Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 10 March 2007

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Notable

Apparently other people have actually heard of her...!? Maybe we can add more biographical detail with citations?

Request for Comment: Explicit Photo

There is a dispute about the topless photo of 3 models currently in the article. 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

David, do you have her (and the other two women's) permission to use that photo? How does that work? I understand that if she was in a public place that you can take the photo, and you own the rights to the photo, but, you can't publish the photo without their release, can you? Atom 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I own the photo - it was taken by me, which is exactly what it says on the image details. I don't really wish to spend any more time educating you, since my time is limited. --DavidShankBone 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think that the explicitness needs to come into it--the photo doesn't really show what she looks like, it shows what her breasts look like. I think we could definitely find a better photo, and one that would be less offensive. Although there's no policy against nudity on wikipedia, many people are not supportive of explicit photos and nude photos of identifiable people whose permission has not been obtained. See Identifiable people in explicit photos and Pornography. I also don't think it adds anything to the article to have a nude photo. It's not like she's a nude performance artist or anything, she's a normal actress and a fashion designer. Was she changing in that photo? It doesn't look like part of the public show. --Hurtstotouchfire 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The photo is of Subkoff's Imitation of Christ show. It is a piece that Subkoff, as the designer, designed. It would be similar to having a painting on the Roy Lichtenstein photo or, say, a pregnant skinned woman on the Damien Hirst page. It is Subkoff's art. It is part of her show, and there are about four photographs from it under Tara Subkoff on the Commons. They're just breasts, which hardly qualify as porno. And if anyone needs to see how public these photographs are, they are welcome to do a Google image search under "Imitation of Christ", Subkoff's label. --DavidShankBone 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Imitation of Christ is an underwear line to me: Current Collection. Where exactly was this photo taken at the show, David? It looks like a dressing room shot to me. --Hurtstotouchfire 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The photo was taken as part of the show. YOu can see copyrighted photographs of the show here and here. I attended the event, and you can find my photographs of it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Tara_Subkoff

--DavidShankBone 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For others reference, Subkoff's shows are often quite outlandish (see this summary of one of her shows). However, I've tried a variety of searches and have not found any other explicit photographs of Subkoff or of models in her shows, so it doesn't seem that this show was representative of her work. I still think that another image would be more appropriate. --Hurtstotouchfire 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if either you or I are authority enough, or care enough to research, what is and is not most representative of Subkoff's shows. But these photos were from her Spring 2003 collection, the show is something she designed and thus meets Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion. You are welcome to obtain other open-use photos such as the ones I've provided that will not assault your sensibilities, such as these breasts apparently do, and put it up. Until then, it is like arguing the pregnant, skinned woman sculpture on the Damien Hirst page is not representative of his work since he mostly paints. --DavidShankBone 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my general thinking:

• The article is on Tara Subkoff. The photo is not of Tara Subkoff herself. She is both an actress and a fashion designer. The photo is not a photo of her, it is a photo from one of her shows. The show featured women in panties and heels mimicking in housecleaning activities. The photo in question doesn't actually show the vacuums (which is why it took me so long to figure out that it's not a dressing room shot), so it's not even a representative shot of that particular show. The article would do better with a photo of Subkoff herself.
• The photo doesn't "assault my sensibilities"--I don't personally have any issues with public nudity. However, there are laws about obscenity. I think they're stupid, but that doesn't make them any less real. All it takes to convict someone of public obscenity is to prove that the subject matter somehow offends the "community". The internet doesn't get much slack from said laws because it's impossible to define who the community is. However, there's no reason to taunt fate unless the possibly-offending image adds information to the article. I think that the show in question was a thought-provoking, visually attractive show, and that the particular image doesn't do it justice, nor does it add to the article. I think it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurtstotouchfire (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

As a law student, I can tell you that breasts are not considered "obscene" and Misplaced Pages is not edited and censored based upon worries about what is obscene or not. You should check out the Ejaculation and Breast pages. On the Roy Lichtenstein page there is no photograph of Roy, but of his work. An image of the person, indeed, would be good to have, but it's not an either/or proposition. If a Subkoff photo was produced, it would not mean that a photograph of her work needs to go as well. I will create a gallery of images in the article from the show, instead of having one out as the lead, in an effort to compromise. --DavidShankBone 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I think that having explicit photos on the article is less controversial if it's made clear what they contribute, and it wasn't particularly clear that the photo was of models in Subkoff's show, before. So I think this is an improvement.

You're correct, wikipedia does not censor. Like I've said several times now, the level of offensiveness should be weighed against how much the offending item adds to the article. For instance, the Goatse.cx article doesn't have the famous Goatse.cx image on it, even though it's definitely pertinent to the article. There was a big debate, and people eventually decided to link to the image instead of posting it. It's not always just a matter of legal issues, it can also just be a matter of access. Many people surf the web from behind content filters. And if you've ever tried to surf that way you know that content-filters are absurdly sensitive sometimes (though luckily not thorough).

I think that linking to other pages that have images of a wider variety of Subkoff's shows adds more information than posting images from the one show (that we know of) that includes extensive nudity. Given that there are no other images for the article at this time, I won't remove the current gallery. I think most people would agree that breasts are among the least obscene examples of explicit imagery, but I think it's still wise to be cautious. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think your concerns are fair; however, that no images are currently available I think the gallery works well. I will keep my eye open for Subkoff and IOC for more. I would hesitate to compare a few breasts flying around to goatse.cx - very different categories. I know that wasn't your point, but still... Have a good one, Hurts. --DavidShankBone 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it to be,she is not fully naked!I think we should just find a photo for the info box instead!I seen around here on Misplaced Pages,articles that show an image showing a naked man and woman naked that's worse,here it is only bare breasts add a naked man and that's a problem to dispute about!(71.96.240.166 09:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)).

• With all due respect for Misplaced Pages's guidelines of decorum, this Shankbone guy is simply a careerist scumbag who is using Misplaced Pages to further his budding photography career in case he fails out of the law school he supposedly attends. Does anyone really think that an article on Tara Subkoff needs to be illustrated by FOUR pictures of NON-TARA SUBKOFF humans? Even four photos of Subkoff herself, or even two or three, would be excessive on Misplaced Pages, considering her level of importance. I would love to see him provide actual proof that he got consent from these exact nude models to have their pictures placed online for the world to see. He claims that the fact that he "owns the photo" means he has total permission to disseminate the photos to the world. And he calls himself a law student? He'd be laughed out of any law or pre-law class for saying that. Oh wait, my bad: He already told us, "I don't really wish to spend any more time educating you, since my time is limited." His time is far too important to spend on us. Remember, Misplaced Pages users: he is our educator, not vice versa. Whenever someone keeps doing something that completely defies logic and respectability, ask yourself: What does that person have to gain? In Shankbone's case, the answer is: If these nudie pics of his are taken down, he loses his little patch of real estate on the web which serves as a resumé, while he posits himself here as some sort of sub-Larry Flynt anti-censorship crusader. As for comparing his pictures to the picture at the Ejaculation entry, guess what? It's a date-obtaining device posted by the photographer of his own penis and perfectly-shaved torso, under idealized lighting, disguised as a scientific illustration. Anyone who can't see that is even more dense than our little Wishbone here. As for Hirst, if an article on him were illustrated only by four photos of one piece of his art, or four photos taken of Hirst himself, all taken on the same day, that would be simply ludicrous; so how is this m.o. applicable to an article on a fashion designer/actress? I agree with everything that user Hurtstotouchfire laid out against keeping these four nudie images up. The ironic thing is, I decided not to remove the photos, settling on just putting a disclaimer next to them. But after Shankbone IMMEDIATELY REMOVED MY DISCLAIMER, as he has done before, he really touched a nerve/ enraged me beyond description, so now I've decided to methodically remove the pics every chance I get, and possibly even report this to Subkoff's lawyers. (You know, actual lawyers, not law students.) He has made no effort to "compromise," as he stated that he would in his post on Feb. 5th. The fact that pervy guys with no interest in Subkoff or her "work" will always chime in on this page in favor of keeping the photos posted is so obvious as to simply go without saying, and should not be interpreted as reason enough to keep them up. The only sadder part is that he probably derives great pleasure from watching himself being discussed on here, unaware how close his own Warholian 15 minutes are to expiring. Chris77xyz 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of artists and entertainers
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles