Talk:Jenny Agutter/Archive 1

Joke or vandalism

She lives in Hell?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.116.240 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that was vandalism. If you ever see anything like that that is clearly a joke, please feel free to Be Bold and remove it. Thanks for pointing it out! -- Vary | Talk 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

nude scenes section

Not that I'm complaining about nudity - I feel like the guys from Coupling talking about Walkabout - but is this really relevant to Jenny's career or personal life? Is wikipedia to become The Bare Facts or CNDB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalon (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why else would 99% of blokes be looking at a Jenny Agutter page? I say it's relevant and extremely important. 86.16.223.203 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Miss Agutter did used to have a reputation for doffing her clothing when it was artistically justified. I think it's relevant to her career, especially as I believe she's only had nude scenes in about six movies. Widmerpool 09:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on this. Let me know what you think and if there are any alterations/additions that you think are necessary. Thanks. 79.67.4.157 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good addition to the article. It's what she's famous for isn't it? Melody Perkins (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The pre-occupation of some contributors to Ms. Agutter's 'nudity' is almost laughable in an encyclopaedic context. There are many films, many actors: some portray 'nudity' (simply the natural state of humans!) and the better do so in ways appropriate to context. To make a subsection, or an issue, of it says nothing about film or about Ms. Agutter, and much about the prurience of those contributors who choose the occasional film, the occasional actor, on which to vent their personal inhibitions. For goodness sake, is this an encyclopedia or a vehicle for venting the the duality of Victorian public 'embarrassment' / private exploitation? At the least (and hopefully Wikipedia will not become a tabloid-like 'lowest common denominator') let articles about actors have some consistency that provides information about them, not about readers' inhibitions.

Is the 'nudity' section at all relevant to the article? I think not. Many, many actors play nude scenes such as hers and in most countries of the world it is no big deal. In the UK, the film Walkabout, for example, has a 12 certification. A brief, totally in-context scene without clothes is hardly something to be concerned about. If all actors who played nude scenes were to have a section dedicated to that fact in Wikipedia it would be laughable. Strongly urge deletion of the section heading, but retention of a brief reference to anything that is deemed really relevant to her career (rather than to the outlook of those whose reaction to nudity is, 'Wow! Gosh! How shocking1!' How, I wonder, do such people imagine that they, themselves were conceived?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.15.192 (talk • contribs) 00:15-19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe all actors should have a nudity section, if it's of interest to the reader. Agutter is 'famous for getting her kit off' and she's going to just have to learn to live with the notoriety.79.75.111.74 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of edits (2nd August / 5th August) which added factual content and context about the artistic integrity of the films referenced, in preference to the 'gosh, shock, nudity' paragraph which had previously existed and which contained links to the soft porn site, Mr. Skin, were reverted. It appears that Wikipedia would rather have cheap porn links than fact. It will be interesting to see whether this policy builds such cheap content for all actors.

The edits on 5th August corrected the references to the number of minutes of 'nudity' and added the proper context from the film. To portray the film's well-considered, photographically arresting, commentary on the contrast between, on the one hand, the natural innocence and brutality of 'primitive existence' and, on the other hand, the wanton destruction of 'civilisation', as some sort of cheap porn belongs on cheap porn sites.

Wikipedia moves towards or away from this cheap / shock / weak-on-fact approach by its choice of which content to retain. Hopefully, editors will consider, carefully, the two versions and choose whether to retain the one with fact and context or their currently implemented reversion to a 'cheap porn' slant to the paragraph, which, arguably has little or no place in the article at all. Hopefully, Wikipedia will then reinstate the improved factual content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.132.2 (talk • contribs) 13:15-13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have clearly been adding inaccurate information - for instance I have timed the nude skinny dipping scene in Walkabout and it comes in at 4-5 minutes. You removed this and replaced it with 30 seconds (clearly wrong), and after your edit was reverted you changed the wording to a 'short nude' scene. You also changed the certification of Logan's Run to '16' where IMDB cites it as being a PG in most regions. You have continuously removed descriptions of the nudity, and replaced it with information that is not relevant to the section such as awards the films have won and synopses. You have even deleted mention of some of the films from the section. The links to Mr Skin are citations to confirm what is written, and are directly to Agutter's entry. The link does not link to any porn, and neither does the page include any pornographic material that Agutter may have made throughout her career. In short your edits have reduced the information value of the article and that is why myself and other editors have reversed your edits. 79.67.34.221 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) I have not 'clearly been adding inaccurate information' - I estimated the time of a scene, and described its content more accurately than the article had - not 5 minutes of nudity, as the original entry had implied, but - and I, too, timed this and corrected my original estimate - a scene which included *some* nudity intercut with hunting for food, to serious artistic intent in keeping with one of the themes of the film: the contrast between the 'primitive' / natural world and the 'sophisticated' / spoiled world. I timed the sequence from the UK release, 14th november, 1971, reported on IMDB here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067959/releaseinfo and on amazon.co.uk here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Walkabout-Jenny-Agutter/dp/B00004YA8Z/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1218063903&sr=8-1. This edition is clearly marked on the case as 'Nicholas Roeg's Uncut Directorial Masterpiece. I note that you do not give any reference or citation for your incorrect claims.

Most of the 'information' I removed consisted of subjective phrasing such as 'the surprising form of the PG rated' (Surprising to whom? In what way?); 'full five years' (As opposed to what other version of five years?); 'reputation for the amount of flesh she displayed in her films' (What reputation? Amongst whom? What evidence? How balanced is such a view?); 'she enjoyed a romp in the hay' (Is this really the phraseology of good quality writing?); 'full frontal and rear nudity from both actors in a prolonged scene' (Prolonged? Whose opinion? How long qualifies as 'prolonged'? What does a subjective 'prolonged' add to the facts?); 'Towards the end of the 1970s Agutter started to rein it in a bit and her final nudity came in...' ('Rein it in a bit'?! That is the sort of phrasing you judge suitable for an encyclopedia? Enough said!); 'in which she filmed a steamy sex scene in her late 40s, but the scene did not feature any nudity' (Steamy? In whose opinion? What has late 40s to do with anything? Is that an age at which sex, in life or film, has no place?). Etc.

Your judgment of what constitutes 'information' is, to say the least, an interesting one.

(2) I added substantial accurate and contextually relevant information to a paragraph which had formerly read as, and I'm afraid I have to use the word again, a soft-porn 'gloat', of the sort better suited to giggling adolescents than an 'encyclopedia'. You deleted (i) the factual and contextual information I had added, and, (ii) the correction I made to my original time claim after having timed the sequence carefully from the uncut source, which I have now cited. Your preference for the original 'soft-porn'-style paragraph and your defence of the 'Mr' Skin' web site - hardly a respectable academic source when so many good sources are so easily available - unfortunately for Wikipedia confirms the preference to which I alluded for 'shock-horror' tabloid content rather than factually and contextually accurate and thorough encyclopedic content. The choice is clearly yours. So is the reputation which you build.

I leave readers to judge for themselves your defense of Mr. Skin as a serious source... http://www.mrskin.com/ (Warning, those of a 'sensitive nature' might not wish to peruse 'Mr. Skin' too much).

(3) If you read my edit you will see that not only did I not 'change the certification of Logan's Run to '16' where IMDB cites it as being a PG in most regions', but I defined the PG certification and provided a citation to the issuer (BBFC). You provided no evidence, only a subjective interpretation of 'most regions'.

(4) I have not 'continuously removed descriptions of the nudity'. On the contrary, I supplemented the childish 'Oh, gosh, nudity!' style with more accurate, factual information about the amount of nudity and the context. You reverted it to the former, clearly preferring tabloid-style shock phrases, interspersed with emotive, subjective language to anything more complete and factual. So be it. It's your own integrity that can easily be judged by anyone who reads the history of the entry.

(5) Whilst claiming that I added 'information that is not relevant to the section such as awards the films have won and synopses', you have yet to answer the question about the relevance of a section entitled 'nudity' at all. There are many, many actors who have acted scenes containing 'nudity' - which itself seems to attract your prurient attention - and yet the vast majority of such actors' entries make no mention of it. To state the artistic recognition and context for the film, in which nudity plays an important, though small, part as one of many devices for highlighting the contrast between 'primitive' and 'sophisticated' societies is, I would claim, far more relevant to an encyclopedic article than are tabloid-style, attention-grabbing phrases. However, your reiterated preferences make it quite clear which of these two approaches you prefer and, again, reflect on the integrity or otherwise of Wikipedia as a source of encyclopedic content.

(6) You claim that I have 'even deleted mention of some of the films from the section'. Which? (Being generous: perhaps you were looking at partially complete edits, rather than the final state?)

(7) You state 'neither does the page include any pornographic material that Agutter may have made throughout her career'. From whence do you introduce the subject of 'any pornographic material that Agutter may have made throughout her career'. Neither I nor the article have suggested that she has ever made any 'pornographic' material, so why have you introduced the idea. Do you think that nudity equates to pornography? Will you be adding comments to discussions of the works of numerous artists throughout all history referring to 'any pornographic material that they may have made throughout their careers'? Or just this one? Or do you simply wish to play to a lowest common denominator that equates the naked human body with something 'naughty', in the Victorian sense?

However, your link to Mr. Skin might well, to some readers' minds, exhibit some affinity for pornography. It is the only thing in the article which could be seen to have (to some readers minds) has any connection with pornography. I suggest that you, at least, ought to browse the site, taking note of its intent and content before claiming its value as an encyclopedic source.

(8) Finally, you finish with 'In short your edits have reduced the information value of the article and that is why myself and other editors have reversed your edits'. Whilst, doubtless, an easy-to-copy-and-paste stock phrase, it has little connection with the actual content before and after my edits. Again, I leave it to readers to decide whether your reversion to a short, tabloid-style, paragraph, reveling the the naughtiness of nudity and supported by reference to Mr. Skin, in preference to a longer, more factually and contextually complete version enhances or reduces Wikipedia's reputation, through the agency of at least one of their editors. I might go so far as to counter-claim that it is *your* edits (reversion) that have reduced the information value of the article; and not only the information value, but the integrity of Wikipedia as expressed through this article.

You clearly have the power to determine the version that appears. A careful reading of the history and a comparison of versions raises the question of whether that power is supported by the discernment due to an encyclopedia. Perhaps the days of Wikipedia challenging peer-reviewed encyclopedic and academic sources in some subject areas are a long way off. I would suggest that your edits have not brought them closer. Although in some areas - science and technology, for example - Wikipedia has become a good starting point for starting to investigate a subject, in others, such as this and, indeed, much of the content pertaining to the entertainment media, it has very much of the feel of cheap attention-grabbing headlines. Still, tabloids consistently outsell broadsheets: perhaps is is quantity, rather than quality of readership that you wish to help Wikipedia to attain?

I don't know what processes exist for obtaining some sort of 'peer review' of your editing. If there are any, and if they are substantial, it might be worth subjecting your editorial influence on Wikipedia's content to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.15.82 (talk • contribs) 00:16-00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is you removed some of the films from the list and altered the descriptions to make it deliberately fuzzy. The scene in Walkabout can hardly be described as 'short' and you removed the mention of the type of nudity too. You essentially vandalised the section and evidently other editors thought so too. You need to grow up. 79.67.44.100 (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It manages to be simultaneously snidely puritanical ("rein it in a bit" ?? What, she did something demonstrably wrong? Is this kind of sarcastic judgmentalism the role of an encyclopedia?) and ageist ("In her late 40's" etc. So, we are to be astounded that, not only does this reprobate not hide her body, but she doesn't hide her middle-aged body? Grow up people.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the section to join up the two versions. In a nude section I think it is important that the descriptions of the nudity are not watered down, but I have removed the lascivious phrasing. With regards to Walkabout I have kept the length of the scene at 5 minutes (since the editor purports to have timed it) but also added it is intercut with the hunting. I don't think it is important to mention awards or synopses, these are documented elsewhere. I have removed the ageist comment and some of the feigned expression of surprise and altered some of the jugemental prose. I think the links to Mr Skin should remain because it is the only comprehensive source thhat this information can be verified against. Melody Perkins (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) You still have not listed the films which you continue to claim I removed from 'the list'. A little disappointing.

(2) You have continued to duck the questions about the place of a Nudity section in the entry for an actor, and whether you think such a section should form a standard part of actors' entries. Perhaps you have a vested interest here... perhaps your earlier comment says it all:

'I think it's a good addition to the article. It's what she's famous for isn't it? Melody Perkins (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)'

So, in a nutshell we have an expression of your knowledge of film, what it is that actors are famous for and your view of what constitutes a 'good addition' to an encyclopedic article.

(3) You say, 'I have kept the length of the scene at 5 minutes (since the editor purports to have timed it)'. However, I, too, timed it and suggest that you do the same rather than simply preferring another editor's untested claim. I think you will find that the whole sequence is under four minutes, although that depends on exactly where and how you define the exact boundaries of the sequence, and that there is at least as much of the wildlife / hunting parts as of the swimming parts. This juxtaposition is essential to the contrast being conveyed by the director and is totally in keeping with the artistic integrity of this, highly acclaimed, film. I would estimate that the actual nudity, accounts for between one and two minutes if it were strung together into a single sequence. To take that nudity out of context, mix it with other out-of-context 'nudity' from other films, and form it into a section of the article in its own right comes very close (subscription fees apart) to the approach of the Mr. Skin site, of which you are apparently fond. Read on...

(4) The link to Mr. Skin, which you continue to defend as the 'only comprehensive source', contains a count, by film, of the number of 'pics' and 'clips' containing 'bush' and 'butt', as it does for the '15,700' stars for which it specialises in such 'information'. It also refers to the director, Nicholas Roeg, first realising her 'skintential' - a scholarly turn of phrase, no doubt - along with an invitation to join (currently at a rate of £129.95 a year) to 'read her entire Biography'; and, presumably, have similar access to all the carefully selected images and clips of 'breast', 'bush' and 'butt' from 15,699 other actors, instead of just the 'tasters'?

Your latest edit (i) reinstates most of the important content which I had added, and (ii) removes 'ageist comment and some of the feigned expression of surprise and altered some of the jugemental prose', which amounts to almost exactly what I had originally done. Thank you and well done.

Your continued defense of a link to what the most superficial of examinations quickly reveals to be a soft porn site, founded on extracting titillating clips from films, has now gone beyond being a topic of serious discussion and becomes a source of amusement. Wikipedia must be the only serious 'encyclopedia' the editors of which apparently take professional(?) pride in defending cheap soft porn sites as sources.

Please, do continue! Add 'Nudity' sections to the entries of all actors. This one is only the beginning. Just think, within a year or so you could start charging subscription fees to see 'the full naughty bits' of Wikipedia. Wonderful! Let no one say that Wikipedia hasn't got an eye on its future potential.

Have you sought out, BTW, any peer review process? You have been quiet on this, too. It would be enlightening to have a public discussion amongst Wikipedia editors about how they might or might not wish to expand the site's nudity paragraphs.

More seriously, your continued defense of Mr. Skin is a sad illustration of the risks associated with a non-critically edited site such as Wikipedia, or, at least, part of the site - much of it continues to be an excellent resource - and I hope that Wikipedia will tighten its editorial policies sooner rather than later to avoid risking becoming a laughing stock of the web for editorial policies such as this. It's not hard to imagine the sort of articles that could be written in respectable publications based on this little example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.123.231 (talk • contribs) 15:57-16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your points in turn:

i) On the 28th July you removed references to American Werewolf and Sweet William.

ii) I think the nudity section is relevant because it is a feature of Agutter's work.

iii) I don't have the film to time but I have added a reference for the time length.

iiii) The reference to Mr Skin is included for verification. This is required by Wikipedia rules. As far as I am aware there are no rules probiting where you can cite from.

As for peer review Wikipedia continually undergoes peer review. The additions have been reviewed by other editors and your changes have been reversed in some cases. Some of the additions you made were obviously lost when other editors reverted your alterations. They were categorised as vandalism even though of the changes you made might be deemed valid, and I have tried to incorportae those into the article. I have tried to the make the language neutral and removed subjective judgements. Melody Perkins (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

"I'll address your points in turn

i) On the 28th July you removed references to American Werewolf and Sweet William."

As you can verify from the history, the removal to which you refer was temporary and reinstated, by me, soon after, and there was clearly no attempt to remove the references themselves, just the lascivious way in which they had been used. Poor checking on your part, followed by unwarranted accusations, I think.

"I think the nudity section is relevant because it is a feature of Agutter's work."

You once again avoid the question of the 'policy' (your own, presumably) that determines that this entry, amongst the many, many entries for actors who play scenes involving nudity, deserves a special paragraph. This would seem to be a significant question from the point of view of consistency and integrity of an encyclopedia. That you claim it to be a 'feature' of her work and make no such claim for the vast number of other actors' entries speaks, I think, of your own outlook. It might, perhaps, be said more accurately that your fixation on nudity in this entry is a 'feature of your personal views about Jenny Agutter's portrayal of nudity' (and, by inference, your views about other actors' portrayal of nudity, or of nudity itself, or of Jenny Agutter).

"I don't have the film to time but I have added a reference for the time length."

Perhaps less than five minutes spent with a DVD player would provide more accuracy / credibility. Not having the film to time is scant justification for choosing one claim over another: not quite in the encyclopedic tradition of verified information.

"The reference to Mr Skin is included for verification. This is required by Wikipedia rules. As far as I am aware there are no rules probiting where you can cite from."

You are clearly conflating two distinct points in your evasive response: (i) that of using a soft porn site as a source, and, (ii) the need to cite sources. No one, I'm sure, would contest the latter. However it is the former that is under question. Your choice of defending use of a link to a soft porn site page that makes a feature of counts of 'breasts', 'bush' and 'butt' and refers in its information to recognising 'skintential' speaks volumes. You would, perhaps, have done well to distance yourself from it. However, the choice is yours, and says all that needs to be said about your experience and attitude regarding encyclopedic sourcing.

"As for peer review Wikipedia continually undergoes peer review. The additions have been reviewed by other editors and your changes have been reversed in some cases."

As you will see if you read more carefully, I was referring to explicitly sought peer review of the personal 'policy' you appear to have been pursuing, not to incidental reading of entries by other editors making their own changes. The latter is not 'peer review' by any accepted academic understanding of the phrase.

"Some of the additions you made were obviously lost when other editors reverted your alterations. They were categorised as vandalism even though of the changes you made might be deemed valid, and I have tried to incorportae those into the article."

Yes, you did eventually incorporate them, although far from graciously for some time and with no apology for the preceding removal and claims you made of vandalism. Presumably you, eventually, no longer dismiss them as 'vandalism'.

"I have tried to the make the language neutral and removed subjective judgements. Melody Perkins (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)"

Eventually, metaphorically 'kicking and screaming', you have, indeed; at least partially. It is quite obvious to any careful reader that what you eventually tried to do was what I had been trying to do from the start.

I note, however, that you still appear to favour the phrase 'including a glimpse of her labia'. No doubt, a key piece of information in the entry of any (female) actor. Questions come to mind: Why stop at labia? Female anatomy, after all, goes even further. Will you, I wonder, scour other actors' entries for opportunities to add 'Nudity' paragraphs? Is 'nudity' a particularly significant misdemeanor, in your opinion? Will you seek opportunities to make mention of 'glimpses of labia', or other anatomical glimpses in other such articles? Surely many other actors' Wikipedia entries could 'benefit' from such additions? Or will you confine such editorial changes to this particular entry? You are at risk, it would seem, of appearing to have somewhat unsubtle personal points to make, limited concern for encyclopedia integrity, unless 'forced', arguably being seen to (mis?)use editorial authority to impose your own on-the-hoof 'policy' on Wikipedia entries. Nevertheless, the criticism could not lightly be leveled that your defense of soft porn sites as sound encyclopedic sources has made for a dull article, though perhaps not one most conducive to creating a high quality reference entry. If you had directed your editorial 'oversight' to removing cheap, lascivious phrasing and questionable sources and claims from the start (as I had) you could have improved the article significantly, quickly and easily. Your predilection for still retaining titillating phrases and defending soft porn sources has, unfortunately, said much more about your outlook and approach than about the subject of the entry. I am sure that readers will appreciate the steps you took (or, more accurately, eventually allowed to be taken) towards cleaning up this part of the article. It would be a pity if you stopped short of seeing the job through in the interests of good quality information, unencumbered by any personal hang-ups, prurience and cheap titillation with which some clearly delight in encumbering Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.123.231 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page the Wikipedia policy for articles is listed:

• No original research
• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability

As far as I can see the section does not violate these criteria. The section is written from a neutral point of view now, and references are provided for the facts. The fact that some of these are from Mr Skin is besides the point - they are still verifiable. I am not going to time the length of the scene in question because that would constitute 'original research' and violate the policy, which is why I have added citation for the length of the scene. This matter is closed now unless you can clearly point out which policy this article is in breach of. Melody Perkins (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"This matter is closed now unless you can clearly point out which policy this article is in breach of"

Let me try.

(This is almost embarrassing. I feel as though we have swapped roles and I have been placed in the position of an editor, rebuking a 'vandal' for repeatedly claiming that a soft porn site should be used as a source of reliable information suitable for an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, I have taken a few minutes to find examples of Wikipedia policy that I would have expected to have been almost second nature to an 'encyclopedia editor', even if they hadn't read the policy themselves). Here goes... some excerpts from Wikipedia policy, just a click or two away from the policy links you referred to above:

(1) If you refer to Wikipedia policy page "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP) you will find the following:

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Reliable sources', you can read:

'Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully.' ... 'Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject' ... 'Ask yourself whether the source is reliable' --- it is a soft-porn site, for goodness sake, selling subscriptions so people can look at 'naughty pictures and clips'. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable.

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material', you can read:

'Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability...' See below for more on 'standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability'.

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Presumption in favor of privacy', you can read:

'Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.'

Allow me to repeat part of that last paragraph: 'It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist'.

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Basic human dignity', you can read:

'Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.'

Again, allow me to repeat part of that last paragraph: 'Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid'.

Which would you associate with use of soft porn sites as source material: reputable encyclopedias or tabloids?

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Preventing BLP violations', you can read:

'Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic.'

'Good quality sources'? 'Neutrality of presentation? --- a soft-porn site?!

(2) If you refer to Wikipedia policy page "Wikipedia:Verifiability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) you will find the following:

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Reliable sources', you can read:

'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.'

Soft-porn site - a reliable source? Certainly not the 'peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers' that Wikipedia uses to exemplify reliable sources.

Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Questionable sources', you can read:

'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.'

Soft-porn site - reputation for fact checking? Promotional in nature?

(Remember the site's invitation to pay £129.95 per year to read all the titillation, explore the 'skintential', see all the carefully selected images and clips of 15,700 stars with counts of 'breast', 'bush' and 'butt'?)

Enough of references to Wikipedia policy. Read it yourself. There's nohting unusual about it. It's pretty standard for any reputable reference-type publication. Why is it that *I* am the one explaining to *you* that a soft-porn site is not a reliable source? (I, and I'd expect other readers, can't help wondering what exactly is your experience of serious editing and research).

Is the above information from Wikipedia sufficient to confirm that Wikipedia's policy is in favour of high-quality information? Is it sufficient to confirm that 'It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.'

You tell me, is the inclusion of a highly atypical (by Wikipedia norms) section on Nudity in an article about a respected actor, the use of a phrase such as 'glimpse of her labia while she is underwater', the use of a reference to porn site page that features selected still film images and video clips of 'breast', 'bush' and 'butt', really in keeping with high quality information? Or is it in keeping with being sensationalist and titillating?

I can't help wondering what possible explanation there might be for an apparent affinity between Wikipedia and Mr. Skin in this particular case, that a soft-porn site is so ardently defended as an encyclopedic source. Please, could I respectfully request that you take advice from more senior / experienced people within Wikipedia and find out how the world at large is likely to view the use of soft-porn sites as encyclopedic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.202.251 (talk • contribs) 00:00-00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your statement that:

"The section is written from a neutral point of view now, and references are provided for the facts. The fact that some of these are from Mr Skin is besides the point"

The article sentence containing the reference to Mr. Skin reads as follows:

"Her first nude scenes - filmed when she was just 16 - came in Walkabout (1971).[4]"

The reference to Mr. Skin in support of this claim, which you have been defending as a source, as far as I can see, says nothing to substantiate the sentence for which it is used as a reference. The 'Bio, Pics and Clip' taster reads as follows:

"Celluloid celebrators got their first glimpse of feline-featured and enticingly engineered Jenny Agutter in the quickie East of Sudan (1964), followed by the kind of roles that befit an adorable child actress. It was filmmaker Nicolas Roeg who first realized her skintential in Walkabout (1971), a cult favorite set in the Australian outback that features aborigines, social commentary, and a healthy heap of … Join Mr. Skin to read her entire Biography"

Followed by:

"Jenny Agutter has been naked in 6 films.

My favorite places to see her are…"

The last quote appears to be one of the standard phrases on Mr. Skin 'biographical', pages.

Your own entry in Wikipedia (accessed by clicking on your name and which I presume was created by you), as of today, reads:

"User:Melody Perkins

...

I'm female, 20 years old, blonde, British and slim :)

What more do you want?

I can think of nothing else"

Your own discussion page - i.e. comments made about your Wikipedia editing and your responses - (accessed by clicking on your name and then on the discussion link), as of today, reads:

"User talk:Melody Perkins

...

You have some brave contributions :)

You also have the name of an actress from power rangers!!

K

Thanks, felt that the article needed it because the photos only showed the result and not the process. It's the first time I've done anything like this so I was a bit nervous :) Melody Perkins (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a brave person to show the world this :)

I see it more as an education type of thing, like an info-documentary. I don't think anyone should ever be embarrassed about helping to educate. Melody Perkins (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also love doing porn/ www.herfirstlesbiansex.com

I don't do porn, and I resent the insinuation I am that type of girl. Melody Perkins (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)"

Whilst being left slightly curious about the editorial input to Wikipedia articles that prompted the above comments on your page, I think that these two pages are sufficient adequately to answer any earlier questions about your experience, background and the seriousness with which you undertake your editorial role for Wikipedia.

Questions arising from your information, quoted above, include:

(i) What selection procedure resulted in you becoming a Wikipedia editor?

(ii) What is Wikipedia's view of your editing, including your defense of a porn site as a source and whatever other editing you undertook to prompt the above comments from other Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.80.124 (talk • contribs) 09:03-09:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the Mr Skin article that Agutter's first nudity came in Walkabout, because it lists the films with nudity and dates them, of which Walkabout is the earliest. The article doesn't need to explicitly state it 'her earliest nudity - it is an obvious and natural implicit conclusion from the chronology presented.

I think you will find that Mr Skin is highly accurate and peer-reviewed (since when does peer review just equate with academic journals??). The fact that it publishes screencaps from the films in question then you could argue it is one of the most factual websites on the net, and arguably undergoes more rigorous fact checking than highly respected academic journals. Since the mainstream press incorporates newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Mail that often publish erroneous information I think it is obvious that Mr Skin is a highly factual site regardless of its content! Melody Perkins (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi

I've removed the listing for this dispute from the WP:3O page; there are more than two editors involved and I'm hopeful you can all arrive at a consensus position between yourselves. If you are unable to do so then you may wish to consider dispute resolution.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nudity 2

I really don't think this nudity section is strictly necessary since there are many actors/actresses who do nude scenes. Also it is probably excessively long. If we must mention her nudity then perhaps it can be done in a more tasteful way. In any case, I've tried to clean it up a bit. There's no need to make references to her labia. It doesn't really add to the article, and besides, this is not a porn site. Thanks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are clearly people who think the section is relevant, so as long as it is properly sourced I don't see an argument for removing it. Melody Perkins (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of this talk page, the only person who appears to believe the information is relevant is yourself. I'll reserve judgement on the origin of the anonymous IPs who've been edit warring this evening, but you should be aware that using anonymous IPs (or alternative accounts) to make edits in support of a particular point of view is considered sock puppetry and will lead to you being blocked from editing.

Having stumbled across this page this evening and read the particular section on nudity, I still believe it is not necessary. There are countless actors and actresses who have appeared in nude scenes and I don't see Jenny Agutter as being any more important that them. Perhaps the information concerning Logan's Run is relevant as it is unusual for a film with a nude scene to be given a PG rating, but the information is probably more appropriate in the film's article rather than here. Furthermore references to her labia are not necessary and could smack of soft porn, so I feel the section needs toning down. Remember that the idea of Wikipedia is that people edit the work of others in order to improve it. One does not own anything one writes here. I would also like to suggest you seek the advice of a more experienced editor on this matter. After all, I could just be being too cautious.

Finally, I notice you haven't been welcomed to Wikipedia, so I'm going to add the welcome template to your talk page. This will give you a few starting pointers and help you to navigate your way around. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can reserve judgement all you want, but there are plenty of users prior to my involvement taht this section relevant, and if you check the edit history am I not the only 'registered' user who has reverted the attempts to remove the section. If we ignore the 'anonymous' edits for the time being - and I have strong suspicions about you - the only registered user against the inclusion of the section is you, while there are at least three users who think it should included. Melody Perkins (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay cool here. Request a third opinion here and someone else can look at the section. I think this would be a very good idea personally. For the record, I'm not in the habit of editing anonymously and I see that others have mentioned a nudity secion in the past. I'll take your word for it that you're also not editing anonymously. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I think it's also a good idea if we start a new section as this one is becoming very cumbersome to edit, so I'm going to re-add my original Nudity 2 title.

Nudity section cleanup issues

I have my reservations about the inclusion of this section since there are countless actors and actresses who've appeared nude on film, but in any case, I've tagged it for cleanup as I feel it has multiple issues;

• It appears to contain original research (though I've done my best to remove this);
• The reliability and quality of some of the references are questionable (eg Mr Skin);
• The section reads like a tabloid piece (though again I've had a go at cleaning it up).

Does anybody have any thoughts on this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with TheRetroGuy. From reading the history of this page it's obvious that you have a 'rogue editor' in Melody Perkins. From her own pages you can see that her main, and repeated, contributions to Wikipedia have been on this article and the Bikini Waxing article.

On this one she has repeatedly defended the use of a porn site as a source for a section ('Nudity') that has no place in this Wikipedia entry in any case and makes it stand out like a sore thumb amongst actors' entries. She has repeatedly restored her porn-based, sensationalist paragraph with the flimsiest of 'justifications'.

On the Bikini Waxing entry her contribution has been to add a video of bikini waxing which she claimed to have been produced by only herself and her brother (do many brothers produce videos of their sisters being bikini waxed?!!!!). It has since turned out to be apparently identical to a video on another porn site (reference given - certainly looks identical) and, hence, under investigation as a copyright violation. Her claim (in her personal entry) that 'I don't do porn, and I resent the insinuation I am that type of girl' doesn't sit well with adding the video that seems to be from a porn site. It can be inferred that she either did create the video with her brother and used it on a porn site before adding it to Wikipedia, or else she didn't create it in which case she has stolen it from a porn site, added it to Wikipedia and made false claims about having produced it herself. (I don't know whether anyone can think of any other explanations?)

Her knowledge of 'reliable sources' and Wikipedia's aims regarding sensationalist tabloid, vs. encyclopedic content are just not compatible with an encyclopedia editor. It would appear that she has her own agenda, closely related to introducing porn into Wikipedia. This could be because of links with the porn industry, or because she considers this sort of vandalism amusing. I suspect the latter. If she really is venturing into copyright theft she might find she has a lot more on her plate than she bargains for. I hope her wallet would be up to defending any prosecutions that might ensue.

That still leaves two questions: (1) How to effectively clean up her sabotage of this article. My recommendation would be to remove the section (Nudity) completely, as it has been purely sensationalist from the start, but, more importantly, is quite out of place in an entry for a living person. (2) How to effectively remove 'Melody Perkins' from the site. One way in which the latter might occur, with or without Wikipedia's intervention, would be if the legal forces of the porn site from which she might have stolen and used copyright material were brought to bear on her. This is potentially already out of her hands and all she can do is keep quite and hope that she isn't about to be on the receiving end of legal proceedings. Her wisest option might be to undo her vandalism, make apologies, and exit Wikipedia ASAP. If the porn site doesn't take action, it is down to Wikipedia to determine how to remove a vandal 'editor'. She can't be the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.163.205 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice. I'd steer clear of the legal stuff as your comments could be misconstrued as making legal threats against Ms Perkins. Doing so is an instantly blockable offence. Also try to stay within the topic as much as possible. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit disputes

There's an ongoing dispute here as to whether this article should include a section on her nudity. After stumbling across an edit war on the subject in August, I attempted to clean the section up (see above sections), but was met with resistance. I eventually tagged the article for cleanup, but the conflict (which appears to be between two users) has continued. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing 'dispute' actually boils down to TheRetroGuy's problem with the section. He has removed the section many times and it has been restored many times by myself and other various editors (see the edits on the 13th September for example when moderators had to step in to stop the removal of the section). It was actually stable again until this weekend when TheRetroGuy attempted yet again to remove the section. Please keep an eye on it to prevent further vandalism. Thankyou. Melody Perkins (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I see it the argument is actually between Melody Perkins and an anonymous user in the 86 IP range who objects to the section (see the lengthy argument between them above). I'm only involved because I tried to intervene. I believe that some of the 'other editors' mentioned by Melody Perkins (i.e., the anon IPs in the 79 range) are, in fact, her sockpuppeting in order to make her case. When I first came across this in August I attempted to tidy up the section in question (which contained some original research) and was met with objections from Melody Perkins. Tagging the section appears to have calmed things down for a couple of months, but then I noticed yesterday that it was starting up again. I admit to removing the section in question, but really because it seems to be a source of constant trouble more than anything. TheRetroGuy (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I've also created multiple users accounts and maintained separate edit histories so I could revert the changes without being caught out. If you check the edit history there are numerous "registered" editors that have restored the deleted section after its deletion. For the record I'm 99% certain the persistent vandal is TheRetroGuy since both he and 'anon' turn up at the same time. You'd have to be Lois Lane to not see a link. Despite the notice being in the article for weeks no-one has supported TheRetroGuy's argument to remove it - apart from the mysterious 'anon' that is....Melody Perkins (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. It's clear that all this user wants to do is argue and not reach any kind of resolution. And now she appears to be admitting to sockpuppetry. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion, the nudity section is irrelevant. I read it and see no reason why it needs its own section or as much detail and description. As has been mentioned a few times, many actors do nude films but do not have sections on it in their articles. This whole arguement is long, and SERIOUSLY goes around in circles. As I see just now the page is semi-protected, I am unsure which group you both are in but I suggest that Melody does not add the section again or I personally will request more copy protection. The fact that Melody seems to be admitting sockpuppetry damages her case severely.

I recommend leaving this article as it is just now, with NO nudity section. You could perhaps mention she has done some nude scenes in films, but please do this in an appropriate manner. Tavy08 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Melody Perkins is clearly being facetious about having set up lots of different IDs - if she had why haven't 'they' turned up here to support her case. She was clearly making fun of TheRetroGuy. If we go off registered users who have voiced an opinions, then

For - Melody Perkins, Widmerpool

Against - The RetroGuy, Tavy08

Hardly a consensus. If we go off the article history, the registered users who have supported the the section and restored it are: CometStyles, Icairns,II MusLiM HyBRiD II,Jamesontai, Piano non troppo, Ale jrb, Nunquam Dormio

Those who have removed it are: Sceptre,Relator,WKnight94

The consensus off the edit history is clearly to include the section at this point since the consensus currently stands at 9-5 to include the section, and should be restored once the article comes out of protection. 79.67.95.49 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Melody Perkins. — Athaenara ✉ 07:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Given the comments on voting, it's probably worth directing Melody Perkins/WalterMitty, etc, to this essay. TheRetroGuy (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since there has been a failure to reach consensus then voting is the only course of action now. I strongly suggest the section is restored to the article in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the editors of this page. 79.67.95.49 (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has been proven that Melody is a sockpuppet. Thus this whole argument is moot and the article should stay as it is without the Nudity section. The argument of an IP user cannot hold much water now as it could be anyone, most likely Melody/Walter considering the way things have gone. Unless one of the users listed above decides to add their opinion, then that is what should be done. However I suspect a lot of the users listed are vandal hunters and just restored it on suspicion of vandalism. Tavy08 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess if TheRetroGuy keeps removing the section then the 'vandal hunters' will have to keep reverting it. It would be a shame if the article has to stay under protection because he won't leave it alone. 79.67.75.205 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah I highly doubt that they will keep reverting once a notice is added to the page, which I will do myself just now. By the way, you are clearly Melody/Walter considering you keep removing the block tags on Melody's talk page, so posts with this IP are now irrelevant to this dispute. Tavy08 (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I had actually been planning to review the section after tagging it some weeks ago and allowing some time for discussion on this page, but then the edit warring started again and I thought if it was going to be the source of that much trouble then the article was better off without it. A bit rash of me perhaps? IMHO there may be aspects of the section that could be merged into the part about her career. Brief mention could be made of Walkabout and Logan's Run (the latter because it is unusual for a film with nudity to receive that particular rating). But that's all really. In its original form it was too long and much of it was unnecessary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work, merging the relevant information into sections about her career. A section for Nudity was not needed as all the info could have been added better into other sections. Also the detail of that section was pointless, no one needed to know exactly what you saw in a film. Personally I don't think you were rash at all, removing such a section was a good idea. It could lead to all types of vandalism, as I have already noticed in the History, and as mentioned it didn't go with any other articles on people. I think it is about time this dispute ended. Unless any other editors (Who are clearly not Melody/Walter/whoever) have opinions. I'll watch for the next few days, especially after protection wears off to see if any more revert wars start. Hopefully not though. Tavy08 (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Although I have only been a silent observer of the recent dispute and ugly edit war, the fact that two editors both reported each other on the wikipedia vandal notice board. That was very unprofessional of both of you. That being said, I do not see a problem with adding any information that is properly cited. The exclusion of such information can be considered a POV problem, and any relevent information concerning this actress should not be repressed, unless someone can come up with a valid wikipedia policy otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Have also been watching this for a while. I think some parts of the section appear to be quite relevant, while others seem a bit salacious. I'm going to follow some of my own advice and be bold and do a bit of editing. Wish me luck. Paul Largo (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, hopefully I've found a workable solution which incorporates the most useful information. Paul Largo (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK finally, someone who is willing to work to a compromise. I think your edits are reasonable on the whole. I have restored the section about the five minute skinny-dipping scene being cut from the US release because I think it's relevant information about a classic film. You conclude by mentioning other films Agutter has appeared nude in and I think American Werewolf should be mentioned in this context as a famous example too since it is a classic film, although I haven't made that alteration as yet. 79.67.33.247 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Have now added American Werewolf in London and a note that the Mr Skin site requires subscription. Glad I could help with this. Paul Largo (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removing salacious and incorrect comment in parentheses, "...Logan's Run (which is a rare instance of a PG film featuring nudity)". It's the use of "rare instance" which is incorrect: it is neither rare nor unusual in a PG film. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) has the following nudity criterion for a PG film: "Natural nudity, with no sexual context" (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_pg.php) which accurately describes the few seconds in the film, as it does the many, many others awarded a PG certificate. Nothing at all "rare" about this - just business as usual - pointless and misleading to claim it's special or unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.172.234 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Paul Largo (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the part about Logan's Run containing nudity that is unusual for a PG. As TheRetroGuy concedes above ("Brief mention could be made of...Logan's Run (the latter because it is unusual for a film with nudity to receive that particular rating).... TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)). Just because the certificate caters for it doesn't mean it is not unusual. Off the top off your head hown many PG rated films can you think of that include nudity? The Parent's Guide includes a warning about the nudity in Logan's Run so it is not usual as per course. 80.41.98.192 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the last part of the above is not a valid inference. The BBFC warning is in recognition that some parents might not feel comfortable with their children seeing nudity in films. These days, however, that tends to be thought of a somewhat old-fashioned view in most cultures (always was in *many*). However, the BBFC, out of courtesy to those who might feel uncomfortable about the natural state of human beings, points out nudity, even of the type accepted as quite suitable by the majority of society and by its own guidelines, so that those parents holding more conservative views are able to make their own decision. This does not indicate that nudity is 'unusual' in any special sense. E.g. it is just as unusual for a PG (or any) film to show a rocket heading for the moon. That doesn't, however, warrant every film showing a rocket heading for the moon being described as unusual. To do so would overload every film reference with examples of its 'unusual' content, so that all content that is not simply repetitive and unoriginal is described as unusual.

It really is an out-of-place view to describe nudity deemed as suitable for a particular age group by a responsible and respected national film classification body (with no sexual connotation and absolutely fundamental to the plot - the contrast between so-called 'primitive' and so-called 'civilised' societies and the harm perpetrated by the latter) as 'unusual.

This is a request to avoid personal 'hang-ups' (excuse the phrase) from diminishing the quality of an encyclopedic article. (Note that the 'encyclopedic' approach of Wikipedia has already been in question in the discussion regarding use of a subscription soft-porn site as a reliable source, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia's general editorial policy regarding quality and suitability of sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.218.245 (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked that BBFC reference again. It doesn't appear to have any relevance to this article. In fact it doesn't say a lot really. Paul Largo (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The term 'unusual' or 'rare' doesn't denote propriety, it denotes how typical an occurrence is. Most people I think will agree that the nudity in Logan's Run is rare since how many PG films can you name off the top off your head that feature full-frontal female nudity, so what the certificate permits is a moot point. I think it goes without saying that it is rare, so the question is whether mentioning it contributes to the information value of the article. It's best to leave it out until there are a few more opinions though, but please desist in removing other parts of the article that were agreed upon during arbitration. 80.41.57.126 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Every film has atypical occurrences - that's what makes stories differ from one another. I can't see what is special about brief, non-sexual nudity deemed quite appropriate for a young audience by a major national film classification board that should attract a prudish response. It's inclusion would seem to say much more about the outlook of the person homing in on it than about anything significant to this article (or the many others to which the same reasoning could be applied).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.218.245 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have I missed something, or is the reference to Mr. Skin a rather transparent attempt to slip in an advert for a subscription soft porn site (£90.95 per year to read about and look at '203,000 pics and clips' of 'breasts, bush and butt'). If this is a genuine attempt at improving Wikipedia can we assume that there will be a concerted effort to incorporate as many as possible of Mr. Skin's 16,000+ detailed counts of breast, bush and butt in as many actors' Wikipedia entries as possible? Or is this entry the only one warranting the annual subscription? Perhaps someone could investigate Wikipedia's rules / guidelines on quality of sources and biographies of living persons.

It appears this has been raised before and side-stepped (or sabotaged?). The history seems to show that the person who previously advocated Mr. Skin as a reference was subsequently banned from Wikipedia for a number of offenses including, it would seem, uploading a porn video from another subscription site and claiming to have created it with her brother, until another editor found the original site from which it appeared to have been taken without permission and in violation of copyright.

It is irrelevant if Mr Skin requires a subscription, there is no Wikipedia protocol for dismissing such citations. The only criteria for a citation is accuracy and reliability, and for that fact Mr Skin is highly reliable because its 'sources' are available online as part of the service it provides. Even if you dispute the decription of a scene you can check it yourself, so in that sense it is more veriable than Wikipedia itself. If a Mr Skin citation is an advert what does that make the Amazon.com article?? It is unavoidable in the context of an encyclopaedia. The fact is it validates information in the article in a highly reliable manner which is all that is required of a citation or reference at the end of the day. 89.168.82.22 (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I added the note (subscription required) because I've seen other articles on Wikipedia where such notes have been added to external links. If someone really wants to look at the site, it's worth drawing their attention to the fact that they'll have to pay to do so. Thanks Paul Largo (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your note is more than adequate PaulLargo. It meets the verifiability requirements placed upon it by Wikipedia and as you point out the note makes it consistent with other subscription based sources. 89.168.117.18 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

http://saga.inbro.net/seeinsidebrochure/SAGA-Magazine_May-2008/The-features/Interview-with-Jenny-Agutter-...-The-Railway-Children-actress/pages_64-65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.242.96 (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Leader

I made one or two minor edits to the leader, eg putting her name in bold type per other Wikipedia articles. Paul Largo (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for doing it.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Archiving

This page is getting cumbersome to edit, especially from a slow connection. Would anyone object to my setting up page archiving? Paul Largo (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

no, I would not object--Jojhutton (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, have now set up archiving with MiszaBot to archive anything older than 90 days. As far as I understand it, the Bot goes by the last time stamp, so as this page has been subject to disputes in the past, 90 days should allow time for any discussions/disputes to be resolved. Let me know if there are any problems with this. Paul Largo (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)