Talk:Catherine Bosley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal
Catherine Bosley is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects 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 current discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Catherine Bosley is part of WikiProject Youngstown, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Youngstown, Ohio metropolitan area and related subjects 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 has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Bosley might have been on radio for a time, but her position of fame was as a news anchor on a television station. -- SwissCelt 16:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually wasnt her position of fame dancing nude in the Keys?64.131.13.28 06:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of just how bad her implants looked? Breast augmentation opponents are using those pictures to convince women to leave well enough alone.

I think those new picts solve the previous problem! 64.131.30.19 08:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Number of Pictures

Do we really need five images (including some animations) of her nude in the video? One should suffice. R.E. Freak 07:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way these images are encyclopedic. I've deleted them. Shimgray | talk | 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
why not? is totally appropriate in the context, and documents the events in mention Mathmo 09:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

How is her account different from the pictures?

  • For one, she incorrectly states when she removed her panties. She says it was when the other girl again stripped. It can be proven by the pictures, that she was the first to remove her panties in the final round. She also says it was only her and the other girl left when she stripped. actually another girl was also on stage. further, she states to have never seen a camera. in one picture, she is posing for it looking directly at it.--64.131.30.48 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
see, as I mentioned above the suitable of pictures here is blatantly clear. of even you might go so far as to see needed in the article. Mathmo 09:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing the point entirely

I wish to protest the current iteration of this article.

Had Catherine Bosley not participated in the infamous wet t-shirt competition (with the ensuing media frenzy) she would not have received the necessary attention to become a nationally-recognized figure on the internet.

Personally, I had no problem with this article as it existed two weeks ago.

In summary, no one will go to the trouble of referencing Bosley on Wikipedia unless they desire details of the contest and its impact on her career.

I believe the older revision (supposedly "obscene" images and all) should be restored.

  • The problem with that is that well, the images were deleted as well. A revert wouldnt help.


^-- above unsigned :/ I don't see why the article needs the nude photos, but it would be appropriate to mention the contest and the fallout surrounding it. You can read about the events surrounding that 'scandal' at her personal website, and at Snopes. 74.67.17.22 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-addition of pictures

I reiterate above that these pictures are simply not ever going to be encyclopedic. There is absolutely no reason to include them beyond titillation value; they're inappropriate, they're unfree, and adding them back in because of some presumed "consensus" is little more than wilful vandalism. Please have more common sense in future. Shimgray | talk | 09:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • They prove that her account was untrue.
    • Wikipedia is not in the business of proving or disproving accounts; please see Wikipedia:No original research. We should not be attempting to interpret primary source materials to debate the accuracy of reports; if they "prove" this to be the case, find a reliable source which says this and quote it, don't use the source material to try and show it yourself. Shimgray | talk | 20:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
if you really have such a major difficulty with the word "proof", then it can be left out of the article. instead the pictures can be sure along with her statements and anybody with even half a brain cell can make up their own mind about what is obvious. Mathmo 10:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


On her personal site, Catherine Bosley mentions that she sued to take her photos off the net and is still doing so whenever the photos reappear. She now owns exclusive rights to the photos and the video of the event. As such, these photos can never be used in any way by Wikipedia without her direct consent. Also, they would not bring any encyclopedic content to the article. Do believe so would demand similar photos of Lindsay Lohan and Alexandra Kelly, which also don't belong in Wikipedia. 74.67.17.22 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP violations

This article was reported on the BLP noticeboard. This article cited no sources. User:Gamaliel did a good job of removing the violating material. It should not be re-added without solid reliable secondary sourcing. As to the discussion of the images that were at one time in the article, if the images are not either "Public Domain" or GNU free licensed, then they may not be used on Wikipedia. The comments of Shimgray above regarding original research are entirely accurate. - Crockspot 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither her accounts nor others' accounts of controversial matters should be accepted at face value. Whether people are being malicious or self serving or misreporting because they were drunk or medicated at the time; our job is simply to report what relevant others have verifiably said and not draw conclusions ourselves. It is a fact that she claims people have said her boob job was poor; that she claims she had heart surgery, lung surgery and boob surgery that left her badly scarred; and that she won the contest (so how bad could she have looked? I saw the photos and couldn't make out any scars.) The way she tells her own story leaves a completely different impression than viewing the dozen web photos I saw. She says she is writing a book and looking for a job on her site. WAS 4.250 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOSLEY v. WILDWETT.COM

310 F.Supp.2d 914
Motions, Pleadings and Filings
United States District Court,
N.D. Ohio.
Catherine BOSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WILDWETT.COM, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:04-CV-393.
March 31, 2004.
Background: Television news anchor, who was videotaped in various states of undress while participating a wet t-shirt contest, moved for a preliminary injunction against licensor and licensee restraining their commercial use of her videotaped images to promote the sale of their sexually-related goods including videos and web-site memberships.
Holdings: The District Court, Gwin, J., held that:
(1) anchor established a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that licensor and licensee of video used images of news anchor for a commercial purpose within meaning of common law and statutory rights of privacy and publicity under Ohio and Florida law;
(2) commercial use of anchor's images was not protected under the First Amendment;
(3) prior restraint doctrine did not preclude injunction restraining use of image of anchor;
(4) tacit consent was insufficient to establish consent defense under Florida statute concerning right of publicity;
(5) doctrine of laches under Ohio or Florida law did not bar anchor's suit; and
(6) balance of harms tipped in favor of granting preliminary injunction.
Motion granted.

-- Toytoy 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)