Talk:Larry Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The article that is on this page today (01/03/06) is an exact copy of the press release that is accompanying Clark's latest film. -- 61.69.243.58 11:21, 1 March 2006

Contents 1 Early Life 2 Copyvio 3 Works in museums 4 Critics and Explosiveness 5 Tiffany Limos

[edit] Early Life

Someone who knows more than I do should add more about his early life. I have read that he spent time in jail for all sorts of things - including shootings and stabbings - before (and I belive during) his early photography work (Tulsa etc.)

[edit] Copyvio

The copyright violation is regarding the introductory paragraphy which is worded identically to the PDF listed in the template. It appears as though the content in question was added by User:71.106.183.176 on 13 February 2006. --Arch26 22:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Great work. I've re-added my original post regarding this plagiarism, an appropriate post that you deleted so that it would appear that you had discovered the act of plagiarism all on your lonesome. In future do not delete other people's messages on these pages. What you've done is considered vandalism. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia's pages you will be banned. -- 202.147.117.202 15:12, 22 April 2006

Ummm... thanks for that. Now I cannot get credit. Oh... that is so sad. Now I will not get my gold star. Oh woe is me [a tear trickles down my cheek]. --Arch26 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So there is an actual award, a gold star, that you were seeking. I was actually just talking about something else, a simple discovery, that you were to steal. That there was a definite award up for grabs and you were deleting the posts of others not just to make it look like you had discovered something you hadn't but to get an award is even worse. You should also have had the sense to just do what Tinlinkin did instead, you should study him, see what a proper Wikipedian does. What you've been doing is wrong.

So Arch26 deleted your original message and replaced it with his own. I agree that's bad judgment. But you shouldn't expect to make him or any other person who raises a copyvio be responsible to rewrite an article himself. He did identify (via a link to) the specific original document. And he properly raised the copyvio by providing the copyvio tag (see WP:Copyvio). But maybe he simply doesn't have time to rewrite the article. Maybe he doesn't know how to rewrite it. Maybe he's not an expert. I'm not an expert on Larry Clark, either, but with my own time and with simple investigation and research, I was able to do the rewrite. It's just amazing how much info is lost in Wikipedia articles by looking trhough history. --Tinlinkin 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of policy, but anything anonymous and ambiguous can and should be replaced by something signed and clear. Just sign up for an account, it's not that tough.

Anyway, just to be super clear, the alleged copyright violation posting occurred on 03 February 2006, not 13 February 2006.

Finally, can't that paragraph just be reverted and be done with it? I don't really care, I just stumbled upon the article because I was searching for Larry Clark who was just found guilty of the 1970 murder of a police officer in St.Paul. Maybe I'll work on an article for him instead of bothering with this monkey business... Tim Sailor 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anymore copyvios now. I used this edit as a springboard for editing. This was the version before [71.106.183.176] messed things up. --Tinlinkin 11:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Works in museums

I removed text regarding Clark's permanent installations in museums as that was part of the copyvio. If that is important to the article, add it. --Tinlinkin 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics and Explosiveness

However, his films are also often labelled as exploitative and even borderline child pornography by film critics for their frequent and explicit depictions of children and teenagers using drugs and having sex.

The above needed to be rewritten for the following reasons: I change the sentence so it did not claim that many critics find his films exploitative. While Kids did receive that charge from several film critics, Bully to a much lesser degree. Ken Park has not been released in the U.S. in any format so I don't think any U.S. critics could level such a charge at it without having seen it. I would be better to list examples of specific critics who leveled such charges and which film(s) they actually charge as expletive. I also change the claim that his film have shown children, as apposed to teenagers using drugs and having sex. If someone can point to a specific example of either preteen drug use or preteen sex then it could be added back though we should not lump them together unless they both actually exist in his films.

[ADDITION BY LUKE FLEGG 30/NOV/06] 1)The opening scene does show Telly having sex with a girl who later in conversation between Telly and (best friend)Casper is said to be a 12 year old virgin. 2)There's several kids in various scenes who look many years prior to teenage..hood, who are smoking marajuana "I got it off my brother, but he won't tell me where he gets it" "you takin' in a lot o that for a lil guy" etc [/LUKE FLEGG]

...Ken Park has never been widely released for the same reason.

This is speculation masked as fact. I change this to reflect that this is often thought to be the reason Ken Park has not been released in the U.S. as of yet. If a citation that supports this claim is found that it could be changed back. --Cab88 00:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope what I wrote convinces you of the exploitative view. Some reviewers of Ken Park say it outright: [1] and [2], the latter espeically. --Tinlinkin 03:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffany Limos

She should not have been deleted from the list of girls Clark has been involved with. They're still going strong today and it rounded out the paragraph nicely. Now all I see is one good sentence and one bad sentence.--Hypermagic 02:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never read anywhere else that Clarked dated those girls, I find it very unlikely, especially with Sevigny. I don't think it's true. Limos, however, yes, you will find details of his having a relationship with her but no one really cares I guess - it's like saying he dated some unknown woman who makes sandwiches at a store in a mall. --202.147.117.202 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)