Talk:Linda Hamilton: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:52, 28 August 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linda Hamilton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia'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.

Trivia

The trivia section seems to be largely taken from the IMDB bio: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000157/bio . Is that a copyright violation? AnonMoos 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

Chowbok keeps deleting the Sarah Connor picture from the Linda Hamilton page. There is never going to be a freely licensed replacement, as all images of Sarah Connor are owned by someone. This lack of a free equivalent is exactly why Fair Use exists. -- Geno Z Heinlein 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a picture of Sarah Connor on the Linda Hamilton page? That's what the Sarah Connor page is for.—Chowbok ☠ 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Connor is Hamilton's most notable role. It distinguishes her in a profound way from other actresses who have only played more conventional women's roles. I fail to see why some obscure reasoning should continue to compromise this entry. Fair use is allowed and makes sense here. Why do you keep reverting? -- Geno Z Heinlein 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we should only use fair-use images when there's no chance we can get a free image of the subject. Rather than being "obscure resoning", this is a core Wikipedia policy. In this case, the article is about Linda Hamilton, and somebody could take a free picture of her, so we shouldn't use a fair-use image. I'm not convinced by your reasoning that it should be the Sarah Connor photo.—Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're not seriously suggesting that we have to have a Wikipedia user go out and take a picture of Linda Hamilton in order to have a picture on this page, are you? That's completely senseless; it's verging on harassment or stalking. Even if we say that the Sarah Connor picture is not needed, your plan is thoroughly impractical. If we were to follow your recommendation, we would never be able to show any fictional character from a movie on an actor's page, because every last one of those images is under copyright. I don't think we should be compromising the integrity of this page for the sole benefit of some corporation whose lawyers have twisted the legal system to benefit themselves.

Also, even the legal material you're citing authorizes this Fair Use: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" It can't. The Sarah Connor pic satisfies this test, therefore your reversions are not per Wikipedia policy, as you have claimed in your edit summary. A Sarah Connor picture is essential to this page. For a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented, and to use any other character or a paparazzi shot would be disingenuous, to say the very least. If I were Catholic, I would call it a lie of omission to not show Sarah Connor on this page. In fact, I am calling it a lie of omission. It's out-and-out deceptive to not show Sarah Connor here. -- Geno Z Heinlein 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:49, 28 August 2007 edit Geno (talk \| contribs) 143 edits →‎Fair Use ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:52, 28 August 2007 edit undo Geno (talk \| contribs) 143 edits m →‎Fair Use Next edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	::::Okay, you're not seriously suggesting that we have to have a Wikipedia user go out and take a picture of Linda Hamilton in order to have a picture on this page, are you? That's completely senseless; it's verging on harassment or stalking. Even if we say that the Sarah Connor picture is not needed, your plan is thoroughly impractical. If we were to follow your recommendation, we would '''never''' be able to show any fictional character from a movie on an actor's page, because '''every last one of those images is under copyright'''. I don't think we should be compromising the integrity of this page for the sole benefit of some corporation whose lawyers have twisted the legal system to benefit themselves.		::::Okay, you're not seriously suggesting that we have to have a Wikipedia user go out and take a picture of Linda Hamilton in order to have a picture on this page, are you? That's completely senseless; it's verging on harassment or stalking. Even if we say that the Sarah Connor picture is not needed, your plan is thoroughly impractical. If we were to follow your recommendation, we would '''never''' be able to show any fictional character from a movie on an actor's page, because '''every last one of those images is under copyright'''. I don't think we should be compromising the integrity of this page for the sole benefit of some corporation whose lawyers have twisted the legal system to benefit themselves.

	:::: Also, even the legal material you're citing authorizes this Fair Use: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" It can't. A Sarah Connor picture is essential to this page. For a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented, and to use any other character or a paparazzi shot would be disingenuous, to say the very least. If I were Catholic, I would call it a lie of omission to not show Sarah Connor on this page. In fact, I '''am''' calling it a lie of omission. It's out-and-out deceptive to not show Sarah Connor here. -- [[User:Geno\|Geno Z Heinlein]] 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)		:::: Also, even the legal material you're citing authorizes this Fair Use: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" It can't. The Sarah Connor pic satisfies this test, therefore your reversions are '''not''' per Wikipedia policy, as you have claimed in your edit summary. A Sarah Connor picture is essential to this page. For a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented, and to use any other character or a paparazzi shot would be disingenuous, to say the very least. If I were Catholic, I would call it a lie of omission to not show Sarah Connor on this page. In fact, I '''am''' calling it a lie of omission. It's out-and-out deceptive to not show Sarah Connor here. -- [[User:Geno\|Geno Z Heinlein]] 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)