This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
Yeah, I know. To say the pictures on this page appeal to "prurient interest" makes me sound like some kind of wannabe 21st century
Comstockian-- but think about it. This is a minor entertainment biz figure, and her tiny article is stuffed with three pictures? Pick one, boys, before I do.
JDG13:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
She donated all three. Encouraging donations of free content helps the wikimedia mission of promoting free content. She is a model. These images illustrate that. But I get your point. My point is I want visitors to this page to know these free content images exist. So perhaps the solution is to make some or all of the images smaller. Why don't you try your hand at reducing some or all of the image sizes and see if you can come up with a solution?
WAS 4.25013:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Thank you, WAS 4. This seems more in line with the project. I don't mean to put anyone down, but, you know, moralists are people too.
JDG11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)reply
sexualized pictures?
does anyone else think that her pictures here are too sexualized. i think we need more general pics (maybe from imdb) for an encyclopedia. - unsigned
Don't ask me how I got here, but I think "unsigned" has a point. Two virtually identical images is a bit too overdone for my taste, if there were to be two images in this article, a more general pic would be more appropriate. The generosity of Ms. Merkin is imho not an argument to post two "sexualized" pictures of her on an altogether quite short article. Things being as they may, there aren't any other free pictures, so one has to do for the moment.
Niels(F)? en | nl01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Seems like the image in the article falls afoul of the above page's advice. Perhaps a less, um, surprising picture can be found? --
Jakob (
talk)
15:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Reading there, it seems to apply to the wording of text and links. I didn't see anything regarding graphics. Also, I don't find these images to be anything other than artistic. I have seen way more shocking pictures on other pages. Human biology articles come to mind. In any event, the policy above seems more concerned with linking to spam or just trying to be a wiseguy in the articles, IMO. --
Bark (
talk)
18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Bark: True, but one could expect to see such pictures on human biology articles.
Principle of least astonishment is also not a Wikipedia-specific concept. No reason it shouldn't apply to images. Perhaps as a compromise it could be moved away from the top of the page? --
Jakob (
talk)
19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Jakec:A couple of points worth mentioning that should be taken into account: This picture was released by the person in question for use. I don't think that there are any other pictures released by her to use instead. (I could be wrong.) This picture is a featured picture on Wikipedia. Finally, this picture will be the picture of the day on June 25, 2014. (I got all of this from the picture's page.) My point is, there seems to be a consensus (prior to this exchange) that the picture is okay to use here in this context. It might also be a little weird to censor the picture here in the article when it's queued to be the POTD in early summer. IMO, a model in a bikini picture is not that surprising. --
Bark (
talk)
20:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Correction: The exchange above ours raised the point, but that was back in 2007. I think at the time their were multiple pictures from the same shoot. In any event, the exchange died with the apparent resolution of only posting one photograph. --
Bark (
talk)
20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Jakec: I would guess that commons category is what she released to Wikipedia for use. They appear to be from the same shoot. Your classification of this picture as a nude is something I don't agree with and illustrates the subjective nature of art and photography. She is clearly wearing bikini bottoms and her nipples are hidden by her body position. IMO, those elements keep the picture from being classified a nude. In any event, we should probably just agree to disagree on the definition of bikini picture vice nude picture. On the subject of consensus, so far you and I are the only ones discussing this here. My rationale basically comes down to the following points. (1)As a living person, care must be taken as to the content on her page. (2)She has released these images to Wikipedia, so any potential copyright issues are resolved by using one of the released images. (3)This article has an infobox with an image area embedded in the template. (4)This article has only one image, which is placed in the aforementioned image location within the infobox template. (5)A previous discussion as to the content of this page and the images to use resulted in a resolution that has been acceptable for some time. (6)To date, only you have proposed changing the status quo. (7)The nature of the objection is subjective in nature. (8)I do not favor censorship as a general principle, which is how I view the proposed change. So to summarize, the only resolution I find agreeable to me would be to replace the specific image with another one from
commons:Category:Michele Merkin, as those images would not violate any of my above points. What about
Michele_Merkin_3_b.jpg or
Michele_Merkin_4.jpg? My inclination would be 3b, as it's a profile portrait.--
Bark (
talk)
16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: I still think there should have been an RFC or something so that the community (not just two people) could have discussed this. This will undoubtedly cause controversy on the main page. BTW since a consensus has been reached for this article and the discussion now just concerns POTD, maybe we should continue at
WT:POTD. --
Jakob (
talk)
23:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
The last POTD we ran a (publicized) discussion about was
File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg; you can see the discussion
here, which was not a formal RFC (I don't think one of those is necessary, just a ping at the associated article and talk page of the MP). As this does not expose any nipple, nor is it posed in an overly sexual manner, I did not think it required such discussion. But for the sake of transparency I guess we can start a discussion sometime in April, and close it a month before Merkin's birthday (when I hope the picture will run). —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Discussion which may interest editors of this page
I have just modified 5 external links on
Michele Merkin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.