Talk:Cynthia Watros
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
 |
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance within Lost. |
It seems kinda meanspirited to put an unflattering mugshot in the article, especially since that's not really what she's famous for. I'm not really sure of the protocol, though, so I'm not going to remove it. SchnappM 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I mean, mentioning the arrest is okay, I guess, and I'm sure if anyone would want to then look up the mugshot on their own, well, that's okay.
It doesn't seem right to me. The Nick Nolte and Bobby Brown articles don't have any mugshots, even though such are available. I'd like to hear an admin weigh in on this.Bjones 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody remove the mug shot? I mean, I don't see anyone arguing for it, and it's not like a person can't find it on their own if they really wanted to see it. I'd do it myself, but I just tried to and didn't know what to delete in the descriptive part with all the words. - guy who wrote comment #2.
Why is 1/2 the article devoted to the DUI & the mug shot? This lady has a great body of work and I was a classmate of hers at B.U. Is it news? Yes. But enyclopedic? I beg to differ. (NOTE: The same applies to Michelle Rodriguez, with the exception that I was not her classmate.)Woodson 06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- To answer questions and comments about the mug shot: (1) The image is relevant because it relates to a portion of the article about her arrest. (2) Removing it would likely be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. We are not a collection of pretty pictures, and removing it because we don't like it would be POV. (3) It's her own fault for looking like crap in her mug shot. (4) The mug shot is public domain. As a project to create a free encyclopedia, we are strongly encouraged to use free content over "fair use". If I was really evil, I would make the argument that Image:Cynthia watros.jpg should not be in the article because it is copyrighted as there is an adequate PD image (WP:FAC. (but I won't, because I'm not evil).--Fallout boy 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Me again. I say that we remove the photo simply because keeping it is not a NPOV. It is a bias that we keep the photo. Here's why:
- Celebrities get arrested all the time. However, for every celebrity that gets arrested, they don't have their photo put up on this site. As stated from the above comments, Bobby Brown, Nick Nolte, and Matthew Mcconnhaey (who I added and spelt his name wrong), DO NOT have their arrest photo on their site because it's NOT appropriate. Why do they get a free pass and Cynthia doesn't? That's a real bias.
- Nobody argued that it violated public domain. Yes, it's public domain, but does that mean we have to put it up? Just because it's out there, that doesn't mean it's worth posting on a neutral site. Furthermore, I feel that the juxtaposition of one "pretty" photo and another "ugly" photo makes the article even LESS NEUTRAL - it implies that Cynthia looks like crap in real life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.172.209 (talk • contribs)
- Whether it's "NOT Appropriate" is your own opinion. Nick Nolte doesn't have a mug shot in his article because there's only one sentence dedicated to his arrest, whereas nearly a third of this article is about her arrest. Many articles have images of mugshots, like Michael Jackson, Tom DeLay, Bill Gates, Jane Fonda, James Frey, Andre the Giant, Lil' Kim, and many more. "it implies that Cynthia looks like crap in real life": maybe she DOES look like crap in real life. "I feel that the juxtaposition of one "pretty" photo and another "ugly" photo makes the article even LESS NEUTRAL": How does it make it less neutral? If anything, it makes it more neutral. Part of neutrality is not glossing over and avoiding everything negative about a subject. If anything, having only her "pretty" photo makes this page more fanboyish.--Fallout boy 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's "Five Pillars," Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. The photo of Cynthia's mugshot is something that would be seen in a tabloid newspaper, Entertainment Weekly, or People Magazine (and that's only if they were desperate that week), not an encylopedia. The difference between her mugshot photo and the celebrities that you've mentioned is that they are CELEBRITIES, and I feel she isn't a celebrity. Everyone you mentioned is famous enough AND/OR their crime was (in)famous enough to warrant a mugshot photo.
If the reason of keeping the photo is that it relates to the article, I say that the drunk driving section is overkill. It's tabloidism. Granted, she isn't completely unknown to the public or unpraised by critics, but the entire drunk driving arrest section should be a blurb. Also, her fame (or lack thereof) and the lack of severity or newsworthiness of the crime (even though I loathe drunk driving) is why the photo should be removed. I think almost everyone else on this discussion page agrees with the photo removal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.172.209 (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts. (1) The argument that having anything remotely newsworthy in an article automatically makes an it into a tabloid newspaper if an awfully big leap. (2) About her crime not being famous enough: it appears to be the only thing she's known for now. (3) If you think the drunk driving section is overkill, take some initiative and add material that isn't about her arrest to balance the article, instead of deleting content you dislike.--Fallout boy 09:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said that "anything remotely newsworthy in an article automatically makes an it into a tabloid newspaper." First, I pointed out Wikipedia's Five Pillars Policy, pointing out how this is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. I then compared her photo to tabloids and unnewsworthiness, highlighting how she isn't a celebrity and how the media overdoes everything. Finally, I will take your advice and modifty the drunk driving section, as well as add new material. signed by 69253172209.
- Since everyone seems to not want the mugshot, I'll compromise by adding it the the commons and adding a commons link.--Fallout boy 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion
The article isn't long enough (and her arrest not notable enough) to warrant a photo. We have her publicity shot up now, which seems appropriate. Fagstein 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Actaully there is no photo at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.221.71 (talk • contribs)
- The article has been edited since Fagstein's comment, which was almost a year ago. During those edits, the photo was removed. -- Mikeblas 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
