Talk:Monica Youn

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo

An IP who appears to be the subject has expressed a clear preference against this photo: File:Witter Bynner Fellows Poetry Reading 2008 - Monica Youn (cropped).jpg. It needs to be discussed here before it goes back in, and in particular we need to explore with the subject whether she's prepared to release one she prefers. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the picture per se, but I'd be interested in Ms. Youn's reasons for deleting it from the article. Unauthorised just doesn't cut the mustard. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If one is giving a public presentation, one is ought to prepare themselves to the possibility that someone may take their photo and release it to the public domain. El_C 11:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, by all means, if she has a photo she prefers, I'm sure we would be happy to accommodate. El_C 11:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's not "white knight" this. The photo is perfectly acceptable and does not show the subject in any sort of embarrassing situation and is a legally licensed picture. Ms. Youn can prove reasons she doesn't want this one up but I do not agree with removing the photo because of her false legal claims. We are to depict the subject of the article, and there is nothing wrong with this photo. The photo should be reinstated ASAP. Nesnad (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, the photo should be restored. Did not notice it was removed. El_C 12:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We should embrace the concept of WP:DOLT. If the editor had made a more resonable complaint, there's no reason why the image wouldn't have been removed for a few days while the issue is discussed. It's not like we're talking about Donald Trump or Xi Jinping here. Therefore we shouldn't punish someone just because they made the mistake of making a legal threat. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

We should not cow down to legal threats, no matter what that essay says. El_C 12:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What about the concept of WP:THREAT? The legal threat has no base. There is no reason to not use the photo, it is not a reasonable request. Wikipedia isn't about glamor photos and making people "look good". We are an encyclopedia that depicts and writes about the subject. The picture depicts the subject. That easy. Nesnad (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The image issues aside, I want to remind people that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not forbid people from editing articles on themselves. It just strongly discourages it and says if you really must do so, only do so in cases of serious errors. (When you consider someone editing an article on themselves is not likely to be a paid editor, actually any uncontroversial edits are allowed.) Clearly this sort of edit is not the sort of thing that should be done, but we shouldn't tell people it's never acceptable when the COI page itself does not say that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Youn, speaking in 2016

• Ok, so thinking outside the box, looks like Youn has given at least two talks recorded by the Library of Congress (i.e., open season for commons), here (which was the source of the previous photo), and here, which is overall probably better quality video/lighting/everything. She is without a doubt an exceptionally annoyingly expressive speaker, and that makes it pretty hard to get a screen grab without motion blur, plus the lighting is such that when she is looking directly forward you get a pretty bad glare, but I did manage to pull this photo which I think is overall of a much better quality than the previous one. There's almost two hours of total footage if someone wants to spend the next several hours pausing and unpausing. I've spent about the last 30 minutes doing exactly that and this is the best I've come up with. Also, for what it's worth I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO @$#%@$ ANNOYED AT A !$^!##% WATER BOTTLE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE! Dear Youn, if you're listening, please stop setting your water bottle on the podium. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No disrespect to User:Ianmacm, but Wikipedia doesn't particularly care about what the subject wants, and if they want to spend three hours watching videos 0.2 seconds at a time to find something better, they're more than welcome to. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that one image in the article is enough given the current amount of text. The subject of the article can upload a photo if they want to, although the comments at User talk:Vincentine suggest that any image might be problematic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I am apparently in contact with the individual and trying to help them release the photo of their choice (overall much better quality) for use on the article. 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested new image

A new image has been suggested at User talk:Vincentine, which is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS032616MY_092L.jpg . This could be used instead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but that does not appear to be properly licensed. A release from the copyright holder (the photographer) still must be obtained. Just because she paid to have it taken does not give her the copyright. John from Idegon (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you may be right. If the photo was taken by Sarah Shatz, she would be the assumed copyright holder unless stated otherwise. When a person has their photo taken by a professional photographer, they should check to see who owns the copyright on the photo. This is a common problem with wedding photos.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if Ms. Youn commissioned the photo, we still need a statement from the photographer verifying that. And if you paid for a nice portrait like that, why ever would you release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0? Quite literally, someone could photo shop the head off and add it to a pornagraphic image and there would be absolutely nothing you could do about it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The metadata at the bottom of the page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS032616MY_092L.jpg (click for "show extended details") says that the copyright holder is Sarah Shatz. This means that it is similar to a wedding photo and cannot be released under a free-to-use license without the permission of Shatz herself. So it's a no-go for the photo unless this is clarified. The metadata also has a Gmail address for Sarah Shatz.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monica Youn. 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/20120302110405/http://www.vidaweb.org/events/awp-keynote-eileen-myles-and-monica-youn to http://www.vidaweb.org/events/awp-keynote-eileen-myles-and-monica-youn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616111607/http://tcf.org/publications/2011/4/money-politics-and-the-constitution-beyond-citizens-united to http://tcf.org/publications/2011/4/money-politics-and-the-constitution-beyond-citizens-united
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915101619/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_100203.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_100203.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913081237/http://democrats.cha.house.gov/event/congressional-forum-campaign-finance to http://democrats.cha.house.gov/event/congressional-forum-campaign-finance

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) 14:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Monica Youn 2008 (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)