Also try to stay within the topic as much as possible. Which would you associate with use of soft porn sites as source material: reputable encyclopedias or tabloids? If we go off registered users who have voiced an opinions, then For - Melody Perkins, Widmerpool Against - The RetroGuy, Tavy08 Hardly a consensus. That still leaves two questions: 1 How to effectively clean up her sabotage of this article. This edition is clearly marked on the case as 'Nicholas Roeg's Uncut Directorial Masterpiece.
You clearly have the power to determine the version that appears. If she really is venturing into copyright theft she might find she has a lot more on her plate than she bargains for. The exclusion of such information can be considered a , and any relevent information concerning this actress should not be repressed, unless someone can come up with a valid wikipedia policy otherwise. This matter is closed now unless you can clearly point out which policy this article is in breach of. This would seem to be a significant question from the point of view of consistency and integrity of an encyclopedia. The history seems to show that the person who previously advocated Mr.
It might, perhaps, be said more accurately that your fixation on nudity in this entry is a 'feature of your personal views about Jenny Agutter's portrayal of nudity' and, by inference, your views about other actors' portrayal of nudity, or of nudity itself, or of Jenny Agutter. Skin site, of which you are apparently fond. Skin, in preference to a longer, more factually and contextually complete version enhances or reduces Wikipedia's reputation, through the agency of at least one of their editors. What is your most unappealing habit? This will give you a few starting pointers and help you to navigate your way around. Some of the additions you made were obviously lost when other editors reverted your alterations. I live in a state of clutter and I habitually leave stuff scattered all round the house.
What has late 40s to do with anything? My recommendation would be to remove the section Nudity completely, as it has been purely sensationalist from the start, but, more importantly, is quite out of place in an entry for a living person. Skin in support of this claim, which you have been defending as a source, as far as I can see, says nothing to substantiate the sentence for which it is used as a reference. I would also like to suggest you seek the advice of a more experienced editor on this matter. Under section, 'Sources', subsection, 'Basic human dignity', you can read: 'Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects.
Conservative English film critics essentially destroyed Powell's reputation and career; he would never make a film in England again. Is it sufficient to confirm that 'It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. I read it and see no reason why it needs its own section or as much detail and description. Let no one say that Wikipedia hasn't got an eye on its future potential. Despite the notice being in the article for weeks no-one has supported TheRetroGuy's argument to remove it - apart from the mysterious 'anon' that is. Does Jenny Agutter have a husband? The only criteria for a citation is accuracy and reliability, and for that fact Mr Skin is highly reliable because its 'sources' are available online as part of the service it provides.
I'm only involved because I tried to intervene. In a nude section I think it is important that the descriptions of the nudity are not watered down, but I have removed the lascivious phrasing. If you are unable to do so then you may wish to consider. It doesn't really add to the article, and besides, this is not a porn site.
K Thanks, felt that the article needed it because the photos only showed the result and not the process. It can be inferred that she either did create the video with her brother and used it on a porn site before adding it to Wikipedia, or else she didn't create it in which case she has stolen it from a porn site, added it to Wikipedia and made false claims about having produced it herself. I'll watch for the next few days, especially after protection wears off to see if any more revert wars start. On the contrary, I supplemented the childish 'Oh, gosh, nudity! Whilst, doubtless, an easy-to-copy-and-paste stock phrase, it has little connection with the actual content before and after my edits.
Agutter, and much about the prurience of those contributors who choose the occasional film, the occasional actor, on which to vent their personal inhibitions. At the age of 21, I got the part of Miranda in The Tempest with Sir John Gielgud. Skin might well, to some readers' minds, exhibit some affinity for pornography. You reverted it to the former, clearly preferring tabloid-style shock phrases, interspersed with emotive, subjective language to anything more complete and factual. You deleted i the factual and contextual information I had added, and, ii the correction I made to my original time claim after having timed the sequence carefully from the uncut source, which I have now cited. It would be enlightening to have a public discussion amongst Wikipedia editors about how they might or might not wish to expand the site's nudity paragraphs.