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
I agree that Wikipedia should not be a collection of links to improve one's Google score, but there is a time and a place where fansite links are necessary. I'm specifically thinking anime articles here ... oftentimes, the original site is in Japanese anyway, and if there is an English translation it's typically just a web front for selling DVDs, so we very often have to rely on fansites for our information (or at least our external links). How do this mesh with Wikipedia policy? I agree that seven fansites might be going overboard, but surely we could pick out the best one or two and allow it to remain linked, as it's going to have all sorts of information you won't find on the IMDB page? --Cyde Weystalkcontribs19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. As you know, verifiability is a serious concern at Wikipedia, especially in light of the recent negative press coverage we've received related to the John Seigenthaler fiasco. With regards to celebrities, we should only link to official websites, not fansites, for information. Should the reader want to know more beyond official sources cited, they can always refer to Google for fansites and such. In addition to WP:NOT, the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states: Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. If a fansite is the only source for a piece of information, we probably should not be including that piece of information due to verifiability concerns. Hall Monitor19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the anime example ... oftentimes the absolute best source of information on something is what could be described as a "fansite". How would you classify the verifiability of these sites? I mean, you could always just watch the anime yourself and you'd see what they were talking about is true. And now going back to Kate Winslet ... her official site probably isn't going to include anything controversial, or at least stuff she doesn't want people knowing. She has it censored. Fansites are probably more honest as they aren't censored in such a fashion. I don't see why some Internet sources (fansites) are automatically blacklisted as reliable sources while other non-fan sites are given a higher footing even though much less work has gone into them? --Cyde Weystalkcontribs20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't know when fansites are actually telling the truth or not, unles they cite their sources. And if they do, we'd use their source. For example, let's just say that one fansite gave a detalied reason of Kate's divorce of Jim more than anybody else, but didn't say where they got it from. For all we know,it may be made up. Official sites aren't the only places to find verifiable info about Kate. You can get sources from magazines, books, legit entertainment and news sites, all which aren't as censored as an official site. Read that verifibily policy carefully. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Main pic
Although Wikipedia isn't censored, the image is POV. The main image is supposed to be a major example of what the subject of the article is. When one looks at the naked pic of Rose, it doesn't describe who Kate Winslet is as an all-around actress, or singer. We should find either a DVD cover with only her on it, or a fair use headshot of Kate. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>03:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So your contention is that the picture shows one of the character she plays rather than her herself. I thought you were just editing for nudity. Well, my response is that that is her most famous role and it is her playing that character, and she doesn't have a lot of make-up on that makes her not look like her (a la Charlize Theron in Monster), so I don't see what is wrong with the picture. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, don't go deleting the pic until you find something better. A pic of Rose from Titanic is more illustrative in showing who Kate Winslet is than none at all. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to delete the pic. After all, it survived IfD. I originally thought of putting it either by where it talks about Titanic, but there wasn't much verbage, so I put it under her figure, since one of the prominent themes of that particular pic is her figure. As for the main pic, I found an official pic from Kate's agency which would satisfy both the article and WP's policies. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>04:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See the problem is that all photos of her on the page are now 9 years out-of-date. People change considerably in that amount of time. While the picture you just added is prettier, I think the one Lbmixpro found is more accurate. And besides, we already have the pretty picture angle covered in the OTHER picture. Which, by the way, I'm still trying to find the DVD somewhere so I can do a screengrab and get a better version. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like it's fairly recent. I just saw that outfit on the Neverland promotional pictures page in IMDB, along with some stuff from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Only problem is she's in character and wearing costumes/has dyed hair in those two pics. We really just need a good illustrative photo showing her being herself. And I'm not having much luck finding anything like that. Even her main photo on IMDB is just from Neverland. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this were Pornopedia I would argue in favor of this pic (in addition to the other two), but frankly, that would be too contentious. People are already reverting the Titanic photo as it is, and that barely shows tits. I just searched all of the Google Image results for Kate Winslet and I didn't find a better version of the Titanic pic. That's really, really sad. It's only the highest grossing nude scene ever. *Sigh*. I'll just have to ask my friends if any of them have the DVD. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea on how one might get ahold of Kate Winslet? Maybe through her press person? I bet she's probably aware at least of the existence of Wikipedia (most people are) ... would it be within the realm of the feasible to ask for a recent (and CC/GFDL) pic? I know on IMDB most actors/actresses pay $35 to put a pic on their bio ... here it would be free! --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who changed the Titanic picture back, when you said the reasons you thought it was no good. I changed it to the Neverland one, it's from 2004. AriGold18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible to get overly concerned with the photographs, they seem good enough to me. The article however is a pretty sparse coverage of her. I came to check it out because I saw an interesting AMEX ad (yes, of course not a credible source) where she (apparently biographically) describes some pretty incredible events in her life -- almost drowning, dying, etc. Seemed interesting so I came for her bio but see nothing -- which could either mean there's nothing to it or it's just WIP but anyone if anone has more info I'm curious! --Joshhannah08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ha, I'm officially an idiot. Here's the amex ad: [1]. The events recalled -- drowning, imprisoned, whatever are just references to roles she has played I think. To be ignored! --Joshhannah17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's right - they are all roles she has played. For example, at 17 she went to prison for murder = Heavenly Creatures. Almost drowned at 20 = Titanic. And so on.
The article mentions her winning a Grammy for a spoken word album yet fails to identify the album. Someone with that info should add it. Thanks! 23skidoo03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to revert the edit that removed the article's image as I feel that fair use is maintained because Kate Winslet qualifies as part of the film's "contents". However the image taken from Eternal Sunshine was quite poor and even included a dialogue subtitle? What's up with that? I think a screenshot taken from the film qualifies as fair use, but it should be one without text. Since Titanic is her best-known role, it is probably more appropriate to use an image from that film. In any event, an image needs to be located to replace the one deleted. 23skidoo15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image used to replace it was much better but was AGAIN deleted because of an interpretation of the fair use rules. One more time -- the rules say screenshots can be used to illustrate the CONTENTS of a film. Kate Winslet is one of the CONTENTS of the film illustrated! 23skidoo15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about this Titanic one.I didn't uploaded this one.User: Alfredosolis
Example No. 8 under FU:counterexamples is the stupidest, most idiotic and brainless thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. If we can't use images to show what a person looks like ... Anyway, if the Titanic image is no good then we're back to using the Romance and Cigarettes one. This is getting absolutely insane. 23skidoo11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
