Talk:Bettie Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Bettie Page is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 9, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
July 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
February 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bettie Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

miscellaneous background information[edit]

This article seems to lack some necessary context. There was a segment of History Dectectives (I saw on PBS in 2016, but I believe it's several years older) which claims (and is most likely true, iirc) that photographs of men and women in sexual or nude poses was ILLEGAL in the early 1950's. Which means it was more expensive and risky to obtain. So, its hardly surprizing that most of her work involved only women and that no commercial sexually explicit photos have been verified. I don't know how you'd verify the content of all of the private work she did on commission, so I'm not sure the claim that she never participated in anything explicitly sexual can be verified. Looking back, it's a bit hard to believe that she never went over the line, but is certainly possible. I also note that her "measurements" are included in the "fact box" on the right, and yet no date is given for them. It's unlikely that her measurements stayed constant for ten years - and are they really necessary? Which authoratative source verified them? Her family is mentioned as discontinuing life-support, but no family is listed in the fact box. Did she have children? Finally History Dectectives says she was unable to find work in 1947-9 L.A. so moved to N.Y.C. to find work.FWIWAbitslow (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Her measurements are really necessary because there are nay-sayers who doubt the idealized hourglass proportions of 3-2-3 are found in nature; preserving documenting Page's 36-23-35 measurements is really necessary to convince the doubters. Seriously, I recall her measurements were part of her publicity in the 1950s which justifies inclusion in the info box. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Why are there barely any pictures for Betty Page? 20astevenson (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Why indeed. Bettie Page pin-ups were denounced on the floor of Congress for corrupting the morals of America. Maybe few survivors?

I assume mostly for copyright reasons. Not knowing who owns those rights to a given picture, to begin with. (I believe the Klaws are both dead, & so are many of the other photographers who took pictures of her. Page's estate might have some interest in her images. Moreover many have been since republished, so a subsequent publisher might be able to claim copyright.) There is also the issue whether the copyrights were properly recorded & renewed. Lastly, if these images were ruled as obscene, at a certain point in American legal history obscene works could not be copyrighted & they would be in the public domain. This is a tricky point of law, which has led to such results as James Joyce's Ulysses actually being in the public domain for the United States. So, in brief, it's a complicated situation no Wikipedia editor has yet decided to spend his/her unpaid time on to untangle & provide us with photos. -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)