http://www.michelemerkin.com/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017233313/http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/079/079992p1.html to http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/079/079992p1.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025034035/http://www.stylenetwork.com/ssms-site/style.do?showId=6200 to http://www.stylenetwork.com/ssms-site/style.do?showId=6200
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116163403/http://michelemerkin.com/index.cfm?id=7 to http://michelemerkin.com/index.cfm?id=7
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006054417/http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0%2C%2C117418%2C00.html to http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,117418,00.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) 21:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)