Talk:Michelle Shocked
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Old comments
I have deleted a section of text copied verbatim from [1]. Text cannot be copied in this way from other web sites unless the author who wrote it provides permission to do so (for example, on this talk page) or puts a public domain disclaimer on the web page. The text can be put back if it is re-written and I recommend that it be put into a separate article on the album. RedWolf 23:24, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the latter day saints category. There's no context, no attribution, it seems random and out of place.
- She was raised LDS but is not now, so she doesn't belong in the category. Google finds much info, such as this interview excerpt. Not sure it's worth mentioning in the article. --Darksasami 07:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, that does ring a bell. I think the footer link only should be included again if there's some context, and I don't think it can be put in randomly ("she was raised a Mormon") without explaining the significance. While that is a good link, I'm hesitant to include that material based on a single interview.
[edit] Short Sharp Shocked cover
The article currently states, "The front cover of her (arguably) best-known album, Short Sharp Shocked, shows her restrained by the chokehold of a San Francisco policeman in a supposedly authentic photograph of this incident. However, some indie music critics of the time observed that the style of this image showed a strong similarity to a photo that appeared on an album cover from British punk band Chaos U.K. This led some to assert that she plagiarized the concept, but the accusation was never answered nor seriously pursued."
The booklet included in the 2003 Mighty Sound re-issue of Short Sharp Shocked discusses the cover in more detail. The incident depicted in the photograph was authentic. However, Mercury Records altered the photograph to make the policeman less identifiable. (The unaltered photograph is included in the re-issue. (Could someone who has a copy of the reissue nearby verify the details and update the article?) --Heath 68.191.7.126 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the photo was supposed to be her as Michael Stewart, the graffiti artist who dies in "Graffiti Limbo".
[edit] Acting?
She's in an episode of Season 1 of Dharma and Greg. I have no idea if this is noteworthy enough to put into the entry, but she acted (well, sung, but in a manner that was functionally dialog). Dick Clark was also in the episode. I fear it may be too trivial, but it is interesting to me that she acted in a network sitcom. (My perception of "appropriate" is skewed, being an editor of another wiki with different community standards, so I'll toss this out for an experienced Wikipedian to make a judgment call on -- feel free to delete this). 68.63.165.28 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting tidbit, but I don't know where to put it. Maybe a "trivia" section, like they have at imdb.com?Star-lists (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shocked LGBT
Could we please get a quote of her discussing her sexuality openly? Otherwise is is not important and she shouldn't be in the LGBT cat. "She has been called..." really isn't very encyclopedic. She has also been called "straight" and has really be married. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sentence deleted
I removed a sentence on her personal life. It struck me as unnecessarily invasive. It was also unsourced and potentially libellous. If we are going to publicize the intimate details of someone's life, we should (a) have a reliable source to cite for it and, more importantly, (b) have a compelling reason why the public has the right to know about what might be an intensely painful topic for the subject of the article. Just because a person is a 'public figure' doesn't mean we have a right to publish their secrets. I don't care what a court of law would call libelous or not. There's a standard that's far more important: human decency.Star-lists (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)