Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Bourke-White

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War correspondant

[edit]

I think the first female photographer to work on combat zones was Gerda Taro, that photographed the spanish Civil War, a few years before WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.34.135 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi

[edit]

I don't think it's true that Gandhi was assassinated for his anti-British actions; most theories say he was assassinated because Hindu hardliners felt he was giving up too much to the Muslim separatists (first) and Pakistan (later). Could somebody check that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.254.242 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last picture of Gandhi

[edit]

Do we have a reliable source which says that Bourke-White was the last person to photograph Gandhi alive ? A New York Times article on Henri Cartier-Bresson says that he photographed Gandhi some minutes before he was assassinated.

Shortly after that, in 1948, Mr. Cartier-Bresson was in Delhi, India, to see Mahatma Gandhi. He photographed Gandhi and showed him the catalog of the Museum of Modern Art exhibition. Fifteen minutes after they had parted, Mr. Cartier-Bresson heard shouts that Gandhi had been killed. He sped back. The first frame of the relevant contact sheet is captioned "place where Gandhi fell half an hour before." Tintin Talk 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a really authoritative source to settle this. There is nothing definite available on the net. While one un-named source mentions that Gandhi was assassinated just after she took his pic, more than one source says she was the last person to interview Gandhi, *six hours* before he died. Tintin Talk 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

I've added a bit more information, particularly in Margaret Bourke-White's war experience. Just wondering whether anyone wanted to have a quick look over it as it is my first Wikipedia contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThirteenSenses (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourke-White's architectural photography

[edit]

Architectural photography is missing from wiki, but Bourke-White remains one of the most highly regarded architectural photographers, and there's nothing here to demonstrate that. I'm going to write an architectural photography page and when that's done I'll add some stuff here about her arch-photo work.

White hotel 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

[edit]

Isn't the Migrant Mother photo actually by Dorthea Lange? I see Lange's name in the adjacent paragraph, but surely we shouldn't have her photo here. --Rmlucas 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes -- I've removed it. TheMindsEye 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, totally my fault -- I just wasn't thinking! I should stop working on wikipedia so late at night... — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Name Change

[edit]

This article is unprofessional. It refers to her as "Margaret" throughout - way too familiar for an encyclopedia. I suggest "Bourke-White" throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Bourke

[edit]

I've read that Margaret Bourke's mother was Irish Catholic not protestant. Can anyone corroborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.212.233 (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting old article

[edit]

The Camera Queen from Modern Mechanix in 1937. How do people feel about adding that to the links section? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Bethke (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue

[edit]

The article was tagged for Neutrality on 28 September 2009 by Panyd with the comment "There is no way this is neutral. Just read the Early Life section"

I cannot find this tag on the Neutrality Notice Board, nor does this comment include specific criticisms for editors to guide compliance. While I will, as always, attempt to write in a neutral tone, without specific examples of the article's non-compliance there is no definitive (or approaching definitive) to be sure the goal of neutral has been accomplished. When I subjectively feel the article has been "revised enough," with a more-appropriate tone, I will immediately be nominating it for the removal of that tag.--Blondtraillite (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the article still needs a lot of work, if the neutrality issue is related to the "Early Life" section, I believe this has been addressed. The only non-neutral part of it was the quotes from her brother's autobiography, which I used to establish that she was a good student, a natural leader and describe the influence of her parents. However, I think this is completely acceptable as the quotes are used to establish specific information and are from a source we cannot expect to be neutral (as no family members are).--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that it should be tagged with "Inappropriate tone" tag rather than "POV" tag. 64.236.245.243 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was my opinion/observation as well. --Blondtraillite (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancies

[edit]

I removed one of the references to the Farrah Fawcet TV movie in the Legacy section, as there were two in that section alone. Actually, the entire section appears to contain information that is already stated in the article - though not a well-written summary. This is an issue that should be tackled in the re-write, if this section is even preserved (not because she didn't leave a legacy but because her legacy is well-established in the article and distracts from neutrality). --Blondtraillite (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slow rewrite and verification of references

[edit]

When I saw the Neutrality tag (as well as the suggestion by 64.236.245.243 that it is merely a matter of tone), I become interested in the revision. Once I saw that the first paragraph of the "Early Life" section contained directly-lifted copyrighted material from the Gallery M website, I knew I had to rewrite it immediately (at least to remove the copyrighted material, if no time to focus on style). However, I do not have time to edit it in one sitting. So I will be slowly working on it, likely paragraph by paragraph, using only the references already provided. I know nothing of Maragaret Bourke-White except for what I am reading now (and that she is mentioned in the movie "What Women Want" - which was why I came looking).--Blondtraillite (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I removed the line regarding her father "His work improved the four-color printing process that is used for books and magazines" because I didn't see the reference for it. As well, it is interesting but unless there is some evidence that his work influenced her in some way (for example, why she became interested in magazines) then it is best left as information for his page.--Blondtraillite (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone wants to know my current method, I have found resources that I consider reliable (news or government-sponsored, mostly) and am beginning by distilling the facts from each source. Once I have finished entering these facts, I will attempt to verify the information in the article that was not contained in my sources. Any information I cannot verify, I will remove. Finally, I will make a pass through the article for style. At completion of this process, I will comment on the discussion page.

In the meantime, if any of the former writer/editors wanted to add citations to their previous work or someone wishes to add information from reliable sources, I (and other Wikipedians) will be most grateful. Thank you.--Blondtraillite (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Bleeping Reference List

[edit]

HELP! HELP! OH DEAR ME HELP! I have rewritten the USA Today reference a million times, and I had copied the format from the NY Obit (which works) to try to get it to display right and it won't. Other references I wrote worked fine. I am so freaking pissed off at it that I almost want to give up working on this page because that freaking reference is sapping all my time, which should be spent working on the actual content of the page! If somebody wanders by and sees my cries for help PLEASE HELP ME AND FREAKING FIX IT!! I CAN'T FIND THE ERROR!--Blondtraillite (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you LOGAN! Big hugs!--Blondtraillite (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PM Magazine?

[edit]

In the Photojournalism section it says in 1940 Margaret was appointed Chief Photographer for PM Magazine... Really? This same reference, Dictionary of Artists, points out that she was in Russia in June 1940 as the Germans invaded Russia. If someone can't explain this a little better, let's pull this. I think in this time frame she worked only for Life. I'm going to comment this out. If someone can locate a masthead of PM that had Margaret listed, we can put this back in.Cyreenik (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Cyreenik (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs?

[edit]

Shouldn't an article on Bourke-White include a few photographs? I find this very surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.202.227.77 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Margaret Bourke-White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not objective

[edit]

Many parts of this article read like a book or history report and make subjective assessments about the artist's craft and the quality of her work. Sections need to be edited to make the tone more formal and the bias in favor of Ms. Bourke-White less evident.107.1.229.152 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Biscuitrat[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Bourke-White. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Bourke-White. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Errors

[edit]

Without taking too much time to check references, this article contains what seems to be a significant error. It is claimed that Margaret Bourke White was the first woman to have her photograph on the first issue of Time magazine. This is surely impossible as Time started a long while before Margaret was born, and even longer before she became known as a photographer. David Martland (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of "best known for"

[edit]
She is best known as the first foreign photographer permitted to take pictures of Soviet industry under the Soviet's five-year plan

No, that isn't what she is "best known" as. She is best known for her photojournalism and iconic photographs. This sounds like a very subtle barb at red baiting since her photos often spoke truth to power and this upset the bureaucrats. If someone doesn't change this, I will get to it. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

The article says she took the photo used on the first cover of Life, and cites a source which says this was in 1936, but it links to an article which says that magazine began in 1883. Richard75 (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sources for this.
1) 1971 obituary in NY Times (behind a paywall). It includes a photo of the cover of LIFE magazine, with the caption: "When Life made its debut in 1936, Margaret Bourke-White's picture of the Fort Peck Dam in Montana was on the cover."
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1971/08/28/79403998.html?pageNumber=1
2) 1989 profile in Washington Post. It includes this sentence: "When Life was launched in November 1936, it was Bourke-White's photograph that landed on the first cover -- three looming, crenelated towers of the new dam at Fort Peck, something of an engineering miracle at the time."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/06/29/bourke-whites-soft-focus/68a0a7f4-6d4d-4755-a122-322a3d345247/
3) The Wikipedia article on the Fort Peck Dam. "Fort Peck Dam is probably best known for being the subject of a photograph of the spillway taken by Margaret Bourke-White while still under construction that was the cover photo of the first issue of Life magazine on November 23, 1936."
In this article, I don't see any written references which clearly support that statement. However, there's a link to a PBS documentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Peck_Dam
SO IN SUMMARY: I think these three references (or at least the first two) should be sufficient to support the statement in the current article. I'm not very good with formatting Wikipedia references, so I'd be glad if someone could put it into the article. Omc (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how to format those references:[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Margaret Bourke-White, Photo-Journalist, Is Dead; Margaret Bourke-White, Photo-Journalist, Dead at 67". The New York Times. Retrieved 2022-10-04.
  2. ^ "Bourke-White's Soft Focus". Washington Post. Retrieved 2022-10-04.
I took a quick look through the article on Life. Assuming the content there is correct, it seems that a magazine named Life was indeed first published in 1883. However, it also says

In 1936, publisher Henry Luce paid $92,000 (worth $1.43 million in 2021) to the owners of Life magazine because he sought the name for his company, Time Inc. Time Inc. sold Life's subscription list, features, and goodwill to Judge. Convinced that pictures could tell a story instead of just illustrating text, Luce launched the new Life on November 23, 1936, along with John Shaw Billings and Daniel Longwell as founding editors.

It seems that the magazine published from 1936 on was the same in name only. I think it is fair to say that Margaret Bourke-White took the photo for the cover of the first issue of this new magazine. - 4b3eff (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two months since the last comment, with no rebuttal. The references are rock-solid (WaPo and NYT) and it's clear that Luce's Life is distinct from what the magazine was before he purchased the name and subscriber list, etc. I'm removing the tag. 108.34.149.124 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:American way of life.jpg

[edit]

Hi, This is a great image, but I have some doubt about the copyright claim. See also Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:American way of life.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not OK. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:American way of life.jpg‎. Yann (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing pieces

[edit]

The article on the writer she married and became divorced from states:

"Through the 1930s Caldwell and his first wife Helen managed a bookstore in Maine. Following their divorce Caldwell married photographer Margaret Bourke-White, collaborating with her on three photo-documentaries: You Have Seen Their Faces (1937), North of the Danube (1939), and Say, Is This The USA (1941).[1] During World War II, Caldwell obtained a visa from the USSR that allowed him to travel to Ukraine and work as a foreign correspondent, documenting the war effort there.[2][3]"

I only see one of these projects noted here. Info on their divorce would also be helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone raised this issue above, but how could she have taken the photo appearing on the first cover of Life magazine if Life it was published many years before she was born? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Erskine Caldwell, Margaret Bourke-White, and the Popular Front: Photojournalism in Russia By Jay E. Caldwell pages xi and 268
  2. ^ Erskine Caldwell, Margaret Bourke-White, and the Popular Front: Photojournalism in Russia By Jay E. Caldwell pages 15-21
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference tucson/caldwells-son was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Bourke-White&oldid=1245508929"