Talk:Steve McQueen

McQueen's birth name

• Birth Certificate – Terrence Stephen McQueen
• Britanica – Terence Stephen McQueen
• Official Web Site – Steven Terrence McQueen
• Ex-wife Neile McQueen's book, My Husband, My Friend – Steven Terrence McQueen
• IMDB – Terence Steven McQueen
• Biography.com – Terence Steven McQueen
• Encyclopedia.com – Terence Steven McQueen
• All Movie Portal – Terence Steven McQueen
• Film Bug – Terence Steven McQueen
• Movie Film Star – Terence Steven McQueen
• The New York Times – Terrence Steven McQueen
• Marc Eliot Biography – Terrence Steven McQueen
• TV.com – Terrence Steven McQueen

Bede735 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

legacy

Regarding the legacy section, someone should add Sheryl Crow's song "Steve McQueen". Stopde (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source that gives us a reason why that song is important? This isn't a list of every song that ever mentioned him. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's foolish to list the Rolling stones, AND the Kinks, if Sheryl's song is not included as well. Her song was actually titled "Steve McQueen", the other 2 bands' songs were NOT, if anything their listings are more inadmissible than hers. Stopde (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right in that the Kinks song is not notable in connection with this article, but the Rolling Stones is, since it has a sourced mention of McQueens own reaction to it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete the whole section and mention McQueen's reaction to the Rolling Stone song somewhere else in the article, since it refers to something that actually happened in his life. And I'd be all in favor of mentioning the Sheryl Crow song if only anybody could find one single source that thinks it is of any significance at all that she actually named the song Steve McQueen. Even the article about the song, Steve McQueen (song), doesn't say one word about Steve McQueen himself. Two reviews found Steve Miller worth noting, yet say nothing about Steve McQueen. It's just a pop culture name check and it has no meaning, and that's why it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect again, you might want to do some research. These are the lyrics, since you will not take the time to do it yourself: http://www.bing.com/music/lyrics/detail?q=Sheryl+Crow+Steve+McQueen&songID=C5450A00-0100-11DB-89CA-0019B92A3933&lyricsID=5444511&albumID=C3450A00-0100-11DB-89CA-0019B92A3933&artistID=C9660000-0600-11DB-89CA-0019B92A3933&pc=LRFD&FORM=DTPMUM His name is mentioned 8 times. Stopde (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't any reviewers seem to care that his name is in the lyrics. 8 times! Wow. That's what namedropping is, isn't it? The critics only care that the song sounds like a Steve Miller song. Why can't you cite even one third party expert who thinks it matters that the song is called Steve McQueen or that his name is in the song? Just one would do. Or better yet, one single independent, third party expert who thinks this song is relevant to Steve McQueen himself. There is an article about the song. This is an article about Steve McQueen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Image

Be it resolved that:

1. Everyone, or almost everyone, hates the police mug shot. It is a very prejudicial image. It's ugly and it makes Steve McQueen look like he's known for being a criminal. The difficulty of finding an image that meets the licensing that Wikipedia has chosen to use is not a reason to override WP:NPOV, etc. The need for basic accuracy and fairness is far greater than the need to show people what Steve McQueen looked like. The man was an icon. That means almost everybody already knows what he looks like.
2. Many, many, many editors have tried to find free images of McQueen. They failed. They violated a lot of copyrights in the process. Perhaps more care should be taken in future attempts.
3. There are many more important things to do than finagle some way of stuffing an image into this article. There is no harm in having no picture. There is lots of harm in edit warring and violating copyrights in an attempt to put a picture on the page. Find something useful to do. Forget about Steve McQueen's picture. Maybe some day in the future a freely licensed image will be found. Maybe not. Let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What an exemplary assumption of bad faith. I was not aware that there is a feud or even displeasure regarding our only PD image of the man we have, but instead went and did a search on Commons to replace the image as I usually do when I see copyright deletion notices on articles. Your reversal suggests that you should perhaps be the first to take your own advice and let it go. It is quite ridiculous not to include a PD image when we have one, especially with such a dubious reason as "Everyone, or almost everyone, hates the police mug shot". --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the talk page archive. Look at the article history. For some two years I've sat and watched one editor after another add the mug shot, only to be deleted, only to have a copyrighted image added, only to have the mug shot back. It needs to stop.

I was not assuming bad faith on your part; quite the contrary, I was assuming clue; i.e. assuming that you had taken the time to review the article history and talk page archive. And even at that, I didn't accuse you of anything at all. I simply reverted your edit and then used the talk page to explain why. And I exhorted all editors -- not just you -- to leave it alone and don't add another questionable image. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on your multiple assumptions it was indeed an exemplary lack of good faith. Your comment was very clearly aimed at my insertion of that image and you did not provide any context for your objection, but instead you insinuated that my edit was in some way part of a deliberate long time strategy to insert a picture that you apparently disapprove of. "Find something useful to do. Forget about Steve McQueen's picture.", that is a very condescending comment regarding what was a completely good faith edit of providing an informative image to a high profile article. And you really have to explain how that linked essay of yours is in any way relevant in this case. No really, I am genuinely very interested in hearing your explanation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel this sort of thing is a good use of your time, go ahead and put the mug shot back in the lead. In two weeks when some other editor deletes it again, you can debate it with them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, currently I am debating this issue with you. At least you are the only one objecting to this image. I wouldn't mind debating it with others, since I do think my arguments are sound, but that is a debate to be taken if that situation arise. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I'm the one who originally added the mug shot after a strenuous search for a useful PD photo of McQueen. So naturally, I do like it. McQueen apparently liked it, too. He had it hanging in his home. (OR, of course, but perhaps interesting.) In the meantime, the search goes on for a better image. Till then, it seems insane to me to argue against a useful and accurate image of the subject, merely because of the context in which it was taken. But maybe I'm the insane one. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The mug shot is an excellent illustration for the part of the article that covers his arrest, or for a description of his attitudes about the picture. Bu it's important to remember that the most typical way an encyclopedia is used is as an introduction to a subject. Most people have heard of and probably seen pictures of McQueen, but they are very unlikely to be familiar with all the lore around him, such as his attitudes about his mug shot. Readers definietly aren't going to have any idea that finding free images is a problem. The average reader is used to reading blogs and commercial web sites that have no respect at all for copyright. Or have a very cavalier interpretation of fair use. Readers will assume that Wikipedia had a choice of many McQueen portraits and for some reason a police mug shot was picked out as the best way to introduce the world to who Steve McQueen is. So you're left with a very bizarre first impression: an actor is presented to you as a criminal. Sidney Bechet is the only article I could find that had a mug shot in the lead that wasn't about someone primarily known as a criminal. The rest look like Al Capone, Pedro Medina, Illegals Program, Hermann Boehm (eugenicist), etc. And obviously, the Sidney Bechet picture doesn't look like a mug shot so it isn't prejudicial. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

With the cropped version it is not exactly obvious it is a mugshot, especially with that smirk of his on that picture. And with that explanation of yours I think you are vastly underestimating the intellectual capabilities of our readers and are making assumptions based on very scant evidence. As such I do not think that having no image is a good solution, when we do in fact have a perfectly acceptable and informative picture of him available. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, looking straight at a camera with intoxicated stare with height measurement lines behind. It is a fairly obvious mugshot even when cropped. And I think even "scant evidence" trumps opinion. --MarsRover (talk)